Chidakasha

The idea that the government is ‘guided by the science’ in it’s response to the pandemic is simply false. The notion that those supporting the use of masks, lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports are unquestionably supporting the public good is wrong and unhelpful.

“Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.”

https://www.covid19assembly.org/doctors-open-letter/

That there is real scientific debate over, and dissent from the ‘official narrative’ is highlighted by this open letter to Boris Johnson et al. by a group of doctors and scientists. Instead of encouraging discussion the government and media and, yes, community activists, have insisted on suppressing, denying and deriding any questioning of the narrative that we should be so afraid of the Covid virus that we show consider it a moral duty to sell our own feedoms and steal the freedoms of others.

All the data I’ve seen makes it clear that if you take a covid vaccine your chances of death or serious harm are very significantly reduced should you become infected with the virus. I accept this – but it is not the whole picture. These are the question that seem reasonable to ask:

1. What is the base probability (not compared with the vaccinated) of an unvaccinated person of my age and health profile becoming infected and seriously harmed by the virus?

This question matters because a reduction of risk from say 1% to 0.1% (for an older person) may feel substantial whereas a reduction of risk from 0.1% to 0.01% (for a younger person – figures only illustrative) feels less substantial.

We might add to this calculation the observation that a 70 year old has an optimistic 20 years of life to protect, while a 20 year old has an equally optimistic 70 years to look forward to.

If the vaccines were an unqualified good then of course no one would hesitate to take them whether they reduced risk from one in a hundred to one in a thousand or from one in a thousand to one in ten thousand. But they are not an unqualified good because these vaccines like any medical treatment carry with them some risk of harm. This leads to the second question:

2. What are the risks of these particular vaccines that should be weighed against their benefits? What efforts are being made to quantify such harms as are becoming evident?

and additionally:

3. What, particularly in the light of alleged toxcicities of vaccine induced spike proteins, can be said about the probabality of longer term harm from vaccines?I think that these questions are not only reasonable they are basic and they need to be address before people are advised, even compelled, to take the vaccine.

For some people there is no doubt whatsoever that everyone should take the covid vaccines. Even if they are personally harmed by ‘rare’ side effects they are still advocates. This is not bad. In a way I applaud this. If I am harmed by covid it will not stop me being sceptical … it will not stop me asking questions even as being harmed by an adverse effect has not stopped this Australian journalist giving answers.

1. The best way to beat the virus is to improve our general health and our health care systems.

2. The best way to destroy civilisations is to surrender our freedoms to authoritarian oligarchies.

We are on path 2

‘On its website, the pharmaceutical company Moderna, which has developed a COVID-19 vaccine, compares the mRNA science in its vaccine to an “operating system” (here). The phrase is used in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.’

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-operating-system/fact-check-the-covid-19-vaccine-is-not-an-operating-system-designed-to-program-humans-idUSKBN2A913W

Read the article if you have time but just the phrase ‘the mRNA science in its vaccine’ is jarring. ‘Science’, an abstraction, cannot be ‘in’ a vaccine or anything else. Maybe what is meant is that ‘the mRNA science used to create the vaccine is comparable to an operating system in that it can be used in the development and deployment of different nRNA vaccines’.

This is important, not nitpicking, because to suggest that there is a ‘thing’ that acts like an operating system (whether it programs humans or not) in the vaccine is to suggest the co-installation of an enabling technology alongside a specific technology that creates a specific effect.

This fact checking article is incompetently written as it suggests exactly what it intends to deny.

The Moderna statement that it references is more coherent and makes it clear that the metaphor ‘operating system’ refers to the systems used to create mRNA vaccines and not to anything ‘in’ the vaccines.

HOWEVER … the Moderna statement also points out that:

“Using mRNA to create medicines is a complex undertaking and requires overcoming novel scientific and technical challenges. We need to get the mRNA into the targeted tissue and cells while evading the immune system. If the immune system is triggered, the resultant response may limit protein production and, thus, limit the therapeutic benefit of mRNA medicines. We also need ribosomes to think the mRNA was produced naturally, so they can accurately read the instructions to produce the right protein. And we need to ensure the cells express enough of the protein to have the desired therapeutic effect. “

Moderna statement

This does imply the installation of an enabling technology; a technology that inhibits the triggering of the immune system. Might that be deleterious to the general functioning of the natural immune system?

The article argues that COVID-19 VACCINES LEAD TO NEW INFECTIONS AND MORTALITY. I’ve not looked at it in detail but am struck by an early paragraph:

“Two months ago, we tried to alert people to the paradoxical results of the covid19 vaccines by publishing the pre- and post-vaccination mortality curves for Israel and Great Britain [1] which already showed that these vaccinations were followed by ‘a considerable increase in contamination and mortality lasting 6 to 8 weeks after the start of vaccination.”

This is consistent with an Israeli article‘s inference that in the about 6 week gap between the first and second does when protection is incomplete the partially vaccinated are more vulnerable than the unvaccinated. It is also consistent with concerns about ADE, antibody dependent enhancement, where a sub-optimal immune response can be hijacked by the coronavirus to support their attack on cells.

There are claims by the British government that people who are fully vaccinated are near invulnerable to infection and that vaccination has been driving the fall in morbidity and mortality. No real evidence can be given for this and it is likely that the current fall repeats that following the first wave and is a seasonal phenomenon. It seems clear that the reduction in morbidity is much the same with the unvaccinated as with the vaccinated and that recent numbers are daily deaths are too small to be of use in assessing the relative efficacy of the vaccines.

It would be comforting if we could conclude that the danger to the vaccinated lies only in the period between partial and full vaccination. This may not be the case. Microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi warns that the spike proteins that the vaccine induces our cells to produce remain in the body and that cells that produce these spike proteins may be attacked by the immune system if an immune response is triggered by a future encounter with a Covid-19 variant. Bhakdi argues that the immune system’s attack on cells hosting the spike protein leads to the formations of blood clots.

The issue of the spike protein induced blood disorder which includes clotting was raised in the open letter from Doctors for Covid Ethics. Dr Bhakdi is one of the authors.

Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”. I hope at least some people appreciate the significance of this admission reported in the Telegraph:

“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.

Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.

SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.

Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”

Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.

Ministers have faced repeated accusations that they ramped up the threat from the pandemic to justify lockdowns and coerce the public into abiding by them – a claim that will be examined by the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic response.

SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth:

“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 SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”

One warned that

“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 said:

“Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”

As well as overt warnings about the danger of the virus, the Government has been accused of feeding the public a non-stop diet of bad news, such as deaths and hospitalisations, without ever putting the figures in context with news of how many people have recovered, or whether daily death tolls are above or below seasonal averages.

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”.

Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said:

“If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.

“If we’re being really honest, do I fear that Government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.”

The Telegraph

This article argues that the possibility of ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) was known by the developers who designed the vaccines to minimise this. I can’t follow these arguments in detail but it’s clear that the truth of the matter one way or other lies in whether there are or are not reported occurrences of ADE resulting from the vaccination programme. This article says that there have been no such reported occurrences:

“To date, there’s really no evidence of ADE with the COVID-19 vaccines. It’s all theoretical, … I think all the evidence so far is that ADE is not turning out to be a problem with any existing vaccines or viral variants.”

Others have argued, elsewhere, that people who have only had the first dose of the vaccine are empirically known to experience greater harm from Covid-19 than the unvaccinated. This would be consistent with the notion that the sub-optimal antibody response prompted by the first dose is can result in ADE.

The person who is, effectively, at the head of the global effort to combat the pandemic is the person who is, at least arguably, most culpable for its creation.

Some people use the term ‘plandemic’ to imply that the pandemic and the global response to it were planned in order to achieve some covert objective. This is speculation but isn’t it strengthened by the continued employment of Fauci? Why would the US government continue to employ and ‘have confidence’ in a man who has screwed up so spectacularly and possibly illegally?

Fauci has admitted that he was involved in funding ‘gain of function’ research on coronaviruses in the Wuhan virology lab. The reason that he gives for doing the research there suggests that he believes that Chinese lives matter less than American lives:

“So, you don’t want to go to Hoboken, New Jersey or Fairfax Virginia to be studying the bat-human interface that might lead to an outbreak, so you go to China.”

Until recently the hypothesis that the pandemic originated in ‘gain of function’ research at the Wuhan laboratory was considered a ‘conspiracy theory’ but high level scientists including Robert Redfield, a former director of the US CDC, have argued that this is more likely than the natural origin hypothesis.

While Fauci now seems to be admitting that he was involved in funding research at Wuhan he had earlier denied such a connection and appears to have been instrumental in suppressing discussion that might expose his having such involvement. It is clear that Fauci has lied and has tried to hide his involvement.