By Dr. Mike Yeadon - April 22 2022
I contend that all the main narrative points about the coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 are lies.
Furthermore, all the “measures” imposed on the population are also lies.
In what follows, I support these claims scientifcally, mostly by reference to peer-reviewed journal articles.
In 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) scientists reviewed the evidence for the utility of all non-pharmaceutical interventions, concluding that they are all without effect.
Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as well- intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
There is no medical or public health emergency.
We can and should take back our freedoms with immediate effect testing healthy people stops. If you’re sick, please stay home. Masks belong in the trash. The Covid-19 gene-based injections are not recommended and must not be coerced or mandated. Crucially, the vaccine passports database must be destroyed. Economic rectitude is recommended.
Serious crimes have obviously been committed. It is not the purpose of this document to accuse anyone or to assemble the evidence against them at this time. However, when this is all resolved, We the People are strongly recommended to pay much more attention to Washington than previously.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Download PDF of this post HERE
Section 1: The Covid Lies:
THE NARRATIVE POINT 1: SARS-CoV-2 has such a high lethality that every measure must be taken to save lives. Note: Covid-19 is the disease resulting from infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. They are often used interchangeably. Sometimes it doesn’t much matter, but the confusion was sowed deliberately.
IMPORTANCE Essential to claim high lethality in order that unprecedented responses may seem justified. To “pep up” the claim, recall “falling man” in Wuhan? The person was allegedly sick but walking about, before falling dead on his face. That was never real. It was theatre.
THE REALITY Early estimates of lethality were very high with, in some reports, an “infection fatality rate” (IFR) of 3%. Seasonal influenza is generally considered to have a typical IFR of 0.1%. That means some seasons, IFR for flu may be 0.3% and other times, 0.05% or lower.
In practise, and this was usual, estimates of IFR for Covid-19 were revised downwards repeatedly and now are generally recognised as in the range of 0.1–0.3%. It cannot now be argued that it is signi!cantly different from some seasonal influenza epidemics. Why, then, have we all but destroyed the modern world over it?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
The perpetrators knew that lethality estimates of new respiratory viral illnesses ALWAYS start high and reduce. This is because, early on, we do not have any estimate of the number of people infected but not seriously ill and the number infected with no symptoms at all.
They created the impression of extreme danger, which was never true. This is such a crucial point, for once one sees it for what it is, the rest of the narrative is superfluous.
Dr. John Ioannidis is one of the world’s most-published epidemiologists and he has been scathing about the inappropriate responses to a novel virus of not particularly unusual lethality. Like most respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 represents no serious health threat to those under 60 years of age, certainly not children, and is a serious threat only to those nearing the end of their lives by virtue of age and multiple comorbidities. (1)
Dr. Ioannidis’s current estimate of global IFR is around 0.15%. For reference, a typical seasonal influenza outbreak has a typical IFR of around 0.1%, but can be markedly worse in bad winters. (2)
THE NARRATIVE POINT 2: Because this is a new virus, there will be no prior immunity in the population.
IMPORTANCE Seems reasonable, doesn’t it? This remark, made repeatedly early on, aimed to squash any notion that there was a degree of “prior immunity” in the population. Prior immunity and natural immunity are only now, two years in, not considered “misinformation”.
THE REALITY Within a few months, multiple publications showed that a large minority (ranging from 30%–50%, some later said even more) of the population had T-cells in their blood which recognised various pieces of the viral protein (synthesised, as no one seemed to have any real virus isolates to use).
While some people argued that recognition by T-cells didn’t mean functional immunity, really it does. We were prevented from learning that we already knew of six coronaviruses, four of which cause “common colds,” which in elderly and infirm people can cause death.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
This was a straight lie. It’s pretty much never true that there’s no prior immunity in a population. This is because viruses are each derived from earlier viruses and some of the population had already defeated its antecedents, giving them either immunity or a big head start in defeating the new virus. Either way, a sizeable proportion of the population never had cause to worry.
This article includes all the important peer-reviewed articles to mid-2020, with many showing at least 30%–50% having prior immunity (it depends upon the measure used to assess it) (3)
THE NARRATIVE POINT 3: This virus does not discriminate. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
IMPORTANCE Intention was to minimise the numbers who might reason they’re not “at risk” people.
THE REALITY This claim was always absurd. The lethality of this virus, as is common with respiratory viruses, is 1000x less in young, healthy people than in elderly people with multiple comorbidities.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
In short, almost no one who wasn’t close to the end of their lives was at risk of severe outcomes and death. In middle-aged individuals, obesity is a risk factor, as it is for a handful of other causes of death.
This intriguing review details how the initial modelling induced fear and provided the excuse for heavy-handed measures, especially “lockdowns”.(4) It was, however, just that: an excuse. All experienced public health experts knew that lockdowns were absurd, ineffective, and hugely destructive. There’s no way to sugar-coat this. It was wrong before it was ordered, and it’s necessary to examine why those who knew did not protest. It’s almost as if they were complicit.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 4: People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.
IMPORTANCE This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.
THE REALITY The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how o!en a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered. (5)
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.(6) Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 5: The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
IMPORTANCE This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle.The inventor of the PCR test, Dr. Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.
THE REALITY In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know, if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”.
In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown percent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community.
Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit percent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives.
Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC/NHSE/MHRA.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit, because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a
Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team. (7)
The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR, (8) and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population, because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.
I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception? (9)
Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!
Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements. (10). First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent effiacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 6: Masks are effective in preventing the spread of this virus.
IMPORTANCE This is mostly used to maintain the illusion of danger. You see others’ masks and feel afraid. Complying is also a measure of whether you do what you’re told, even if the measure is useless.
THE REALITY We have known for decades that surgical masks worn in medical theatres do not stop respiratory virus transmission. Masks were tested across a series of operations by doctors at the Royal College of Surgeons (UK). No ddifference in post-operative infection rate was seen by mask use.
Cloth masks definitely don’t stop respiratory virus transmission as shown by several large, randomised trials. If anything, they increase risk of lung infections. The authorities have mostly conceded on cloth masks.
Some people speak of “source control,” catching droplets. Problem is, there is no evidence that transmission takes place via droplets. Equally, there is no evidence it occurs via fine aerosols. No one "finds it on masks, or on air filters in hospital wards of Covid patients, either. Where is the virus?
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
It’s not necessary to use up time on this topic. It was known long before Covid-19 that face masks don’t do anything. Many don’t know that blue medical masks aren’t filters. Your inspired and expired air moves in and out between the mask and your face. They are splashguards, that’s all.
This a good review of the findings with masks in respiratory viruses by a recognised expert in the field. No effect. (11)
Neither masks nor lockdowns prevented the spread of the virus. This review summarizes 400 papers. (12)
THE NARRATIVE POINT 7: Lockdowns slow down the spread and reduce the number of cases and deaths.
IMPORTANCE The most impactful yet wasteful intervention, accomplishing nothing useful.
Useful to the perpetrators, however, wishing to damage the economy and reduce interpersonal contacts. This measure was surprisingly tolerated in many wealthy countries, because “furlough” schemes were put in place, compensating many people for not working, or requiring them to work from home.
THE REALITY The measure, though among the most repressive acts ever imposed on citizens in a democracy, was intuitively reasonable to many. This an example of how far off-course uninformed intuition can be.
The core idea was simple. Respiratory viruses are transmitted from person to person. Reducing the average number of contacts surely reduces transmission? Actually, it doesn’t, because the transmission concept is wrong. Transmission is from a SYMPTOMATIC person to a susceptible person. Those with symptoms are UNWELL. They remain at home in most cases with no action from the government. Transmission occurred mostly in institutions where sick people and susceptible people were forced into contact: hospitals, care homes, and domestic settings.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
A general lockdown had no detectable impact on epidemic spreading, cases, hospitalisations, or deaths. This is now widely accepted, after a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins University (interestingly, as the JHU repeatedly features as an actor in a documentary about pandemic-related fraud by German journalist Paul Schreyer) (13)
This is because those involved in the vast bulk of human-to-human contacts are fit and well and such contacts didn’t result in transmission. Essentially, if you’re fooled by the “asymptomatic transmission” lie, then lockdown might make sense. However, since it is epidemiologically irrelevant, lockdowns can never work, and of course, all the voluminous literature confirms this.
This concept is unequivocally known to multiple public health scientists and doctors. This is why “lockdown” had never been tried before.
Importantly, WHO scientists drafted a detailed review of all the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in 2019 and distributed copies of the report to all WHO member states (14)
This means that ALL member states already knew, late in 2019, that masks, lockdowns, border restrictions, and business or school closures were futile. Only “stay home if you’re sick” works at all, and people don’t need to be told this, for they are too unwell to go out.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 8: There are unfortunately no treatments for Covid beyond support in hospital.
IMPORTANCE Reinforced the idea that it was vital to avoid catching the virus. Legally, it was essential for the perpetrators bringing forward novel vaccines that there were no viable treatments. Had there been even one, the regulatory route of Emergency Use Authorisation would not have been available.
THE REALITY In my opinion, while all these measures were destructive and cruel, active deprivation of access to experimentally applied but otherwise known safe and effective early treatments led directly to millions of avoidable deaths worldwide. In my mind, this is a policy of mass murder.
Contrasting with the official narrative, the therapeutic value of early treatment was already understood and demonstrated empirically during spring 2020. Since then, a sizeable handful of well-understood, off-patent, low-cost and safe oral treatments have been characterised.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
The official position was that the disease Covid-19 could not be treated and the patient only “supported,” often by mechanical ventilation.
Ventilation is wholly inappropriate because Covid-19 is rarely an obstructive airway disease, yet has a high associated morbidity and mortality. An oxygen mask is greatly preferred. In my view, due to the very large amount of empirical treatment and good communication, Covid-19 is the most treatable respiratory viral illness ever.
We knew in the first three months of 2020 that hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin were empirically useful, provided treatment was started early and tackled rationally.(15)
It’s very important to note that it has been known for a decade and more that elevating intracellular zinc acts to suppress viral replication.(16) There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that so-called “zinc ionophores,” compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes, were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This is a starting point for all of the clinical trials in Covid-19, (17) including especially ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (which are zinc ionophores). (18) It should be noted that using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing”.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 9: It’s not certain if you can get the virus more than once.
IMPORTANCE The idea of natural immunity was flatly denied and the absurd idea that you might get the same virus twice was established. This ramped up the fear, which might otherwise have passed swiftly.
THE REALITY Those with even a basic grasp of mammalian immunology knew that senior advisors to government, speaking in uncertain terms on this question, were lying. Certainly, in the author’s case, it was a pivotal point. I shared a foundational education in UK universities at the same time as the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor. This shared education meant we’d have had the same set texts. I reasoned that he knew what I knew and vice-versa. I was as sure as it is possible to be that it wouldn’t be possible to get clinically unwell twice in response to the same virus, or close-in variants of it. I was right. He was lying.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
There have been scores of peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic (19). Very few clinically important reinfections have ever been confirmed. Beating off a respiratory virus infection leaves almost everyone with acquired immunity, which is complete, powerful, and durable.
You wouldn’t know it for the misdirection around antibodies in blood, but such antibodies are not considered pivotally important in host immunity.
Secreted antibodies in airway surface liquid of the IgA isotype certainly are, but most important are memory T-cells.(20)
Those infected with SARS in 2003 still had clear evidence of robust, T-cell mediated immunity 17 years later. (21)
THE NARRATIVE POINT
10: Variants of the virus appear and are of great concern.
IMPORTANCE I believe the purpose of this fiction was to extend the apparent duration of the pandemic—and the fear—for as long as the perpetrators wished it. While there is controversy on this point, with some physicians believing reinfection by variants to be a serious problem, I think untrustworthy testing and other viruses entirely is the parsimonious explanation.
THE REALITY I come at it as an immunologist. From that vantage point, there is very strong precedent indicating that recovery a!er infection affords immunity extending beyond the sequence of the variant that infected the patient to all variants of SARS-CoV-2. The number of confirmed reinfections is so small that they are not an issue, epidemiologically speaking.
We have good evidence from those infected by SARS in 2003: they not only have strong T-cell immunity to SARS, but cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is very important because SARS-CoV-2 is arguably a variant of SARS, there being around a 20% difference at the sequence level.
Consider this: if our immune systems are able to recognise SARS-CoV-2 as foreign and mount an immune response to it, despite never having seen it before, because of prior immunity conferred by infection years ago by a virus which is 20% different, it’s logical that variants of SARS-CoV-2, like delta and omicron, will not evade our immunity. No variant of SARS-CoV-2 differs from the original Wuhan sequence by more than 3%, and probably less.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
Normal rules of immunology apply here (22). Despite the publicity to the contrary, SARS- CoV-2 mutates relatively slowly and no variant is even close to evading immunity acquired by natural infection.
This is because the human immune system recognises 20–30 different structural motifs in the virus, yet requires only a handful to recall an effective immune memory (23) The variants story fails to note “Muller’s Ratchet,” the phenomenon in which variants of a virus, formed in an infected person during viral replication (in which “typographical errors” are made and not corrected) trend to greater transmissibility but lesser lethality. If this was not the case, at some point in human evolution, we would have expected a respiratory viral pandemic to have killed off a substantial proportion of humanity. There is no historical record for such an event.
I do not rule out the possibility that the so-called vaccines are so badly designed that they prevent the establishment of immune memory. If that is true, then the vaccines are worse than failures, and it might be possible to be repeatedly infected. This would be a form of acquired immune deficiency.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 11: The only way to end the pandemic is universal vaccination.
IMPORTANCE This, I believe, was always the objective of the largely faked pandemic. It’s NEVER been the way prior pandemics have ended, and there was nothing about this one that should have led us to adopt the extreme risks that were taken and which have resulted in hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of wholly avoidable deaths.
THE REALITY The interventions imposed on the population didn’t prevent spread of the virus. Only individual isolation for an open-ended period could do that, and that’s clearly impossible (hospital patients and residents of care homes have to be cared for at very least and additionally, the nation has to be supplied with food and medicines).
All the interventions were useless and hugely burdensome.
Yet we have reached the end of the pandemic, more or less. We would have done so faster and with less suffering and death had we adopted measures along the lines proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration and used pharmaceutical treatments as they were discovered, plus general improvements to public health, such as encouraging vitamin supplements.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
It was NEVER appropriate to attempt to “end the pandemic” with a novel technology vaccine. In a public health mass intervention, safety is the top priority, more so even than effectiveness, because so many people will receive it. It’s simply not possible to obtain data demonstrating adequate longitudinal safety in the time period any pandemic can last.
Those who pushed this line of argument and enabled the gene-based agents to be injected needlessly into billions of innocent people are guilty of 'crimes against humanity'.
It quickly became apparent that natural immunity was stronger than any protection from vaccination (24) and most people were not at risk of severe outcomes if infected.(25) Even children who were immunocompromised are not at elevated risk from Covid-19, so advice that such children should be vaccinated is lethally flawed.(26) These agents are clearly underperforming against expectations.(27)
THE NARRATIVE POINT 12: The new vaccines are safe and effective.
IMPORTANCE I feel particularly strongly about this claim. Both components are lies. I outline the inevitability of the toxicity of all four gene-based agents below.
Separately, the clinical trials were wholly inadequate.
They were conducted in people not most in need of protection from safe and effective vaccines.
They were far too short in duration.
The endpoints only captured “infection” as measured by an inadequate PCR test and should have been augmented by Sanger sequencing to confirm real infection.
Trials were underpowered to detect important endpoints like hospitalisation and death.
There’s evidence of fraud in at least one of the pivotal clinical trials.
I think there is also clear evidence of manufacturing fraud and regulatory collusion. They should never have been granted emergency use authorisations (EUAs).
THE REALITY The design of the agents called vaccines is very bothersome. Gene-based agents are new in a public health application. Had I been in a regulatory role, I would have informed all the leading R&D companies that I would not approve these without extensive longitudinal studies, meaning they could not receive EUA before early 2022 at the earliest. I would have outright denied their use in children, in pregnancy, and in the infected-recovered. Point blank. I’d need years of safe use before contemplating an alteration of this stance.
The basic rules of this new activity, gene-based component vaccines, are:
(1) to select part of the virus that has no inherent biological action—that rules out spike protein, which we inferred would be very toxic, before they’d even started clinical trials;(28)
(2) select the genetically most stable parts of the virus, so we could ignore the gross misrepresentations of variants so slight in dierence from the original that we were being toyed with via propaganda—again, this rules out spike protein;
(3) choose parts of the virus which are most different from any human proteins. Once more, spike protein is immediately deselected, otherwise unnecessary risks of autoimmunity are carried forward.
That all four leading actors chose spike protein, against any reasonable selection criteria, leads me to suspect both collusion and malign intent.
Finally, let nature guide us. Against which components of the virus does natural immunity aim? We find 90% of the immune repertoire targets NON-spike protein responses.(29) I rest my case.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
These agents were always going to be toxic. The only question was, to what degree? Having selected spike protein to be expressed, a protein which causes blood clotting to be initiated, a risk of thromboembolic adverse events was burned into the design.
Nothing at all limits the amount of spike protein to be made in response to a given dose. Some individuals make a little and only briefly. The other end of a normal range results in synthesis of copious amounts of spike protein for a prolonged period. The locations in which this pathological event occurred, as well as where on the spectrum, in my view played a pivotal role in whether the victim experienced adverse events, including death.
There are many other pathologies flowing from the design of these agents, including, for the mRNA “vaccines,” that lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulations leave the injection site and home to the liver and ovaries, (30) among other organs, (31) But this evidence is enough to get started.
See this interview for evidence of clinical trial and other fraud, publicised by Edward Dowd, a former BlackRock investment analyst. (32)
See this video for evidence of offial data fraud (UK Office of National Statistics): especially at 2min 45sec for the heart of the matter.(33)
See here for evidence of manufacturing fraud.(34) The same methodology was used to obtain regulatory authorisations, and so it is my contention that there is also regulatory fraud.
In the Pfizer clinical trial briefing document to FDA, which was used for issuing the EUA (on p. 40 or thereabout), there is a paragraph stating that there were approximately 2,000 “suspected unconfirmed Covid cases”— meaning people were sick with symptoms but were not tested, (otherwise, it would be stated that the tests were negative). Of these, in the first seven days after injection, there were 400 in the vaccine arm and 200 in placebo. These subjects were excluded from the dataset used to assess efficacy. It’s as clear evidence of fraud as you can get; they admit to it in the FDA briefing! Nobody paid any attention to this that I am aware of.
There’s also evidence of data fraud in that clinical trial as summarised by Dr. Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal).
Though many people refuse to accept or even look at the evidence, it is clear that the number of adverse events and deaths soon after Covid-19 vaccination is astonishing and far in excess, in 2021 alone, than all adverse effects and deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the previous 30 years. Here is a simplified view of Covid vaccine-related mortality reports from VAERS. (35)
This excellent presentation by a forensic statistician, well used to presenting analyses for court purposes, dismantles the claims that the vaccines are effective and shows how toxicity is hidden (see the second half of the recording)
Another paper published by the same group questions vaccine efficacy.(36)
Ioannidis JPA, Axfors C, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters. Environ Res. 2020 Sep;188:109890.
Ioannidis JPA. Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID-19: an overview of systematic evaluations. Eur J Clin Invest. 2021 May;51(5):e13554.
Doshi P. Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? BMJ. 2020;370:m3563.
Joe AR. COVID-19: Rethinking the lockdown groupthink. Front Public Health. 2021 Feb 26;9:625778.
Madewell ZJ, Yang Y, Longini Jr IM, Halloran ME, Dean NE. Household transmission of SARS-Cov-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031756.
“Exposing the lie of asymptomatic transmission, once and for all.” May 10,2021 https://www.bitchute.com/video/lIj22KttYq7z/
World Health Organization. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Interim guidance, Sep. 11, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-2019- nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Kolata G. Faith in quick test leads to epidemic that wasn’t. New York Times, Jan. 22, 2007. Available at https://eumeswill.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/faith-in-quick-test-leads-to-epidemic-that-wasnt/
“Prof. Norman Fenton – Open science sessions: How %awed data has driven the narrative.” PANDA, Feb. 3, 2022. https://rumble.com/vtxi1h-open-science-sessions- how-"flawed-data-has-driven-the-narrative.html
Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 20;11(11):CD006207.
Alexander PE. More than 400 studies on the failure of compulsory Covid interventions (lockdowns, restrictions, closures). Brownstone Institute, Nov. 30, 2021. https:// brownstone.org/articles/more-than-400-studies-on-the-failure-of-compulsory- covid-interventions/
Dinerstein C. The Johns Hopkins lockdown analysis. American Council on Science and Health, Feb. 16, 2022. https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/02/16/johns-hopkins- lockdown-analysis-16135
World Health Organization. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic in%uenza: annex: report of systematic literature reviews. World Health Organization, 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/ 10665/329439. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
McCullough PA, Kelly RJ, Ruocco G, et al. Pathophysiological basis and rationale for early outpatient treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Am J Med. 2021 Jan;134(1):16-22.
Te Velthuis AJW, van den Worm SHE, Sims AC, Baric RS, Snijder EJ, van Hemert MJ. Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PloS Pathog. 2010 Nov 4;6(11):e1001176.
COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 1,609 studies. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2022 from https://c19early.com/.
Bryant A, Lawrie TA, Dowswell T, et al. Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines. Am J "er. 2021 Jun 21;28(4):e434-e460.
Alexander PE. How likely is reinfection following Covid recovery? Brownstone Institute, Dec. 29, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/how-likely-is-reinfection- following-covid-recovery/
Wyllie D, Mulchandani R, Jones HE, et al. SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers are associated with protection from COVID-19: a prospective cohort study in keyworkers. MedRxiv, Nov. 4, 2020.
Le Bert N, Tan AT, Kunasegaran K, et al. SARS-CoV-2-speci"c T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):457-462.
Tarke A, Sidney J, Methot N, et al. Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees. BioRxiv, Mar. 1, 2021.
Tarke A, Sidney J, Kidd CK, et al. Comprehensive analysis of T cell immunodominance and immunoprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes in COVID-19 cases. BioRxiv, Dec. 9, 2020.
Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections. MedRxiv, Aug. 25, 2021.
Alexander PE. 150 plus research studies arm naturally acquired immunity to Covid-19: documented, linked, and quoted. Brownstone Institute, Oct. 17, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-arm-naturally-acquired- immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
Chappell H, Patel R, Driessens C, et al. Immunocompromised children and young people are at no increased risk of severe COVID-19. J Infect. 2022 Jan;84(1):31-39.
Alexander PE. 46 efficacy studies that rebuke vaccine mandates. Brownstone Institute, Oct. 28, 2021. https://brownstone.org/articles/16-studies-on-vaccine-efficacy/
Grobbelaar LM, Venter C, Vlok M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces "brin(ogen) resistant to "brinolysis: implications for microclot formation in COVID-19. MedRxiv, Mar. 8, 2021.
Ferretti AP, Kula T, Wang Y, et al. Unbiased screens show CD8+ T cells of COVID-19 patients recognize shared epitopes in SARS-CoV-2 that largely reside outside the spike protein. Immunity. 2020 Nov 17;53(5):1095-1107.
Schädlich A, Homann S, Mueller T, et al. Accumulation of nanocarriers in the ovary: a neglected toxicity risk? J Control Release. 2012 May 30;160(1):105-112.
“Edward Dowd interview portion on Steve Bannons War Room Ep #1602.” https:// www.onenewspage.com/video/20220204/14277521/Edward-Dowd-Interview- portion-on-Steve-Bannons-War.htm
“Norman Fenton interviewed by Majid Nawaz, LBC Radio 4 Dec 2021.” Truth Archive 2030, Feb. 21, 2022. https://www.bitchute.com/video/KApFxhjiWLqI/
“COVID vax variability between lots – independent research by international team.” Craig-Paardekooper, Dec. 15, 2021. https://www.bitchute.com/video/4HlIyBmOEJeY/
Neil M, Fenton NE, Smalley J, et al. Latest statistics on England mortality data suggest systematic mis-categorisation of vaccine status and uncertain eectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination. ResearchGate, December 2021. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.14176.20483
Section 2: How Much of the Covid-19 Narrative Was True? Additional Reflections
The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that all of the key narrative points about the SARS-CoV-2 virus said to cause the disease Covid-19 and the measures imposed to control it are incorrect.
Given that the sources of these points are scientists, doctors, and public health officials, it is evident that they were not simply mistaken. Instead, they have lied in order to mislead. I believe the motivations of those who I call “the perpetrators” become clear, once it is internalised that the entire event is based on lies.
In recent days, breaking news indicates that coronavirus antibodies are present in blood stored in European blood banks from 2019.(1) The implications are momentous.
In the first three months of the Covid event, I started noticing senior scientific and medical advisors on UK television saying things that I found disturbing. It was hard to put my finger on the specifics, but they included remarks like:
“Because this is a new virus, there won’t be any immunity in the population”.
“Everyone is vulnerable”.
“In view of the very high lethality of the virus, we are exploring how best to protect the population”
I had been reading extensively about the apparent spread of SARS-CoV-2 in China and beyond, and had already arrived at a number of important conclusions. Essentially, I was sure that, objectively, we weren’t going to experience a major event. I based some of my conclusions on the Diamond Princess cruise ship experience.
Note that no crew members died, and only a minority on the ship even got infected, suggesting substantial prior immunity, a steep age-lethality relationship, and an infection fatality ratio (IFR) not much different, if at all, from prior respiratory virus infections. But what was happening was that, in my view, senior people were acting a lot more frightened than seemed appropriate.
It was with this heightened interest that I began to closely examine all aspects of the alleged pandemic. I suspected something very bad was happening when the Imperial College released its modelling paper by Neil Ferguson. This claimed that over 500,000 people in the UK would die unless severe “measures” were put in place.
Ferguson had over-projected all of the last five disease-related emergencies in the UK and had been responsible for the destruction of the beef herd through his modelling of the spread of foot-and-mouth disease.
I had also been reading about all sorts of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs), and what this had taught me was that there was absolutely no experimental literature around any of the NPIs being spoken of, except masks—which were clearly ineffective in blocking respiratory virus transmission. Moreover, the non-experts in the
mainstream media drew on a very limited group of experts, and I noticed that none were immunologists.
I had, in parallel, watched the evolving scene in Sweden and was pleased to note that the Swedes’ chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, seemed to know what he was doing and had dismissed the panic. I knew he had been the deputy of his predecessor, Johan Gieseke, who was still around in an emeritus role. Gieseke was also reassuringly calm. The final straw was when on March 23, 2020, the British prime minister initiated the first “lockdown”. This was wholly without precedent. I knew Sweden had rejected lockdown measures as wholly unnecessary and extremely damaging.
From that day forward, the team from the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) put up one or more members every day to appear alongside the prime minister or the health minister. These press conferences were meandering affairs, and it wasn’t clear what their purpose was. The questions asked never sought to place things in context, but instead seemed to always explore the outer edges of possible outcomes and then follow up with remarks that didn’t seem adequately prepared.
In retrospect, I think the aim was to make the press conferences the only “must watch” thing on TV, and with such a large, captive audience, a form of fear-based hypnosis was instigated.
Much later, Belgian professor and clinical psychologist Mattias Desmet informed us that this was indeed the aim, calling the process “mass formation”.(2)
This process can become malignant, as have past beliefs in events that were later conceded to have been episodes of societal madness, like the Salem witch trials, satanic abuse of children, and other delusions.
Some experts believe that modern societies are more—and not less—susceptible to mass panics because of the ubiquity of easily-controlled messaging (properly termed “propaganda,” since it was completely deliberate and carefully planned).
An August 2021 animated video titled “Mass Psychosis – How an Entire Population Becomes Mentally Ill” illustrates this phenomenon; despite the animation format, the film leans heavily on academic research from luminaries such as Gustave Le Bon, Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, Stanley Milgram, and Solomon Asch, as well as later researchers and studies.(3)
It is important to be cautious about the purported importance of “mass formation,” however. In a sense, it might be seen as wholly impersonal and something that is thrown at the population and lands more or less effectively on people at random. Worse, it comes with the notion that, if you are susceptible, it cannot be resisted. There is a contrasting school of thought that holds that information technology (IT), data, and artificial intelligence (AI) are capable of assembling a “digital prison” that is tailored to each individual and shaped over time by choices that we each make.(4) The outcome isn’t in any way preordained. However, incentives and deterrents are associated with innumerable decisions we make, such as how to pay for something, whether we sell our data for tiny rewards, whether we consciously decide to open links suggested for us, whether we leave location services running permanently, and more.(5)
Using Mass Testing to Promote Fear
As soon as the UK lockdown was initiated, the focus turned full force onto mass testing, and especially on testing people without symptoms. I knew this didn’t make any sense, because if a large enough number of people are tested daily, without knowledge of the false-positive rate, it could certainly very quickly panic people into thinking there were lots of people walking around with the virus, unaware they had it and allegedly spreading it to others.
Once the lockdown was in place, in addition to testing, the press conferences focused on numbers in hospital, numbers on ventilators, and ultimately, the daily deaths “with Covid”. Early treatments and improved lifestyle were never spoken of. The first lockdown lasted 12 weeks, with most office staff told to work from home while being paid “furlough” (a word never before used in Britain).
The “fear porn” continued all the way into high summer, long a!er daily Covid deaths had reached approximately zero.The introduction of mandatory masking in all public areas in the heat of summer, when they had never been required before, was the last straw for me. It was all theatre.
At that point, I set out to investigate a couple of core concepts: the “PCR test” and “asymptomatic transmission”. I’m embarrassed to say, however, that it wasn’t until the autumn of 2020 that I had clear in my mind, with mounting horror, that the entire event, if not completely manufactured, was being grossly exaggerated, with the intent of deceiving the entire “liberal democratic West”.
Scores of countries were economically being squeezed to death. I knew that from a financial perspective, borrowing or printing enough money to subsidise tens of millions to remain at home could not be long sustained without destroying the sovereign currency. Strangely, exchange rates didn’t move much—another clue that powerful forces were managing this event as well as its consequences.
Around this time, country leaders started talking about “Build Back Better,” and Klaus Schwab’s book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, appeared.
All of this contributed to my developing the idea of “The Covid lies”. It seemed to me that everything we had been told about the virus wasn’t true, and also that all the NPIs imposed upon us couldn’t work, and so were for nothing more than show.
One Dominant Narrative
As already mentioned, repetition and fear were key to instigating “mass formation” as described by Mattias Desmet.(2) This narrowing of focus, according to Desmet, means those “in the mass” (crowd) literally are incapable of hearing anything that challenges the narrative of which they’ve been convinced.
Any explanation other than the truth is marshalled to dismiss rational counter-arguments. And indeed we saw that anyone challenging the dominant narrative was attacked, smeared, censored, and cancelled on social media, and no reasonable and independent voices were ever seen or heard on TV or radio.
Desmet argues that mass formation, to be successful, requires that certain conditions be in place: high levels of free-floating anxiety; a strong degree of social isolation (where devices replace real human interactions); and finally, low levels of “sense-making,” that is, many things do not make sense to many people.
When a crisis is dropped into a population where these conditions obtain and is repeated ad nauseam, it is possible in effect to hypnotise them.
When the narrative has taken hold, what happens next?
Now, the population’s anxiety has an obvious focus, which is felt as a relief.
The routines—masking, lockdowns, testing, hand sanitizing—become for some a ritual, which provides daily meaning.
Finally, so many people are acting the same way and echoing the same lines (the lines they’ve heard time and again on TV, radio, newspapers, and their devices), that people can feel part of a national effort in a way they’ve not felt before.
Ths combination, coupled with visible and strong punishment for anyone who questions the narrative or simply refuses to comply, reinforces the groupthink.
It is, according to crowd psychology experts, nearly impossible to extract those who are this deeply “in the mass”. However, there is always another group of individuals who never fall for such deception. Outwardly pleasant and easygoing, these individuals typically are sceptical and go along with things only if they make sense to them personally, and not because an authority figure tells them to. There is also a third group in the middle—individuals who often sense that something is wrong but lack the courage of their own convictions and tend to side with whatever they’re told to do, rather passively. They are not hypnotised, but to third parties, they can seem to be. Crowd psychology experts encourage those who’ve seen through the lies (the second group) to speak out and continue to do so. This legitimises speaking out by all others not persuaded by the narrative and might even extract some from the middle group. Even those in the “mass” group will be prevented from sinking yet more deeply into the narrative, from where those orchestrating events can otherwise prompt such people to commit atrocities.
In the second half of 2020, the conversation turned to the oncoming vaccines. Having spent 32 years in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), I knew that what we were being told about vaccines was just lies. It’s not possible to bypass a dozen years of careful work or to compress it into a few months. The product that was to emerge was almost certain, to my mind, to be very dangerous. And after I began reading my way into this area, I grew more concerned still.
In my “Covid Lies” comments, I isolate ONLY the major narrative points themselves and show that none of them are true. In other words, this was not just a little lying here and there—no, the entire construct was false. After I describe all the main lies, I show how the perpetrators were able to get away with it. At the conclusion, I believe the reader will share my view that the whole event was manufactured or exaggerated from a mild situation.
Remember, no alternative views were permitted in the “public square”. In fact, in July 2019—well before the declared pandemic—a group of powerful media organisations had already assembled and founded the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). The purpose of TNI was both to control mass media messages and crush alternative voices from any direction.(6)
Again, all of the Covid narrative was lies. Not mistakes. Many of the politicians who repeated others’ lines might try to offer as defence that they relied on experts to inform them.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Rochelle Walensky recently did just that when she said that the CDC made vaccination recommendations because CNN published Pfizer’s press re