I have struggled and toiled with myself to finish this blog knowing the controversial and divisiveness of the topic but I think based on what is beckoning the United Kingdom, and potentially many other global nations, my silence needs to be broken and I need to post this.
When I initially drafted this blog back in March, this was the first paragraph I wrote done:
It’s been a year since the UK was plunged into lockdown on the basis of SARS-Cov-2, with the promise of the eventual return of normality, freedom and life being as it was after “2 weeks to flatten the curve”. Since then, a lot has happened but yet a year on, we are in exactly the same position: in lockdown with a distant promise of normality, freedom and life being as it was. I feel though that things are very different and the path that things are taking aren’t going to be to everyone’s best interests.
Clearly not a lot has changed, though we are currently under a few less restrictions, as we hurtle towards the 21 June 2021 with rumours of just another 2-4 weeks but the threat of if that’s not successful, everyone put their lives on hold until spring 2022, as indicated by this Telegraph article, or the news out on 20 June 2021 of lockdowns through winter already being thought about after our 19 July “terminus date” on the “irreversible roadmap”.
Here we are again: a new variant is here, the goalposts have moved and us citizens must keep sacrificing towards an unknown target. “Data not dates” our Prime Minister was quoted on saying but to this day, there’s no indication what the data needs to be.
These announcements, through media leaks, rumours and gossip, came against a backdrop of the G7 Summit conducted in Cornwall, England. A summit that clearly emphasises the distinct separation between the citizens of these nations and their leaders with a sickening blow below the belt.
In the UK alone, there are millions of people living in a partial lockdown with restrictions on many areas of their lives, business still unable to open in the entertainment and nightlife sectors, and for those that have been able to, they struggling to get by in particular in hospitality and travel. It’s not just income that’s being affected, there’s healthcare too with now more than 5 million people on waiting lists to be seen for life threatening or standard of living treatments, including personal family members of my own.
Update: in the time it’s taken for me to finish this, that number has now increased to 12.2m.
It’s OK though because whilst this is going on in the real world, these world leaders are galavanting around Cornwall, without a single loss of income, staging socially distanced pictures, either as a collective or with the elbow bumps, for the media before then being seen to be arm around each other, standing in crowds at BBQs and doing sit down meetings indoors without a mask. This is all with the added bonus that they flew in from non-green list countries and didn’t isolate. If you were just a mere citizen, you wouldn’t be afford this pleasure. You’d be sat at home for your isolation period, having to pay for testing fees for the simple pleasure of leaving your own nation.
“Rules for thee but not for me” springs to mind on this one.
So on to as to why I’m writing this post. The first is to educate and bring out the other side of the situation; the information that many won’t let you hear for one reason or another; the information that brings an entirely different perspective on things; the evidence that raises a lot of uncomfortable facts for people to face and really question what is going on.
The second is to clear the conscience that I’ve done my best in directing society and the world away from that is not conducive the our greatest happiness nor health as a species. I think this want is something that many resonate with everyone and whatever path we are on currently, it’s not directed to this end goal.
The basis of everything that I’m about to say will come from that of fact and I’ll be doing everything to reference the information from reputable sources that I put across to provide full transparency. Don’t worry, there won’t be any my-mum’s-best friend’s-aunt’s-son’s-dog-said-this-on-Facebook. From here, I’ll add my opinion to the points that I put across, leaving my own conclusion but then it’s down to you to make your choice on what you think. I will continue to allow debate to be opened up whether this be through my social media, email or the comments section below.
All that I ask of people before they delve into what I’ve written is that you come at it with an open mind. There is an element of the information being fed to the populous being carefully curated and manipulated to tell one story, whilst anything to the contrary is being censored one way or another.
The key thing I ask of you whilst you read this that you don’t take each individual heading as an isolated issue. Each section feeds into at least one of the other sections and often links back too. I’ll do my best to build this complex picture for you as the layers build.
The other key thing to remember as you read this, as I’ve suffered from this already, is this: I’m not a straw man for you to attack. No, I may not hold all the qualifications you deem I require to make this comment and analysis. It may be the case that I’m not a virologist, epidemiologist, behavioural psychologist or any other number of “-ologist” however, you don’t need any of this to simply look at data and information and make an assessment. Discrediting the person presenting the information rather than actually making comment on the information is just merely using me for this purpose.
Disclaimer: For what you are about read and how ever you may digest it, there are two points that stand the whole way through: 1) All deaths, no matter what age or circumstance are tragic for those that it leaves behind and for every person who does lose their life, I hope that they rest in peace. However, a fact that we can't deny is our own morality as a species. 100% of people die. It may be cold but the emotion from individual situations needs to be removed and the greater picture needs to be looked at. 2) By what I'm about to say does not discredit the experiences by those on the front line of the services that have kept the country moving, in particular those within the NHS. I ask you again to rather than looking at the individual level, I'm going to bring maybe some context to the whole picture which will provide a different perspective.
Novel Virus
At the end of 2019, a “novel virus” emerged in Wuhan, China before it spread around the world. The exact origins of this virus are up for debate but for the purpose of this blog, it isn’t required. Eventually given the nomenclature of Sars-Cov-2 and though there were similarities between a close relative Sars-Cov-1 (outbreak 2002-2004), Sars-Cov-2 was deemed to be a novel virus that nobody knew anything about.
Information flow from the originating country was few and far between but from what had been released, the initial figures, news articles and videos instilled a level of fear worldwide, with rates of death being estimated to be around 3% in this Lancet entry but also quoting nearly 15%!
Due to this novelty, lack of information and concern for the figures, you would see across all MainStream Media (MSM) a select group of virologists, epidemiologists and other so called experts talk about the novelty of this virus and how you couldn’t apply previously agreed scientific principles to it because of this fact.
The other thing that came out of China was their principle of lockdowns and who they worked, from the projection to the rest of the world and because of this, the precedent was set for lockdowns to be the public health measure to combat this virus, many following the rule book. I admit that even I was somewhat convinced on the initial information.
So the first two thing that I find issue with here and points I wish to raise are these:
- Novelty element. In my opinion, this approach gave a green light to rip up all known and agreed principles of virology and epidemiology and in a way, start again. What didn’t help is the information flow seen coming out of China, with plenty of suspicious activity going on, even now but that doesn’t give permission to start again on something known about.
- Lockdowns. The precedent being set that lockdowns were the way and that they worked, based on the data out of China.
I deem these this factor to be a foundation and catalyst to the situation that we are in now that has now since compounded and compounded again since being built upon.
Testing
A fundamental part of all this and a huge lynch pin for what’s going on. Without this, the evidence that has been used would not be anywhere near as compelling to the average person. I’ll firstly outline how the testing works and show the obvious flaws and then you’ll see what I mean with this first statement of it being the lynch pin.
The PCR test, that has been used throughout medicine, has been the main method of testing up to now, though noting the transition to the limited use of Lateral Flow Tests. The PCR test has two significant flaws, which if not used properly, can give some very inaccurate, inflated data to which the policies are then shaped by.
Flaw number one is how the test works. After taking a sample, the same is then split into two, has an enzyme added to it to rebuild the other section of the DNA, doubling the sample size. This is continued again and again until you hit a set number of cycles to allow you to try and see what you’re looking for. In this instance, you’re looking for the presence of the SARS-Cov-2. The key thing here is it doesn’t distinguish the state of said found SARS-Cov-2. It could be:
- Live and infectious
- Live but very low viral load thus not infectious
- Dead after being beaten
- Simply a trace element that’s somehow ended up there.
All would come back positive though. Under PCR testing, all of these are classed as a case.
Throughout the last 15 months, there have been questions and claims about the effectiveness, the rate of false positives and the true number of infectious cases, all being backed up here in this study titled The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population. The study was conducted using 190,000 tests from 160,000 people and the study was concluded with the following:
Most positive tests in our sample showed Ct values of 25 or higher, indicating a low viral load. Ct values were on average lower in symptomatic than in asymptomatic individuals. Our results are similar to the observations made in the ONS Survey with consistently low positive rates (0.06%) during the summer months, followed by a rise to more than 1% by the end of October 2020. A substantial proportion (45%-68%) of test positive individuals in the UK did not report symptoms at the time of their positive PCR test [6].
In light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of “positive” RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact “that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious” [7].
Asymptomatic individuals with positive RT-PCR test results have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infectious than symptomatic individuals with positive results. Although Ct values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening.
That’s a lot of people that inflate the number of cases and when put out into the media makes things look worse than what they are without this background information.
Flaw number two is the number of cycles, which links in with the last part. From the beginning, there were questions that were raised about the number of cycles that were being used in the labs to detect a positive case. Some of the labs were using 40-45 cycles, which is way too high and that’s why you were getting a lot of “positives”. Yes, you would be picking up those who were infectious but you’re also picking up those with trace elements that were just there, those with dead virus after beating it or, though sketchy in explanation, those that have it in low enough levels that they aren’t affected by it to show symptoms and will shrug it off due to strong enough immune systems (these have been called “asymptomatic”) or they could be individuals that are pre-symptomatic.
There was a study in May 2020 before being published in November 2020, predicting infectious SARS-CoV-2 from diagnostic samples, that anything above 24 cycles can be seen as low for infectivity. Many of the UK labs were working to at least 35 cycles, some of them up to 40 or 45 cycles, as suggested by this FOI of University of Plymouth or the guidance given out to the labs.
The key point of this part is you can see how the inflation of the numbers is easily done with just these two things affecting the number of “cases”. My point here is that the number of cases isn’t the number of infections but it was this data that started to drive the policies for lockdowns.
Asymptomatic
Asymptomatic transmission is something that has been on everyone’s lips since very early on in 2020 and has been another lynch pin in the government messaging within the UK stating that “1 in 3 could be carrying the virus asymptomatically and spreading it”. It was this claim (which I think it is at best) that justified the measure of implementing masks, telling people to stay 2m away from each other, AKA social distancing, and supporting the motion of lockdown as you apparently don’t know who’s actual infectious.
Rather than only the ill being told to obey these instructions like you’d expect, this was used to ensure that all people within the UK wore a mask in ever increasing settings, eventually getting to the climax of where we are at now where some assume you’re unhealthy until you’re proven healthy thus making you take a test to prove otherwise. More on this later.
The lack of evidence for asymptomatic transmission was indicated early on with this study in May 2020, A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. This found 455 contacts to an “asymptomatic carrier” (quotation marks due to my scepticism on the use of PCR and the cycle threshold isn’t stated) and tested them after exposure to the individual, finding that none of them tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
The evidence doesn’t stop there. A further study stemming from China in November 2020 showed that when a full city mass test was conducted in Wuhan, covering around 10 million people, 300 were found to be “asymptomatic”. From these 300, the number of contacts were found to be 1,704 of which none of them tested positive.
Those are just two of the studies that can be found on the topic. I have yet to see a study formally back up asymptomatic transmission but if you’re reading this and have, be sure to email it over and I’ll have a look through. Happy to be proven wrong!
Outside of that though, we can refer to two big figures from two big organisations in all of this. First up, in January 2020, we have Dr Anthony Fauci from the CDC, who was a leading figure in the US’ reaction, stating the following:
The use of the excuse of this being a novel virus may have caused this statement to be discredited but we are in a position where we have a statement in January 2020, a study in May 2020 and another study in November 2020.
Next up, we have the World Health Organisation stating the following in this document from April 2020:
“There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission. This does not exclude the possibility that it may occur.”.
Ultimately, this claim of asymptomatic has been iffy at best and from this evidence here, hopefully you can see why asymptomatic transmission is negligible and the actions taken in order to “combat” this are simply not justified. However, this and the PCR test are the backbone and foundation of everything we have seen unfold in front of us.
Deaths
I could put this in the statistics section but with the amount of elements to discuss, I feel it needs to have it’s own section to be discussed so here we go.
I feel the obvious and most talked about one is the number of deaths attributed to SARS-Cov-2 and the misleading nature that is brought about how these are reported. Building upon the issues highlighted with testing with false positives, utilising the definition of “any death within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19” is going to hugely increase the numbers of deaths. What else have we used this as a measure for? Nothing!
Another thing that would have been contributing to over estimate of the number of deaths from this disease is the following direction given to doctors (taken from Guidance for doctors completing Medical Certificates of Cause of Death in England and Wales FOR USE DURING EMERGENCY PERIOD ONLY):
Medical practitioners are required to certify causes of death “to the best of their knowledge and belief”. Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle ‘2’ in the MCCD (“information from post-mortem may be available later”) or tick Box B on the reverse of the MCCD for ante-mortem investigations. For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.
Keeping this in mind, how many other viruses have the same symptoms of the virus? Baring in mind the initial symptoms listed were a new continuous cough, headache and fever. It’s very easy to attribute the death to the virus.
The way that these deaths were reported came in a variety of ways, often quoted as Covid deaths, is again misleading and was poorly quoted around social media and in conversation, rarely adding in the caveat required. On the news, this caveat was usually put in small text below but to some, this didn’t matter. Many concentrate on the big number in red letters. This not only makes it seem worse than it is, it instils fear into those that misread this statement.
In reply to this comment, there is the obvious comment about the increase of excess deaths last year and you’d be correct but you can’t just automatically attribute it to SARS-CoV-2. The first thing is we had NHS shutdown across most types of wards so people with other ailments would not have been seen thus a higher chance of their death. This wouldn’t be due to them being overwhelmed though as led to believe but I’ll cover that later.
The next thing we can point to is the known mismanagement of care home patients causing outbreaks amongst the most vulnerable people in society from not only this virus but that of any other virus, which fed the spike that was seen in the “first wave”.
There are other elements to the deaths that are documented and leave you raising the question about both the ethics of these decisions as well as how they inflated the figure. When you remember there is a human life behind these numbers, some serious red flags should be going off for people and leaves me feeling very uncomfortable.
ONS recorded that 30,296 out of 50,888 between January and November were people that were disabled, with the spin being that they are disadvantaged people and that some disabled is over 3 times more likely to die from Covid. Of course this is awful and may they all rest in peace.
BUT, here’s a key thing that was revealed afterwards: blanket Do Not Resuscitate orders were applied to disabled people (known as DNACPR). Tying these two facts together, knowing that some deaths were unavoidable, it raises some very challenging questions and ethics.
This isn’t the first documented time that this has been done though, as seen here with the care homes. For me, these facts can’t be overlooked. You now have two documented occasions during each of the waves where there were a spike in deaths and coincidentally, two groups with DNR orders placed upon them.
I won’t deny that some of those deaths were probably inevitable due to the age and potential co-morbidities that they may have had however, when the Care Quality Commissioner indicates there’s something awry it makes you wonder.
The bottom line of this section that the deaths were inflated during 2020 and the winter of 20/21 but to simply attribute these to SARS-CoV-2 would be careless and misleading. As you can see, there are plenty of contributing factors here that leave me very sceptical about the true number of deaths from Covid-19, with everything discussed here built upon the rate of false positives from PCR testing, clearly indicating how this is compounding.
Statistics & Health Care
Let’s move on to the stats that we have seen during this last 15 months or so, which in my eyes have been clearly manipulated to provide justification for certain policies.
I’ve already covered how the statistics are manipulated and inflated to look worse than they are when it comes to testing, “cases” and that of deaths so I won’t go over those again. The most prevalent set of statistics that fuelled fear and emotion in the UK was that of the NHS so that’s what I’ll focus on here.
Starting with hospital admissions and why these are skewed again to look worse than the truth, again relying upon the small print to give the accurate detail. It doesn’t matter though as the way it was presented was misleading to make things look worse than what they were, especially when missing context.
Read the small print: “Patients who catch Covid in hospital are counted as admissions”.
Firstly, for one nation this includes those who are suspected to have it rather than test confirmed (noting my reservations on tests) but even more importantly, patients that are already in hospital are counting as an admission. Without this context, you can easily be misled into thinking that these are new patients that are being wheeled in each day, ever increasing the number of people in hospital. Clearly, that’s not the case but it’s used as ammo to tell people to “Protect The NHS” as the “NHS is overwhelmed”.
The fact that average hospital capacity levels were 7-10% lower than typically seen clearly shows that we were not at breaking point when it comes to number of patients. If anything, it is the number of medical practitioners that may be the problem and causing this perception of being overwhelmed which we will move on to. Here’s a snapshot though during the winter season, a time where the NHS has been overwhelmed every year anyway!
The fact that it’s overwhelmed isn’t anything new, we’ve seen this year upon year upon year upon year upon (getting the picture?), it’s just that this year they had a scapegoat. If you need a reminder though of those other years though:
If it’s not the number of patients that are causing an overwhelming effect on the NHS, that’s already overwhelmed, then what could be supporting such claims? Especially when we are seeing multiple nurses being brought out onto the news to explain the struggles that they are facing. It’s not a lie but the reasoning isn’t necessarily due to the number of actual patients, as it’s been made to be believed. You have to remember that what they see day to day is very narrow but when you bring context and the whole picture, things start to change.
First thing to discuss is the fact that we have reduced the number of nurses and midwives per capita every single year, which has cranked the pressure up on a nation that is getting larger in size, getting older on average and getting more unhealthy when it comes to metabolic diseases being at a higher rate along with other elements.
With that backdrop, we can look at the the number of staff absences during 2020 and you can see that there were over 100,000 were absent (from The Spectator’s tracker, retrieved Feb 2021). When the figure registered in March 2021 was 301,491 then that’s one third of the personnel that were off for one reason or another.
Remember what I said about PCR tests and false positives, out of the 49k staff off from Covid-19 or Track and Trace, how many of these are actual infections warranting them being off?
Even looking at the non-Covid-19 absences, there was a significant spike seen in April that has not relented and these could be put down to a magnitude of different reasons that originate from the policies in place:
- Self fulfilling aspects such as stress from workload due to lack of manpower, prompted by unnecessary Covid absences on the basis of false positives.
- Childcare due to closure of schools, nurseries or otherwise (noting this information goes up to 14 Jan and things have since changed)
- Inability to get treatment for non-Covid issues that stopped them from return to work.
Now that we have put context to the situation and weighed up more of the contributing factors that have been put in place, we can see that this being used as a justification to close down the nation is again questionable. If you had more staff per capita due to proper infrastructure, you’d have more staff in hospitals and there wouldn’t be overwhelming year after year. If we didn’t close down the nation, leaving childcare issues, you’d have the ability for more staff to be in hospitals. If you didn’t have ambiguous testing tied in with Track & Trace, you’d have more staff in hospitals. If you didn’t have a third of staff off, overloading other staff, causing them stress and needing time off work, you’d have more staff in hospitals. If you didn’t close down other units in hospital, those requiring other medical treatment that’s been stopped, you’d have more staff in hospitals.
I’m sure I could go on but these are just some solutions and I’ve not even gone into the general public looking after their health better within a society that doesn’t promote health.
Moving on…
Even in the present day, we are seeing manipulation when to comes to the most recent extension of restrictions put in place. The first thing to note, the data was out of date in which it was based and would have significantly change the overestimated models which we have seen at every turn of the modelling handle. This is significant as the modelled “Covid deaths” (recall everything I’ve said about deaths) reduces from 72,400 to 17,100 for the Warwick model and from 203,824 to 26,854 for the Imperial College London.
Don’t worry though, this isn’t the first time that out of date data has been used to justify a lockdown, which has overly estimated the number of deaths. Here’s them doing it back in November 2020 to “justify” the second lockdown.
What we can do though is look further into that data that was presented to the general public on 14 June to “justify” a further lockdown, with it’s already out of date data.
Taken from a recent article in the Telegraph titled Fear over freedom: Here’s what the doom-laden government graphs didn’t show us, you can see that context is a key thing here:
The graphs that were shown to the public made it look like we are having an issue with young people getting the virus, to strike fear into the younger people and that the virus is affecting the fitter people. You could also be cynical that this is being used to persuade them to get the injection. Must be just a coincident…
Seeing as we are talking about admissions here though, let’s remember that key fact from before: “Patients who catch Covid in hospital are counted as admissions” and keep remembering it. Then we can look at the the actual number of “Covid” patients in as a proportion to beds in the NHS (Spectator Tracker):
Completely different perspective on things when you look at it in context of the situation.
Let’s look at some other parts of the data. For “cases”, this is the graph that was used which makes it look horrendous again with the number of cases taking a steep hike up. It paints a picture that is a lot worst than it is when you put the percentages on of “64% increase since last week”.
Well, that actually translates to a weekly “case” increase of less than 0.08% for the whole of England or less than 0.2% for the North West alone and in the grand scheme of things, here it is compared to all “cases” since the start of recording (all graphs from the Government Covid Dashboard).
Now that summer increase looks a lot worse than last summer doesn’t it. Let’s compare that to the number of tests that are being conducted and what I said earlier about PCR tests. To help you see the point that I’m making, here’s a comparison of the tests being conducted last year (on the left) vs this year (on the right).
Is it a coincidence that we are conducting roughly 10 times the tests and we are seeing roughly 10 times the “case”? If you’re struggling to see what I’m getting at here, refer back to what I said about PCR testing. I’m sceptical that these are actual cases, are a cause for concern and ultimately, don’t justify the extension of any lockdown measures. Even if there was an increase in cases, this is against the backdrop of a very high number of the population having antibodies (the current accepted measure for immunity though I’d argue differently but I’ll not get into that on this one) so what’s the issue? Why the concern? Why the constant fear?
Even if this isn’t enough for you, to further back one’s claim about statistical manipulation being used to “justify” these extensions, here’s a tweet from Marcus Fysh, Conservative MP for Yeovil telling you straight that the public was “duped to accept further lockdown”. Whether this is opinion or not from him, does it not worry you that a member of the party feels confident enough to make a statement like this?
It’s clear that data and the information gleaned from them has been manipulated to paint a certain picture to insight fear based influence on the British Public (covered more in my next section) and this has been based on a very wobbly set of foundations that once you start peeling back the layers that I’ve highlighted, it’s clear that the “validation” for what we have been enduring over the last 15 months does not stand up at all.
Fear Based Influence
The manipulation on the British public didn’t stop at the statistical manipulation during the daily briefings nor the 24/7 news discussing Covid, it extended to adverts that ran between your normal TV programmes. Using the basis of asymptomatic transmission and the manipulated figures highlighted above, this was used for what can only be described as the fear propaganda and psychological manipulation on the British public through the intense adverts brandished with the slogan of “Live Like You Have The Virus” or “Can You Look Them In The Eyes”, seen below:
How lovely of the government that we elect to wage psychological manipulation on its own citizens through advert campaigns that made it the largest advertiser based on budget, spending a huge £164m on adverts. Add in £80m from Public Health England quoted here and that comes to a total of £244m of public money to wage psychological manipulation on the public.
The use of fear in this way has since been admitted by a subcommittee of SAGE, with quotes here, that were used for Laura Dodsworth’s book State of Fear:
“In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.
“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Another said: “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.
Another member of SPI-B said they were “stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology” during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.
I don’t know about you but being part of a “weird experiment” from a collective of scientists that are unelected but were directing the Government on what to do makes me feel uncomfortable. The fact that these psychologist have gone on to admit that the were manipulative through “weaponising behavioural psychology”, whilst stating that it’s gone too far and people are more scared now, is very concerning for me.
Some may think this sort of messaging was necessary to make sure that the British public obeyed the public health orders that were put in place. You may be right (if these public health orders were ever justified which they weren’t; I am a supporter of the Great Barrington Declaration’s position) but, and it’s a very huge but here, the fact these public health orders were built upon the skewed statistics, unreliable testing protocol and asymptomatic transmission makes it all unethical and poses plenty of questions about the approach.
At the beginning, you could use the fact that it was novel and that nobody knew any better as an excuse to allow justification for the measures put in place. The fact though that there is evidence and the measures are proven to be wrong, this only leaves you with an organisation that refuses to be wrong and admit that they were or it’s being done purposefully to push another agenda that’s not so honest, which brings me nicely on to the next topic.
“Vaccines”
My opening remark on this topic is going to refer as to why I have put this heading in quotation marks. By original definition, injections utilising mRNA methodology, whether the messenger by nano-lipids or adenoviruses are not by the original definition vaccines. This was changed though in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary on 6 Feb 21; you can see this below:
This just highlights to you how new this technology is before we get into the points I want to raise. To ensure that I’m not liable under the definition, I will only refer to these treatments as injections.
I think it’s a sad and unfortunate position that we now come to whereby anyone who doesn’t wish to take a medication is called an “anti-vaxxer”. The fact this has become a norm to utilise a derogatory term to brandish people who make different health choices is shameful and often leaves a major double standard when other bad health choices are defended.
Anyway, into the facts and data about these injections to give you both sides of what they do and don’t do, what the benefits are and what the risks are before I then go to other ways of preventing and then treating SARS-CoV-2.
The screenshot was taken from the NHS website on 15 Jun 21 and quite clearly this states some key things about what benefits these injections will give you. The key ones to reiterate here are these two:
- It reduces the risk of getting seriously ill or dying from Covid-19
- There is a chance you might still get or spread Covid-19.
Receiving this injection is going to potentially reduce the individuals illness being severe but it won’t stop SARS-CoV-2 even if everyone got the injection. This isn’t going to be a matter of stopping SARS-CoV-2 and it is only to the benefit of the person getting it. You cannot use the reasoning of having it to protect others.
On the other hand, and probably the most important thing to highlight are the risks you’re taking by injecting yourself with mRNA injections for SARS-CoV-2. The first set of information I will give to you is from the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority) Yellow Card weekly report and the stats are as follows:
Injection | Number of Reports | Adverse Reactions | Deaths |
Oxford/AstaZeneca | 195,643 | 717,250 | 863 |
Pfizer/BioNtech | 67,998 | 193,768 | 406 |
Moderna | 3,278 | 9,243 | 4 |
Not specified | 754 | 2,335 | 22 |
TOTAL | 267,673 | 922,596 | 1,295 |
As of 15 Jun 21, report date 3 Jun 21
Putting these stats up against that of the number of injections administered, running currently at (as of the same date this report was done, 3 Jun 21):
- 1st dose (total): 39,758,428
- 1st dose only: 13,336,125
- 1st and 2nd dose: 26,422,303
So from this data, we can see that 39,758,428 people have had an injection in the UK coming out with the following rates:
- Number of reports: 0.6732% or 1 in 148.5 people had an adverse reaction, and on average 3.4467 reactions per person were experienced. These reactions run from things as rudimentary as a headache to heart attacks, blood clots or blindness, all seen with these injections. This is just a small selection from a list covering 87 A4 pages.
- Number of deaths: 0.003298%, or 1 in 30,321 people.
One thing to remember with these stats are that only based upon those that have recorded their adverse reaction, which knowing 3 people myself who haven’t reported their side effects (one bed bound for a few days, one left shivering so much their whole bed vibrated and another who had issues with their reproductive health), I can imagine there are plenty more.
Another aspect of this is the denial of the link between the injection and any adverse effects, in particular deaths, seen through censorship of people who have highlighted a link. Yes, correlation doesn’t necessarily bring causation but from what you can find on social media, if not taken down, there are a lot of odd coincidences.
To validate the numbers we are seeing here, let’s look at the VAERS report from the USA and you can see, though the ratio of adverse effects isn’t as high, the issues apply and still, there are thousands of deaths related to this:
To contextualise this, this brings the number of deaths reported just this year to more than the last 30 years put together in America. This has been taken from the VAERS source data and can be seen on the graph below. When researching this graph, it was “debunked” by many different “Fact Checkers” (that is a completely different topic on its own!) by stating that “physicians are required to report all deaths after a vaccine to VAERS” but to highlight that “this doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a link” [].
This may be the case that correlation doesn’t mean causation however, wouldn’t you see a very varied number of deaths across the other years? It’s a huge coincident that as soon as the injection rollout starts, there is an almighty spike in deaths on VAERS. The next worst year was 1994, with 223 deaths.
The first 6 months or so of 2021 have provided VAERS with 26 TIMES MORE deaths than the next worst year of 1994.
These highlighted effects are those in the short term. I hope that it hasn’t gone under the radar to people that the long term effects of these injections are unknown. They have only been in the system of people since they started trials since mid 2020, so maximum of a year. I shouldn’t have to raise the point of the numerous medical interventions across the years that ended up causing horrendous problems in the future.
The final thing that I want to highlight to people is that all injections authorised in the UK (same for many countries though) under Emergency Use Authorisation only.
If you don’t believe me, here are the clearances. Note the temporary part in the first sentence:
Note here the terminology in the headline to the right:
They are correct in stating this, it’s not a lie but it’s certainly misleading. It’s been approved with Emergency Use Authorisation. This goes for all the other injections.
Look, I’m not trying to sway anyone either way. Ultimately, it’s an individuals informed consent about what they do and don’t do with their body, this working both ways. I believe both sides of the information need to be presented to the individual before they make a decision.
Unfortunately though, when we are the subject to Government’s around the world, some more than others, using coercion and blackmail at a state level to persuade people to take this injection by branding it “our way to freedom”, as well as sweeping aside the risks of the injection through censorship and the fact that natural immunity is a perfectly viable way to immunity is being ignored, I can’t help by feel uncomfortable with the determination to get everyone injected.
Sprinkle on top the other things in the offing such as “vaccine passports” or whatever other synonym they use, I can’t help but feel more uncomfortable with all of this.
This could be where I bring out the claim that people being injected will mean they have less symptoms when they get it thus it will stop transmission but let’s go back a few sections. Isn’t that just being asymptomatic thus not transmitting? Which begs the questions, does asymptomatic transmission happen or not? For the first at least year of this, the claim was asymptomatic DOES happen was driven home hence the measures we were put under. Now that it’s the injection though that’s being pushed and this is being used as a reason to justify its use, is the exact premise that they have been claimed is a thing for the last year, no longer is a thing. This is a fine case of “doublethink”, to quote George Orwell. How can that be?
It’s incidences like this that make me severely question the motives and the agenda at play. This level of hypocrisy is obvious and this item alone in isolation in my eyes should leave you seriously questioning what’s going on around us.
Other Remedies
Don’t worry ladies and gentlemen, there is hope out there for other remedies that actually work too! The clear and most obvious, shown by the shear number of people ending up in hospital with this comorbidity, is being healthy and not being overweight! This was seen by such a large proportion of those hospitalised and dying being overweight. But this should be obvious that being of ill health is going to make you susceptible to illness more.
Another great way of combatting it is by not being deficient in the key vitamins and minerals you need, such as vitamin D. This study shows that you were 4.6 times more likely to catch the virus if deficient, whilst another study suggests that if you end up with the virus, it does affect the severity of it.
Alongside these measures, there has been a lot of talk concerning the use ivermectin, with it’s quoted successes, and hydroxychloroquine, again being seen to have a positive effect on dealing with the virus. This though, I would need to do more research on and there is likely to be a follow up blog to this to discuss the public health orders and how the “cure” is worse than the disease.
The Why
A very common question people ask me when I lay out of all of this is “Why would they do this?” and something that I wanted to mention before I finished this blog off. This is a very tricky topic to talk about in full and with the length of this blog, is a blog in itself to cover varying spectrums of what could be behind it. As a cautionary look into things, I’ll show you as sliding scale of what could be behind it:
- Thought 1: Government genuinely wanting to protect its citizens and keep itself in power by implementing the measures it has up to now, knowing no better on how to deal with the situation.
- Thought 2: Money. The profitability of this “pandemic” for certain sectors along with the clear and known about corruption from members in Government and the conflict interest makes this a clear potential reason as to why. Those injection manufacturers have made a tidy profit too and there are potential links between policy makers and these companies. Plus, if it was truly about health, they’d do it for free, surely?
- Thought 3: The Great Reset. Sorry to tell you, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, there’s a book written on it. The author, Klaus Schwabb, and his organisation of the World Economic Forum (the same organisation from the infamous “You will own nothing and you will be happy” video wish to utilise this opportunity to change the world economically and societally. From what I’m led to understand think 1984.
- Thought 4: This is an advancement on Though 3, which is the changing of the world and its economy majorly and is a more nefarious outcome and certainly falls into the conspiratorial region. Think 1984 but much worse.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, to allow me to explain myself and give a different perspective to life at the moment. That wraps up this blog for now, as I feel I have covered the main points I want to cover. There are quite a few other topics that I could talk about such as the actual issues of the immune system and what we’re doing, the measures actually being about health or where there are future red flags but I’ll maybe leave that to another blog.
I genuinely hope that you took something useful away from this, that it may have given you a different perspective of life on both sides of the argument and understand why people are frustrated, upset, angry and in places, genuinely worried about the direction that things are going in. This should have also set off a few questions in your head about the situation to allow you to look further into it.
As always, the comments section is open for you to correct me on anything I’ve referenced wrong or badly, to raise any counter points to bring about a constructive debate or just add your support; whatever you see fit! If you don’t want to do it in a public domain then by all means, my social media and email address is attached on this page you to email.
This is a little off topic so be sure to look around the blog for other topics that I’ve covered, that a little more cheerful such as the travel stories for some inspiration or in the lifestyle area, there are plenty of topics that will allow you to improve your health overall. Whilst you’re here too, be sure to find the social media pages below or at the top of the page to give me a follow so you see announcements the moment a new blog drops.
The Daily Mail is great isn’t it! Full of excellent facts!
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I’m sorry but using the method of straw manning the source of information, which is relaying and NHS audit does nothing.
Let’s talk about the information presented not the source.
Can I just say for someone who says he has no qualifications you have a far better grasp of the issues than those that do! Well done on this.
If interested, please follow hartgroup.org and sign up for our weekly bulletins. We are 160 medics, scientists, psychologists, economists and various other professionals (inc a couple of vicars!) trying to push back against the madness.
There’s a great quiz you can do on our website and also pass onto friends.
The answers are usually a shock to most people.
Thank you very much, Jonathan, for both taking the time to read my blog and comment on it.
All support is appreciated but to have the support from a medically trained individual even more so!
Don’t worry, all signed up and the quiz? I didn’t do too bad but even I was shocked about some answers.