The Cover-up – Part One (context)
A cover up. Yes, I know, I have repeatedly said that I do not believe there was a great world-wide conspiracy around COVID. Instead, I think that almost everything that went on can be explained by incompetence, greed and panic. Which was then stoked up by various people, for their own reasons. The World Economic Forum, for example.
I suppose you could reasonably ask, if there was no conspiracy, why the need to explain any cover up? Perhaps I should call it the ‘Great Justification’ instead. A time where the great and the good line up to tell us all that everything they did was exactly the right thing to do. Done at the right time, for the right reasons. Politicians think if you say ‘right’ three times, everyone will be convinced.
Having said this, I do think there were some quite deliberate decisions taken by those in power, cheered on by others in the background. Such as the hard lockdowns put in place by the Chinese leadership, early on.
Why did they do this? To deflect blame? To demonstrate their ability to command complete obedience from their people? To damage the West? Panic? To protect their peopl… sorry, don’t know why I even thought that.
Who knows for sure. But if China had not locked down, and hard, it seems unlikely that anyone else would have tried. Prior to COVID, the WHO put together a preparedness plan for pandemics, published in October 2019. A mere two months, or so, before COVID turned up.
When it came to lockdown measures, here are the main points:
- social distancing measures “can be highly disruptive” and should be carefully weighted
- travel-related measures are “unlikely to be successful”; “border closures may be considered only by small island nations in severe pandemics”
- contact tracing and quarantine of exposed individuals are not recommended in any circumstances.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of lockdown. Despite this, to quote the paper ‘Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?’All plans were immediately abandoned without any serious discussion, at the very start.1
Evidence from previous pandemics appeared to highlight that such actions had been almost completely useless. And they came at a very high price. As we have now all seen. Not just an economic price.
It all seemed extraordinary, at least to me. Experts spent decades bringing together pandemic preparedness plans – the WHO wasn’t the only one to do so. They were all ripped up and thrown away the moment the pandemic hit. Good job.
Why?
I have been reading ‘Spike – the virus vs the people.’ By Jeremy Farrar. He is the ‘insiders’ insider. One of the very first outside China to hear about the virus. He was on first name terms with Neil Ferguson and Anthony ‘Tony’ Fauci. Best mates with Chinese virologists.
He was regularly on the phone to the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus – yes, I know, I know. He was also a member of SAGE – the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and head of the Wellcome Trust.
He is obviously a very hard working and well-meaning man. Equally obviously he wanted to save lives and control the spread of Sars-Cov2. I don’t think he had any ulterior motives, nor was he part of any conspiracy.
There was no wish to rule the world or turn us all into economic drones serving our billionaire masters. Whilst chewing desolately on dull vegan fare or mashed up insects.
However, what he makes very clear is that he, and his colleagues, were all desperate to lock us all down earlier, harder and more often. He believes that doing so would have saved far more lives. There is no doubt in his mind that lockdowns were highly effective … in all cases.
There is not a single sentence in his book to suggest that the measures taken may not have been effective, nor that they could have caused the slightest harm. Nothing, not a word. He thinks it was the virus, the pandemic itself, that caused massive economic problems that followed, not the actions of governments around the world.
He is also, absolutely, one hundred per cent pro-vaccine. You don’t need to read to the book to know what he thinks about COVID, and everything surrounding it. You know it already. His is the mainstream view. He would gladly do everything all over again, probably twice as hard.
Would it be possible to convince him that lockdowns did more harm than good? Not a single chance in hell. His book is a two-hundred-page justification of why the experts – such as he – were all right, all along, about everything. Him, and Neil, and ‘Tony’ et al. He blames the politicians for anything, and everything, that went wrong. Not locking down soon enough or hard enough.
I also blame the politicians, but not necessarily in the way Jeremy Farrar might think.
The point here is that all the scientific experts were, and remain, of one voice. Lockdown, lockdown, lockdown … then a little more lockdown. It would take a hell of a bold politician to tell all these experts they were wrong.
Why did they all think this would work? Because, as Farrar says early on, when the Chinese locked down in Wuhan, COVID virtually disappeared. Or so we are told. This fails to take into account the number one rule of any official information that emerges from China. Which is that you cannot, and should not, believe a single word they say, about anything.
They have a word for institutionalised lying in Russia, ‘Vranyo’. Everybody knows that everybody is lying but they all go along with it. Not sure if they have such a word in China, but they certainly should.
See under the ‘official’ COVID death count from China. This was just over five thousand, in total. This, in a country containing far more than a billion people, where COVID first started and let rip for several weeks.
In contrast the death rate in Peru was ‘reported as’ one thousand five hundred times higher. With well over one hundred thousand deaths. Discuss, without laughing. Vranyo anyone?’
Farrar does mention that Boris Johnson did try, in his rather ineffectual and wobbly way, to stand against lockdowns. In Europe, Sweden alone, remained reasonably firm – if that is the right word. Otherwise? Otherwise, we had groupthink, confirmation bias, deference to ‘experts’ and the crushing of dissenting voices. In fact, all of humanities greatest intellectual flaws were on full display, ramped up to the max.
It is a truism that all leaders are desperately keen to emphasize how keen they all are for people to think outside the box. To challenge assumptions and orthodox views. ‘Oh yes, we do, we really, really do.’
It works well in Hollywood, where the hero is usually a Maverick who gets results by breaking all the rules – whilst we cheer madly. In the real world, not so much. In fact, not at all. In the real world, what those in charge ‘really’ want, is for everyone else to shut up and do what they are damned well told. And, sadly, almost everyone does.
After the Yom Kippur war, where the Israelis were taken completely by surprise by the attack, they realised they needed a ‘tenth man’. Someone who would challenge assumptions, identify biases and spotlight inconsistencies. The devil’s advocate, if you like. A person whose role was to try and break up groupthink.
Where was our tenth man with COVID? There was, of course, no tenth man. Or if there were he, or she, was dumped in a soundproof box. When you look back on various disasters, there always is a tenth man. It’s just that no-one pays any attention to them at the time. However much they need to. ‘In science, the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.’
Instead, there was this thing going, and I never quite sure how to describe it, where everyone’s views converge into a mass groupthink. All dissent ignored, mocked, and ruthlessly stomped on.
If you are sitting on the outside, arms folded, determined not to converge, it can certainly look as though it is all being coordinated in some way. A worldwide conspiracy, where leaders are meeting behind closed doors to discuss their next evil moves.
Again, I don’t think it happens like that. In my mind what I see is a flock of birds that swoops and dives in perfect unison. A murmuration, a great dance in the sky. How can these birds do something so complex. How can they avoid bashing into each other, or anything else? A magical staged performance in three dimensions. Surely some intellect is controlling it all. A boffin with a remote control.
It turns out you only need three rules.
- Separation (avoiding collisions)
- Alignment (matching the direction of nearby birds)
- Cohesion (staying close to the group)
I would add a couple of others. Don’t run into sharp objects at speed, and don’t hit the ground. And, at some point, one of the birds has to decide to stop, land…I suppose. Which one, and why? [The great all-powerful controller bird?]
I believe that, in large groups, human thinking also follows the rules of a flock, pretty much:
- Avoid collisions.
- Match the direction of those around you.
- Stay close to the group.
Follow these rules, and your ideas can swoop and swirl and coordinate perfectly. A great intellectual flock. A murmuration to protect against attack.
I jest …at least I think I do.
But it does fascinate me. I have spent rather too much of my life watching the cholesterol hypothesis murmuration weave and swoop around me. I often wonder, how the experts know to say and do the same things. To utilise precisely the same arguments, even the exact same phrases. How do they manage to carefully avoid running into facts that might bring them all crashing into the ground?
With COVID, how did they all know what to say, what to think? What evidence they would accept or ignore. Which ideas to attack, or support. Who to mock? I found Sweden fascinating in this regard.
During the first wave of COVID, Sweden did not lock down. At least not in the same way as any other European country. Lockdown ‘lite’ I like to call it.
At first, the Swedish authorities were ferociously attacked from all directions by everyone. It was claimed their actions would kill hundreds of thousands, and Sweden would have the highest death rate in Europe, the world.
Then, when it began to emerge that Sweden had a lower-than-average mortality, a great and instant swooping change of direction took place.
It turns out, as everyone always – ahem – always knew, Swedish people are very socially conscious and followed strict lockdown rules anyway – without being told they had to. In fact, they locked themselves down more effectively than anyone else.
Thus, rather than contradicting the need for lockdown, Sweden provided the strongest possible evidence in support of lockdown. Tada … swoop, flock, avoid collision, match the direction of the nearby birds and stay close to the group.
Is the Swedish ‘socially conscious’ explanation true … well, that would need a few facts, and there really aren’t any. Just opinions, inflated way beyond their natural capacity to contain reality.
Many people I know became instant experts on Sweden, and how Swedish people think and act … overnight. It was fascinating to watch. Almost everyone convinced by what was, essentially, a rumour.
(One of the big claims made at this point was that Sweden’s population was spread out more thinly than the UK for example and much more rural – nonsense! It’s concentrated in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo and a few other towns in a similar proportion to other European countries!)
I am not going to argue the magical thinking in use here. Just to point out that, overnight, the flock changed direction. Yesterday we all believed A. Today, we all believe B, and no-one is ever to mention A, ever again. Thank you very much. Four legs good, two legs bad.
Vaccinations and the magical swoops
Normally it takes many years to develop a new vaccine. Decades even. There are lengthy clinical trials that should be done to demonstrate efficacy and safety. To determine if good manufacturing process (GMP) is being followed.
In the case of COVID, the ‘rigorous’ trial process started in spring 2020. The first phase three trial (efficacy) was designed to finish, and report, in early 2022. As you are probably aware it didn’t last that long. It was cut short after about two months. As were all the others. Efficacy proven …
Efficacy … say what? Did any of the efficacy trials demonstrate that any lives had been saved? No, they did not. The trials were not set up to measure this, what you might consider this, somewhat important, outcome. Nor, in fact, any other hard outcome e.g. hospitalisation. But they were 95% effective at something or other. Ah yes, transmission.
Although, in the real world, it turns out they weren’t very good at preventing transmission either, not in the slightest. So, maybe the trials were not entirely robust in their reporting. One two, miss a few, ninety-nine a hundred?
Luckily, as it turns out, that doesn’t matter all, because they do much more important things, and have indeed saved millions of lives. End of discussion. ‘Will you just shut up Kendrick.’
It’s funny how many people tell me you absolutely must carry out Randomised Controlled Clinical trials to prove the efficacy – of any healthcare intervention. Because, as they tell me, observational studies cannot ‘prove’ anything. They are merely hypothesis generating. [This, by the way, is bollocks, but we shall leave that to one side for now].
Yet, when it comes to mRNA vaccines, observational studies are all we have. Thus now, it seems, mRNA observational studies are wonderful, and have absolutely proved efficacy – flock, swoop.
I do have sympathy for what happened with mRNA vaccines. Never, in the history of science, has there been so much pressure to get a vaccine out as fast as possible. Even if, in my opinion, it all seemed somewhat faster than possible?
If you ever do read ‘Spike’, at one point Farrar seems to suggest that Moderna was already working on a COVID [Sars-Cov2] vaccine in January 2020? Not sure, the passage is rather vague – deliberately?
Anway, when it came to COVID vaccines, we had six months from lab to first jab. And we are told that there were no shortcuts taken. All the required trials were done. All safety studies completed. Flock, swoop.
And the entire supply chain, with its need for -70⁰C storage was sorted out without a single problem. In parallel, a gazillion liposomes were manufactured to the highest standards, each containing a carefully measured, quality-controlled package of mRNA … with no plasmid DNA contamination. Available to billions. ‘Roll up, roll up, ladies and gentlemen and get your wonderous, absolutely safe, life-saving jab.’
If you dared suggest that this all seemed, potentially, a wee bit fast, and that corners must have been cut – as I did – you were ruthlessly attacked. You were accused of being an anti-vaxxer, and someone who fails to understand science. I think I do understand science. It is ‘The Science’ that I have problems with.
In truth, I rather liked the cleverness of mRNA technology. Although I did wonder why something so damned complicated was required. Surely, we could have created a whole bunch of genetically modified bacteria to manufacture spike proteins.
Or chicken eggs, as per influenza vaccines. I am told chicken eggs/embryos cannot be used to grow coronaviruses because chickens do not have the correct protein on their cell membranes to allow coronavirus entry. Ho hum … five seconds of research later.
‘Infectious Bronchitis Coronavirus Infection in Chickens: Multiple System Disease with Immune Suppression.’
In the early 1930s, infectious bronchitis (IB) was first characterized as a respiratory disease in young chickens; later, the disease was also described in older chickens. The etiology of IB was confirmed later as being due to a coronavirus: the infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). Being a coronavirus, IBV is subject to constant genome change due to mutation and recombination, with the consequence of changing clinical and pathological manifestations.’ 2
Oh look, it seems that chickens can get infected with coronaviruses after all. Surely some mistake. No – swoop – it is completely different – bank to the right. Different in a way I just do not have the time to explain to you, you stupid person, right now.
My view was that, if we can force mRNA into a human cell, using synthetically made liposomes to allow entry, then why not force mRNA into chicken eggs, to get them to make spike proteins. Then filter them out and use pure spike protein as a vaccine, without the need for -70⁰C transportation systems. Or the need to stick mRNA into the cells of human beings. With all the unknown safety issues that may bring. Talk about unknown unknowns.
No, we had to get our own human cells to produce spike proteins. Because? Because …. Hey, what do I know. I am not an ‘expert.’ And I don’t understand ‘The Science.’ ‘Man, who is not an expert in virology tries to ask questions about virology.’ Shock horror. He must be humiliated.
You know what I really think. I think that people out there know things about coronaviruses and spike proteins that they were not, and are not, entirely keen to tell us about. Equally, this form of mRNA/liposome cleverness is going to be the latest thing in drug delivery, so companies were very, very keen to try it out – on everyone in the world.
However, my main worry with the mRNA vaccines is that plasmid DNA was not properly removed during the mRNA refinement process, and we are all now walking about with little bits of plasmid DNA within our cells. Those of us who got vaccinated anyway. Including me, and my post-vaccine prostate cancer. Yes, I have a dog in this race.
We were initially reassured that there was no DNA contamination. We are now told that, yes of course – as we always knew – there is 3. However, it is absolutely nothing to worry about… flock, swoop. After all, it is only nanograms of material we are talking about here. What harm can a teensy, weensy, nanogram of anything do to us?
Botulism
The median lethal dose for humans has been estimated at 2 nanograms of botulinum toxin per kilogram of bodyweight. 4
It has been estimated that the total mass of Sars-Cov2 within a highly infected human being is between 1 to 100 nanograms. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a terribly dangerous thing that can easily kill us. Whereas a few nanograms of plasmid DNA in our cells is … well that’s just fine and dandy.
Of course, it may be that plasmid DNA contamination in mRNA viruses is entirely safe. I have no idea. But I have to say the idea that many/most/all of my cells are now potentially contaminated with synthetic DNA molecules makes me somewhat uneasy. I like my DNA left very much alone, thank you very much.
We were also told that no spike proteins could get into the bloodstream after vaccination. Bong! Because, after being manufactured in the cells, the spike proteins all got stuck in cell membranes, poking out to present themselves to neutrophils (nice one, that made me laugh anyway).
Turns out that wasn’t true either. Somewhat earlier we were told the entire ‘vaccine’ injection would remain in the shoulder and never go anywhere else in the body. A concept so ridiculous that I simply sat open mouthed in wonder at such bullshit. Yes, not true either.
We were told the mRNA could not move between adjacent cells, not true. Even google AI knows this was bollocks. Here is what I got when I googled mRNA translocation between cells:
‘mRNA translocation, or the movement of mRNA between cells, is a process where cells exchange mRNA molecules, enabling the recipient cell to express the proteins encoded by the transferred mRNA. This process, which can occur through mechanisms like extracellular vesicles or direct cell-to-cell contact, allows for intercellular communication and coordination of cellular function.’
I think I knew all that long before I tried to find out what Google AI had to say. Over time, we were told so much rubbish about the COVID vaccines that I gave up believing anything they had to say. Along with many other people I suspect. Fool me once …etc.
But the flock … they all sang from the same hymn sheet. ‘Spike protein in the bloodstream bad.’ This became … ‘Spike protein in the bloodstream doesn’t matter.’ ‘Plasmid DNA in the cell nucleus doesn’t occur.’ Became … ‘Plasmid DNA in the cell nucleus doesn’t matter.’
It’s only nanograms, dontcha know. And a few measly nanograms of plasmid DNA in our cells is perfectly harmless. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but you are never going to find out if you dismiss the possibility out of hand, and mock those who suggest it could carry any danger. I prefer my safety concerns to be checked out thoroughly, rather than laughed away by the grand and holy ‘experts’.
And breathe.
The dangers of the flock
Being part of a flock carries very obvious advantages when it comes to almost all human activities. Go with the flow, do what everyone else does, fit in. Move in unison. Wait till you see which way the wind is blowing before you fly off in any given direction. It is why humans have been successful. We work together to achieve great things and fend off threats.
But … the flock can be wrong. In medical research it has been, often.
And, unless you are exceedingly careful, the flock becomes a grand conspiracy of thought, that none dare question. A virtual organism which ends up highly intolerant of any criticism or independent thought. Errors are brushed aside, criticism is not accepted, however well meaning.
Those in the flock are also, in their own way, trapped. They cannot leave, for they will lose all protection, and have to survive on their own. The flock also turns on them very rapidly. From expert to dangerous conspiracy theorist in one fell swoop. Yes, you see what I did there.
The conspiracy, the ‘cover-up’, the attacks on dissent. I don’t think it is, what many believe it to be. Deliberate, potentially evil, coordinated. It is just humans doing what humans do. Grouping together, moving together, saying the same things, supporting each other. Then, when questioned, defending everything with great ferocity.
The other great problem here is that those who are not part of the flock, become ‘the enemy.’
You end up with two tribes. One tribe believing there was a great conspiracy; the other side thinking they are surrounded by utter nutcase conspiracy theorists. What dies in the middle of all this… is science.
And so, instead of attempting a calm and rational review of what went on during COVID, we have people taking up immovable positions. Everything we did was the right thing to do. Or everything they did was a disaster. The more the mainstream is attacked, the more bitterly they fight back. And vice-versa.
Humans …
Science has always been a battleground between facts and emotions. Mr Spock and Captain Kirk, the id and the superego. Some facts we love, and they make us feel good – we approve. Others we hate, and attack. COVID lies at the centre of this battleground. I attempt to sit in the middle somewhere.
The only problem with that position is that everyone, on both sides, wants you to shut up.
I am reminded of a joke that came out of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A man moves there, he is Jewish. He is confronted by an angry looking man. ‘You’re new round here, are you a Protestant or a Roman Catholic.’
‘I am a Jew.’ The man replies.
‘Well, are you a Protestant Jew, or a Catholic Jew?’
Next … the damage done by lockdowns.
1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9368251/
2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7598688/
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick 