Covid 19, new article in the British Medical Journal

[Sena]

Full article here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425/rr-31

"Suppression of science and lack of open debate has impinged enormously on three issues of fundamental significance. Firstly, public fear of Covid has been elevated to levels that are completely out of proportion to the actual danger. A recent peer-reviewed paper by one of the world's most cited and respected scientist, Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, quotes an infection fatality rate (IFR) for Covid of 0.00-0.57% (0.05% for under 70s), far lower than originally feared and no different to severe flu [3]. This paper is published on WHO's own Bulletin but ignored by UK mainstream media.

Secondly, although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid "cases" caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test [4-7]. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mis-labelled as Covid. Even Dr Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid (Twitter thread, Jeff Nelson @vegsource 30 October 2020) but in the UK CTs may go up to 45, as confirmed by Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University's Center for Evidence-Based Medicine: (House of Commons Science & Tech Committee, 17 Sep, 2020 YouTube.) An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that for CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive.

According to Professor Brookes, a Health Data Scientist from the University of Leicester, the UK's official data shows no excess deaths due to respiratory infections this season (talkRadio, 'The number of people dying today is the same as it would be any other year', 17 November 2020 YouTube). Instead, excess total deaths have been driven by lack of treatment due to hospital closure/lockdowns and have occurred mostly at home. Whilst there is no question that the first wave of Covid, a then novel virus, was lethal to many, there is no sound evidence of any second wave.

The third and possibly the most consequential suppression of science relates to the narrative that people do not develop immunity following a Covid infection. We know that immunity to SARS-CoV-1 is very durable, persisting for at least 12-17 years [8-10]. Immunologists know that immunity to SARS-Cov-2 is no different. This is confirmed by many eminent scientists including Beda M Stadler, the former Director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern and Professor Emeritus (Ivor Cummins, Ep91 Emeritus Professor of Immunology...Reveals Crucial Viral Immunity Reality, 28 July 2020, YouTube), and Sucharit Bhakdi, former Chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz [11]. The human population has encountered and co-existed with myriad coronaviruses throughout evolution. Most of us therefore have cross-reacting T-cells, B cells and antibodies derived from encounters with cold coronaviruses that can recognise SARS-CoV-2 [12-14], in the same way that people "immunised" with cowpox became less susceptible to serious illness from smallpox - as Edward Jenner discovered in 1796. This is why we do not generally die from cold coronaviruses and precisely why so many of us were not susceptible to falling severely ill from Covid earlier this year. Even the chance of passing Covid to your spouse at the height of the pandemic was as low as 17%! [15 ]."

The spreading of fear is of great benefit to vaccine manufacturers, who are about to earn billions of dollars.

[Deb]

Very interesting, thank you for this. I've been finding a lot of articles that present a lot of questions about this whole fiasco. What's true, what's not... While I don't doubt there is a new virus and that it's been killing people this year, I've also questioned the accuracy of what we've been told. I may be considered irresponsible for not automatically believing everything I hear from the mainstream (OLC), but I question EVERYTHING, not just covid. Especially when I hear such words as "maybe" "probably" "possibly" and the never-ending speculation and predictions.

I've read from a few different sources that the PCR test is not accurate or even specific to Covid. I saw this article a few days ago, https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ And another one that said the genetics of Covid-19 have not actually been isolated, https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud. I'm not sure if Off-Guardian is a reliable source of information, but they do provide links to references from where they get their information. I take these articles with a grain as well, but at least it gives some other possibilities to consider. Food for thought:

The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO's statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.

The Wuhan team used 40 rounds of RT-qPCR amplification to match fragments of cDNA (complimentary DNA constructed from sampled RNA fragments) with the published SARS coronavirus genome (SARS-CoV). Unfortunately it isn't clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome is either.

If the Covid-19 genetic sequence has not been successfully isolated, how is it they can come up with a vaccine?

The spreading of fear is of great benefit to vaccine manufacturers, who are about to earn billions of dollars.

You betcha. There are a lot of people who will profit from this, such as the investors. Follow the money is a truism. Just like we make our own reality. 

Personal story: I live in Douglas County in Colorado. We were put under "Level Red" restrictions the other day, the second from the worst, which is Purple. Red: Among other things, cancel Thanksgiving. Wear a mask outdoors at all times. Social distance. Restaurants are take-out only again. And yet we've had 8-14 days of decreasing or stable hospital admissions in my county. 57 counties in Colorado have had 8-14 days, while 6 other had 7 days and one county 4. But the governor has shut down the entire state once again and cell phone civil service announcements have been going out. "Stay safe. Stay home." I've received 5 of these in the past month or so.

[LarryH]

I'm not sure if Off-Guardian is a reliable source of information...

From: https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Off-Guardian.pdf

"A website founded by people who have been banned from The Guardian's comment section. The site regularly publishes false information on topics including COVID-19, vaccinations, and 9/11."'

and

"Proceed with caution: This website severely violates basic journalistic standards."

[leidl]

Hi folks!  It appears that the piece posted above by Sena is actually a "response," ie., a letter to the editor, rather than a published article.  I've posted the article to which it was a response below.  The original article makes quite different claims than the response, and can also be found at the link Sena provided by clicking on the "Article" tab.  My apologies for the formatting issues.


When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK's pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency.2 The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner's Office.34

Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report's publication was delayed by England's Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report.56 Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a "difficult political landscape."7

Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19.8 The prime minister's Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests.9 It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.1011

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister's office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ's publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ's press release about the research paper.

Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn't make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump's government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.15 Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.16

The UK's pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.17 Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.18

How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.

Once transparency and accountability are established as norms, individuals employed by government should ideally only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests. Expertise is possible without competing interests. If such a strict rule becomes impractical, minimum good practice is that people with competing interests must not be involved in decisions on products and policies in which they have a financial interest.

Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement.19

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn't need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers' money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history's worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

[Sena]

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain.

leidl, thanks for finding this article. It is an editorial, and thus could be said to be the official view of the BMJ.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history's worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.

This refers of course to the medical "experiments" of Nazis like Josef Mengele.