by Iain Davis
The WHO protocols were based upon an extremely poor scientific paper, drowning in conflicts of interest. Their protocols didn't appear to target anything specific to the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome and the research almost certainly wasn't peer reviewed.
The RT-PCR test was not designed and was never intended to be used as a diagnostic tool. The Portuguese courts were among the many who ruled that it was not reliable [75] for diagnosing a disease. The global testing regime for COVID 19 cases, and the alleged identification of asymptomatic cases, was based upon corrupted "junk science" and the WHO's demand to "test, test, test."
Sources:
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200418121758/https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-Report-9.pdf
[2] - https://archive.is/QSRip
[3] - https://archive.is/7qLnu
[4] - https://archive.is/aA1nS
[5] - https://archive.is/JdPaU
[6] - https://archive.is/yeadM
[7] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201126141908/https://lockdownsceptics.org/second-analysis-of-fergusons-model/
[8] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210121125803/https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Impact-assessment-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-NPIs-to-reduce-COVID-19-mortality-and-healthcare-demand-.pdf
[9] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210111010736/http://www.notbored.org/biosecurity.pdf
[10] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200228162206/https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210316150015/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20031773v2.full.pdf
[12] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042718300101
[13] - https://in-this-together.com/lokin-20/
[14] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function
[15] - https://archive.is/2jPF0
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200801190545/https://unherd.com/thepost/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-the-covid-19-epidemic-was-never-exponential/
[17] - https://archive.is/dyfoL
[18] - https://archive.is/Ttyzz
[19] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201207134626/https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
[20] - https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
[21] - https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/06/another-10-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
[22] - https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/17/8-more-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
[23] - https://www.bitchute.com/video/1eAkFlcxvxAq/
[24] - https://archive.is/2FvEO
[25] - https://gbdeclaration.org/
[26] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201012061211/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-herd-immunity-great-barrington-declaration-scientists-signatures-fake-names-b912778.html
[27] - https://archive.is/JPcxP
[28] - https://in-this-together.com/ccdh-part-1/
[29] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200606074811/https://www.ippr.org/about/how-we-are-funded
[30] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201113104706/https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/12/why-has-google-censored-the-great-barrington-declaration/
[31] - https://in-this-together.com/what-if-conspiracy-theory-is-true/
[32] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200720180002/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888784/S0384_Sixteenth_SAGE_meeting_on_Wuhan_Coronavirus__Covid-19__.pdf
[33] - https://archive.vn/qnCI5
[34] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947.1
[35] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7
[36] - https://thesequencingcenter.com/knowledge-base/de-novo-assembly/
[37] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722160622/https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/55/4/611/5631762
[38] - https://archive.is/n2Q9s
[39] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200315194723/https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2
[40] - https://archive.is/hEnZv
[41] - https://archive.is/YwH5g
[42] - https://in-this-together.com/covid-19-evidence-of-global-fraud/
[43] - https://archive.is/zK9JZ
[44] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210304105558/http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-Dsalud-November-2020.pdf
[45] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210319053159/https://www.eurosurveillance.org/upload/site-assets/imgs/2020-09-Editorial%20Board%20PDF.pdf
[46] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201121033922/https://www.roche-as.es/lm_pdf/MDx_40-0776_96_Sarbeco-E-gene_V200204_09164154001%20(1).pdf
[47] - https://archive.is/Vulo5
[48] - https://archive.is/CDEUG
[49] - https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
[50] - https://archive.is/SVmd5
[51] - https://archive.is/F295d
[52] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210211003759/https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456
[53] - https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2v
[54] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bustin
[55] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722160622/https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/55/4/611/5631762
[56] - https://prn.fm/infectious-myth-stephen-bustin-challenges-rt-pcr/
[57] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210106190155/https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603
[58] - https://archive.is/wNQSx
[59] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201105041827/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf
[60] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14522060/
[61] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/
[62] - https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2020200642
[63] - https://archive.is/k0G0V
[64] - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/section/1/enacted
[65] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210226155033if_/https://www.lexico.com/definition/disease
[66] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201129085630/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/temperature-cough-breathing-isolation-covid-19/
[67] - https://archive.is/bHCyG
[68] - https://archive.is/s89dU
[69] - https://odysee.com/@InThisTogether:d/KarryMullis-PCR:b
[70] - https://archive.is/9cvn8
[71] - https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/14/coronavirus-and-regime-change-burundis-covid-coup/
[72] - https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/18/discuss-president-magufuli-dead-at-61/
[73] - https://www.africanews.com/2021/03/19/who-chief-urges-tanzania-s-new-president-suluhu-to-tackle-covid-19/
[74] - https://archive.is/6cptS
[75] - https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/11/16/latest-news-195/#portuguese-appeals-court-deems-pcr-tests-unreliable
Chapter 6 - Pseudopandemic Lockdowns
The altered definition of "pandemic" enabled the 2009 and 2020 pseudopandemics to be declared. In 2020, Report 9 provided the alarmist justification for suppression (lockdown) and the Cormen - Drosten et al inspired WHO protocols guaranteed the necessary inflated RT-PCR "case" numbers. The core conspirators had created the conditions for their informed influencers to set about building the biosecurity State.
Always falsely claiming they were "led by science," by utilising mainstream media (MSM) propagandists, informed influencers were able to convince the population to forfeit their inalienable rights and freedoms in exchange for biosecurity "safety." Rights would be exchanged for State
franchise privileges, granted to those who obeyed and behaved accordingly.
The initial public acceptance of the pseudopandemic wasn't irrational. With an unknown threat of disease it made sense to err on the side of caution. However, there were also early indications that something wasn't right.
In January 2020, as the pseudopandemic developed in China, the world was shown terrifying images and news reports. We were informed about people dropping dead in the streets, overflowing mortuaries, health services inundated with desperately ill patients who apparently lay dying in crowded hospital corridors; screaming, desperate people sealed into their own homes behind steel shutters and makeshift barricades and brutal police arrests of those who refused to comply with their "lockdown" orders.
Unusually, despite China being the alleged enemy of the West and a country normally held up as an example of totalitarian state control and censorship, suddenly the western mainstream media (MSM) believed every report coming out of China. They accepted every image and video clip without question, relaying whatever the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) released to western audiences as verified, unchallenged, reported fact.
None of the horrendous Chinese scenes, showered upon us by the western MSM and the social media companies, subsequently transpired anywhere else other than inside Wuhan. It seems COVID 19 only caused the complete breakdown of society in one city in China, and only for two or three very well-reported weeks.
While the CCP has almost total state control of information in China and engages in ruthless suppression of Chinese activists, "citizen journalists" were able to share their video reports from inside Wuhan during the Chinese authority's lockdown [1] of the city. However, now that Wuhan lockdown restrictions have been lifted they can't.
Once the concept of the pseudopandemic was widely accepted in the West, China rapidly moved on to containing and then quickly eradicating any threat from COVID 19. With just 63 cases and 3 deaths per million of the population, China has one of the lowest COVID 19 infection and mortality rates in the world.
In truth, all of these reported statistics are dubious. There isn't really any reason to believe any of them. Neither for China nor any other country. However our entire way of life has changed as a result, so we can justifiably reference them. State franchises certainly do.
While China has long since moved on from COVID 19, western aligned democracies face 3rd, 4th or who knows how many more waves of the deadly virus. Primarily due to variants which don't appear to have any effect in China.
In January 2021 the UK Chief Medical advisor warned the nation that Lockdowns may be required practically indefinitely [2] regardless of any vaccine. Almost as he spoke massive crowds were partying hard [3] for New Year in Wuhan.
So it is no wonder that western democracies copied the suppression polices if the Chinese dictatorship. These policies were so successful that they managed to contain a respiratory virus, which initially appeared to spread like wildfire, mainly to a few districts in one city [4].
However, western attempts to emulate Chinese lockdowns appeared to fail miserably. China's claimed lockdown success was firmly in the minds of SAGE, and notably Prof. Neil Ferguson, whose qualifications in physics and inept computer programming skills apparently made him the UK's leading epidemiologist.
Speaking to the Times, Ferguson recounted [5] the SAGE discussions which led them to advise the UK State to impose lockdowns. He said:
"We knew it was possible that social distancing could control a respiratory virus....but there is an enormous cost associated with it..... I think people’s sense of what is possible, in terms of control, changed quite dramatically between January and March....[China] claimed to have flattened the curve.....as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.....It’s a communist one party state, we said, we couldn’t get away with it in Europe we thought.. and then Italy did it, and we realised we could.”
Unfortunately, once again, Ferguson was hopelessly deluded. Totalitarian lockdown policies don't work at all. He seems to have fallen for the tightly controlled propaganda of the CCP. Lockdowns certainly weren't working in Italy, which was the COVID 19 hotspot of Europe at the time, so why SAGE thought they were brilliant is mystifying.
While SAGE and Imperial College London (ICL) unquestionably accepted Chinese stories about lockdowns, they were less convinced by peer reviewed Chinese scientific data. This clearly indicated the scale of the COVID 19 threat and the mortality risks were evident. Hence Public Health England's downgrading of COVID 19 from a High Consequence Infectious Disease. There was no statistical, scientific or medical reason for SAGE to suggest lockdown (NPI) policies.
Professor Mark Woolhouse, a member of SAGE's Spi-B behavioural science team, later admitted that lockdown was a "monumental mistake" [6]. However, practically the only body of scientific opinion which ever believed ICL's models and thought lockdowns were a good idea were SAGE and other selected "experts" who enjoyed State Franchise patronage.
Lockdowns evidently made no difference to the pseudopandemic outside of China. COVID 19 has apparently continued unabated in the West. As we shall see, numerous studies have demonstrated how ineffectual lockdown are. Yet it seems the UK State franchise, among many others, remains ideologically wedded to lockdowns. It didn't seem to matter what the scientific, medical or statistical evidence was.
Lockdown was a deliberate policy with predetermined goals unrelated to public health, not a rational response to a viral respiratory disease. Lockdowns (suppression) were designed to make the population suffer and to increase mortality. They heightened fears and contributed to the desired economic, social and political destruction (a motive we will discuss later). They also accustomed the people to their behavioural commitment to the new biosecurity State.
What Lockdown policies definitely did not achieve was reduce either the spread of disease or resultant mortality. Just as the Imperial College was wrong about projected infections and mortality so it was wrong about suppression (NPI's or lockdowns.)
By early June 2020 the WHO had already acknowledged that SARS-CoV-2 was an aerosol dispersed virus. Tiny virions, the viral RNA inside the capsid, spreading as aerosols would obviously be airborne, able to spread liberally in the atmosphere. Explaining how COVID 19 is spread between people the WHO stated [7]:
"The virus can spread from an infected person’s mouth or nose in small liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe heavily. These liquid particles are different sizes, ranging from larger ‘respiratory droplets’ to smaller 'aerosols’.... More studies are underway to better understand the conditions in which aerosol transmission is occurring."
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) stated that the evidence was growing that SARS-CoV-2 was spread by aerosol [8] and more than 200 scientists stated this was a route of transmission [9]. Yet the WHO remained airborne hesitant and didn't concede the obvious until May 2021 [10]. Until then they had only claimed aerosols may be airborne [11].
Throughout the pseudopandemic the WHO consistently ramped up fear of the virus. Yet they avoided defining SARS-CoV-2 as an airborne virus. This was because airborne transmission ruled out any chance that lockdown policies could possibly work.
Even without aerosol transmission there was never any reason to think suppression would be effective. Many epidemiologists, such as Professor Wittkowski, were trying to point this out before the politicians decided to base every decision on ICL's defective computer game and the misbegotten WHO RT-PCR test regime.
In March 2020 globally renowned microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi [12], warned that the scientific evidence justifying lockdowns simply didn't exist. Speaking in March 2020, Dr. Bhakdi said:
"Implementation of the current draconian measures.....can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Does any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no."
The social
and economic cost of incarcerating the healthy, thereby reducing their community immunity at the time it was most needed, had long been eschewed by scientists and policy makers. The lockdown cure would inevitably cause more human misery, illness, death and destruction than the disease. This wasn't a contentious point and was well understood by public health policy makers and experts alike.
In the 2011 Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy [13] the UK Department of health did not recommend any of the business closures or mass quarantines we saw in the response to COVID 19. No lockdowns, no masks (except in exceptional circumstances), no school closures and no travel restrictions. Business continuity was essential and it recommended that vaccine development should only be prioritised in the following circumstances:
"If it is not possible to limit the spread by achieving herd immunity, where so many people are immune that the disease cannot continue to infect people to maintain itself in the population."
The suggestion that social distancing and isolation might protect against a respiratory virus (whether aerosol dispersed or not) was first imagined in 2006 by a 14 year old Albuquerque school girl [14] whose virus transmission computer model won her third prize in her school science project awards. Laura Glass' father was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories in the US.
Robert was a data analyst with no medical or public health experience who, inspired by his daughters homework, published a paper [15] presenting the notion of social distancing and other NPI's. He even credited his daughter as a co-author. It was her idea after all.
Epidemiologists, immunologists and virologists became alarmed as this baseless theory began to take hold in the US administration. In response, eminently qualified scientists, including Prof. Donald A Henderson, the man largely credited with winning the fight against smallpox, published their refutation with Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza [16]. The report noted:
