What do Doctor's say about Covid-19
“Of course this is wholly fraud. Imagine that the number of people in U.K. who’d actually been killed by the virus, instead of dying with it, was just a couple of thousand; you’d been on the streets with torches and pitchforks. You should be. Governments everywhere have lied and lied and lied about every one of the central narrative points about this virus. The effect of compliance with their ludicrous policy responses has been to hollow out and arguably to have destroyed economically several G20 counties, and actually increased the number of avoidable deaths, not least by deprivation of healthcare. These people all need locking up in that new high-security facility being built at speed at Wellingborough, Northants. The prima facie case against a dozen or so people in U.K. warrants their arrest pending criminal prosecutions. If these figures are of the same order of magnitude for other countries as well, and there is no reason to assume otherwise, then the plague is a deception of unprecedented proportions, and crimes committed against humanity on a huge scale have been committed here.” - Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr Michael Yeadon
In the video below Dr. Stephen Malthouse, MD, Member, College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Denman Island, British Columbia, Speaking About "Cases", Face Masks, Social Distancing & The Covid-19 Vaccine
“It’s all bullshit … It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality … Why has the whole world been destroyed? That I don’t know.” Dr Alexander Myasnikov, Russia’s head of coronavirus information, gave an interview to former-Presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak and dutifully trotted out the WHO Global Script but let slip his true feelings believing the interview over, and the camera turned off. May 26th 2020.
Debunking The Official Covid-19 Narrative - Professor Dolores Cahill
There is no need for a covid vaccine when there are effective treatments and no need for lockdowns, social distancing and masks says Professor Dolores Cahill
Dr Mike Yeadon statement below:
Truth is our most powerful tool and that truth is that we're being lied to. The truth also, however hard it is to believe it, is that there is unequivocal and clear evidence of planning and co-ordination. Not to face this fact is to have your head in the sand. Where it's leading is easy to discern, once people are willing to lift their internal censoring and look objectively at the evidence
First, though, the lies. It's abundantly clear now that pretty much everything that the public have been told and continues to be told is between untrue and downright lies.
I offer a shortlist of lies:
-PCR mass testing reasonably reliably distinguishes infected and infectious people from others
-that masks reduce transmission of respiratory viruses
-that transmission of infection in the absence of symptoms is important contribution to epidemic spreading
-that lockdowns as executed reduce hospitalizations and deaths
-that no matter how small the remaining susceptible population and no matter that virtually no people who, if infected might die remain unvaccinated, the position is perilous
-that no pharmaceutical treatments are available
-that variants are different enough to warrant border closures and require new vaccines
-that gene-based vaccines are safe and effective
-that vaccine passports will increase safety while having no material impacts on freedom of choice in a liberal democracy
It is impossible to believe that intelligent, well connected and well briefed senior advisors to government don't know that almost all, if not all of the above are simply not true.
It is not a matter of opinion in almost all cases. These statements, which have been explicitly stated and used in justification for the extraordinary interferences in the lives of citizens in democratic countries, are mostly demonstrable wrong, as defined by there multiple well conducted, peer reviewed studies showing the contrary.
The public want to believe in government and perhaps they want a quiet life. To disbelieve is so much harder than to believe.
It is time for all doubting Thomases to take a lead and state unambiguously that the government and its advisors are telling us things that are manifestly untrue and maintaining restrictive, damaging measures for which there is no justification. By not doing so they are playing into the hands of those who I firmly believe are engaged in a determined series of crimes against humanity.
Why do I say this? Simply because there is no benign interpretation of the acts of commission and omission consistently imposed upon us and no explanation of the statements which are flatly wrong other than an intention to deceive the population. – By Dr Mike Yeadon
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - Crimes against Humanity (Covid 19)
Below Dr Simone Gold - January 3rd 2020 from America's Frontline Doctors describes the lies around the official Covid-19 narrative including hydroxychloroquine and the covid vaccines
An important international statement by health professionals, medical doctors and scientists has been sent to the governments of thirty countries.
We are health professionals of the international collective: United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania.
Below are some of the main highlights which was sent to the governments.
The famous international slogan: ’Stay home, save lives’ was a pure lie. On the contrary, the lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life. For example, the lockdown in the USA has killed thousands of Alzheimer’s patients who have also died far from their families. In the United Kingdom: the lockdown killed 21,000 people.
Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures: lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters.
The lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life.
The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures [lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew
When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course.
Exclude your experts and advisers who have links or conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies
Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project.
The text includes quotations from prominent scholars and health professionals:
“The world went mad with coronavirus lockdowns which fly in the face of what is known about handling virus pandemics” - (Dr Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, June 24, 2020).
“The infection fatality rate seems to be about the same as for influenza, but we have never introduced these drastic measures before, when we had influenza pandemics. And we cannot live with them for years to come” - (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 1, 2020).
“The decision of lockdown as the decision of wearing masks…are not based on scientific data” - (Prof. Didier Raoult, June 24, 2020).
“The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures (lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew, etc.) The lockdown did not trigger the decrease in cases…As for the closure of restaurants which had very strict health protocols in place…of course, I have no way of defending it…it has not influenced the epidemic at all…The lockdown has not changed anything” - (Prof. Philippe Parola, December 3, 2020).
“There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule. Poor quality research is being used to justify a policy with enormous consequences for us all” - (Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, June 19, 2020).
“Grotesque, absurd and very dangerous measures…a horrible impact on the world economy…self- destruction and collective suicide” - (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, March 2020. He also sent, at the time, a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel).
“When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course. The pandemic has led to the violation of basic human right. There has not been the slightest ethical analysis of whether this was justified. It is not” - (Prof. Peter Gøtzsche, December 4, 2020).
“The effects of the lockdown have been absolutely deleterious. They did not save the lives they had announced they could be able to save…It is a weapon of mass destruction and we see its health…social…economic effects…which form the real second wave” (Prof. Jean-François Toussaint, September 24, 2020).
“This country is making a dramatic mistake…What are we going to suggest? That everyone stay locked up all his life because there are viruses outside?! You’re all crazy, you’ve become all nuts! We are setting the planet on fire” - (Prof. Didier Raoult, October 27, 2020).
“It is just a global scam to make huge profits, bail out the banks and meanwhile ruin the middle classes in the name of an epidemic…made destructive by liberticidal, allegedly health measures” - (Dr Nicole Delépine, December 18, 2020).
“We have medical evidences that this is a scam” (Dr Heiko Schöning, July 2020).
“Think about these two questions: Is the coronavirus man-made? Have they tried to use this viral disease or this psychosis for their own ends & interests?” - (Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus).
“We don’t need it [the vaccine] at all…All this is about purely commercial goals” - (Prof. Christian Perronne, June 16, 2020).
“It is an old marketing principle of pharmaceutical companies: if they want to sell their product well, consumers must be afraid and see it as their salvation. So, we create a psychosis so that consumers crack up and rush on the vaccine in question” - (Prof. Peter Schönhöfer).
“As a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government: we must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production” - (Dr Pierre Cave, August 7, 2020)
“The COVID vaccine is so, so unnecessary” (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
“I have never seen in the history of medicine that we urgently develop vaccines to vaccinate millions, billions of individuals for a virus that no longer kills except people at risk that we can identify, that we can treat…I have never seen a vaccine coming out after 2 months !…it takes years!” (Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
“We’re going too fast. If there was an emergency,…if today COVID-19 kills 50% of people, I will say let’s take risks…but here we have a virus that kills 0.05% and we will take all the risks ! I know there are billions behind this…Be careful, this is very dangerous! “(Prof. Christian Perronne, December 2, 2020).
“If people accept the COVID-19 vaccine, it will be a mistake because we risk having absolutely unpredictable effects: for example, cancers…We are playing the total sorcerer’s apprentice…Man must not serve as a guinea pig, children must not serve as guinea pigs, it is absolutely unethical. There must not be deaths from vaccines” - (Prof. Luc Montagnier, Virologist and Nobel Prize in Medicine, December 17, 2020.
In Switzerland, a group of 700 doctors and health professionals called on January 15, 2021 for stopping the vaccination campaign
“I think it’s [the COVID vaccine] downright dangerous. And I warn you, if you go along these lines, you are going to go to your doom” - (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, December 2, 2020).
On February 4, 2021, United Health Professionals sent a follow up report to national governments entitled: International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals.
Part of the report states:
We say: STOP to all crazy and disproportionate measures that have been taken since the beginning to fight SARS-CoV-2 (lockdown, blocking the economy and education, social distancing, wearing of masks for all, etc.) because they are totally unjustified, are not based on any scientific evidence and violate the basic principles of evidence-based medicine.
“But, SARS-CoV-2 is very contagious” and we answer: IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This claim is, moreover, rejected by internationally renowned experts. A simple comparison with the other viruses shows that the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2 is moderate. It’s diseases like measles that can be described as very contagious. For example, a person with measles can infect up to 20 people while a person infected with this coronavirus only contaminates 2 or 3, that is: 10 times less than measles.
“But, it is a new virus” and we answer: H1N1 and the other viruses that we mentioned were also new viruses. Yet: we did not put countries into lockdown, we did not block the global economy, we did not paralyze the education system, we did not social distancing and we did not tell the healthy people to wear masks.
But, this virus is much more deadly” and we answer: IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Because, compared to the flu for example, and if we take into account the period between 01 November and 31 March, there was worldwide, when those measures have been taken: 860,000 cases and 40,000 deaths while the flu in the same period of 5 months infects, on average 420 million people and kills 270,000. In addition, the case fatality rate announced by the WHO (3,4%) was greatly overestimated and was rejected from the beginning by eminent experts in epidemiology.
But even if we take this case fatality rate, we can see that this coronavirus is three times less lethal than that of 2003 (10%) and ten times less lethal than that of 2012 (35%).
“But, COVID-19 is a serious illness” and we answer: IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. SARS-CoV-2 is a benign virus for the general population as it causes 85% of benign forms, 99% of those infected recover, it does not constitute a danger for pregnant women and children (unlike the flu), it spreads less fast than the flu and 90% of those who die are elderly people (who must, of course, be protected like other populations at risk). This is why experts have called “delirium” the claim that it is a serious illness and said, on August 19, that “it is not worse than the flu”
We REFUSE the obligation of contact tracing applications as it is the case in certain countries because SARS-CoV-2 is a benign virus which does not justify such a measure. Moreover, according to international recommendations and whatever the severity of a pandemic (moderate, high, extraordinary), contact tracing is not recommended. During flu epidemics, do we make contact tracing? Yet, the flu virus infects much more people and has more populations at risk than this coronavirus.
We say: STOP the censorship of experts and health professionals to prevent them from telling the truth10 (especially in countries that claim to be democratic).
We share the opinion of experts who denounce the fact that no distinction is made between people who died from the virus and people who died with the virus (with co-morbidities), the fact that the cause of death is attributed to SARS-CoV-2 without testing or autopsy and that doctors are pressured to add COVID-19 to death certificates even if the patient died from other reasons.
This leads to an overestimation of the number of deaths and constitutes a scandalous manipulation of the figures because during epidemics of seasonal flu for example, we don’t work in this way. Especially, since 20% of COVID patients are co-infected with other respiratory viruses.
After re-evaluation, only 12% of death certificates in a European country13 have shown a direct causality from coronavirus. In an another European country, Professors Yoon Loke and Carl Heneghan showed that a patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if he had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.
On July 31, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s director of a country in North America recognized that it is true that there is a perverse economic incentive for hospitals to inflate coronavirus deaths.
We say to citizens: do not be afraid, this virus is benign unless you are part of the populations at risk. If the TV channels do the same thing with the flu, the figures will be much higher than for the coronavirus! The TV channels will report to you every day, on average, 3 million cases and 2,000 flu deaths. And for tuberculosis, TV channels will report to you each day, on average, 30,000 cases and 5,000 dead. In fact, the flu virus infects 1 billion people each year and kills 650,000 and tuberculosis infects 10,4 million people each year and kills 1,8 million people. In addition, on TV you are informed about “cases” but they are screenings and not cases. A scientific article, SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data, published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, has proven that the danger of the virus was overestimated and that fear could be more dangerous than the virus itself.
We REFUSE the compulsory vaccination and we REFUSE the compulsory coronavirus vaccination certificate to travel, for the following reasons:
The vaccine is not essential because 85% of the forms are benign, 99% of the infected subjects recover and the children as well as the pregnant women are not subjects at risk. In addition, a large part of the population is already protected against SARS-CoV-2 by the cross-immunity acquired with the seasonal coronaviruses
Saying that we are not sure of this is a LIE and raising doubts on the duration or the effectiveness of this protection is a manipulation aiming to protect the business plan of the vaccine.
We say to governments: EVERYTHING must return immediately to normal (including the reopening of hospital services, air transport, economy, schools and universities) and this global hostage-taking must stop because you have known, with supporting evidence, that you as citizens, have been the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21th century.
We say to the citizens: to keep you in the “flock”, it is possible that some will try to discredit us by all means, for example by accusing us of conspiracy, etc. Do not listen to them, they are LIARS because the information you have been given are: medical, scientific and documented.
Dear citizens: a lot of scientists, eminent professors in medicine and health professionals around the world denounced what is going on and it’s time for you to wake up !If you don’t talk, new dictatorial measures will be imposed. You must REFUSE this. We assure you that these measures have nothing to do with medicine or hygiene or the preservation of public health, it is dictatorship and madness.
Our grave concerns about the handling of the covid pandemic by governments of the nations of the UK. The Government has based the handling of the covid pandemic on flawed assumptions, say 133 doctors, nurses, paramedics and midwives
Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.
We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.
We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:
The Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.
In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.
1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies
The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.
It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.
The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.
What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.
2. Institutional nature of COVID
It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.
Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.
Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.
Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.
3. The exaggerated nature of the threat
Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.
The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.
Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born. This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.
Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate. Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.
The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.
Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.
You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense – hundreds of millions of pounds.
The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.
4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.
The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.
Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.
Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.
Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.
5. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear.
Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.
To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.
Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.
6. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.
The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.
Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.
7. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.
It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.
The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.
The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.
Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear.
The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.
8. Mass testing of healthy children
Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.
During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.
Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.
9.Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.
Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).
This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.
Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:
The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.
Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.
10. Over-reliance on modelling while ignoring real-world data
Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.
The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.
Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.
It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit – they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.
The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.
Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.
In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.
The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.
Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed
Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM, Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM
Mr Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon
Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner
Dr Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician
Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR
Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician
Dr Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine
Mr Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon
Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner