Follow the science…
It’s all about saving lives…
We’ve all heard the slogans and catch phrases. I’m still wondering; if it’s all about ‘saving lives’ then why are abortion clinics considered “essential services”?12 Who’s the voice of advocacy for all those unborn children? After all, isn’t it #TheirBodyTheirChoice? I digress…
There are thought-provoking questions circulating throughout social media – at least, until they’re censored. Similarly, I’ve been wondering a few things, too. Here are a few (more) questions, along with some helpful resources, in hopes of further elevating the level of discussion.
Q: Where are the peer-reviewed studies proving the merits of a statewide / nationwide / worldwide lockdown to mitigate viral spread?
There are no scientific studies on the merits of a widescale lockdown to mitigate viral spread. Several think-tank white papers have been published on the matter, particularly in the post-9/11 era. But those are agenda-driven papers, and in no way, scientific in nature. Ben Swann recently offered some perspective:
Q: Where are the peer-reviewed studies proving the merits of ‘social distancing’ – or any studies on it, for that matter?
Have you heard of a single study mentioned? One then wonders; where is the ‘science’ on this matter? There are very few studies on social distancing, and even fewer, if any, which prove any appreciable merits. One study published in 20183 which represents more than a dozen other studies, produced mixed results, concluding:
Modeling studies support social distancing in non-healthcare workplaces, but there is a paucity of well-designed epidemiological studies.
Q: Why are we still following guidelines implemented primarily as a result of the now entirely discredited Imperial College London model?
Since Neil ‘Professor Lockdown’ Ferguson has now resigned in disgrace,456789 and even the revised version (with over a month of considerable help from Microsoft) of his 13-year old modeling code has now been proven an utter sham,10 why are we still following outlandish reactionary measures? From John Fund’s National Review article:9
Johan Giesecke, the former chief scientist for the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has called Ferguson’s model “the most influential scientific paper” in memory. He also says it was, sadly, “one of the most wrong.”
Ferguson’s hypocritical violation of his beloved lockdown was the least of his errors in judgment. His incompetence and insistence on doomsday models is far worse.
Elon Musk calls Ferguson an “utter tool” who does “absurdly fake science.” Jay Schnitzer, an expert in vascular biology and a former scientific direct of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego, tells me: “I’m normally reluctant to say this about a scientist, but he dances on the edge of being a publicity-seeking charlatan.”
Indeed, Ferguson’s Imperial College model has been proven wildly inaccurate. To cite just one example, it saw Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago. As Fraser Nelson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, notes: “Imperial College’s model is wrong by an order of magnitude.”
Indeed, Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him “The Master of Disaster.”
Speaking of ‘disasters,’ many people are familiar with Rahm Emanuel’s infamous 2008 remarks on the “Opportunities of Crisis.” But few are aware of the institutionalization of its practice, or the economy of ‘disaster capitalism,’ both of which beg further investigation.
Imperial College London (ICL) is heavily underwritten by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) BMGF dataset lists more than 200 ICL grants since 2006, totaling more than $310M. A quick search for grants to ‘Imperial College London’ on the Gates Foundation website returns 61 Search Results, including grant OPP1210755, which lists the following:
Imperial College London
Date: March 2020
Purpose: to develop a new tool for malaria control and elimination in sub-Saharan Africa
Program: Global Health
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.imperial.ac.uk
Continuing from Fund’s article:
Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?
Perhaps two better questions are:
- Who put Ferguson up to all of this bad ‘science’? With whom is he in cahoots?
- Will he and his co-conspirators be brought up on charges for all the damage, hardship, and loss of life they’ve caused?
Incidentally, the new source of modeling, IHME “was launched in June 2007 based on a core grant of $105 million primarily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”1112 IHME Director, Chris Murray is also a Gates construct. From Wikipedia:13
His work attracted the attention of Bill Gates, who decided to use the concept of DALYs to help determine priorities and evaluate potential projects in global health. In 2007, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the state of Washington, established IHME and selected Murray as its leader.
Q: Where are the vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies on the severe / fatal COVID-19 cases?
In other words, how many / what percentage of those who had severe / fatal COVID-19 reactions were vaccinated, especially with the flu vaccine, and particularly those who received multiple doses?
Q: What’s the fastest a new vaccine has ever been brought to market?
Traditional vaccines can take 15-20 years, but usually take 5-7 years to get through testing, and to market. RNA vaccines accelerate that time table considerably, potentially down to less than one year. But, though they’ve been in development for more than a decade, no RNA vaccine has ever been successfully brought to market. The fastest a traditional vaccine has ever been brought to market is five years. Historically, respiratory viruses like SARS-CoV-1 burn out in around 2 years, once the general populace has reached ‘herd immunity,’ obviously long before a vaccine has been created.141516
Q: How long will the safety studies be for all 100+ vaccine candidates?
Since the clamor is to get a COVID-19 vaccine to market ‘within 12-18 months,’ there won’t be ample time for any safety studies of long term side effects. This is particularly concerning, considering the fact that sometimes side effects do not materialize for a period of years. World Health Organization (WHO) representative, Grace Macklin recently described how WHO Polio outbreak response subsequently caused 28/41 of the most recent outbreaks, which was only discovered years later:18
…we demonstrate that the number and scope of outbreaks has been substantially more than anticipated, and specifically we demonstrate that of the 41 outbreaks in the past four years, 28 of those have actually been seeded by outbreak response after 2016. …what we’re now seeing a year later, or two years later is that that vaccine use has seeded subsequent outbreaks in different geographies, particularly in neighboring areas, and neighboring countries.
Q: What are Bill Gates’ medical qualifications?
Bill Gates is not a medical doctor, epidemiologist, virologist, immunobiologist, or medical expert of any kind. He is a Harvard drop-out who received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree in 2007.17 He does however boast his prowess with “number games.”
Q: What does Bill Gates mean by ‘bioterrorism’?
- Gates: Millions could die from bio-terrorism – AP Archive (Feb 18, 2017) – YouTube
We also face a new threat, that the next epidemic has good chance of originating on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus, or a contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.
- Bill Gates on Fighting Coronavirus | The Daily Social Distancing Show with Trevor Noah (Apr 2, 2020) – YouTube
There could be epidemics that are worse than that, including ones that aren’t naturally-caused that are a form of bioterrorism.
- Bill Gates: The next outbreak? We’re not ready (March 2015) | TED Talk
So next time, we might not be so lucky. You can have a virus where people feel well enough while they’re infectious that they get on a plane or they go to a market. The source of the virus could be a natural epidemic like Ebola, or it could be bioterrorism. So there are things that would literally make things a thousand times worse.
- The next epidemic is coming. Here’s how we can make sure we’re ready. | Bill Gates
including April 27, 2018 Shattuck Lecture remarks
We can’t predict when. But given the continual emergence of new pathogens, the increasing risk of a bioterror attack, and how connected our world is through air travel, there is a significant probability of a large and lethal, modern-day pandemic occurring in our lifetimes.
In the real world, though, the health infrastructure we have for normal times breaks down very rapidly during major infectious disease outbreaks. This is especially true in poor countries. But even in the U.S., our response to a pandemic or widespread bioterror attack would be insufficient.
And, as biological weapons of mass destruction become easier to create in the lab, there is an increasing risk of a bioterror attack.
Q: Why has Bill Gates repeatedly and unequivocally stated that governments will need to decide whether (or not) to indemnify the (COVID-19) vaccine manufacturing framework?
But there will be a trade-off. We’ll have less safety testing than we typically would have. And so, governments will have to decide, you know, do they indemnify the companies, and really say let’s, let’s go out with this? When it’s – we just don’t have the time to do what we normally do. So, 18 months is about what we’d expect…
Q: What’s the difference between RNA vaccines, and traditional vaccines? In other words, how do RNA vaccines work?
Allow Bill Gates to explain What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine and how RNA vaccines allegedly work:
Q: How long have RNA vaccines been in development?
For about 20 years.19
Q: How many RNA vaccines have ever been successfully brought to market?
Currently, there are no RNA vaccines approved for human use.
Q: What were the implications of the March 17 NY Times article “Behind the Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action”?
The article sub-heading:
It wasn’t so much the numbers themselves, frightening though they were, as who reported them: Imperial College London
From the article:
The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus.
American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public
“We’re all using the 1918 pandemic flu handbook,” Dr. Sridhar said.
Q: What are the implications of the RNA vaccine human trials currently underway?
On March 17, NIAID Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci announced Phase I human trials for the Moderna-NIAID RNA vaccine candidate had begun – a full month ahead of schedule.2122 Incidentally, if the Moderna-NIAID RNA vaccine candidate is chosen, Fauci and NIAID stand to share patent royalties on 7+ billion doses.
Q: What do staunch vaccine advocates (yes, ‘advocates’) like Dr. Peter Hotez, Dr. Paul Offit, and Dr. Stanley Plotkin say about those trials?23
“When Dr. Fauci said 12 to 18 months, I thought that was ridiculously optimistic,” Paul Offit, the co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine in the late 1990s, told CNN. “And I’m sure he did, too.”
“For a new coronavirus vaccine to be available for large populations, I would say it’s a matter of two years minimum,” Dr. Stanley Plotkin, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, who has worked in vaccine development since the 50s, previously told Business Insider’s Andrew Dunn.
“I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with,” Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters.
Especially with RNA vaccines, a particular concern is ‘immune enhancement’. Even Dr. Fauci has stated:
It’s not only safety, when you inject somebody, and they get maybe an idiosyncratic reaction, they get a little allergic reaction, or they get pain. There’s safety associated; does the vaccine make you worse? And there are diseases in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you’re trying to protect them with, and you actually enhance the infection. You can get a good feel for that in animal models.
Incidentally, animal trials on the Moderna-NIAID RNA vaccine candidate were not performed in advance of the Phase I human trials, and will instead be ‘interspersed,’ according to Fauci.
Q: What are the implications of Secretary Azar invoking the PREP Act?
On March 17, HHS Secretary, Alex Azar issued a Declaration activating the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”).26 What does that mean?
The PREP Declaration, issued under the PREP Act, grants immunity to manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of, and healthcare providers authorized to use, qualifying products that treat COVID-19 or help prevent the spread of coronavirus. The PREP Act defines “manufacturers” and “distributors” broadly to include suppliers and licensers, private label or own-label distributors, brokers, warehouses, wholesale drug traders, retail pharmacies, and carriers, among others. The PREP Declaration also extends immunity to “qualified persons,” such as licensed health care professionals or other individuals authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense qualifying products.
The PREP Declaration makes immunity retroactive to February 4, 2020 and currently extends it to October 1, 2024. The PREP Act only creates immunity for activities involving a limited universe of authorized products. … [and] extends immunity to activities directed to drugs, biologics, diagnostics, devices, and vaccines used to treat, diagnose, cure, prevent, or mitigate COVID-19…
Q: If the ‘salvation of humanity hangs in the balance,’ as some have postulated, then will the vaccine belong to all of mankind? If not, why not? I.E. cui bono – who benefits?
Earlier this week (Monday 5/4) EU President and globalist insider, Ursula von der Leyen held a global ‘virtual fundraiser’2728 to raise (another) €7.5B, allegedly primarily for ‘vaccine development’. Last Friday (5/1) DW’s Sarah Kelly interviewed her. During the interview, von der Leyen essentially answered that last two-part question. Following is an unabridged excerpt of her relevant remarks during the interview.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN: Well, for us it’s important that we give a strong answer to the coronavirus, because we know it knows no borders, it knows no nationalities, and we can only defeat that virus by a vaccine. And for that we need a global coordinated action, because we want to prevent that there is a run to the vaccine once we have it for those who can afford it. So, we need the coordinated research on the vaccine. When we have it – and we start right now already – we have to build up capacities to manufacture it – zillions of doses – and then we have to make sure that we can deploy it to every corner in the world, in a fair and affordable price, and that’s what exactly we’re working on. For that, we need money, and we need a global cooperation. We have this global framework now, and we need the pledging conference on Monday to raise the 7.5 billion Euros. This is just the start, I think we will need more over time.
SARAH KELLY: So, you say, ‘a fair and affordable price’ for any potential vaccine. But, the UN secretary-general has actually taken it one step further when it comes to facilitating public access to a vaccine. He says vaccines should belong to the entire world, not to individual countries or regions or companies. Is that something that you would be willing to support? Should a vaccine belong to humanity?
URSULA VON DER LEYEN: Well of course everybody should have access to this vaccine, and that’s the reason why we got all the stakes stakeholders that are necessary. So, we have the W.H.O., The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Wellcome Trust, UNITAID, Global Fund, just to name some. Of course, these important platforms like CEPI and GAVI. And we’re backed by many many countries in the world, the G20, I brought the initiative to the G20. So, this is necessary to really have a global approach, a coordinated approach in this important task.
Ahmed, F., Zviedrite, N. & Uzicanin, A. Effectiveness of workplace social distancing measures in reducing influenza transmission: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 18, 518 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5446-1 ↩
Paulson, Tom (4 June 2007). “$105 million Gates gift helps start global health center”. Seattle PI ↩