Since when has the British medical establishment become addicted to tyrannical, non-scientific, 'monotheism'?
Saturday, October 23, 2021
Dr. Kulldorff responds to anti-GBD screed in BMJ
Covid, lockdown and the retreat of scientific debate | The Spectator - Martin Kulldorff, Coffee House:
October 12, 2021 - "Science is about rational disagreement, the questioning and testing of orthodoxy and the constant search for truth. With something like lockdown – an untested policy that affects millions – rigorous debate and the basics of verification/falsification are more important than ever.... But with lockdown, science is in danger of being suppressed by politics. Lockdown moved instantly from untested theory to unchallengeable orthodoxy: where dissenters face personal attack. Understandable on social media perhaps, but it has now crept into the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in a recent article about the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD).
"The GBD, which I wrote, together with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya [of] Stanford and Dr. Sunetra Gupta [of] Oxford, argues for focused protection. Rather than a blanket lockdown which inflicts so much harm on society, we wanted better protection of those most at risk – mindful that Covid typically poses only a mild risk to the young. For saying so, we are smeared as 'the new merchants of doubt' – as if scepticism and challenge is regarded by the BMJ as something to be condemned. The BMJ article is full of errors that ought to have never found their way into any publication. Here are some examples:
My colleagues and I are described as ‘critics of public health measures to curb Covid-19’. On the contrary, throughout the pandemic we have strongly advocated better public health measures to curb Covid-19 – specifically protection of high-risk older people, with many ‘clearly defined’ proposals. The failure to implement such measures, in our view, has led to many unnecessary Covid deaths.
We are described as ‘proponents of herd immunity’ which is akin to accusing someone of being in favour of gravity. Both are scientifically established phenomena. Every Covid strategy leads to herd immunity. The key is to minimise morbidity and mortality. The language, here, is non-scientific: herd immunity is not a creed. It’s how pandemics end.
It says we have ‘expressed opposition to mass vaccination’. Dr. Gupta and I have spent decades on vaccine research and we are all strong advocates for Covid and other vaccines. They are among the greatest inventions in history. To falsely credit the anti-vaccine movement with support from professors at Harvard, Oxford and Stanford is damaging for vaccine confidence. This is unworthy of a medical journal.
The GBD is referred to as a 'sophisticated science denialism’. Note here how something that challenges an orthodoxy is described as anti-science – a label that presumably could have been applied to any scientific innovator who ever questioned a failed orthodoxy. Collateral public health damage from Covid restrictions are real and enormous on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, backsliding childhood vaccinations, starvation and mental health, just to name a few. It is not the GBD, but those who downplay lockdown harms who should be equated with those who [downplay] the harms of tobacco or climate change.
The GBD was not ‘sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) – and I’m pleased to see that the BMJ has at least retracted this claim. We were there for media interviews, with no sponsorship. How did such a blunder end up in print in the first place? The AIER staff did not even know about the Declaration until the day before it was signed, and the AIER president and board did not know about it until after publication. If we had written the Declaration at say, Starbucks, would the BMJ have claimed that it was sponsored by the coffee shop?
The BMJ article mentions ‘AIER contributor Scott Atlas’, but Dr. Atlas has never been affiliated with nor written for AIER. Neither have we – unless the BMJ also views us as affiliated with hundreds of universities and organisations that we have visited during our careers or that have reprinted some of our articles. Dr. Atlas was not even aware that AIER had reprinted one of his articles until the BMJ linked to it.
Several AIER employees have gracefully supported the GBD, just like countless other people around the world, but we have never received any money from the AIER. This basic error again exposes how normal checks did not appear to have been applied by the BMJ.
The BMJ article ends by saying that my colleagues and I are peddling a 'well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests'. Nobody has paid us money for our work on the GBD, or for advocating focused protection. None of us would have undertaken this project for professional gain: it is far easier to stay silent than put your head above the parapet. As a vaccine developer, Dr. Gupta has connections with a pharmaceutical start-up, but Dr. Bhattacharya and I are among the few drug/vaccine scientists who purposely avoid pharmaceutical company funding to be free from conflicts of interests.
"The BMJ attempt to link us to the Koch brothers is an ad hominem attack of the highest order, but failed to mention much closer connections. We all work for universities that have received donations from Koch Foundations, although unrelated to any of our own work. While the AIER has received only a single $68K (£50,000) Koch donation a few years ago, many universities have received multiple, much larger Koch donations, including million dollar gifts to Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Stanford. Since university staff frequently publish in the BMJ, the journal is arguably more closely connected to a ‘network of organisations funded by Charles Koch’ than the AIER.
"Many scientists receive research funding from private foundations, for which we as scientists should be grateful. It is hypocritical and discriminatory for the BMJ to single out Dr. Gupta because her lab received limited funds from the Opel Foundation. As one among many examples, Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College were awarded a prize by the Koch-affiliated Mercatus Center's 'Emergent Ventures' program.
"During a pandemic, it is the duty of public health scientists to engage with government officials: to use their expertise to confront what right now is perhaps the biggest single problem facing humanity. It is hard to understand why anyone would criticise that.... If we are wrong, then as scientists we would welcome a scientific discussion on how and where we are wrong.
"The BMJ article urges people to use ‘political and legal strategies’ rather than scientific argument to counter our views on the pandemic. It also calls for people to adhere to the ‘scientific consensus’ as represented by a Memorandum [the John Snow Memorandum - gd] published by the Lancet, a document that questions natural immunity after Covid disease....
"That such an article was published exemplifies the decay in standards of scientific journals. Open and honest discourse is critical for science and public health. As scientists, we must now tragically acknowledge that 400 years of scientific enlightenment may be coming to an end. It started with Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and René Descartes. It would be tragic if it would end up as one of the many casualties of this pandemic."
Read more: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/covid-lockdown-and-the-retreat-of-scientific-debate
George J. Dance at 10:22 AM
Following from: https://gumshoenews.com/2021/10/28/covid-mysteries-part-1-an-australian-engineer-asks-questions/#more-29801
Covid Mysteries Part 1: An Australian Engineer Asks Questions
Editor’s note: An Australian Engineer Speaks Out – The Many Mysteries of Covid. This is a republished article sourced from Covid Medical Network Newspaper.
by Dr Phil Greer
The purpose of this message
I remember when one or two of my friends were telling me sometime in 2021 about the origins of the pandemic and the hidden dangers of the vaccines. I didn’t take them too seriously, thinking that they had gone a tad too far down the conspiratorial road.
However, out of a mixture of curiosity and duty to myself, I decided to do some research – with the view that I’d be able to determine that they’d been victims of too much-sensationalised information.
Given that I used to head up the R&D division of a $700-million organisation, and that I’ve managed a wide variety of literally hundreds of corporate projects, I figured that it was a challenge that I could take on. Also, given that I have an engineering PhD that has helped me think critically, and that I’m very much a “show me the facts” type of guy, I figured that it wouldn’t be difficult to put any and all crazy conspiracies to bed.
After all, the prevailing message was very clear and consistent from our politicians, health advisors, expert government bodies, the MSM (Mainstream Media) and other experts which was:
“Covid is a pandemic”
“The vaccine is safe, developed in record time”
“We need to be locked down and vaxxed for our safety.”
It was a major, global event, but it all seemed pretty simple. Conspiracy – I don’t think so!
What I hadn’t realised back in August 2021 was that I had stumbled upon something that was so conspiratorial, widespread and ingenious in terms of its dark intents it subsequently left me day after day moving from a point of uneasiness to being increasingly disturbed as a result of what I was uncovering.
In the process of getting to the bottom of the whole Covid/Vax thing I waded through more than 700 papers, videos, opinion pieces and articles. I talked to numerous medical professionals like nurses, doctors and paramedics, and I waded through data, LOTS OF IT. Perhaps most crucially, I did deep dives at the data behind the data that was bombarding us daily as gospel – which took a lot of digging. In the process I realised that very little, in fact almost nothing of significance that we were officially being told by the government or the MSM was remotely true. And not everyone that I talked to had the same story, so that led to more digging to get to the truth.
Anyhow, as time progressed I came upon such voluminous amounts of information that I decided to take time off work (which stretched to a whole month) – right in the process of building a new business that I’d planned to launch ahead of my 50th birthday; instead, I found myself devoting 18-hour days almost non-stop to get to the bottom of what became increasingly like a disaster movie.
At this point, let me say that I am NOT offering any advice. I’m NOT saying that everything that I’ve read, referenced or quoted will have complete accuracy. It would take years to check the contents and the veracity of every single data and information source; that is the nature of science and discovery.
I’ve decided to lay out this paper in the form of a series of Why? questions – since there are A LOT of things that did not make sense for me if the aims of our government leaders were looking out for their people.
I expect that much of the content in this document will need updating within literally one week of reading it, since the latest data that is coming from literally dozens of sources, including frontline workers and whistle-blowers, many of whom have sprung up during the pandemic. Almost none of this information is available from the heavily censored Fact Checking Big Tech, MSM or Big Pharma funded medical journals.
It’s worth stating that searches on Google – who has shares connected with Big Pharma, makes the task a little trickier since Google will ‘fact check’ things according to Google’s truth; alternative browsers such as DuckDuckGo can assist with this issue.
I appreciate that much of this content will likely seem far-fetched, fictional even, with opposing perspectives to the MSM, the political and government’s expert narrative that prevails – like it did to me when I first started off on the journey.
All that I would ask is that you keep an open mind and dig deeper into the facts behind the facts – without taking my word for anything that’s written here. I’d prefer it if you did your own research from credible, independent experts.
I’ve had this document reviewed by several senior medical practitioners who were each extremely well read and exceptionally knowledgeable regarding all things Covid.
I would also attest to the fact that Big Pharma is a brilliantly organised, highly connected trillion-dollar industry connected to Big Tech and advisory institutions – making it more difficult to determine the facts. However, voluminous amounts of good, credible information can be found if you are just able to follow the breadcrumbs and good neutral sources.
The Why? Questions
- The Mysterious Disappearing Flu
- Why is it that the official government number of influenza deaths in Australia in 2021 is ZERO, and that there has not been a single flu death recorded since April 2020? And that the number of previous flu deaths in Australia are coincidentally similar to the recorded Covid deaths?
- Why is it that the number of Flu Cases (interestingly, whose symptoms are similar to Covid) in the US declined by 99.5 % during 2020?
2. Masks
- Why is it that we must wear masks whenever mask manufacturers state that they provide no protection against Covid (and that they are Single use only)?
- Why do governments insist on wearing masks, whenever the most comprehensive analysis of mask effectiveness from 65 publications and 44 experimental studies show that masks are actually HARMFUL to human health – with a range of negative aspects cited as being the following:
Increase in dead space volume
Increase in breathing resistance
Increase in blood carbon dioxide
Decrease in blood oxygen saturation
Increase in heart rate
Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity
Feeling of exhaustion
Increase in respiratory rate
Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath
Headache
Dizziness
Feeling of dampness and heat
Drowsiness (qualitative neurological deficits)
Decrease in empathy perception
Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions?
- Why, when studies have been shown that wearing masks causes a range of harmful psychological and societal issues, does the government mandate the wearing of them?
3. PCR Test
- Why are we using the PCR test to determine whether someone has Covid or not? The PCR test kits that are used in numerous countries have been found to be extremely unreliable from multiple studies and laboratory professionals; and also the PCR test kits used in many nations are purported to be unable to differentiate between Covid and influenza?
- Why are we counting Covid cases at an amplification test cycle frequency in the testing kit that is very high, above levels recommended by Dr. Fauci, so that it produces significant numbers of false positives, leading to the assumption that Covid case numbers are significantly higher than they actually are? And why did the WHO sit on this information for months before going public?
- Why are we using the PCR test to determine whether someone has Covid or not, when the inventor of the PCR test stated that the PCR test is not meant to be used as a diagnostic test and certainly not at the significantly elevated number of cycles that it is being used at – since it will produce erroneous results?
4. Vax Injuries and Deaths – what we’re not being told re the numbers
- Why, if the vaccines are safe, are Australian nurses so concerned about what they are seeing in relation to vaccine injuries and deaths that they have started a site on Telegram called Frontline Workers Speak Out which in less than 2 weeks amassed over 38,000 subscribers and more than 80 whistle-blowers who have reported significant increases in both injuries post-jab, and deaths in both patients and staff?
- Why are hundreds of Australian nurses and doctors from the above site coming forward? And why are thousands of frontline workers in many countries coming forward, at the risk of losing their careers in some cases, with claims that almost none of the injuries and deaths post-jab are being recorded as linked to the vaccine?
- Why, if the vaccines are safe, was the Facebook page of America’s ABC inundated with over 250,000 stories of vaccine related tragic injuries and deaths within the space of just 5 days — when it asked for tragic unvaccinated Covid stories (before they removed the page)?
- Why is it that we have not been told that from the US Medicare database (not available to the public) that 48,000 people died within 14-days of receiving their jab (which is multiple times the number shown in the VAERS (voluntary adverse events reporting system data)?
(Of particular note is the fact that the Medicare database represents only 18.1 % of the US population, meaning that the real death numbers from the vax in this period only are more likely to conservatively be at least 200,000).
- Why did Mr. John O’Looney, the owner of a family funeral business in Milton Keynes, UK, claim that whenever the vaccinations started to happen in bulk he saw a very significant rise in the number of deaths in the population, claiming that he was burying the dead at a rate he had never experienced previously and, after talking to many medical professionals and frontline workers, concluded that he was “dealing with murder victims”?
Why did the 45 undertakers in Mr. O’Looney’s regional area also say that they could scarcely keep up with the rate of burials, and why would Mr. O’Looney say those things believing that it would probably cost him his membership of the association – which it did soon after he went public?
Why, if the vax is safe have US Army doctors filed affidavits in a lawsuit for a preliminary injunction in Federal District Court of Colorado, under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, calling for an immediate halt to further COVID-19 “vaccinations” for all military personnel and the grounding of all personnel as a result of three pulmonary embolism events within 48 hours of their vaccination, one fatal?
Why is it that the governments of the UK, Europe, and the USA maintain that “the vaccines are safe” yet 5-million adverse events (where approximately 50% will result in life-time disablement) have been recorded in the voluntary reporting systems – which have been acknowledged in numerous studies to under-report adverse events by a factor of between 10 to 100? And why was the vaccination program not stopped in Australia given that the number of adverse events recorded in 2020 were 2 x number of adverse events recorded for the previous 20-years combined?
