3 - The Murder of Liberty (By Paul Craig Roberts - The Murder of the First Amendment)

 

 Post by Paul Craig Roberts

The illegal and unwarranted prosecution of Julian Assange by the US Government in a British court, if court it is and not a Star Chamber, is in fact the prosecution of the First Amendment. It will prevent journalists in the future from informing the public of criminal activity by government. This is already the case in a number of countries, and the US and UK are about to join them.  Washington, working through a British judge and a British prosecutor, is murdering the First Amendment and, thereby, accountable government. 

The US government’s case for Assange’s extradition to the US that is working its way through a CIA-suborned British court redefines journalists who hold government accountable as spies.  In other words, journalists who reveal criminal actions of governments are quilty of espionage.  If this were in fact the case, the New York Times would have been prosecuted for publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Once upon a time when law still ruled a person had to spy on his own country in order to have committed a crime.  Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, but he is accused of  committing espionage against the United States while living in Europe.  If this were a crime under law, all the Israeli Mossad spies spying on the United States would be arrested and treated as Assange.  Indeed, all spies of all countries spying on other countries, including the CIA and the British MI6, could be arrested and tried for espionage in the countries that they are spying on. Generally speaking, countries prosecute their own citizens who spy on their own country for foreign governments, but send foreign spies caught spying on them home ( https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/07/why-doesn-t-the-fbi-prosecute-more-spies.html ).

In other words, both the US and British governments are hypocrites and lawless.  As the Australian government is just another Washington puppet state, Australia has done nothing to protect its citizen from false prosecution. 

Neither have the journalists whose profession is being destroyed by the illegal prosecution of Assange.  What is happening to Assange is worse than a Stalnist show trial, but no presstitute has raised a voice. 

Journalists long ago ceased to be journalists and became propagandists for the CIA and the ruling elites.  What little independence American journalism ever had was destroyed by the Clinton regime’s acquiescence to the concentration of 90% of the US media in six hands.  Many books have been written exposing the CIA’s influence over the prestige US media since 1950, and Udo Ulfkotte exposed the CIA’s control over the European media.  British newspapers, such as the Guardian, guard the intelligence agencies and ruling elites.

There is no legal basis for Assange’s prosecution.  He is prosecuted for one reason only: to make it clear to journalists that the First Amendment is dead and their profession along with it.

For those who are not journalists, it means that Justice is dead.  Assange’s extradiction hearing is clearly not being run by a British court but by Washington.  What evidence can be presented is determined by Washington.  The judge, in my opinion a puppet of the intelligence services, and the prosecutor, another puppet devoid, in my opinion, of an ounce of integrity, have done more to prevent justice than Vyshinsky did in the Stalinist show trial of Nikolai Bukharin.

All great evil, such as is being practiced against Julian Assange, has unintended consequences.  What the US and UK are doing is digging their own graves as democracies.  They are transforming themselves into tyrannies.  For freedom, the world will henceforth look to Russia and China.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador and one of the few people of integrity who have served in the British government in the past half century, has been covering the Assange Show Trial.  This is from his report of Day 14:

“I am very concerned about the obvious collusion of the prosecution and the judge to close this case down. The extraordinary conflation of “time management” and excluding evidence which the US Government does not want heard in public is plainly illegitimate. The continual chivvying and interruption of defence counsel in examination when prosecution counsel are allowed endless repetition amounting to harassment and bullying is illegitimate. Some extraordinarily long prosecution cross-examinations, such as that of Carey Shenkman the lawyer, have every appearance of deliberate time wasting and distraction.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55615.htm 

There are so many things that need protesting.  But what are the protests about?  They are about a nonexistent “systemic white racism” and the falsely alleged murder by police officers doing their duty of a felon, George Floyd, who killed himself with an overdose of fentanyl ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/06/did-george-floyd-die-from-an-overdose-of-fentanyl-or-from-homicide/ ).  

Billions of dollars of businesses have been looted and burned because Democrat local and state governments would not permit police to halt the destruction.  The crimes committed by these Democrat mayors and governors are enormous, but no action is taken against them.

Instead, a journalist who told the truth has been under restraint for years and tortured.  Now he is being subjected to a show trial under the guise of an extradition hearing. It is obvious to everyone that the British “court” is acting for Washington and that Assange’s exradiction will be regarded as a sign that he is guilty as charged. No American jury would dare find him innocent.

No one in the US or British or Australian government and media other than a few of the caliber of John Pilger and Craig Murray has the integrity and decency to denounce the trial of Assange as a murderous assault on the First Amendment. The presstitute media donned their CIA cleats and jumped on Assange with both feet, serving as amplifiers for the false charges of Russian spy alleged against an honest journalist. In other words, dumbshit ”prestige” journalists are helping government criminalize journalism.

There is no democracy and no accountable government without an honest media.  The absence of an honest media in the West means that democracy and justice also are absent.

Assange faces life imprisonment for allegedly leaking documents, some of which had security classification, despite the fact that journalists have always had the right to publish leaks regardless of their classification. The Pentagon Papers were classified, and the New York Times published them.  

Moreover, as was established in the 14th day of Assange’s extradiction hearing, it wasn’t Wikileaks that first released the encryption key and location of the leaked documents.  It was The Guardian and David Leigh (see the account here: (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55615.htm ).

Therefore, it is David Leigh, not Julian Assange, who is responsible for what Washington regards as a crime. Not only does Washington have an illegitimate case, it has the wrong man in the dock.

This is par course for Washington and explains why Washington is no longer respected in the world even among its European vassals.

The question that we need to ask ourselves, and the question that President Trump needs to ask himself, is why is Trump supporting the fabricated case of the corrupt Obama regime against Julian Assange.  Is the answer that Trump feels that he cannot go against the wishes of the military/security complex when he faces the prospect of a color revolution to overturn his reelection?  Will Julian Assange be another Democrat victim like the countless business men and women whose undefended businesses and livelihoods were burned and looted because Democrats would not defend property from thugs whose cause they champion?

2 - The Murder of the Economy (By David Stockman)

 

 Via International Man

International Man: Bill Clinton’s infamous phrase during the 1992 presidential election was “It’s the economy, stupid.” How important of a role do you think the economy and a continued rally in the stock market will play in the outcome of the presidential election?

David Stockman: Well, in the befuddled mind of Donald Trump, probably a considerable role as manifest in his campaign oratory. And since there are less than 50 days left, he might get away with his groundless boasting. That is, we seriously doubt that the great reckoning will commence before November 3, meaning that he will keep peddling the “but for COVID” canard, claiming that, before that, he single-handedly created the Greatest Economy Ever.

Actually, it’s the greatest BS story ever told. It rests on the utterly misleading circumstance that the Donald entered office in month #90 of what became the longest business cycle expansion in history (at 128 months in February).

Consequently, his “record” was artificially flattered by the low U-3 unemployment rates (3.5%) that naturally occur during the last 38 months of the cycle as the inventory of unused labor is finally exhausted. Of course, that’s also exactly what occurred during the final months of the 118-month expansion of the 1990s and the 106-month expansion of the 1960s, when Democrats happened to be incumbent in the Oval Office.

But when measured by something relevant, such as the average real GDP growth rate during his tenure, it turns out that the Donald’s cherished “score” is the very worst among all the presidential terms since 1948.

That’s right. Even after setting aside the economic plunge in Q2, real GDP growth averaged 1.8% per annum during the Donald’s first 38 months in office compared to annualized gains of 1.9%, 2.2%, 2.5%, 2.7%, 3.2%, 3.6%, 3.8%, 5.2%, and 5.5%, respectively, during the terms of Obama, Bush the Younger, Bush the Elder, Eisenhower, Nixon-Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy-Johnson, and Truman.

Coming in dead last, of course, is not entirely the Donald’s doing, try as he did. The fact is, the US economy was sinking under the dead weight of $77 trillion of public and private debt and the decades of public waste and private malinvestment this debt explosion enabled. Now, Donald’s wrong-headed sponsorship of Lockdown Nation via the recommendations of his malpracticing doctors and the public hysteria they fostered has delivered the coup d’ grace.

So, yes, it is the economy, stupid. That is to say, whoever wins on November 3rd is going to inherit an economy so battered, bruised, and freighted with speculative excess and debilitating debt that they are sure to go down in history as the President who made Herbert Hoover look like a winner.

International Man: The United States appears to be more divided than it has in anyone’s lifetime. Yet, politicians and talking heads on both sides of the aisle seem to wholeheartedly agree on the same destructive fiscal policy that includes money printing, sky-high debts, and freebies. What do you make of all this? What are the consequences for the dollar and for gold?

David Stockman: There is only one thing to do—get out of the casino and sell any security that moves or stands still. That’s because the bipartisan duopoly has lost all contracts with the principles of sound money, fiscal rectitude, and minimalist government intervention on which sustainable capitalist prosperity depends.

For instance, the GOP Senate is so oblivious to the monstrous fraud being perpetrated by the nation’s central bank that it can’t even muster the votes to put a single once and former sound money advocate—Judy Shelton—on the Fed Board of Governors.

Indeed, the Judy Shelton nomination failure is the monetary Rubicon. There is literally no hope left that our stupefied elected politicians will move to stop the unelected monetary politburo domiciled in the Eccles Building from utterly destroying the capital and money markets that are at the heart of the capitalist growth engine.

What lies ahead, therefore, is more years of massive monetization of the public debt and never before imagined fiscal profligacy on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Already the public debt at $27.7 trillion stands at 138% of GDP, even as there is zero will in either party to brake its ascent.

At some point in the not-too-near future, confidence in the money-printing scam at the Fed will finally evaporate. Then, look out below. The financial sins of 50 years will come crashing all around.

International Man: When the COVID lockdowns first started, the government told us we needed a few weeks to “flatten the curve.” The idea was economic activity could be restarted relatively easily. Six months later, most economic activity is at a standstill. Is it possible for Main Street to bounce back? What type of long-term damage do you think this will have?

David Stockman: The damage will be immense and well nigh irreversible. That’s because never before–even during the full military mobilization of WWII—have we had this kind of draconian economic marshal law.

As it was, the US economy was already a hand-to-mouth cripple when the lockdowns came smashing down out of the blue in March. That is, businesses had no dry powder, having freighted down their balance sheets with cheap debt to fund stock buybacks and massively over-valued M&A deals; and, likewise, 80% of US households had borrowed to the hilt and had no rainy day funds to speak of.

Save for nearly $3.5 trillion of the Everything Bailouts, the US economy would be hemorrhaging already in a cascading chain of delinquencies, defaults, and payment lapses. There is no other outcome possible when the household and business sector are each laboring under $16 trillion of debt, and the government and financial sectors are carrying another $45 trillion between them.

Moreover, the massive infusion of borrowed funds from the virtually bankrupt US Treasury is not sustainable and is already beginning to measurably abate as the original bailout programs expire and even the spendthrift US Congress is unable to form a consensus on new measures to keep the Ponzi Scheme going.

Well, they might abjure. After all, the explosion of spending in April was theretofore unimaginable.

To wit, government transfer payments soared from a $3.2 trillion annual rate on the eve of the lockdowns in February to a $6.5 trillion annual rate two months later in April, representing an unprecedented explosion of free stuff that was still running at a $4.9 trillion annual rate in July.

All this spending was for the purpose of holding harmless the tens of millions of workers and millions of small businesses sidelined by the writ of the Donald’s malpracticing doctors and the brutal shutdown orders of the Blue State governors and mayors they unleashed.

But to take out 10% of GDP through what amounted to economic martial law and backfill it with massive public borrowing was the height of derangement.

That’s because Lockdown Nation battered the economics and personal liberty of 267 million Americans under the age of 65, when their risk of serious illness or death from the COVID was tiny, even as 80% of deaths per the bloated CDC count occurred among the population 65 and older, which could have, and did, self-quarantine out of an abundance of personal medical precaution.

That’s right. The normal mortality rate for the under-65 population is about 300 per 100,000, while the with-COVID rate, by the CDC’s own inflated figures, was just 13 per 100,000 as of September 1 or barely 4% of normal mortality.

In that context, knocking $565 billion out of the GDP in the second quarter alone to prevent a marginal change in the mortality rate for the under-65 population was the very essence of national derangement and a reminder that current economic governance is so unhinged that recovery during the decade ahead—when the retired Welfare State-dependent population will grow from 55 million to 73 million—will be well-nigh impossible.

International Man: Recently, the Federal Reserve announced they would seek to create even more inflation, which means the cost of living is about to get more expensive. Why would any sane person want to do such a thing?

David Stockman: The short answer is that they obviously wouldn’t. The baleful truth is that our central bankers are lost in a miasma of groupthink that is devoid of any connection to sound money and the economic prosperity that flows therefrom.

Instead, the Fed has become the pathetic handmaiden of the den of gamblers that now operate on Wall Street. There is literally no minor stumble or tepid correction in the stock indices that fails to elicit a chorus of demands for more “stimulus” on Wall Street, but it is blatantly evident by now that the resulting massive injections of fiat credit into the bank accounts of the Fed dealers never leaves the canyons of Wall Street.

It simply inflates, inflates, and inflates again the value of existing debt and equity securities traded in the secondary market pits of pure speculation.

After all, that’s how we get the great ten-to-one anomaly. As it happened, since Greenspan’s Irrational Exuberance speech in December 1996, the nominal GDP has gained 136%, while the NASDAQ 100—the long-standing leading edge of the speculative mania—has gained 1,376%.

That’s madness. That’s the smoking gun that shows the degree to which the stock market has been ripped from its proper moorings in the actual income and profits of the Main Street economy.

It’s also the reason for another great anomaly. Namely, that the stock market, which originated as a curb where capital users came to raise investment funds from savers, has now been turned upside down. It is now a place where equity capital is massively and chronically liquidated in favor of massive increases in growth-throttling debt.

Thus, during the last 23 years, there have been only two quarters in which U.S. nonfinancial corporations raised equity capital on a net basis (i.e., new issuance exceeded buybacks).

Overall, $7.2 trillion of corporate equity has been liquidated, averaging some $315 billion per year.

Old-fashioned economists called this “eating your seed corn.” And it still is, whether the Keynesian money-pumpers at the Fed acknowledge it or not—and also notwithstanding the egregious, unearned windfalls that have accrued to speculators in the Wall Street casino.

For want of doubt, here is a very opposite picture. While the Fed-corrupted financial markets were busy shrinking the stock of equity capital, they were also inducing the C-suites to borrow hand over fist. Between December 1996 and the present, in fact, nonfinancial corporate debt has soared from $3.2 trillion to $10.5 trillion, or by 3.3 times.

Obviously, that was far faster than the growth of GDP, or, more to the point, the increase in corporate value added. In fact, cumulative growth in corporate debt of 223.4% far exceeded the growth of gross value added, which rose by just 137.1%.

In short, they are doing what no one in their right mind should be doing. The negative consequence in both the fiscal profligacy of the public sector and the financial engineering folly of the corporate sector speak for themselves.

 

1 - The Three Murders - Introduction

 

(This post is a personal post which will not be publicized on social medias.) 

 

When I started writing this blog, the aim was to write about data and if possible give an original approach to common subject from a different view point to offer perspective and food for thought. 

That was then, a long, long time ago, almost two years now. Since of course Covid-19 happened and everything changed. More than 9/11, it seems that this is the event that will define the future direction of this new century and unfortunately, the omens are not favorable.

Looking back, we knew from early in the 1970s that the current trajectory was unsustainable. The limits to growth from the Club of Rome in 1972 was an early and premonitious warning that in the long term, exponential always bump into the limits of reality. Only now can we understand how accurate they were when predicting that the inflection point would arrive in 2020.   

10 years later, all this was forgotten when Ronald Reagan was elected with a #Good Morning America!" launching the money splurge that would soon morph into the full scale financialization of the US economy. Japan was first to fall into the trap with its bubble economy of the later 1980s but was soon followed by all the former capitalist economies of the developed world. So much so that today, the stock markets all over the world are but a shadow of their former selves with their zero percent interest rates, infinite QE and activist central banks buying almost everything that moves. The best example is the JGB (Japan Government Bonds) market, the most liquid market 30 years ago which can now go days without a single trade. 

But an inflection point is not the end of the road, it is simply the end of a line. For a society, this means the end of a paradigm. And in our particular case, the end of the world order which was built in the ruins of the second world war.

This is the well known process of creative destruction. Except that although the destruction phase is upon us, we have no clue what will or even may be constructed in its stead. Earlier times were bubbling with new ideas: the scientific method, democracy, the enlightenment and many other concepts around which a lose consensus could coalesce for a new order to emerge. No such luck this time!

Meanwhile, the Forth Turning, a concept highlighted by William Strauss and Neil Howe in the late 1990s is gathering pace and slowly devouring our institutions and our lives. Islands of tranquility may survive in the highlands of Papua New Guinea but for the average citizen of the modern world, there will be no escape. As the institutions are slowly undermined from the inside, darker aspects and trends are emerging, each of which presage of a much somber short term future than the recent and rather long period of prosperity we have been accustomed to.  

"The Three Murders", the title of this post refers to the murder of our economy as explained by David Stockman in the second post of this series, the murder of liberty as explained by Paul Craig Roberts in the third post and finally the potential murder of peace between nations which most of the Western World has enjoyed over the last 70 years.

 

Beyond the current, relatively secondary discussions, these are the fundamental subjects which should be on top of our agenda as they will constrain the world we live in in the coming years.

  

 

Belgian Medical Profession Demands a Halt to Covid Pandemic Propaganda

This open letter signed by hundreds of doctors in Belgium is the clearest conclusion we can draw today from the Covid-19 pandemic and incidentally the clearest indictment of the measures taken until now to mitigate the virus, most of which have done more harm than good. 

As such it addresses almost every aspect of the pandemic from a scientific viewpoint, the one which has been so cruelly missing from the political discourse over the last few months. 

Considering the risks of a second lockdown, this message should be more widely propagated to give back a sense of proportion to a pandemic which never really was one!

See: https://docs4opendebate.be/en/open-letter/

We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.
The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good.
We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.

‘A cure must not be worse than the problem’ is a thesis that is more relevant than ever in the current situation. We note, however, that the collateral damage now being caused to the population will have a greater impact in the short and long term on all sections of the population than the number of people now being safeguarded from corona.
In our opinion, the current corona measures and the strict penalties for non-compliance with them are contrary to the values formulated by the Belgian Supreme Health Council, which, until recently, as the health authority, has always ensured quality medicine in our country: “Science – Expertise – Quality – Impartiality – Independence – Transparency”. ¹

We believe that the policy has introduced mandatory measures that are not sufficiently scientifically based, unilaterally directed, and that there is not enough space in the media for an open debate in which different views and opinions are heard. In addition, each municipality and province now has the authorisation to add its own measures, whether well-founded or not.

Moreover, the strict repressive policy on corona strongly contrasts with the government’s minimal policy when it comes to disease prevention, strengthening our own immune system through a healthy lifestyle, optimal care with attention for the individual and investment in care personnel.²

The concept of health

In 1948, the WHO defined health as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or other physical impairment’.³

Health, therefore, is a broad concept that goes beyond the physical and also relates to the emotional and social well-being of the individual. Belgium also has a duty, from the point of view of subscribing to fundamental human rights, to include these human rights in its decision-making when it comes to measures taken in the context of public health. ⁴
The current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 violate to a large extent this view of health and human rights. Measures include compulsory wearing of a mask (also in open air and during sporting activities, and in some municipalities even when there are no other people in the vicinity), physical distancing, social isolation, compulsory quarantine for some groups and hygiene measures.

The predicted pandemic with millions of deaths

At the beginning of the pandemic, the measures were understandable and widely supported, even if there were differences in implementation in the countries around us. The WHO originally predicted a pandemic that would claim 3.4% victims, in other words millions of deaths, and a highly contagious virus for which no treatment or vaccine was available.  This would put unprecedented pressure on the intensive care units (ICUs) of our hospitals.

This led to a global alarm situation, never seen in the history of mankind: “flatten the curve” was represented by a lockdown that shut down the entire society and economy and quarantined healthy people. Social distancing became the new normal in anticipation of a rescue vaccine.

The facts about covid-19

Gradually, the alarm bell was sounded from many sources: the objective facts showed a completely different reality. ^{5 6}

The course of covid-19 followed the course of a normal wave of infection similar to a flu season. As every year, we see a mix of flu viruses following the curve: first the rhinoviruses, then the influenza A and B viruses, followed by the coronaviruses. There is nothing different from what we normally see.

The use of the non-specific PCR test, which produces many false positives, showed an exponential picture.  This test was rushed through with an emergency procedure and was never seriously self-tested. The creator expressly warned that this test was intended for research and not for diagnostics.⁷
The PCR test works with cycles of amplification of genetic material – a piece of genome is amplified each time. Any contamination (e.g. other viruses, debris from old virus genomes) can possibly result in false positives.⁸

The test does not measure how many viruses are present in the sample. A real viral infection means a massive presence of viruses, the so-called virus load. If someone tests positive, this does not mean that that person is actually clinically infected, is ill or is going to become ill. Koch’s postulate was not fulfilled (“The pure agent found in a patient with complaints can provoke the same complaints in a healthy person”).

Since a positive PCR test does not automatically indicate active infection or infectivity, this does not justify the social measures taken, which are based solely on these tests. ^{9 10}

Lockdown.

If we compare the waves of infection in countries with strict lockdown policies to countries that did not impose lockdowns (Sweden, Iceland …), we see similar curves.  So there is no link between the imposed lockdown and the course of the infection. Lockdown has not led to a lower mortality rate.

If we look at the date of application of the imposed lockdowns we see that the lockdowns were set after the peak was already over and the number of cases decreasing. The drop was therefore not the result of the taken measures. ¹¹
As every year, it seems that climatic conditions (weather, temperature and humidity) and growing immunity are more likely to reduce the wave of infection.

Our immune system

For thousands of years, the human body has been exposed daily to moisture and droplets containing infectious microorganisms (viruses, bacteria and fungi).

The penetration of these microorganisms is prevented by an advanced defence mechanism – the immune system. A strong immune system relies on normal daily exposure to these microbial influences. Overly hygienic measures have a detrimental effect on our immunity. ^{12 13} Only people with a weak or faulty immune system should be protected by extensive hygiene or social distancing.

Influenza will re-emerge in the autumn (in combination with covid-19) and a possible decrease in natural resilience may lead to further casualties.

Our immune system consists of two parts: a congenital, non-specific immune system and an adaptive immune system.

The non-specific immune system forms a first barrier: skin, saliva, gastric juice, intestinal mucus, vibratory hair cells, commensal flora, … and prevents the attachment of micro-organisms to tissue.

If they do attach, macrophages can cause the microorganisms to be encapsulated and destroyed.

The adaptive immune system consists of mucosal immunity (IgA antibodies, mainly produced by cells in the intestines and lung epithelium), cellular immunity (T-cell activation), which can be generated in contact with foreign substances or microorganisms, and humoral immunity (IgM and IgG antibodies produced by the B cells).

Recent research shows that both systems are highly entangled.

It appears that most people already have a congenital or general immunity to e.g. influenza and other viruses. This is confirmed by the findings on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which was quarantined because of a few passengers who died of Covid-19. Most of the passengers were elderly and were in an ideal situation of transmission on the ship. However, 75% did not appear to be infected. So even in this high-risk group, the majority are resistant to the virus.

A study in the journal Cell shows that most people neutralise the coronavirus by mucosal (IgA) and cellular immunity (T-cells), while experiencing few or no symptoms ¹⁴.

Researchers found up to 60% SARS-Cov-2 reactivity with CD4+T cells in a non-infected population, suggesting cross-reactivity with other cold (corona) viruses.¹⁵

Most people therefore already have a congenital or cross-immunity because they were already in contact with variants of the same virus.

The antibody formation (IgM and IgG) by B-cells only occupies a relatively small part of our immune system. This may explain why, with an antibody percentage of 5-10%, there may be a group immunity anyway. The efficacy of vaccines is assessed precisely on the basis of whether or not we have these antibodies. This is a misrepresentation.

Most people who test positive (PCR) have no complaints. Their immune system is strong enough. Strengthening natural immunity is a much more logical approach. Prevention is an important, insufficiently highlighted pillar: healthy, full-fledged nutrition, exercise in fresh air, without a mask, stress reduction and nourishing emotional and social contacts.

Consequences of social isolation on physical and mental health

Social isolation and economic damage led to an increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse.¹⁶

Studies have shown that the more social and emotional commitments people have, the more resistant they are to viruses. It is much more likely that isolation and quarantine have fatal consequences. ¹⁷

The isolation measures have also led to physical inactivity in many older people due to their being forced to stay indoors. However, sufficient exercise has a positive effect on cognitive functioning, reducing depressive complaints and anxiety and improving physical health, energy levels, well-being and, in general, quality of life.¹⁸

Fear, persistent stress and loneliness induced by social distancing have a proven negative influence on psychological and general health. ¹⁹

A highly contagious virus with millions of deaths without any treatment?

Mortality turned out to be many times lower than expected and close to that of a normal seasonal flu (0.2%). ²⁰
The number of registered corona deaths therefore still seems to be overestimated.
There is a difference between death by corona and death with corona. Humans are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria at the same time. Taking into account the fact that most people who developed serious symptoms suffered from additional pathology, one cannot simply conclude that the corona-infection was the cause of death. This was mostly not taken into account in the statistics.

The most vulnerable groups can be clearly identified. The vast majority of deceased patients were 80 years of age or older. The majority (70%) of the deceased, younger than 70 years, had an underlying disorder, such as cardiovascular suffering, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease or obesity. The vast majority of infected persons (>98%) did not or hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.

Meanwhile, there is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.

This effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of colleagues in the field with impressive results. This contrasts sharply with the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by double-blind studies) which in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) has even led to a ban on this therapy. A meta-analysis in The Lancet, which could not demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The primary data sources used proved to be unreliable and 2 out of 3 authors were in conflict of interest. However, most of the guidelines based on this study remained unchanged … ^{48 49}
We have serious questions about this state of affairs.
In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients on a daily basis, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference which has been watched millions of times.^{21 51}
French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille (IHU) also presented this promising combination therapy as early as April. Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured many patients in his practice with HCQ and zinc, called on colleagues in a petition for freedom of therapy.²²
The definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy.²³

From the distressing media images of ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) where people were suffocating and given artificial respiration in agony, we now know that this was caused by an exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the pulmonary blood vessels. The administration of blood thinners and dexamethasone and the avoidance of artificial ventilation, which was found to cause additional damage to lung tissue, means that this dreaded complication, too, is virtually not fatal anymore. ⁴⁷

It is therefore not a killer virus, but a well-treatable condition.

Propagation

Spreading occurs by drip infection (only for patients who cough or sneeze) and aerosols in closed, unventilated rooms. Contamination is therefore not possible in the open air. Contact tracing and epidemiological studies show that healthy people (or positively tested asymptomatic carriers) are virtually unable to transmit the virus. Healthy people therefore do not put each other at risk. ^{24 25}
Transfer via objects (e.g. money, shopping or shopping trolleys) has not been scientifically proven.^{26 27 28}

All this seriously calls into question the whole policy of social distancing and compulsory mouth masks for healthy people – there is no scientific basis for this.

Masks

Oral masks belong in contexts where contacts with proven at-risk groups or people with upper respiratory complaints take place, and in a medical context/hospital-retirement home setting. They reduce the risk of droplet infection by sneezing or coughing. Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections. ^{29 30 31}

Wearing a mask is not without side effects. ^{32 33} Oxygen deficiency (headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask.³⁴

Our Labour Code (Codex 6) refers to a CO2 content (ventilation in workplaces) of 900 ppm, maximum 1200 ppm in special circumstances. After wearing a mask for one minute, this toxic limit is considerably exceeded to values that are three to four times higher than these maximum values. Anyone who wears a mask is therefore in an extreme poorly ventilated room. ³⁵

Inappropriate use of masks without a comprehensive medical cardio-pulmonary test file is therefore not recommended by recognised safety specialists for workers.
Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity / temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, thus meeting strict safety standards. ³⁶

A second corona wave?

A second wave is now being discussed in Belgium, with a further tightening of the measures as a result. However, closer examination of Sciensano’s figures (latest report of 3 September 2020)³⁷ shows that, although there has been an increase in the number of infections since mid-July, there was no increase in hospital admissions or deaths at that time. It is therefore not a second wave of corona, but a so-called “case chemistry” due to an increased number of tests. ⁵⁰
The number of hospital admissions or deaths showed a shortlasting minimal increase in recent weeks, but in interpreting it, we must take into account the recent heatwave. In addition, the vast majority of the victims are still in the population group >75 years.
This indicates that the proportion of the measures taken in relation to the working population and young people is disproportionate to the intended objectives.
The vast majority of the positively tested “infected” persons are in the age group of the active population, which does not develop any or merely limited symptoms, due to a well-functioning immune system.
So nothing has changed – the peak is over.

Strengthening a prevention policy

The corona measures form a striking contrast to the minimal policy pursued by the government until now, when it comes to well-founded measures with proven health benefits such as the sugar tax, the ban on (e-)cigarettes and making healthy food, exercise and social support networks financially attractive and widely accessible. It is a missed opportunity for a better prevention policy that could have brought about a change in mentality in all sections of the population with clear results in terms of public health. At present, only 3% of the health care budget goes to prevention. ²

The Hippocratic Oath

As a doctor, we took the Hippocratic Oath:
“I will above all care for my patients, promote their health and alleviate their suffering”.

“I will inform my patients correctly.”

“Even under pressure, I will not use my medical knowledge for practices that are against humanity.”
The current measures force us to act against this oath.
Other health professionals have a similar code.

The ‘primum non nocere’, which every doctor and health professional assumes, is also undermined by the current measures and by the prospect of the possible introduction of a generalised vaccine, which is not subject to extensive prior testing.

Vaccine

Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.³⁸
Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards. An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from possible harm, raises serious questions. ^{39 40} We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs.
On a global scale, 700 000 cases of damage or death are expected as a result of the vaccine.⁴¹
If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.

The role of the media and the official communication plan

Over the past few months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed to stand almost uncritically behind the panel of experts and the government, there, where it is precisely the press that should be critical and prevent one-sided governmental communication. This has led to a public communication in our news media, that was more like propaganda than objective reporting.

In our opinion, it is the task of journalism to bring news as objectively and neutrally as possible, aimed at finding the truth and critically controlling power, with dissenting experts also being given a forum in which to express themselves.

This view is supported by the journalistic codes of ethics.⁴²

The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the only possible solution, and that everyone stood behind this lockdown, made it difficult for people with a different view, as well as experts, to express a different opinion.

Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media, where different views could be expressed.

We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to tunnel vision. This policy also has a paralysing effect and feeds fear and concern in society. In this context, we reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in the European Union! ⁴³

The way in which Covid-19 has been portrayed by politicians and the media has not done the situation any good either. War terms were popular and warlike language was not lacking. There has often been mention of a ‘war’ with an ‘invisible enemy’ who has to be ‘defeated’. The use in the media of phrases such as ‘care heroes in the front line’ and ‘corona victims’ has further fuelled fear, as has the idea that we are globally dealing with a ‘killer virus’.

The relentless bombardment with figures, that were unleashed on the population day after day, hour after hour, without interpreting those figures, without comparing them to flu deaths in other years, without comparing them to deaths from other causes, has induced a real psychosis of fear in the population. This is not information, this is manipulation.

We deplore the role of the WHO in this, which has called for the infodemic (i.e. all divergent opinions from the official discourse, including by experts with different views) to be silenced by an unprecedented media censorship.^{43 44}

We urgently call on the media to take their responsibilities here!

We demand an open debate in which all experts are heard.

Emergency law versus Human Rights

 

The general principle of good governance calls for the proportionality of government decisions to be weighed up in the light of the Higher Legal Standards: any interference by government must comply with the fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Interference by public authorities is only permitted in crisis situations. In other words, discretionary decisions must be proportionate to an absolute necessity.

The measures currently taken concern interference in the exercise of, among other things, the right to respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, the right to education, etc., and must therefore comply with fundamental rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
For example, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the ECHR, interference with the right to private and family life is permissible only if the measures are necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the regulatory text on which the interference is based must be sufficiently clear, foreseeable and proportionate to the objectives pursued.⁴⁵

The predicted pandemic of millions of deaths seemed to respond to these crisis conditions, leading to the establishment of an emergency government. Now that the objective facts show something completely different, the condition of inability to act otherwise (no time to evaluate thoroughly if there is an emergency) is no longer in place. Covid-19 is not a cold virus, but a well treatable condition with a mortality rate comparable to the seasonal flu. In other words, there is no longer an insurmountable obstacle to public health.

There is no state of emergency.

Immense damage caused by the current policies

An open discussion on corona measures means that, in addition to the years of life gained by corona patients, we must also take into account other factors affecting the health of the entire population. These include damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse)¹⁶ and economic damage.

If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is out of all proportion, the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as a reason for the emergency law.

As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures.

• We therefore demand an immediate end to all measures.
• We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.
• Following on from ACU 2020 ⁴⁶ https://acu2020.org/nederlandse-versie/ we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law.⁴³

Distribution of this letter

We would like to make a public appeal to our professional associations and fellow carers to give their opinion on the current measures.

We draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which carers can and dare to speak out.

With this open letter, we send out the signal that progress on the same footing does more harm than good, and call on politicians to inform themselves independently and critically about the available evidence – including that from experts with different views, as long as it is based on sound science – when rolling out a policy, with the aim of promoting optimum health.

With concern, hope and in a personal capacity.

1. https://www.health.belgium.be/nl/wie-zijn-we#Missie
2. standaard.be/preventie
3. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution
4. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health
5. https://swprs.org/feiten-over-covid19/
6. https://the-iceberg.net/
7. https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm
8. President John Magufuli of Tanzania: “Even Papaya and Goats are Corona positive” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207HuOxltvI
9. Open letter by biochemist Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez to the Dutch chamber https://www.gentechvrij.nl/2020/08/15/foute-interpretatie/
10. Interview with Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez https://troo.tube/videos/watch/6ed900eb-7459-4a1b-93fd-b393069f4fcd?fbclid=IwAR1XrullC2qopJjgFxEgbSTBvh-4ZCuJa1VxkHTXEtYMEyGG3DsNwUdaatY
11. https://infekt.ch/2020/04/sind-wir-tatsaechlich-im-blindflug/
12. Lambrecht, B., Hammad, H. The immunology of the allergy epidemic and the hygiene hypothesis. Nat Immunol 18, 1076–1083 (2017). https://www.nature.com/articles/ni.3829
13. Sharvan Sehrawat, Barry T. Rouse, Does the hygiene hypothesis apply to COVID-19 susceptibility?, Microbes and Infection, 2020, ISSN 1286-4579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.002
14. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30610-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420306103%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
15. https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-08-11/9-manieren-om-corona-te-voorkomen/
16. Feys, F., Brokken, S., & De Peuter, S. (2020, May 22). Risk-benefit and cost-utility analysis for COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium: the impact on mental health and wellbeing. https://psyarxiv.com/xczb3/
17. Kompanje, 2020
18. Conn, Hafdahl en Brown, 2009; Martinsen 2008; Yau, 2008
19. https://brandbriefggz.nl/
20. https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/#overall-mortality
21. https://www.xandernieuws.net/algemeen/groep-artsen-vs-komt-in-verzet-facebook-bant-hun-17-miljoen-keer-bekeken-video/
22. https://www.petities.com/einde_corona_crises_overheid_sta_behandeling_van_covid-19_met_hcq_en_zink_toe
23. https://zelfzorgcovid19.nl/statistieken-zwitserland-met-hcq-zonder-hcq-met-hcq-leveren-het-bewijs/
24. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
25. http://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/corona-virus/transmission-of-covid-19-by-asymptomatic-cases.html
26. WHO https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-we-did-not-say-that-cash-was-transmitting-coronavirus-2020-03-06
27. https://www.nordkurier.de/ratgeber/es-gibt-keine-gefahr-jemandem-beim-einkaufen-zu-infizieren-0238940804.html
28. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-banknotes/banknotes-carry-no-particular-coronavirus-risk-german-disease-expert-idUSKBN20Y2ZT
29. 29. Contradictory statements by our virologists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K9xfmkMsvM
30. https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-07-05/stop-met-anderhalve-meter-afstand-en-het-verplicht-dragen-van-mondkapjes/
31. Security expert Tammy K. Herrema Clark https://youtu.be/TgDm_maAglM
32. https://theplantstrongclub.org/2020/07/04/healthy-people-should-not-wear-face-masks-by-jim-meehan-md/
33. https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/
34. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200315/Reusing-masks-may-increase-your-risk-of-coronavirus-infection-expert-says.aspx
35. https://werk.belgie.be/nl/nieuws/nieuwe-regels-voor-de-kwaliteit-van-de-binnenlucht-werklokalen
36. https://kavlaanderen.blogspot.com/2020/07/als-maskers-niet-werken-waarom-dragen.html
37. https://covid-19.sciensano.be/sites/default/files/Covid19/Meest%20recente%20update.pdf
38. Haralambieva, I.H. et al., 2015. The impact of immunosenescence on humoral immune response variation after influenza A/H1N1 vaccination in older subjects. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26044074/
39. Global vaccine safety summit WHO 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXXDLGKmPg
40. No liability manufacturers vaccines https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200804_95956456?fbclid=IwAR0IgiA-6sNVQvE8rMC6O5Gq5xhOulbcN1BhdI7Rw-7eq_pRtJDCxde6SQI
41. https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1572921830018/bill-gates-admits-700000-people-will-be-harmed-or-killed-by-his-covid-19-solution
42. Journalistic code https://www.rvdj.be/node/63
43. Disinformation related to COVID-19 approaches European Commission EurLex, juni 2020 (this file will not damage your computer)
44. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext
45. http://www.raadvst-consetat.be/dbx/adviezen/67142.pdf#search=67.142
46. https://acu2020.org/
47. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0049384820303297?token=9718E5413AACDE0D14A3A0A56A89A3EF744B5A201097F4459AE565EA5EDB222803FF46D7C6CD3419652A215FDD2C874F
48. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
49. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
50. There is no revival of the pandemic, but a so-called casedemic due to more testing.
    https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/crucial-viewing-understanding-covid-19-casedemic1
51. https://docs4opendebate.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/white-paper-on-hcq-from-AFD.pdf

It's Far Too Late To Think Lockdowns Can Make COVID-19 Go Away

 

How I wish this was my last post on this subject which in the end will have changed our lives for no good reasons. The science is now in: The lockdowns were useless. The masks have a marginal use, mostly in slowing down a virus which we now know is far less deadly than initially understood or feared.

 But then, now what?

 Most probably nothing or rather more of the same. Politicians do not build their carriers by saying sorry. And so many people have been riding the Covid-19 gravy train that it will be hard to move back from the brink even if the economic risks far out-weight the medical benefits.

So Melbourne will keep a tight lockdown that will save no one, just prolong the economic agony of small businesses and individuals. Israel is entering another 3 weeks lockdown which sounds suspiciously political... No end in sight!

It's Far Too Late To Think Lockdowns Can Make COVID-19 Go Away

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

In the early days of the coronavirus crisis, the rationale given for lockdowns was that it was necessary to stay at home for "fifteen days to slow the spread." The idea was that social distancing was necessary so that hospitals and other healthcare resources would not be overwhelmed.

 

However, by the summer of 2020, whether by design or not, it became common to hear media pundits, politicians, and even some scientists either imply or outright claim that social distancing could permanently flatten the curve or otherwise somehow cause a drastic reduction in overall covid-19 deaths.

For example, The Hill's Reid Wilson claimed in July: "We know how to stop this virus, it requires social distancing, it requires wearing a mask, and constant hand sanitizers and staying home as much as possible."

Yet this displays a woeful lack of understanding about the purpose and effectiveness of lockdowns.

Lockdowns of the sort seen in April and May in this country do nothing at all to "stop this virus."

The lockdown strategy only works to completely stop a disease if certain conditions can be met. Specifically, the lockdown must be extremely strict,  and it must be maintained indefinitely—perhaps for years—until a safe and effective vaccine is widely available.

Clearly, the US is nowhere near enforcing a lockdown like this, nor does it appear that a vaccine—certainly not a well-tested one—is imminent. Thus, given that we know lockdowns themselves cause deaths through suicides, drug overdoses, and more, trying to impose a strict lockdown until that day comes would be a high-stakes gamble few will be willing or able to endure.

Lockdowns Only Provide "Temporary Suppression"

For some insightful observers, this has been clear from the very beginning. Writing back in April of this year, Joseph Ladapo, a professor of medicine at UCLA, wrote:

There is no guarantee of a vaccine within the next 18 months. We have taken measures to slow the virus, but these can’t stop it. The only thing that can stop the virus at this advanced stage of community transmission is a complete lockdown, which can happen in authoritarian countries like China, but not in the U.S.

Are shutdowns enough? No. Despite the efforts, there is still enough human contact to ensure the virus will spread. Take a look at the long list of “essential” services and exemptions on California’s Covid-19 website, for example. Shutdowns will cause the virus to spread more slowly, but it will spread nonetheless.

When shutdowns end, the virus will spread and Covid-19 deaths will increase. Without a vaccine and community immunity—often called “herd immunity”—this outcome is all but guaranteed. The only thing that will temporarily quell it in the near term, short of a miracle treatment, is another shutdown. But states will get only one pass at this. Once lifted, the appetite for a repeat shutdown will be tepid at best, even in left-leaning states. The reality of the shutdown’s costs—the upheaval caused by school closures, economic hurt, social isolation and lost lives and livelihoods—will be fresh. Some argue that stopping Covid-19 and protecting the economy are one and the same. Although this is true, it is too late to do either.

Not even the most enthusiastic supporters of draconian lockdowns, including Neil Ferguson, author of the infamous (and very wrong) Imperial College model, thought it possible to eradicate the disease through lockdowns. The Imperial report refers to lockdowns simply as a method of "temporary suppression."

As Ladapo notes, at this stage in the game, i too late to contain the disease without a total lockdown where so much as a trip to the grocery store is verboten. Moreover, international borders would have to be sealed shut to prevent infected populations from entering the country. Given the success with which governments have controlled the flow of migrants, we can guess about how successful that strategy would be.

When we add all this together, given current realities, social distancing and lockdowns cannot possibly serve any purpose other than to slow down the spread so as to lessen the burden on healthcare facilities. The only lives saved would be those who would otherwise have been denied medical care by an overwhelmed medical system. But this is a relatively small number, and in the developed world medical systems are now nowhere near running out of beds.

Lockdowns May Not Even Flatten the Curve Enough to Create Any Net Gain

Thus, another round of stay-at-home orders or lockdowns certainly won't make the disease go away. They'll just delay the spread to a future date. Moreover, it’s debatable how effective lockdowns are at accomplishing even this. In a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha conclude that we may be even past the time when lockdowns make much of a difference to outcomes.

It appears countries and regions follow a similar pattern "everywhere." Transmission rates are high at first, the study notes, but growth in the spread of the disease quickly declines after twenty to thirty days. After this, “the growth rate of daily deaths in all regions has hovered around zero or slightly below.” This is regardless of whether or not there are social distancing laws or mask mandates. In other words, it doesn't look like lockdowns (which now vary widely in their extent and severity) are even changing the shape of the curve anymore.

Thus, a few months out from the initial surge, growth rates in all regions became more and more similar across jurisdictions. The authors therefore conclude:

given the observation that disease transmission rates have remained low with relatively low dispersion across locations worldwide for the past several months as NPIs [nonpharmaceutical interventions] have been lifted, we are concerned that estimates of the effectiveness of NPIs in reducing disease transmission from the earlier period may not be relevant for forecasting the impact of the relaxation of those NPIs in the current period, due to some unobserved switch in regime.other words, not only are we well past the time when lockdowns might have flattened the initial surge in transmissions, at this point in the pandemic it doesn’t look like lockdowns would even do much to flatten the curve to the point that we're better off.

Dogmatic advocates for lockdowns are likely to continue pushing for open-ended mandates until a vaccine is widely available. But they're gambling with people's lives.

How many children must be impoverished and how many jobless men and women must die by suicide or drug overdoses in the meantime?

Every day of a lockdown puts more lives in danger.

The 1% blunder: How a simple but fatal math mistake by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns

 

By Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, 'Doctoring Data - How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,' is available here.

In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was 'akin to a severe flu' and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.

When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.

You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people - and that's a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.

But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake. A pretty major thing to make a mistake about, but that's what happened.

Such things occur. On September 23, 1998, NASA permanently lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter. It was supposed to go round and round the planet looking at the weather, but instead it hit Mars at around 5,000 mph, exploding into tiny fragments. It didn't measure the weather; it became the weather - for a few seconds anyway.

An investigation later found that the disaster happened because engineers had used the wrong units. They didn't convert pound seconds into Newton seconds when doing their calculations. Imperial, not metric. This, remember, was NASA. An organisation not completely full of numbskulls.

Now you and I probably have no idea of the difference between a pound second and a Newton second (it's 0.67 - I looked it up). But you would kind-of hope NASA would. In fact, I am sure they do, but they didn't notice, so the figures came out wrong. The initial mistake was made, and was baked into the figures.

Kaboom!

With Covid, a similar mistake happened. One type of fatality rate was substituted for another. The wrong rate was then used to predict the likely death rate - and, as with NASA, no-one picked up the error.

In order to understand what happened, you have to understand the difference between two medical terms that sound the same - but are completely different. Rather like a pound second or a Newton second.

Which fatality rate, did you say?

First, there's the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This is the total number of people who are infected by a disease and the number of them who die. This figure includes those who have no symptoms at all, or only very mild symptoms - those who stayed at home, coughed a bit and watched Outbreak.

Then there's the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is the number of people suffering serious symptoms, who are probably ill enough to be in hospital. Clearly, people who are seriously ill - the "cases" - are going to have a higher mortality rate than those who are infected, many of whom don't have symptoms. Put simply - all cases are infections, but not all infections are cases.

Which means that the CFR will always be far higher than the IFR. With influenza, the CFR is around ten times as high as the IFR. Covid seems to have a similar proportion.

Now, clearly, you do not want to get these figures mixed up. By doing so you would either wildly overestimate, or wildly underestimate, the impact of Covid. But mix these figures up, they did.

The error started in America, but didn't end there. In healthcare, the US is very much the dog that wags the tail. The figures they come up with are used globally.

On February 28, 2020, an editorial was released by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the editorial stated: "... the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza."

They added that influenza has a CFR of approximately 0.1 percent. One person in a thousand who gets it badly, dies.

But that quoted CFR for influenza was ten times too low - they meant to say the IFR, the Infection Fatality Rate, for influenza was 0.1 percent. This was their fatal - quite literally - mistake.

Comment: A more skeptical mind might think that this was no mere mistake, but deliberate.

The mistake was compounded. On March 11, the same experts testified to Congress, stating that Covid's CFR was likely to be about one percent, so one person dying from a hundred who fell seriously ill. Which, as time has passed, has proved to be pretty accurate.

At this meeting, they compared the likely impact of Covid to flu. But they used the wrong CFR for influenza, the one stated in the previous NEJM editorial. 0.1 percent, or one in a thousand. The one that was ten times too low.

Flu toll 1,000 - Covid toll 10,000

So, they matched up the one percent CFR of Covid with the incorrect 0.1 percent CFR of flu. Suddenly, Covid was going to be ten times as deadly.

If influenza killed 50, Covid was going to kill 500. If influenza killed a million, Covid was going to get 10 million. No wonder Congress, then the world, panicked. Because they were told Covid was going to be ten times worse than influenza. They could see three million deaths in the US alone, and 70 million around the world.

I don't expect you or I to get this sort of thing right. But I bloody well expect the experts to do so. They didn't. They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.

Here's what the paper, "Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation",says: "On March 11, 2020,... based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders."

On February 28 it was estimated that Covid was going to have about the same impact as a bad influenza season - almost certainly correct. Eleven days later, the same group of experts predicted that the mortality rate was going to be ten times as high. This was horribly, catastrophically, running-into-Mars-at-5,000-miles-an-hour wrong.

Enter the Mad Modellers of Lockdown

In the UK, the group I call the Mad Modellers of lockdown, the Imperial College experts, created the same panic. On March 16, they used an estimated IFR of 0.9 percent to predict that, without lockdown, Covid would kill around 500,000 in the UK.

Is this prediction anywhere close?

So far, the UK has had around 40,000 Covid deaths. Significantly less than 0.1 percent, but not that far off. Of course, people will say... "We had lockdown... without it so many more would have died. Most people have not been infected..." etc.

To answer this, we need to know the true IFR. Is it a 0.1 percent, or one percent? If it is one percent, we have more than 400,000 deaths to go. If it is 0.1 percent, this epidemic has run its course. For this year, at least.

With swine flu, remember that the IFR started at around two percent. In the end, it was 0.02 percent, which was five times lower than the lowest estimate during the outbreak. The more you test, the lower the IFR will fall.

So where can we look to get the current figures on the IFR? The best place to look is at the country that has tested more people than anywhere else as a proportion of their population: Iceland.

As of last week, Iceland's IFR stood at 0.16 per cent. It cannot go up from here. It can only fall. People can't start dying of a disease they haven't got.

This means that we'll probably end up with an IFR of about 0.1 percent, maybe less. Not the 0.02 percent of Swine Flu - somewhere between the two, perhaps. In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy has proved to be pretty much bang on.

Which means that we've had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that the lockdown achieved almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.

Mangled beyond recognition

Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no-one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill. 

Instead of celebrating that, we've artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid "case." This is not medicine. A "case" is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.

Now, however, you test positive, and you're a "case." Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.

When researchers look back at this pandemic, they'll have absolutely no idea who died because of Covid, or who died -coincidentally- with it. Everything's been mashed together in a determined effort to make the virus look as deadly as possible.

Lockdown happened because we were told that Coivid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent - max.

That's the figure estimated back in February, by the major players in viral epidemiology. A figure that has turned out to be remarkably accurate. Bright guys... bad mistake.

We've killed tens of thousands - for nothing

But because we panicked, we've added hugely to the toll. Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.

We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.

It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.

We threw - to use health secretary Matt Hancock's ridiculous phrase - a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.

That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.

Which means that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself. This has been a slow-motion stampede, where the elderly - in particular - were trampled to death.

We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.

We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengthening waiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses - the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.

Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.

It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let's end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again.