Dear Mr Bell,

Thank you for your reply to my email.

There are a few issues that I still have with the way that the situation is being handled.

The tier system

This tier system is a farce.  The evidence for this needs to be made public. 

And talk about goal posts moving.

People are dying from other things – depression is rife. Suicides have gone up drastically. The hospitality industry is in tatters, gyms were closed. Small businesses are crippled. The ‘evidence’ stated that these were the safer places but were made to close. Nothing makes sense. Not everyone is getting furlough payment, they are struggling to make ends meet and to add insult to injury, MPs are getting a pay rise. And on TV, a smirking, couldn’t care less, ‘I’m alight Jack’ Hancock is laughing at the people.

Police Brutality

It seems that Labour will support the government in implementing the tier system. I have to ask the question – are the Tories being played by Labour in supporting the economic destruction of our country and helping them kill off people with non covid related illnesses?  The country will blame the rule makers i.e. the Tory government for this mess come the next election, even though Labour have supported the implementations of lockdowns and tier systems. I wonder if, behind the scenes, they are doing some back slapping when they see the protests and police brutality – the 70-year-old woman being bundled into the back of a police van, a peaceful, innocent protestor being pinned down and punches raining down on his head, and more.

A few months ago, the police, were not only allowing BLM protests but going down on one knee to them. A movement that wants to defund them and destroy capitalism. Most of the anti-lockdown protestors actually support the police and are willing to pay taxes to support them. How long for? I, for one, am now losing faith in our, once great, police force.

The public need to be frightened more

I take it from Gove’s recent comments that the government are still following SAGE’s recommendation that the country needs frightening.

 

He said in an article for The Times 

MPs must 'take responsibility for difficult decisions' to curb the spread of Covid-19 … every hospital in England could be in trouble if the tiers are not rolled out. 

He said: 'Covid-19 is no respecter of constituency boundaries and the hardships we are facing now are unfortunately necessary to protect every single one of us, no matter where we live.

“Protect every single one of us.” From what? 

A virus that has over a 99% recovery rate? Even Boris and Trump got over it – both are not exact pictures of health and fitness, at the best of times. A virus that has yet to be proven to have killed the numbers that are being touted. A virus that needs a test to tell you that you have it. 

Tests not fit for purpose

Billions spent on PCR tests that are not fit for purpose, a newer lateral flow test that can be as low as 50% correct.

And as I said in my previous email the Kerry Mullis PCR test can find anything that is present in your body if the amplification cycles are high enough. Knock the amplification cycles down to no more than 25 and it would be difficult to detect the virus. Currently the cycles are reported to be between 35 and 45. This test does not tell you if you are ill and it finds dead strands.

Why aren’t the government advising people to take extra vitamins such as C, D and Zinc? Proven to help protect you. No – this seems to be about control, not a virus.

From the BMJ:

“The poor detection rate of the test makes it entirely unsuitable for the government’s claim that it will allow safe ‘test and release’ of people from lockdown and students from university,” he warned. “As the test may miss up to half of covid-19 cases, a negative test result indicates a reduced risk of infection but does not exclude covid-19.

“Independent evaluations for the World Health Organization have shown that other lateral flow antigen tests are likely to outperform Innova, but even those do not have high enough sensitivity to rule out covid-19. The Innova test is certainly not fit for use for this purpose.”

Deeks added that it was of “immense concern that the [UK government’s] Moonshot plans have not undergone any scientific scrutiny by experts such as our National Screening Committee.”

Flu and Covd stats now being added together by ONS?

Hospitals are normally quite full during this period.  My mum was in hospital during the winter period of 2018 – 19 she was in for 6 months but on entry had to wait for a bed. Then transferred several times because they didn’t have enough beds– but that is a different story.

People are waking up to the lies.

 

SAGE conflicts of interest ZOE HARCOMBE

 November 9, 2020 conflicts of interest, COVID-19

The 20 key influencers

In what follows: GCSA = Government Chief Scientific Advisor, CSA = Chief Scientific Advisor, CMO = Chief Medical Officer and LSHTM = London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Please note that the references for the table are reported separately at the end of this note.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

Examination of the 20 key influencers on SAGE reveals the following:

11 out of 20 work for the government 

12 out of 20 work for/have received funding from organisations involved in the Covid-19 vaccine. Those 12 don’t include Vallance with personal pharmaceutical conflicts or Whitty with historical funding from the Gates foundation. Three work for Imperial College and two work for Oxford University – the two forerunners in the Covid-19 vaccine race in the UK – each receiving millions of pounds from government(s). Three more work for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine with its own vaccine centre (working on Covid-19 among other vaccines). One works for UCL, which is working with Imperial on its vaccine. Two work for Wellcome/the Wellcome Sanger Institute and one has received funding from the latter. Two members have double conflicts – Peter Horby with Oxford University and Wellcome and Wendy Barclay with Imperial College and Wellcome.

5 are Chief Scientific Advisors in government (2 of these are modellers/statisticians); 4 more are modellers/statisticians, 2 are experts in how to manipulate human behaviour, 3 are medical officers/directors, 3 hold senior roles in the 2 universities leading the vaccine race, and 3 work for/have been funded by Wellcome (as above, 2 of the university members also have conflicts with Wellcome.)

There are no immunologists among the key influencers on the SAGE committee. There are only two virologists. 

 

The two behaviour experts among the key influencers have also collaborated on this controversial paper.  The following extract from the paper has been widely cited as evidence to show how fear has been used to coerce UK citizens: “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened… The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard‐hitting emotional messaging based on accurate information about risk.”The paper has sections on coercion, compulsion and how to harness “social disapproval” to coerce people into doing what government wants them to do.

Vallance and Whitty – were summoned to appear before the Science and Technology Committee on 3rd November where Vallance expressed regret for frightening people. But SAGE knows that people need to be frightened into compliance for their strategy to work, as the SAGE behaviour advisors documented in their academic paper. I wonder if that fear might turn to anger if people realise that the committee may not be the independent body that it has been assumed to be.

Ferguson resigned from the SAGE committee when it became known (on 5th May) that he had broken lockdown rules. He had attended every one of the first 30 meetings. Ferguson’s influence has not gone, however. He is a member of NERVTAG (The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group), as are many members of SAGE (which means that the main committee is largely using a subset of that committee to advise itself). Additionally, Ferguson is still given airtime by the media to continue to issue his apocalyptic predictions.

 

Face masks

 

Effectiveness of Surgical Face Masks in Reducing Acute Respiratory Infections in Non-Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

 

Results: A total of 23,892 participants between 7 and 89 years old involved across 15 studies from 11 countries were involved. Key settings identified were Hajj, schools, and in-flight settings. A modest but non-significant protective effect of SM on ARI incidence was observed (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.8–1.15). Subgroup analysis according to age group, outcome ascertainment and different non-healthcare settings also revealed no significant associations between SM use and ARI incidence.

Conclusion: Surgical mask wearing among individuals in non-healthcare settings is not significantly associated with reduction in ARI incidence in this meta-review.

Once again, I ask, are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?

The, recent,  publication of a trial in Denmark hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 6,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not wear a mask.

those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.

Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 per cent of those wearing masks in the trial said they had completely adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at people who wore masks ‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the results: 2 per cent of this group were also infected.

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.

There have only been three community trials during the current pandemic comparing the use of masks with various alternatives – one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine. And this starkly contrasts with the huge sums they have spent on ‘boutique relations’ consultants advising the government. 

The only studies which have shown masks to be effective at stopping airborne diseases have been ‘observational’ – which observe the people who ordinarily use masks, rather than attempting to create a randomised control group. These trials include six studies carried out in the Far East during the SARS CoV-1 outbreak of 2003, which showed that masks can work, especially when they are used by healthcare workers and patients alongside hand-washing.

But observational studies are prone to recall bias: in the heat of a pandemic, not very many people will recall if and when they used masks and at what distance they kept from others. The lack of random allocation of masks can also ‘confound’ the results and might not account for seasonal effects. A recent observational study paper had to be withdrawn because the reported fall in infection rates over the summer was reverted when the seasonal effect took hold and rates went back up.

This is why large, randomised trials like this most recent Danish study are so important if we want to understand the impact of measures like face masks. 

And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.

Hydroxychloroquine

Triple-drug combo of anti-malaria pill hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and ZINC improved coronavirus patients' chances of being discharged and cut death risk by almost 50%, study finds

• Researchers at NYU Grossman School of Medicine looked at 932 coronavirus patients hospitalized between March 2 and April 5

• Half were given a combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc sulfate and the other half did not receive zinc

• Patients receiving the triple drug combination were 1.5 times more likely to recover enough to be discharged and 44% less likely to die

• The team believes hydroxychloroquine helps zinc, which has antiviral properties, get into infected cells 

 

Professor of Medicine Dr Peter McCullough contracted a serious case and treated himself.  He has other medical issues including asthma and heart disease but was successful using hydroxychloroquine and other drugs.

 

In India, where there are high density populations, apparently covid is rife.  There, it has been used early in home treatments and deaths per million are less than 100.  In America deaths are 800

 

He emphasises that It is not used by itself and has to be early home treatment.

 

Hydroxychloroquine really works says Professor of Medicine Dr Peter McCullough, describing the treatment as “the most widely used therapeutic” to treat COVID-19 in the world. “The chances that it doesn’t work are calculated to be one in 17 billion,” he told Sky News. “There’s no controversy over whether or not hydroxychloroquine works. The controversy is on the public health approach to COVID-19." Mr McCullough said “the virus invades inside cells, so we have to use drugs that go inside the cell and work to reduce viral replication". “The drugs that work within the cell and actually reduce viral replication are hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, doxycycline and azithromycin”. “Sadly, in the United States and I know in Australia this happens all the time, patients get no treatment whatsoever. They literally are told to stay at home until they are sick enough to go to the hospital” “I think that honestly it’s atrocious. History will look back on that and think it was the worst way to handle a potentially fatal illness."

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdsAVTkSDhM

 

It is not used long term, it has been around and widely used with few contraindications for 65 years. 

 

Test and Trace

Another failure. 

FT –    Mr Johnson’s “world-beating” test and trace system struggles to cope on good days; on bad days it is a farce.  16,000 coronavirus tests went missing because of Excel spreadsheet blunder.

I could go on, but for the moment will leave you with Edmund Burke:

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

Regards