We’re not saving lives here

Give the early treatments. Provide home care for the elderly and vulnerable. Life is not a risk-free proposition. The asymptomatic are a non-existent ‘phantom menace.’ Focus on the symptomatic and we can go back to life –  Pic by Shehan Gunasekara

So, we’re at the cusp of incoherence now, and we must look at this with wits that are acute, not addled.

We have moved from ‘3 weeks to flatten the curve’ (the aim being ostensibly to allow healthcare systems to be able to manage ‘surges’) to ‘12 months to a vaccine’ that would resolve it all, to ‘15 million jabs until freedom’ (in numerous jurisdictions) … to ‘no vaccine passports will suffice’ but we should keep having ‘booster shots’ though they don’t stave off reinfection or death.

If in light of all these incoherent goal posts, the phrase ‘mission creep’ does not, in fact, ‘bolt’ rather than ‘creep’ across your consciousness I should be very much surprised!

Next up, we are to be told our global jollity is being held at bay by these intransigent ‘unvaccinated’ people, though global data has clearly given the lie to that. We had best remember, it was our cuckoldry with plainly evident data, our deranged response in terms of ‘cost/benefit’ that dismantled collective freedoms, destroyed our businesses and livelihoods, and which ruined our children’s futures and education…not ‘unvaccinated people’. 

This last time is utterly illogical here in Lanka. As the world is moving away from ‘mass testing’ of the asymptomatic as advised by WHO, as being increasingly demonstrated by Singapore, as forecasted by the US CDC, all such (indeed all COVID) measures ceasing in Denmark as of 1 October, Sweden already having pulled away from this with barely a trickle of Delta-connected mortality all this summer, we here instead keep testing and flashing numbers and spasming portents. 

Even though we see the ‘disconnect’ between UK and Israel ‘positive tests’ and low hospitalisations and deaths (no excess sustained mortality reported by Euromomo for the UK or Europe zone), we are seeking to exterminate an airborne virus (impossible) and ‘lock it in’ after it has spread (spurious and self-defeating), while placing all our bets on ‘vaccines’ the current varietal is evading and the next one will render irrelevant. Booster shots are already failing elsewhere. 

And there are abundant, safe, efficacious, clearly demonstrated, early treatments that can address almost 85% to 90% of oxygen needs, hospitalisation challenges and mortality potential from what is globally acknowledged statistically, as one of the ‘mildest’ in terms of lethality, COVID variants, even though it is highly ‘infectious.’ Happily, upon grappling with it, and recuperating, we have natural immunity unlike the ‘non-sterilising’ vaccine immunity (the effect of our current ‘vaccines’ are ‘therapeutic’ and suppress for some time, symptoms and adverse impact). 

And that immunity, transcends ‘variants’ and goes towards the ‘inflammatory response’ as leading practitioners have explained, leaving us with a virtually non-existent, mild risk of reinfection perhaps, but virtually none for serious sickness or death, and with an inadequate viral load by which to infect others. 

Hence, our reaction to taking a teetering economy, desperately needing to recover, should be to protect those livelihoods, to safeguard a clearly age stratified group of those currently vulnerable (above 60 with serious, chronic, pre-existing conditions). And instead of providing anyone with symptoms and comorbidities with prophylaxis and early treatment; we are locking ‘in’ the vast majority of the healthy, not remotely at risk.

So, if you are 65, with a chronic lung condition, how does my locking up a four-year-old (at no risk) from school or football practice, at the other end of the island, help you? Or even, locking up your grandchild with you? And how should your nephew running a bank, age 45, no evident comorbidities, by losing his career and sitting in a poorly ventilated space indoors, be saving some other 75-year-old with a heart condition? 

Give the early treatments. Provide home care for the elderly and vulnerable. Life is not a risk-free proposition. The asymptomatic are a non-existent ‘phantom menace.’ Focus on the symptomatic and we can go back to life!

Life alarms and lockdown harms

On the one hand Romania has 25% of its population vaccinated, cases and deaths are plummeting. Vaccination centres are being shut down, and government is selling vaccines to the West, something being replicated throughout Eastern Europe. And Sweden still fumbling positively forward. Virtually no deaths for a month+, 40% vaccinated, mask coverage negligible. There is the running joke that if this perseveres into year 3, surely somehow Sweden will have to get ‘accidentally’ scrubbed from the internet map! 

There are abundant physical, emotional, and mental impacts on people from being incarcerated. No measurement has been forthcoming for us to assess. In fact, WHO expressly did not recommend any such actions in pandemic response for severe respiratory pathogens, nor the troupe of allied responses, the reflexive border closures, face nappies, mass testing of the asymptomatic, and other associated whimsies. 

As we brush off our first principles in paradigmatically resetting our responses beyond COVID-19, here is what we must beware of falling afoul of: first, the passage of time and the additional compilation of data have not been kind to the thesis that stringency of lockdowns has any net positive benefit on number of deaths experienced. 

Secondly, studies also have stockpiled showing extended mask wearing leads to oxygen deprivation while being unable to screen out particles implausibly too minute anyway for them to filter. And a casual glance at ‘living case studies’ like Sweden, Bulgaria, Florida, South Dakota, settles the issue fairly empirically. There is no ‘controversy’ therefore, except in the annals of self-deception.

Thirdly, not only is there no positive impact from ‘locking down’ the healthy, the poorer the country, the worst the outcome. Poorer people tend to live in more densely packed environments, are less likely to be working remotely or to be able to, with fewer educational options for their kids. Much of ‘lockdown’ is the rich ‘isolating’ at home being served by the poor, being duped by our power brokers.

Clearly, you cannot ‘eradicate’ the virus, and one year after we’ve learned it’s largely airborne, we are still beating our head against that pipedream. We have trace elements of the Spanish Flu in circulation still today, and so too of the Asian, Hong Kong, Swine, SARS 1 and many others. Viruses attenuate over time, and where the concentration of mortality risk is so age determined, then ‘focused’ approaches are evidently where sane responses have to invariably congregate towards. 

Finally, here in Lanka, we have a variant, widespread in its tentacles enough, that the vast differentiation between those above 60 with comorbidities and the rest is crystal clear. So, even our death certificate ‘with’ and ‘from’ fudging’ cannot camouflage it. Therefore, yet again, why are we locking up everyone else? Why do we not ‘treat’? This is close to ‘natural mortality’ anyway, and so while the ‘quality of life years lost’ is never to be taken lightly, here there is such a magnitude of difference from normal pathogens that instead, target and strike down the young.

Some perspective then

A periodic reminder then, that the ‘virus’ currently being utilised to excuse the usurpation of civil liberties, forced medical treatment, compulsory mass incarceration, is truly an ‘ordinary’ coronavirus with a 99.9% survival rate for those below 65 without serious pre-existing conditions, and still close to 98-99% survival above 75 without serious pre-existing conditions. This is hardly a fissure in the universe. 

Well, the seminal errors of the COVIDian narrative stockpile so fetidly, you keep thinking one day, the stench will be so overpowering, that even those who have essentially put their critical faculties into suspended animation, will rally, finding that this reeks to high Heaven.  Some restoratives surely, we think, will thaw their frozen wits.

I keep meandering back through the history of this ill begotten assault on life and liberty. 

Imagine this being designated a ‘novel’ coronavirus. Well, if it was ‘massaged’ in a Wuhan lab as it now seems all the craze to assert, perhaps there was some novelty to it. Otherwise, as we are advised, there are numerous coronaviruses parading around. Even C-19 is now relegated to only being the fourth most widespread now in the US, and Delta one of more than 100 variants.

And now we find, from antibody tests and more, that some varietal was already doing the circuit in 2019. At any rate, some prior immunity exists. And if this is truly the descendant or even Frankensteinian stepchild of SARS, then as former Chief Medical Officer of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon has reminded us, though it is 80% identical, the immune systems of those exposed to SARS seem to ‘recognise’ SARS-CoV-2, even these 17 years hence. Novelty therefore takes another nosedive. 

So, this first assertion, right out of the gate, meant to terrorise us by suggesting an unknown pathogen without parallel, that could hoodwink our immune system completely, was poppycock. And we knew soon enough, it was far more infectious than SARS, but far less lethal. And mortality is where we should have kept our eyes fixed, not the delusions of asserted ‘cases’ from unreliable tests. So, no, not so ‘novel’ at least in impact. We are now seeing more than 4,000 ‘positive tests’ here in Lanka daily, back to earlier highs, but the death stats are not multiplying daily in the same way, and still seem to track normal mortality.

Then, you have to wonder, if even mistaken as ‘novel,’ surely there would be extraordinary curiosity, not fixated dogmatism, about this pathogen. However, it took only a few months, before torrential disdain was showered on any who raised questions as to whether we were over-reacting. 

There was censorious outrage lavished on some of the world’s most eminent research experts in meta-analysis like John Ioannidis of Stanford, when he pointed out the lethality seemed less than was being forecasted for example, or when the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship kindly offered itself up as a floating case study, or when Knut Wittowski ‘sacrilegiously’ suggested sunshine and fresh air are lethal to viruses with seasonality as a fairly evident way to corroborate that, and so many others. They were literally chased from the public sphere. 

They have been only vindicated since, and why rationally, anyone actually interested in public health as a leader, wouldn’t have wanted a big tent of diverse views, a kind of Manhattan Project to tackle this virus and grapple with providing care, cannot be logically answered, except by accepting they were engaged in a charade of public health only, and other agendas were afoot that could brook no dissent.

In fact, if you consider it, how could they know who to censor? In other words, how with a ‘novel’ coronavirus, could you have so readily stress tested alternatives to arrive at any credible consensus by then? Surely if genuinely interested in leadership and health, immensely experienced and credible experts indicating we may be overzealous, that this may be less deadly, more treatable and more manageable, would be manna from heaven. 

Such views would surely be welcomed, and would be carefully assessed, with trials done before the world was blown up, and irrevocable harm done to urban centres, small businesses, people needing desperate attention for other health issues, and before children’s lives and educations were turned topsy turvy. Yes, ‘if.’

This is particularly so as you cannot possibly imagine that this constellation of talent had any motivation other than wishing to save and serve our global and local cultures, lives and livelihoods. And that they have continued to do so, despite media attacks, smears, economic disincentives, renders every word more plausible. After all, we know there are evident incentives of being proponents of the prevailing mythos. We cannot assert any incentive other than integrity and genuine conviction for refusing to acquiesce to the pervasive gaslighting and whitewashing.

The endgame

A letter has been carefully put together addressed to US Governors De Santis of Florida, who has shown vividly that you don’t need masks, lockdowns, or other mandates, edicts and more, despite one of the most elderly population and dense urban centres. Governor Abbott is another recipient, as Texas with relatively low vaccination rates, has had ‘positive test’ surges over Delta, but tame mortality. The letters commend the Governors for protecting ‘lives’ and ‘livelihoods’ and safeguarding ‘freedoms’ Americans cherish.

Essentially the letters, penned by a group of medical leaders and researchers, clinicians from the front lines of COVID care, highlight the waning efficacy of the C-19 vaccines and a new immunological threat thrown up as a result. 

Specifically, the L452R mutation, in the receptor binding domain of the virus that is responsible for cellular entry, has mutated, such that vaccine-induced antibodies are no longer capable of preventing infection. This is quite clear mechanistically, certainly from overwhelming evidence from UK and Israeli data, where negative vaccine efficacy is being reported. As the US data is not ‘finalised’ daily unlike these other jurisdictions, manipulation and distortion are far too likely. 

Another spectre is raised in the vaccinated population, namely antibody dependent enhancements, or ‘ADE.’ This is the process whereby the absence of neutralising antibodies, but the continued presence of other, less useful antibodies (courtesy of the vaccines), causes the vaccine to make the virus more infectious and significantly more deadly to those affected. There are preliminary indications of this. While very difficult to definitively diagnose, as it presents with the same symptoms as C-19, however with a significantly accelerated timeframe and greatly enhanced severity. 

Many specialists fall short of flagging this unreservedly given the murkiness of an explicit diagnosis. It will present in the aggregate data as a sharp and continuing spike in mortality with a shorter delay after that rise in cases than has been previously observed…a less tenuous ‘link’ between positive tests and deaths. And the entire vaccinated population is vulnerable to this disease and will only become more so with the passage of time, as immunity wanes further and as the virus keeps mutating. 

To that, there are two solutions. Keep generating new vaccines to update the immunity provided, until a few months later, a new mutation causes the same problem yet again. This would be akin to Marek’s disease, requiring further booster vaccinations forever, in the case of an ever increasingly lethal virus – rendered unduly lethal (by our mass vaccinating at the height of a pandemic…something never undertaken before, particularly with ‘vaccines’ that don’t provide neutralising immunity). Remember, this was originally a virus with a 99%+ recovery rate, and very clearly age stratified.

The other solution, is the solution we’ve had, from the outset, and which should have neutered the mania early on. And that is to deploy wide-spread pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent infection. By preventing infection, vulnerable populations will be largely protected both from typical COVID-19 and enhanced ADE disease. There are numerous safe, approved, highly effective options available, with clearly demonstrated efficacy across the world. 

Despite disreputable clamour, ivermectin tops the list for both remarkable efficacy and a highly robust safety profile. Zinc ionophores are a very close second. This may also have the benefit of ‘eradicating’ the virus with a temporary community immunity. And while Ivermectin’s credentials from the clinical front lines, and its remarkable safety profile are stunning, such protocols can be put together with ‘no’ politically controversial or even ‘off label’ drugs. They all outdo the current gene therapy ‘vaccines’ in terms of efficacy, cost and safety.

The alternative is recurring bouts of ‘positive tests’ and now increasing ‘mortality’ caused by our mass vaccination, leading to never ending and pointless face nappies and economically unsustainable lockdowns, as we get poorer and less healthy, and the culprit will not be a wily pathogen, but the erosion of our own ability to sift the essential from the incidental.

This isn’t life

C.J. Hopkins, writing from ‘New Normal’ Germany describes this version of ‘living’: 

‘Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally ‘vaccinated’.’ 

Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in ‘PCR test stations.’ The government is debating mandatory ‘vaccination’ of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission.’ Sound appealing?

Should I await docilely to be told when to go out, where to go out, what experimental substance to have shot into my body and that of my family? Should I welcome no stimulus, no abandon, no real laughter or mirth, no experiencing of human aptitudes, or going freely to other lands and immersing in other cultures or relishing the world as a part of my birthright? Is it really all right for us to have these global political scavengers pick on the remains of our autonomy? Surely, this is where we need our local leaders to intervene?

Poet laureate Seamus Heaney writes so unforgettably:

‘History says, don’t hope

On this side of the grave.

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up,

And hope and history rhyme.’

Time to see if we can’t catch one of those waves, and with it, the future we seek.