At the time of writing (early June, 2021) we are, theoretically at least, still in the grip of the Covid-19 crisis. I say ‘theoretically’ advisedly; many feel that the current situation is far more down to the actions of politicians and the powers behind them than any problem we are having with infections. We are offered a whole range of vaccines, if vaccines they be, in order to address a problem that may, according to some at least, already be largely behind us.
Because of this, the powers that be are insisting on more and more people being ‘vaccinated’. Again, even this term is not an accurate description of the experimental medical intervention that is effectively being forced upon people. In regards to longevity, a subject that this blog often deals with, the experimental mRNA intervention may be one of the most detrimental steps that we can take.
There is a reasonable argument for those at severe risk to subject themselves to the intervention. These would be the very old and those with severe underlying conditions. For almost everyone else, the potential threat from the ‘vaccine’ may be far greater than that from the virus itself. These interventions have had their normal trials truncated to a remarkable extent. Because of this, we really don’t what the potential implications are, despite endless official assurances.
Covid-19, Corona Viruses and Fatality Rates
From late 2019 onwards, a virus originating in Wuhan, China, spread around the globe. Its symptoms for most were unpleasant but not life-threatening. For the elderly and those with underlying conditions though, it couild be life-threatening.
After resisting calling the spread of the virus a pandemic until allowed to do so by the CPC (Communist Party of China), the WHO (World Health Organisation) declared it so in late January 2020. By this stage, it had been effectively spread all over the planet. Wuhan itself, being something of an airline travel hub in China, was almost the perfect place from which to spread a virus. It is clear that people were allowed to travel for weeks after the CPC knew what they were dealing with. For their own, probably purposes, they resisted curtailing transport thus ensuring the corona epidemic in Wuhan became a Worldwide pandemic (interestingly, the CPC curtailed transport by train from the main stations in Wuhan yet, oddly, allowed international flights to continue as normal).
Covid-19 is a coronavirus, a member of the family of viruses that includes such examples as common colds at the more benign end of the scale, and MERS and SARS at the other. It seems increasingly likely that the virus now known as Covid-19 originated in a lab in the Wuhan Institute of Virology where research was being carried out on specifically coronaviruses and what is known as GOF (Gain Of Function).
The idea of the GOF is to enhance aspects of the virus to make it more virulent in some way. With appropriate manipulation, a virus can be made more deadly or more transmissible for example. Interestingly, some of the funding for the Wuhan Institute of Technology came from the US. In particular, it seems to have been arranged by a sub-body of the American NIH (National Institute of Health) at the behest of a certain Dr. Anthony Fauci (x). The aid given amounted to $3.4 million and was funnelled through the ‘non-profit’ EcoHealth Alliance in the five years from 2014 to 2019. It always strikes me as strange how these dubious organisations have such delightful and apparently harmless title. Who could argue with the idea of an EcoHealth Alliance …
Depending on how one views it, the deliberate reticence or simple incompetence of the WHO has lead to the virus spreading all over the globe. At the start, people referred to it by a variety of names such as the ‘Wuhan virus’, ‘the CPC virus’ and the ‘China virus’. The WHO felt this was unfair and hence named it ‘Covid-19’ (Co rona vi rus D isease 20 19).
The disease quickly spread all over the planet, its range and intensity depending on various factors such as travel, local environment and measures taken by individual countries. At the time of writing, the disease is still spreading. Sometimes, the misleading terms ‘waves’ is used. Whilst true that the degree of intensity of the virus will be experienced differently by different places at different times, corona viruses generally follow the Gompertz curve. This means that although there may be some more isolated cases after the wave has gone through, essentially the thing climaxes and then subsides in line with the said curve.
Talk of second waves, third waves, fourth waves, etc. ad infinitum is more for political purposes than reflecting the reality of a corona virus. This applies to Covid-19 as much as it does to any other such corona virus.
Various countries reacted in various ways. Many witnessed the CPC’s reaction in Wuhan and went for the lockdown model. Others resisted such draconian measures pointing out that they were often unnecessary and could even be quite counterproductive. Politicians assumed emergency powers in various cultures. As ever, once they did so they were very reluctant to let them go again. In the UK, we were told that we would be in lockdown for three weeks to flatten the curve. Fifteen months later, we are still having a range of measures imposed upon us most, if not all of which are dubious scientifically or downright wrong.
There seems to be little correlation between those countries that followed the more extreme measures and success against the virus. The UK for example, have had a relatively poor record despite imposing fairly extreme measures over an extended period. Sweden’s record is better than the UK’s, though they left most measures to the discretion of their citizens.
In the US, it seems to be evident that the individual states that followed the most draconian measures have had no greater success in controlling the virus than those that did not. Florida versus California is an interesting example, though there are many others (x).
PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests have been employed by many governments to attempt to ascertain the spread of the virus. The test itself was not designed for the situation it is presently being (mis)used in (x). Despite being used all over the planet to determine case numbers of Covid-19, the PCR test is not appropriate as it cannot distinguish between inactive ‘dead’ viruses and active ‘live’ viral strands.
As well as that pretty major drawback, the WHO, in their infinite wisdom, have until very recently recommended 45 amplification cycles of the test in the effort to determine whether a given person had the virus or not. The problem with such large numbers of amplification is that the more cycles the test goes through, the more likely it is that a false positive will occur. Indeed, anything above 30 (some put it much lower) cycles would magnify the samples to the extent that even completely insignificant sequences of viral DNA are magnified to the point that the test reads positive. This would be the case even if the viral load is barely existent or the virus is inactive and hence poses no threat whatsoever to the subject or anyone else.
To state it as simply as possible, the more cycles a test goes through the more likely it is that false positives will occur. Just what the false positive rate is is a matter of some controversy. In the UK, the government have been very reluctant to set a figure. Most consider a false positive rate of 1% to be fairly conservative. It may easily be as much as 3%.
In practical terms, what this means is that the more people you test the more false positives you will have. Given a false positive rate of 2%, there will be 20 apparent but non-existent cases for every 1000 people tested. If you ramp up the testing using such tests in the manner they have been used it will automatically generate hundreds, nay thousands, of cases. Et voila, a second wave.
The manipulation of the PCR tests is just one example of statistical manipulation that the UK government, the US government, and many more besides have used to manufacture fear in their citizens and give justification for the draconian steps undertaken to ‘protect the public’.
The Wonderful Magic of Numbers …
The underlying aim here is to get people to accept the notion that there is a great danger to be avoided at all costs, and hence accept more and more extreme measures to ‘combat’ that danger. The reality is that as long as you are not in a vulnerable group the dangers of Covid-19 are not significant enough to justify altering your lifestyle in any way.
The question that most governments faced was how to get an unwilling public to submit to extreme limitations on their freedoms and experimental medical treatments. The answer was fear. The problem was that the reality of the virus was not that frightening, therefore means had to be found to make the situation seem far, far worse than it actually was.
One technique employed was the definition of a ‘Covid death’. This turned from being someone who had died of Covid19 to a person who had died ‘with’ Covid 19. What this sleight of mouth means in practice is that if someone has died within 28 days of a positive covid test they fall into the category of a Covid death. The person involved could have been run over by a bus, fallen off a cliff, or taken their own life. No matter. Whatever the cause, they were still a ‘Covid death’.
A second technique was to retest people who had received a positive result and add that second, third, and fourth result onto the list of Covid cases. Only one person had been infected but they might count as six or more as far as Covid cases were concerned.
The third technique was the one referred to above by which the PCR test was amplified to ludicrous levels thus more or less guaranteeing many more ‘Covid cases’.
Such creative number crunching can be used ad infinitum, thus keeping the public in a constant state of fear and allowing the government to further and further restrict our freedoms and get us to submit to insufficiently tested medical interventions (x).
Many of us fortunate enough to live in what we thought of as liberal democracies, the British, the Australians, the Americans, and many others, had lived in complacent certainty that we had governments that would never dare to compromise our fundamental freedoms. How wrong we were.
In the UK, we were told we needed to enter lockdown for three weeks to ‘flatten the curve’. Here we are 15 months later, deaths in single figures (even those include those dying ‘with’ rather than ‘of’ covid). Less than 1% of the NHS bed capacity is taken up with covid patients. The various curves are as flat as the Norfolk broads and yet … our freedoms are still severely restricted.
Such as been the power of the propoganda campaign, that otherwise sane and rational people have been persuaded to cover their faces with masks, usually of cotton and hence completely irrelevant, as they walk around shops and town centres. Some will want to wear them whilst driving in their cars or walking in the countryside. Fortunately, the UK has been somewhat more sensible than those in the States in this regard. In the latter, people are wearing two, or even three masks as they go about their ‘normal’ lives (x).
Such absurdity would be laughable if it was not for the implications for all our freedoms. The beauty of this process as far as the authorities are concerned is that they have got the inmates arguing for the benefits of their prison. The Stockholm syndrome, writ large it seems.
Control Of Information
One of the key aspects of this process has been the control of information. A simple example will illustrate my point. Last Saturday, a very pleasant day in London weather-wise, a march of between 50,000 to 100,000 people took place. Such a march is massive by any UK standards. It went through the heart of London. Oddly, the march escaped the attention of the BBC and the Guardian. Searching the BBC site, even at the local level, gave me trivial information such as the love-life of some irrelevant rapper (a favourite subject of the BBC these days …), yet no mention at all of such an enormous march that demanded the restoration of fundamental freedoms for the British people.
Even researching and writing this blog has thrown up some interesting examples of media manipulation. Whatever information leaks out is quickly countered by the mainstream outlets. For example, a few weeks back I became aware of the concerns of Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former vice-president of Pfizer and expert in respiratory viruses and toxicology. A search (‘Mike Yeadon’) on bitchute.com results in multiple talks and lectures. The same search on youtube.com renders a list of refutations. In fact, you have to search down to the tenth video before you get a direct interview that has not been ‘fact checked’ or deconstructed in some way.
Similar patterns of controlling information will come up with any search that would normally reveal critical information in relation to lockdowns, Covid-19 and mRNA vaccines. This is especially true if you use mainstream search engines. Google, for example is best avoided, Bing not much better.
Try to discuss any of these issues on Facebook or Twitter and you will find notifications attached to your posts. You may be ‘fact checked’ (which simply means that you have veered away from the narrative and must be pulled back in line). If you persist, you will be quarantined for a time or even, in extremis, banned altogether. People looking at your posts will be ‘helpfully’ redirected towards ‘correct information’.
There is no doubt that Covid-19 exists and is a pretty unpleasant virus if you catch it. However, as Dr. Mike Yeadon points out, it would seem to act much like any other coronavirus has acted in the past. It goes through a given population, usually following the Gompertz curve, and then essentially that’s it. There may be isolated hot spots as the virus moves around various regions but the notion of ‘waves’ is not an accurate description of the phenomenon.
The predicament we are currently experiencing in the UK however, seems to be much like that of the US. Essentially, despite the odd case occurring here and there, the virus has gone through the population and we are now on the far side of the phenomenon. In order for the furtherance of the restrictions on freedom to be justified there is a need to manufacture fear. This is achieved by exaggerating numbers of cases ( by such techniques as we discussed above) and continuous emphasis on the dangers of the virus.
Having been duly frightened to death, we are then to be persuaded that the only way out of this situation is to take the mRNA ‘vaccines’.
What we understood as a vaccine, until very recently at least, was a preparation that was formed form a small amount of a weakened or killed pathogen that, upon administration to an individual, would stimulate antibody production and/or cellular immunity against said pathogen.
What we are being offered now as a vaccine does not fit the above description. It is a medical treatment that attempts to stimulate a response from the body but does not use the original pathogen, or a natural relative, to produce this effect. Apparently, there are legal reasons in the US why it is useful to have this intervention defined as a vaccine. It may also have a comforting effect for those taking it. If we were told that we were being asked to take an experimental medical intervention rather than a vaccine there might well be more resistance than there actually is.
The acronym ‘mRNA’ stands for ‘modified RiboNucleic Acids’. Their function is to transfer information from DNA to the cell machinery that is involved in the production of proteins. Essentially, mRNA interventions are there to teach our cells how to make a protein, or even just a piece of a protein, with the idea that the protein will trigger an immune response in our bodies.
At base, these interventions have never been tried on this scale before or, indeed, anything like it. Given the rush to mass produce them and the shortcuts needed to be taken in order to at least partially meet the deadlines, this whole business is fraught with risk. The idea of playing around in such a way with such basic cellular functions is deeply concerning.
The implications for the individual being subjected to these medical interventions are not as clear as is being projected by the authorities. There have been animal studies using mRNA interventions in the past (2009 and 2012) wherein the results were far from satisfactory. As ever with the internet, different sources give different results, some reassuring but a worrying number that indicate that the experiments ended very badly for the animals involved.
If one were to be charitable then the assumption would need to be made that many of these previous problems have been ironed out and the current interventions are completely safe. On the other hand, there are two other possibilities. Firstly, the authorities are taking the most enormous risk by rushing out these experimental interventions on such a massive scale but feel the situation is so dire that it merits such an action.
Secondly, and far more worryingly, there are hints of a darker agenda afoot whereby the potential downsides of such mass actions have been considered and quite deliberately imposed upon the population. The further implications of this are, of course, quite horrifying. Up to quite recent times, I have been scathingly skeptical of more or less all the more extreme conspiracy theories, but … the evidence does seem to be mounting.
There are already widespread reports of unpleasant reactions to the mRNA intervention. These range from short-term, covid like symptoms to neurological complications and all the way to death. Worryingly, these reactions are almost universally played down by the media and the mainstream internet. Blood clotting seems to be the most common cause of death but other fatal complications are entirely possible too (x), (x), (x).
Oddly, and something that adds to the credibility of some of the more unpleasant theories, there seems to be relevant, cheap, and effective treatments readily available for Covid-19 but which have been played down or ignored altogether. The powers that be seem hell-bent on imposing the experimental mRNA treatments whether they are needed or not.
Ivermectin is a long-standing medication that has been used to treat many types of parasiticinfestation. Ilt has been proven to be both an effective and economic solution. It is also used in veterinary medicine, where it is used to prevent and treat such things as heartworm and acariasis.
Various reports from studies and from countries using Ivermectin directly to treat Covid-19 seem to indicate that it is both relatively safe and quite effective. In one recent study, the evidence seemed to support that Ivermectin may well be a worthwhile and relatively safe intervention in regards to this virus (x). Covid patients were given a 5-day course of ivermectin. No significant side-effects were reported and the drug was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings. There does seem to be some resistance to this in countries such as the US, however.
On a much larger scale, recent reports from India seem to indicate that ivermectin is having a huge impact on Covid-19 infections and treatment. Oddly, a couple of weeks ago, the mainstream media were all over the Indian story with demands that the UK government send immediate supplies of ‘vaccines’ to save them from the dreaded virus. Now that the Indian’s themselves have discovered that invermectin is an effective, economic and effective treatment, the press no long seem at all interested (x).
Much the same could be said for the situation in Mexico: a huge problem with the virus that seems to have been effectively addressed by the use of ivermectin (x).
Smell a rat at all?
A certain Donald Trump was treated for Covid-19 in 2020 using hydroxychoroquine. He made a full recovery and was back in circulation in what seemed no time at all. Others have used this intervention with similar effects though, yet again, the US authorities seem strangely unwilling to promote the use of this intervention.
Hyrdroxychloroquine is a tried and tested medication that is normally used to prevent and treat malaria. It has also been found to be effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
The matter is still highly controversial with many countries standing by their use of hydroxycoloroquine whilst others seem to indicate that it is not an effective treatment against Covid-19. As ever, vested financial and political interests may make ascertaining the reality of the situation a difficult undertaking (x).
Younger Groups and ‘Vaccines’
At the beginning of the vaccination program, we were told in the UK that the aim was to protect those most vulnerable. This meant the aged and those with underlying health conditions. As time has moved on though, so have the goalposts. Now the drive is to vaccinate younger and younger groups of people, despite the fact that the virus itself is not particularly threatening to them.
Information from bodies such as the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in America is often presented in such a way as to make it appear as threatening as possible. This chart is a good example of the process ….(x). Surely it would be simpler, and far more comprehensible, to simply tell people what their relative risk is in percentage terms?
In the UK, for example, the risk for the average 18-39-year-old of dying from Covid-19 is 0.06% (in other words, 1667/1) (x). Given what we know about the potential complications and implications of submitting to the mRNA intervention, the so-called ‘vaccine’, one can’t help but wonder if such a risk is justified?
Pregnancy and Falsehoods on the BBC
There have been many reports of late of what is known as ‘vaccine resistance’. This refers to the reluctance of groups of people who seem to be less than enthusiastic to be given these experimental treatments. One of these demographic groups is women of child-bearing age.
On a personal note, my wife and I were driving around Cambridge on the A11 discussing the wisdom or otherwise of being jabbed. She had been offered a date for her first installment of the AstraZeneca treatment but did not feel entirely happy because of the rumours regarding pregnancy that had been circulating. As we were discussing the issue, a doctor was being interviewed on the BBC’s lunchtime news program on Radio 4. The doctor insisted that not only did the ‘vaccine’ not have any negative effect on pregnant women, he also insisted that there was no possible mechanism for that to be the case.
My wife, on hearing this, was reassured to the point of being willing to take the jab a few days later. It has since transpired that the doctor was incorrect. There is a very clear mechanism linking the production of the spike protein that the ‘vaccine’ promotes and problems with the placenta (x). It is unclear whether the doctor was poorly informed or simply lying.
It seems that the protein responsible for the development of a placenta in women, known as Syncytin-1, also takes the form of spike proteins of SARS viruses. Hence there is a very real and present danger for pregnant women and those considering having a baby in submitting to the mRNA intervention (x).
A recent, and rather frightening development, has been the notion of giving the intervention to children. Some are even talking of making it compulsory. Even if they don’t go for legal compulsion, there are means that will be used to twist parent’s arms into allowing there children to be subjected to the experimental treatment. Such measures as being banned from travel or nurseries are being considered in order to effectively force the issue.
Effectively, children below the age of 10 are at very little danger from Covid-19. This hasn’t stopped authorities in various countries from trying to either force parents to have their children ‘treated’ or trying other nefarious means to make it so. The very notion seemed frankly ridiculous just a month ago, yet now one can witness the propaganda machinery of mainstream media and the controlled parts of the internet pushing this very agenda. Indeed, in some countries, they are even talking about injecting newborn babies with the mRNA ‘vaccine’. We seem to have entered a dystopian reality wherein previously shocking actions are now considered ‘normal’.
Long Term Implications of Taking ‘Vaccines’
At this moment in time, those of us who have actually taken the ‘vaccine’ are hoping against hope that they actually work and do not have any undiscovered long-term problems. Given the research I have done in the last month, I can honestly say that if I knew back when I was offered the ‘vaccines’ what I know now, I would not have taken them. These treatments have been rushed through at a rate that renders it simply impossible to be sure that they do not come with all sorts of complications and problems that we will only become aware of over time.
There are many conspiracy theories circulating on the internet at the moment, some more extreme than others. I would like to discount them but, in all honesty, and given the way this ‘crisis’ has developed, it is very difficult to tell what is true anymore..
If you were to read or listen to Dr. Dolores Cahill for example, she may convince you that having the vaccine in itself considerably shortens your life expectancy. One of the ideas she espouses is that the body will go on producing spike proteins ad nauseum with all the potential complications that would entail (x).
Others flatly contradict such notions, pointing out that the spike proteins should, in theory at least, only be produced for a short amount of time. The idea would be to provoke the body into producing an immune response that would then serve to protect it from future contact with Covid-19. The mRNA is then quickly destroyed and only the memory of the spike protein patterns remains in the immune system (x).
Playing the Odds
I am a relatively healthy 67 year old with an incident of heart attack in my past (hopefully, it remains there…) and a couple of other potential problems. Given the relative risk to me from Covid 19 and the unknown, and currently unquantifiable risk from the ‘vaccine’ it is arguable that I would have been better off avoiding it. Certainly, If I was younger and without any drastic health issues, it seems very clear that the threat from Covid 19 is very low indeed.
For those under 30 it is so low as to be almost non-existent. The notion of using these mRNA treatments on children in order to protect others seems to me to be ethically very dubious. Is it up to the government, or the NHS (or appropriate health authority in any country), to inject children with relatively untested treatments for the good of others?
Indeed, recent studies seem to indicate that the risk amongst most groups, apart from the very old, is even less than we previously thought. Professor Ionides of Stanford University recently stated that “among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from … 0.00-0.23% with median of 0.04%.” Or, to put it another way, for those under 70, approximately just 1 in every 25,000 is going to die from the virus.
Given such long odds, wouldn’t the vast majority of us be far, far wiser to avoid the vaccine and take our chances with the virus?
On a personal level, the main recommendation coming out of this blog is to seriously consider the potential for problems before taking the experimental mRNA intervention. The only exceptions to this should be the very elderly and those with severe underlying conditions that would render them amongst the most vulnerable. If you have children or are a female of childbearing age, then a significant amount of caution is warranted. The odds of problems from Covid 19 are vanishingly small for these groups, whereas potential complications of the ‘vaccine’ are serious and, as yet, not fully understood. For anyone in reasonable condition and less than 70 years of age, the likelihood of complications and consequences from submitting to the inevitable pressures and taking the ‘vaccine’ could prove to be a negative factor in regards to their longevity. This is, of course, merely my own opinion. I would encourage those offered the ‘vaccine’ to do some serious research before complying. If you do so, though, be sure to search from a range of sources and not merely those charged with promoting the mainstream narrative. If you can get ivermectin, do it … and avoid the experimental ‘vaccine’.