A barrage of lies

The new variants, like Omicron, have evolved past the “vaccines” and so are merrily rampaging through the world – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara 

There is a category of anti-reality fetishists in the COVID saga who I term “Sweden deniers.” Do not mention the name! Sneer at the stats. Wait for inevitable impending doom to befall them. Mild restrictions, no outright lockdowns, no mask mandates, schools open, and the only riposte is to say the neighbours did even better. 

Small problem, if you add 2019 when the neighbours had bad influenza years and Sweden did not, then the three-year mortality stats, even with the care home mistake made in Sweden as in so many other places (congregating the vulnerable in closed quarters), is about even.

And even with 2019 set aside, between 3 January 2020 (ah those nostalgic times of semi-normalcy) and 18 June 2021, the country had negative excess mortality…fewer deaths than usual. And it has continued today to shrug off Delta and be unfazed by Omicron.

Some of the neighbours did “better” due to border controls, something not doable for Sweden due to greater density and geographical connectedness. Anyway, any “lockdown” attestation is irrelevant. The argument was “lockdown” was needed to stave off skyrocketing surges in mortality. If we’re saying, in a few outlier jurisdictions it “may” have helped mortality “fall” even further, clearly that hasn’t been the situation in the rest of the planet that was “locking” down in a frenzy. Sweden has outperformed virtually all of them.

And why should we think for a further few percentage points in “negative mortality”, Sweden should have undertaken the greatest infringement of civil liberties in modern history (like so much of the rest of the planet)? Instead of 2% lower mortality than usual, 5%?

And then pivot to the economy. Were Swedish consumers paralysed and immobilised indoors due to the libertine ways of their country? The Economist, ranking 23 rich countries for overall economic performance over the pandemic, has Sweden coming in 3rd, behind only Slovenia and Denmark. These rankings look at changes in GDP, household income, share prices, investment and even public debt. The US and Britain are floundering considerably farther down the list. 

Sweden did particularly well on public debt, limiting its rise as a share of GDP to 6.2 percentage points, compared to 19% in the US and over 22% in Britain. The Economist muses that “perhaps” the absence of “strict lockdowns” may have contributed. What a novel notion!

So, Sweden is 2 for 2. Neither are insane quasi-medieval “lockdowns” helpful re preventing large numbers of deaths and you needed no trade-off between personal health and economic health. How devastating to the dogma is that? 

The heroic Anders Tegnell, Chief Epidemiologist, has been noticeably absent, in the recent “vax pass” paranoia being asserted in a Sweden that is so statistically unperturbed by “Omi” and cohorts, that you have to wonder what else is at play. Though now they too have officially said they will scrap the remnants of the Covidian regime, mild as it has been there.

Multiplying lies

How perversely gullible we were as a populace. We bought the tale. A “novel” coronavirus, emerging spookily from bats and pangolins in China (rather than the gain of function perversities and bioweapon erotica of Fauci, NIH and their Chinese collaborators). A few weeks to “flatten the curve”, oops sorry, some months of a never before applied, hastily cobbled together concept called “lockdown” until the “vaccine” cavalry arrives.

And while you wile away your time, watching your business collapse, or loved ones perish alone, or children deteriorate and social bonds fray, pacify yourself by wearing a muzzle, obsessively washing your hands long after we learn the pathogen is airborne, keep scrubbing walls and counters and await the next proclamation from “panic porn” central.

Years later, lockdowns later, perpetual meltdown, and a world we once recognised evaporating away, when we cannot even manage to harmonise our global “testing” regime, healthcare systems upended, a generation of children educationally crippled in ways we cannot possibly fathom, and endless tirades from those insulated from consequences appalled that we may care about poverty, other sources of illness, or still trust the exquisite immune systems and natural immunity we evolved with over so many millennia.

And data was for dummies. Randomised trials said face masks were useless, so we were told to wear two! Now, cloth masks, the US CDC finally confesses, are of no help, so “upgrades” galore (they don’t work either).

When not enough would die to keep panic aloft, we changed the definition of “case” for the first time in medical history, so symptoms weren’t needed, only “positive tests” that were rife with inconsistencies and error. Oh, and after the “asymptomatic transmission” canard fell apart (every person a potential biohazard), as no actual instances of this could be found, we still kept stoking the “casedemic” and now said the “unvaccinated” were somehow uniquely harbouring the pathogen, spreading it, and instigating mutations (which were actually being provoked as anyone with a scintilla of scientific sense and experience would tell you, by “stressing” the virus through mass vaccination in the midst of a “pandemic” – again a first in medical history).

Quaint notions like giving medical attention to the actual, symptomatically ill, fell by the wayside, as did constitutional protections. And data rigging and distorting scare mongering were bountiful from WHO, CDC and other government or donor influenced institutions. 

Once more, we are overdue to look up the word “emergency.” It implies “emerging.” Two years later it is incoherent. What was an “emergency response” is now baked in as an “extralegal” if not “illegal” norm. 

So, we need to stop just having medical arguments. The authoritarians deplore data, censor any dissent, and smother alternatives. Calling someone a “science denier” as if government edicts translate to “science” should prove it is the government assertion of the right to intrude in our lives and choices that needs smokescreens. With flimsy excuses for being still so ineffectual before a seasonal viral strain, that is the key here. Refuse natural immunity and reap the whirlwind. 

With failing, leaky vaccines being manically jabbed and “boosted” with zero social benefit (as they don’t stop transmission), we are in year three of a coup, and as the nonsense grows ever more rancid, we have to finally, call it out, and refuse to go meekly into further chronic acquiescence. 

By what right?

This needs to be asked, meticulously and persistently. Finally, as Austria devolves into an authoritarian abyss, their powerful Constitutional Court has demanded detailed data from the Government Health Ministry justifying the C-19 response. 10 sets of questions have been sent to the Health Ministry, who has until 18 February to respond. 

To justify this trampling on rights, the court has asked the Health Minister to provide data across a broad range of topics including hospitalisations and deaths “with” as opposed to “from” COVID, the efficacy of masks, and “vaccines”, and evidence supporting the “lockdown of the unvaccinated.” Even if asserting they are more likely to need hospitalisation (debatable), the court has asked for that risk to be expressed in percentages. 

The Court is asking eminently sane questions. In the media there are assertions of 95% reduction of risk from severe disease. But the general risk of dying from COVID-19 (not differentiated by age or health stats) appears to be 0.1516%. So, what does the 95% efficacy therefore refer to? What do absolute and relative risk reduction actually mean here? 

The court also has questioned that while there seem to be one third fewer C-19 ascribed deaths in 2021, nevertheless weekly excess mortality is higher than the past year. What is the alleged explanation for that? We wait with fascinated interest, and hope this will be a template for other global inquiry.

And basic legality questions have to be asked. How can a state official “order” a 5-year-old be injected with experimental drugs when they are at nominal risk? Can you “order” someone to take chemotherapy rather than another, more holistic treatment? Of course not. It would be considered an outrageous invasion of autonomy. How can it be asserted here?

The “facts” fed us are worthless

Gloating facts were shovelled out after Christmas day in New York, asserting “children hospitalised with COVID-19 are rising.” This was pegged to even one positive PCR test for any child hospitalised for any reason. These PCR assays, as usual, were at unspecified amplification cycle thresholds (veering therefore from statistical “false positives” to outright distortion), and were “attached” to children with, for all we know, broken arms, strep throat, concussions, gastrointestinal issues. The aggregate “positively tested” in hospitals tells us very little.

Then there is “absolute” versus “relative” increases. In the parenthetical, we find 30 children between 12 and 17 had a positive C-19 result in NY hospitals the preceding week, and “roughly half” of the total number were below 5. Had the numbers between 5 and 11 (not given) been greater than between 12 and 17, you can be sure that would have been trumpeted, communicated with panting panic. 

So, if we ascribe 60 above the age of 5, giving 120 admissions over the week for whatever cause, given there are 4.2 million children in the state of New York, 120 positive COVID tests (of unknown diagnostic value and with potentially dubious amplification settings) over a seven-day period hardly tips the needle rationally towards panic.

The CDC continues to hyperventilate that “unvaccinated people who have previously recovered from a coronavirus infection” are “five times as likely to get COVID as those with two shots of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.” This contradicts a much-publicised study from Israel that has been vigorously reviewed. The results are the exact opposite (as usual). 

Leaving aside debates about the accuracy of “prior recovery” as being stated, the paper’s authors recorded 6,328 hospitalisations “among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients” and among unvaccinated who had previously recovered, the total number was “1020.” So you were more than six times more likely to be hospitalised after “being vaccinated” than after natural recovery.

Over in Oz, the truth is seeping out. In New South Wales, where reliable numbers tend to be meticulously produced, in roughly the last 15 days, 417 of the 552 who died allegedly of COVID were “vaccinated,” and 135 were “un.” Sixty of the “vaccinated” were boosted, and forty-nine of them were over the last week. The most recent was a man in his thirties with no pre-existing conditions.

The new variants, like Omicron, have evolved past the “vaccines” and so are merrily rampaging through the world. Thanks to the mildness, we should simply welcome their passage and embrace the gift of more widespread immunity that they impart.

Looking a little deeper, the UK Department of Health, in its Week 42 COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report pointed out that “…N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” Therefore, the “vaccine” seemingly interferes with the body’s ability to make antibodies after infection against “other parts of the virus.” 

In particular, “vaccinated” people seem not to form antibodies against “nucleocapsid protein”, the “envelope of the virus”, which is a cornerstone of the response in unvaccinated people. This may explain the “negative efficacy” reported in the recent Denmark study for example (since corroborated by government data from Germany circa January 2022). 

Trying to “defang” this, the knights errant at Reuters said since S-protein was so robust, your body had no need to mount an N-antibody response. However, these antibodies are a crucial aspect writes Professor Bhargava (UCSF Professor), in developing cross protection. The data agrees with her, showing not only negative efficacy but as a post-vaccination impact, making our bodies more susceptible to infection from other diseases, including cancers and shingles. 

Slice it, dice it, the German data also shows that “vaccinated” people are 8X more likely to develop Omicron than “unvaccinated.” This jibes very well with the South African data, our natural “control group” that we have been throwing tantrums at and trying to shun, though its findings keep coming home to roost.

Children and arrogance

There has been an outburst of arrogance when COVID “vaccines” were defended by Tom Chivers, who undertook to take issue with HART (a body of professionals, researchers and pro liberty activists) who demanded an investigation into the unexplained surge of deaths of males in the 15 to 19 age range.

HART is doubtless no more infallible than any of us, but it is a solid team, hailing from the UK largely, lawyers, medical scientists, data scientists, who in their own words “have pooled their professional expertise to test the dominant narrative…”. With many medically qualified professors in their assemblage, like anyone daring not to kowtow to what comes out of the “mainstream” sluice gates, they are courting censure and opprobrium on a regular basis. 

The challenge though is straightforward. Children are at nominal to no risk from COVID. This is overwhelmingly the case based on global experience. Therefore, it is not at all extreme to suggest the known and unknown risks of the experimental therapies cannot be justified for this population on health or medical grounds. The Office of National Statistics in the UK has accepted the 2021 increase in young male deaths is “statistically significant.” 

The UK JCVI declined to recommend administering these “vaccines” to healthy 12–15-year-olds, and I quote from their September 2021 assessment: “Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms but acknowledges there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on…vaccination of otherwise healthy 12- to 15-year-old children at this time.” 

Even this carefully threaded disavowal was ignored by the four chief medical officers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not because they could find any basis to take issue with the medical assessment, but because “based on modeling analyses” they concluded that school absences “may” be reduced! The blood curdles upon reading it!

However, the attack mounted by Chivers and others who follow this evangel is that a “a few deaths are worth it.” Reassuring to know that they are not troubled by unnecessary mortality. Just to provide some statistical smelling salts here, in the US, the CDC has said there is not a reliable instance of COVID ascribed death in children without multiple comorbidities.

In the UK, 20 deaths of those under 19-years are attributed to COVID without serious pre-existing conditions (total is still only 93), out of an estimated 8.4 million infections! And even those ascribed to COVID, the National Clinical Auditors for paediatric intensive care units (PICANet) state that all they can confirm is these children had a “COVID-19 positive test prior to or during their PIC admission or at post-mortem.” 

We are on a very slippery slope here, and this should give us global pause, as similar stats are replicated. And one wonders where numbers that are wantonly offered to combat this, derive from. There is the assertion in seeking to repudiate HART’s claims (their letter to the UK Health Authorities had over 80 co-signatories with professionals from public health, epidemiology, microbiology, immunology, emergency medicine, paediatrics, and experts in genomics and from the pharmaceutical industry to boot), that 1 in 100,000 unvaccinated 12 to 17-year-olds die every week in the US. No attribution is provided to anchor this nonsensical assertion.

The UK equivalent would be 19 deaths in that age range “every week” when the total from over the 100 week or so duration of this asserted “pandemic” have been 65 deaths in the 10 to 19 range in the UK, over 80% as cited with serious comorbidities. 

Mandating a medical intervention by global ethical norms – that may now be considered taffy in practice by our global overlords – but which once were reassuring bedrock, requires that even to be eligible for consideration, there has to an “overwhelming net benefit” to the person.

Nor do we find children pass on infection to any appreciable degree (we have all those open schools in Sweden, and then later Switzerland, Florida and more to attest to this). But even otherwise, adults are at such marginal risk, other than perhaps keeping children away from the seriously immunocompromised, jabbing them to be adult “shields” is as grotesque as it sounds. 

And being “vaccinated,” as even the Pfizer CEO has now admitted, does not stop spread, and (designed to act against the Wuhan strain), in his words “offers very limited protection if any.” So, how can we insanely, feverishly proceed? Four boosters in, Israel has still soaring cases and hospitalisations greater than at any other stage of the pandemic! 

We must protect the vulnerable from this barrage of lies and distortions. As I finished typing this, a close friend here in Lanka reported her cousin having just died. 23 years old, a member of the armed services. “Boosted” pointlessly a few weeks back. Cardiac arrest! Coincidence? Well, it may not be definitive causation. However, this person at this age, in that health, did not need to run any risk being “boosted”, especially not with the zealously mild Omicron, akin to a seasonal flu. So “any” risk was unnecessary, and this pattern of deaths (doctors here were baffled, unable to find any corresponding triggering illness) deserves heightened global prudence. We’re dealing with people’s lives here. 

Trucking

Dr. Julie Ponesse was a professor of ethics in Canada, discharged for refusing to be “vaccinated.” Her ethics were robust enough to refuse.

As the Trucker’s convoy has converged on Ottawa, she reminded Canadians, and perhaps the world of the stakes: reclaiming the freedom that belongs to a free people, inviolable.

Trudeau has the gall to call this protest “an attack on the truth.” Well, the truth is not in his hip pocket, it is not a mantra at governmental beck and call. As Premier Brian Peckford said, “Even in the best of times we are only a heartbeat away from tyranny.” Heartbreakingly true.

(The writer is the founder and CEO of EPL Global and founder of Sensei Lanka, a global consultant with over 30 years’ strategic leadership experience and now, since March 2020, a globally recognised COVID researcher and commentator.)