Anybody who spends any form of time on social media can’t have missed the more and more frequent disagreements which have bloomed over the menace posed by the Covid-19 virus.
Debate, it appears, has begun to fall into two distinct camps: those that devour after which regurgitate the ‘info’ as instructed to the world at giant by the UK and different governments; and people whose starvation for data on the topic has led them to different sources of the reality.
One of many scientists often quoted in these steadily heated social media exchanges is Dr Mike Yeadon whose public debunking of a lot of the info being peddled in help of what many contemplate to be Draconian anti-Covid measures was extensively reported within the UK media within the late summer season.
Many critics of Dr Yeadon denounced the proof he introduced on the premise that he was a former Chief Scientific Officer with pharmaceutical big Pfizer – the identical firm that manufactured the vaccine at present being rolled out to frontline employees and the weak.
His skilled associations apart – none of which ought to actually have any bearing on his repute as a scientist, by the way in which – it’s laborious to disregard the load of the proof that his work gives.
Dr Yeadon is one among 22 scientists who make up the Worldwide Consortium of Scientists in Life Science (ICSLS) which has launched compelling information to show the polymerase chain response (PCR) check – extensively used all over the world diagnose Covid-19 an infection – is ‘fatally flawed’.
On the finish of November, the ICSLS referred to as on an organisation referred to as Eurosurveillance to withdraw its examine in help of the protocols which can be used within the PCR check.
The examine – often known as the Corman-Drosten paper – was printed in January this yr, simply at some point after it was submitted.
Fairly aside from elevating severe questions concerning the integrity of what’s thought-about to be the shortest scientific peer assessment in historical past, it additionally raises severe questions concerning the motivation for fast-tracking its publication.
The ICSLS says its personal analysis proves the PCR check – the check, bear in mind, upon which each single piece of the federal government’s more and more dictatorial anti-Covid technique is predicated – is all however utterly ineffective and says it makes a nonsense of Eurosurveillance’s January examine.
Probably the most important of the 10 deadly flaws within the PCR check, in accordance with a report by revered science journalist Peter Andrews, embrace:
- Non-specificity because of inaccurate design, which means it’s not correct in figuring out proof of a selected covid pressure;
- Check outcomes are enormously variable
- An lack of ability to distinguish between virus fragments and complete virus
- It has no constructive or unfavorable controls
- It has no commonplace working process – which means that even should you disregard the accuracy of the check itself, outcomes usually are not per one another because of variable utility protocols
Clearly, there’s quite a lot of laborious science that sits behind the ICSLS findings, however in a nutshell what it means is that the check returns an astonishingly excessive variety of false constructive outcomes – estimated by some to be as nice as 97%.
The extent of the disingenuity of the unique January paper turns into clearer while you study that, in accordance with Peter Andrews’ report, a minimum of three of its authors are allegedly on the payroll of the primary corporations to win the PCR testing contracts.
So, what does this imply to you and me? In essence the most important impression on our on a regular basis lives is that we live below stringent restrictive measures which were knowledgeable by poor science with no credible foundation the truth is.
It additionally lends weight to Yeadon’s personal views that a lot of the nation had achieved herd immunity as early because the summer season and that the virus is on the wane, not on the rise. It additionally lends credence to information that exhibits mortality charges throughout November of this yr have been truly decrease than in the identical interval 5 years beforehand.
Greater than that, although, it additionally raises one other query which is concerning the extent of the virus itself.
Nobody doubts that the virus exists, or that it poses a menace to the weak and the aged. However does the true extent of the virus – which is to say not the extent prompt by what we are able to now safely conclude are statistically unsafe assessments – justify the societal and financial impression of the measures that have an effect on our day by day lives?
My very own view is that they don’t. As Peter Andrews concludes on the finish of his report, it’s way more possible that we’re seeing a pseudo-pandemic that bears no relation to the supposed ‘reality’ the federal government and its slender church of scientific advisers would have us consider.
I’ve written beforehand on the facility of Nutritional vitamins C and D in serving to to fight covid an infection naturally, and you’ll learn extra on that right here and right here.
As we method Christmas, it’s an excellent time of yr to query the info across the pandemic and the federal government’s response to it. Use these hyperlinks to learn the total January paper from Eurosurveillance and likewise discover out extra about ICSLS and its personal assessment of the Corman-Drosten report.
There’s a wealth of proof and information on the market regarding Covid-19 and the premise on which authorities technique is predicated – all of us simply should be sufficient to search for it after which query what we’re being instructed by a authorities which appears disinclined to take recommendation from a large physique of experience.