(1) In taking up the lockdown baton from China, the world was conducting a dangerous experiment. That experiment involved tearing up the public health policy guidelines for
respiratory virus epidemics of the WHO, the CDC & others.
(2) These guidelines specifically cautioned against ever locking down given the collateral damage.
(3) They reflected a century of deliberation summarily ignored when the virus came. Statements of principle governing evidential processes needed to revise them were also ignored.
(4) The basis for lockdown was the assurance of the WHO’s Bruce Aylward that China had contained its epidemic. This in turn was based on speculation that everyone was susceptible to Covid-19 and that, without lockdown, exponential growth of disease and
death was inevitable.
This is incisive criticism. I’ve made it a point in my life to travel to centrally planned economies. The probability of centralisation yielding environmental benefits is zero. They impoverish, and in impoverishing cause deforestation, erosion, pollution and squalor. 1/4
Their massively scaled hierarchies kill evolutionary knowledge growth, the only form of knowledge growth there is. They kill error correction, and destroying the means of error correction is the greatest moral atrocity there is. 2/4
Their grand plans invariably unleash harmful unintended consequences even as they ossify under the burdens of corruption and post hoc rationalisation by their tyrants. 3/4
And what about this exposé in German mainstream media, detailing how senior officials conspired to lie to government in advancing draconian measures, and cover their tracks using private email accounts? 3/7
On infantilised adults, I’ve received a set of rules for sports conduct from a local school. Tennis may be played, but children may not touch the tennis balls. Only coaches. I drove past a preschool, to see a child of about four crying while being forced into a mask and to ...
... social distance while OUTSIDE. This is deranged, harmful behaviour. Parents and teachers endorsing these disgraceful absurdities need to take a step back and think about what they’re doing and why. This is a cultural low point.
This kind of claptrap seems not be endorsed by any public health institutions. It is largely self-imposed, part of a profound, manic hysteria. I have now heard of two neighbourhood children being imprisoned in their rooms for two weeks on testing positive asymptomatically, ...
1. Public health guidelines, in the WHO's case, refreshed in late 2019, ruled out lockdowns & most of the mandated NPIs being deployed.
2. The guidelines were trashed on the Chinese say-so, relayed by WHO's Bob Aylward, without evidence.
3. Overwhelmingly, the data tell us that lockdowns don't save lives.
4. Claims about lockdown efficacy have pretty much retreated to the domain of some hand-waving about NZ and Aus, despite the fact that they just happen to be the ones locking down amid a vast sea of zilch.
5. The idea that it is the epidemic, not the lockdowns, that caused the insane level of damage we have witnessed, which will surely lead to death way beyond what Covid has delivered, doesn't stack up against the '57-'58 flu impact, or common sense.
When I think of the months of abuse when broaching the subject of epidemiological false positives under PCR, I'm wondering what on earth our opponents are making of the WHO's recent advisory & this. I suspect we won't see them any apologising or calling for an end to PCR testing.
Read the bit between the blue stars in case you're tempted to believe that the WHO only worked this out this week. There's been incredible dishonesty from the Faucis, Tedroses & Drostens of the world. ALL those screen-scrolling numbers have been false.
Of all the false, fearmongering announcements made by public health figures globally, this one may just take the cake. Out by a factor of about 1000. No correction. No apology. Where are the “fact checkers” with their shrill cries of “misinformation” now. Why no media outcry?
@DrZweliMkhize’s bald lie had great impact. We have seen doctors do a double-take when presented with the evidence, as they register that they have been taken in by the lie, and then begin backpedaling as they grapple with the psychological consequences of having been so.
Something struck me today. When @pandata19 first came into the public eye, it was with a single message—that lockdowns were a cure worse than the disease; that health authorities were ignoring their harms, otherwise we wouldn't do them. 1/8
This simple observation earned us more abuse than you can imagine, filling me with admiration for my many colleagues who soldiered on through it all. Though many of our early detractors still circle, their rage has diverted to subsequent elements of our work. 2/8
However, a great many are now saying that lockdowns are no longer appropriate, something they never supported, not their responsibility or only there because so-and-so isn't observing some or other crackpot dictum of the new religion. They no longer defend them per se. 3/8
Pam Groenewald, an officer of the SAMRC (@PamRenaud@MRCza) continues to misrepresent @PanData19's views, summarising them as "to try and minimise the suffering and mortality due to the Covid epidemic". This is disingenuous in the extreme. Here is my response. 1/7
Pam, you continue to trivialise and refuse to answer PANDA's central objections to the catastrophic global policy response to COVID, including its renunciation of all pre-COVID science. You and the SAMRC have not raised a voice against any of the numerous travesties. 2/7
We objected to lockdowns as being unsubstantiated by evidence. This observation has been confirmed in numerous studies. We pointed out the numerous issues with PCR, which have belatedly been echoed by two advisories of the WHO. 3/7
It's a fallacy that the lowest level of positives for PCR tests (eg in Australia or UK summer) represents an upper bound for false positives (FPs). It represents an upper bound for METHOD FPs for whatever protocol is being used in that location, with primers being crucial. 1/4
OPERATING FPs, for example from sample contamination, are also a function of testing intensity and lab quality, rise with cycle threshold, and interact with prevalence in the test population in complicated ways. 2/4
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL FPs pertain to the disconnect between what the test detects (RNA segments) and the diagnosis of interest (the existence of sufficient competent virus to induce infectiousness). These rise with cycle threshold and the use of single or less specific primers. 3/4
A positive PCR test does not mean you “have COVID”. PCR tests seek portions of the virus SARS-COV-2, not the disease COVID-19. If you’re asymptomatic, you do not have the disease and are unlikely to be infectious. 1/4
If you recovered from the disease, you can test positive for up to three months, despite being completely non-infectious. If you were infected, but never had the disease, ditto. 2/4
Yet you may be quarantined or barred from travel. The simple solution of using Rapid Antigen tests would eliminate such epidemiological false positives. Why aren’t they deployed? 3/4
The fact that the CDC is clutching at straws like this is crucial. Failure of the asymptomatic-transmission-as-driver theory would explain why so many studies fail to establish lockdown and mask mandate efficacy. 3/8
Well they did that quietly. I wonder why? @shaynekrige, this must have been just days after the Scientists Collective assured us the evidence of masks was incontrovertible, in the process referring us to a study of two hairdressers. @dailymaverick, you need less corrupt experts.
Come to think of it, the Scientists Collective also promoted the doctrine of WHO infallibility. Can you recall whether they were referring to the WHO in March, the WHO in September or the WHO in December?
2/ Let's remind ourselves of few basics: (1) Lockdowns were warned against by every relevant institution, including the WHO, whose last warning was refreshed as late as December 2019. (2) Since May, it has been nose-bleedingly obvious that Covid lockdowns produced no benefit.
3/ (3) Hard-pressed to say something in response to this lack of substance, three derisory papers have been produced and hustled through "peer review", but all made the same basic "rain dance" error. At least one of them was co-authored by a lockdown architect, Fergusson.
Here is another very enjoyable conversation, with @Pandata19’s scientific advisory board member, Dr Jay Bhattacharya. Key ideas in this thread. 1/10
We are making world-changing decisions on the basis of evidence that is not very good. Vast scientific evidence tells us that infection fatality rates are much lower than originally expected. A small fraction of people get severe illness. 2/10
The scientific community has been resistant to evidence not supporting the majoritarian view, preferring instead to gin up panic, focusing on the worst case for everything the virus does & the best case for everything lockdowns do, and ignoring the range of uncertainty. 3/10
I entered this conversation thinking that I already knew the story, in a way. Dr Wodarg had succeeded in preventing the WHO from creating a fake pandemic in 2009. He thought the world wasn't silly enough to be fooled twice, but he'd been wrong. 1/9 pandata.org/wolfgang-wodar…
He'd previously had ready access to mainstream media and found this suddenly cut off when he opened his mouth to voice his concern about the hysterical mania of Covid. The comically corrupt whom he'd vanquished all those years ago had been waiting for him. 2/9
All sorts of web entries about his courageous and humane career in public health and politics had morphed into caricatures that painted him as a freak; a "denier", as the post-modern parlance goes, with no means of redress. 3/9
“When the law is unjust, violating it is not only justified as legitimate, it is exalted as heroic.”
The regulations are absurd, from masks, to curfews, to closures. People see they’re ineffective & destructive & they are disobeying, as they all should. businesslive.co.za/fm/opinion/pro…
We have state capture, media capture and corrupt science all participating in this tragic miscarriage of justice, this terrorizing and brutalizing of ordinary people. Democracy lies in ruins, there is no debate and no chance to question and demand answers.
Every citizen has an ethical obligation to resist. Complicit politicians, journalists and scientists will have their day of reckoning. The rest of us need to be on the right side of history.