Infuriating, isn't it? — intentionally fostered COVID ignorance

23 July 2021

COVID-19 evidence and polices are not what they seem

Today, I move from:

two examples of worthless COVID press coverage

the reasonable epidemiological questions raised by Pfizer's former chief science officer (Mike Yeadon), who has been reviled and censored by the Establishment.

I raise Dr. Yeadon — not because he is necessarily correct — but because he is reasonable, regarding subjects for which epidemiological COVID evidence is sketchy at best.

After reading what follows

You decide whether there may be way more to alleged SARS-CoV-2 control policy, than meets the eye.

Below is an anecdotally representative example of COVID news coverage

DW News posted the following (COVID's gonna get you) video on YouTube.

Typical of the Lamestream, DW babbled on about Peru's COVID variant 'lambda' for 12 minutes — without once mentioning its fatality rate, or the demographics that it attacks

DW News, Lambda variant pushes up death toll in Peru — COVID-19 Special, YouTube (22 July 2021)

I cite this coverage because it is so typical of the factually vacuous coverage that the press gives COVID by favoring the generation of hysteria — as against gathering facts and prompting legitimate epidemiological investigation.

The DW interview begins with the observation that Peru has the highest per capita death rate from COVID in the world. Not mentioned, is how anyone knows this.

I find it improbable that Peru, whose health resources are limited, would be able to track (a) who died of what disease and (b) do so in a reliable manner. Especially, when supposedly 'advanced' nations on the planet do not (or cannot), either.

Thus, empty blather for 12 minutes

Evidently trying to generate fear, the German interviewer metaphorically asks a Peruvian physician whether — given the Peruvian COVID death rate and lambda's alleged responsibility for most of it — the lambda variant might endanger us all.

The physician intelligently responds:

The main concern is how little we know about it.

With such an inviting segue, one would have expected the DW news anchor to provide some demographic facts about other variants and proportionally whom they are sickening and killing.

But no. Instead, DW leads us into another 10 minutes or so of clueless blather that goes nowhere even marginally useful.

ABC News did the same thing with the much-hyped delta variant

Using a pediatrician as a prop, ABC provided exactly no useful information (for a full 8:43 minutes) about the delta and lambda variants — other than implying that both are gonna get'cha — if you are not vaccinated:

ABC News, New COVID-19 cases triple over past month as delta variant spreads, YouTube (22 July 2021)

ABC provided no numbers delineating what proportion of kids get alleged COVID.

Nor what proportion of those infected kids die.

And certainly not what the overall pediatric mortality rate is, relative to the entirety of the pediatric population.

The pediatrician involved does the usual (predictably worthless) summary of nonexistent data by saying words to the effect that we do not want kids to suffer and die. Well, duh.

That statement is true of all illnesses. But it provides no valid risk-benefit summary of existing data. Nor does the ABC presentation put any pressure on authorities to legitimately investigate what is really going on.

In total, the ABC News piece offers not one answer to the most elementary epidemiological questions.

Do y'all think that this just might be on (corporate-owned) purpose?

I remind readers that . . .

. . . we are now 21 months into the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prominent news sources and Government agencies are still not providing any genuinely worthwhile statistical data. Obfuscation and status-quo-ism seem to be the universal goals.

This presumably so — according to conspiracy theorists and even some allegedly more 'rational' folks — exactly because who gets and dies of COVID is a secret that is closely held by Bill Gates, Big Pharma and their Government Agents. All of whom have, admittedly, been visibly eager not to seek and transmit accurate, detailed or intelligently investigated epidemiological data.

Due to this cultivated public ignorance . . .

. . . each new SARS-CoV-2 variant is met with inflated claims that it is more easily transmitted and probably deadlier than anything that went before. The two above-cited videos are typical of this trend.

In retrospect, virtually all such hysteria has been exaggerated, with the delta variant possibly being an exception — with regard to actually increased infectiousness, but not, apparently, mortality rate.

The best that ABC News (cited above) could do is claim that the delta variant is running loose among the unvaccinated. But again, without telling anyone what portion of those delta-threatened folk are being infected. Much less what proportion of the people (who are infected) are becoming seriously ill or dying.

I also remind readers that

As I pointed months ago, capitalism deliberately underbuilds and understaffs the medical system. Profit is the reason.

Therefore, it is not at all difficult to overwhelm the medical infrastructure with an epidemic. The fact that the infrastructure becomes inundated is less an indication of the severity of the pandemic, than it is of the societally short-circuited corners that Avarice always searches out, so as to rake in the loot.

I think one can see (representatively) that a community with only 5 ICU beds can easily be swamped by a virus that claims 7 seriously ill people. Yet, statistically speaking, 7 folks out of thousands is not much of a blip on predictable Cycles of Illness radar.

Nevertheless, for the duration of the COVID pandemic no one influential has bothered to point this most obvious of all epidemiological facts out.

Even though Avarice and intentionally imposed medical resource scarcity have foreseeably caused the COVID 'rescue' shortage — the Establishment wants us to think that the planet has a problem attributable to violently rampaging disease, rather a non-availability treatment problem directly attributable to Greed.

What is also mildly relevant is that . . .

. . . even if Authorities wanted to discover what is going on with COVID, they are putting obstacles in their way.

That's because one jurisdiction after another keeps injecting confounding variables into the pandemic mix:

Lockdowns to no lockdowns, masks to no masks, travel to no travel (and back), schools and no schools — and so on — almost ad infinitum.

One could not better screw up incoming data, if one tried.

One particularly idiotic version of this stupidity is the CDC mandate that air travelers (on aircraft and in airports) be masked. Except when they eat.

Now, folks on aircraft eat pretty much all at the same time. And those in airports are variously eating all the time, all over the place.

Ask any competent infectious disease specialist whether such a porous masking strategy would work to prevent an easily transmitted respiratory infection, and they would laugh in your face.

Yet, we are still indulging this nonsense. And still not investigating whether these evidently idiotic rules work.

Nobody really gives a 'shit' about epidemic research because policy is actually, we can infer, all about generating money and seizing power.

Given how long this has been going on

COVID data manipulation and non-data gathering have to have been intentionally imposed on the world's publics.

As a result of Authorities' obvious efforts to foster hysteria — upon an increasingly visible base of absent or concealed data — world leaders have lost much of their credibility. After a while, even medically ignorant people begin to realize that they are (presumptively) being conned, probably to advantage someone else.

In this fool-the-public regard

I find it humorous, for example, that the Press typically focuses on an example of one person (out of many thousands), who confesses to having resisted lockdowns, masks and vaccinations — and is now in the hospital — vociferously (and on camera) repenting their past obtuseness.

Those of us who think in statistical terms recognize that these Single Examples of Reversed Course say nothing at all about which demographics are really affected by COVID — and at what rates and to what degrees.

Thus, there is no valuable epidemiological information embraced by these statistically silly Lamestream-spread anecdotes.

Yet, the Powers that Be continue to whine that the world's public does not trust their COVID vaccine pronouncements.

Worse, the Establishment censors people who are asking reasonable COVID questions

Consider, for instance, the suppression of Dr. Mike Yeadon's doubts about SARS-CoV-2 control policies.

Of him, Off-Guardian wrote that:

Dr Michael Yeadon is a British doctor and research scientist, the former chief science officer with Pfizer, and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd. He has authored many articles and papers on the coronavirus panic, and appeared in the fourth instalment of our Experts series.

If you watch the John Kirby-Yeadon interview, you cannot (reasonably) come away with an impression other than that Yeadon is cogently thoughtful.

And, given his background, one might conclude that maybe his questions and observations about the negative, or potentially negative, effects of Establishment COVID policies might be worth debating.

Instead, Yeadon has been suppressed and demeaned as a Dangerous Lunatic Equivalent.

When asked why other people with similar medical qualifications have not, generally speaking, come out in vociferous support of his doubts — Yeadon replies that he cannot know, but that he suspects societal pressure (to shut them up) has frightened them off.

That, too, seems to be a reasonable inference.

Especially so, given the widespread Social Media suppression of speech that expresses doubts about prevalent COVID control and messaging efforts.

So, what does Dr Yeadon say?

Point 1

Yeadon's core point is that COVID is nowhere near as deadly and maiming as the Establishment pretends.

In this, he is in accord with other observers who point out:

(a) that the only people dying in noticeable proportions are over age 70 and most have comorbidities

and that

(b) people younger than 70 (or so) have (reportedly) somewhere close to a 99.7 to 99.8 percent survival rate.

What is always lost in evaluating such evidence is the public's inability to recognize that a 99.8 percent adult survival rate (take Sweden) — ( a number that includes the disproportionately high numbers of old people) — would still result in noticeable absolute numbers of people dying — when death removes them from a planetary population of billions and billions of people.

Yet, no one is concerned, when other illnesses do exactly the same thing.

Point 2

Yeadon's second point is that it makes no sense to endanger people — who are likely to survive COVID infection and also avoid being maimed by it — by providing them with a vaccine that may have still unknown long-term negative effects.

This observation is identical to Dr. Sebastian Rushworth's (with regard to vaccinating children) that I addressed here.

Physiologically pertinently, Yeadon points out that, unlike conventional vaccines, mRNA vaccines cause the production of immunity by getting the recipients' own cells to manufacture the target-tagging product that we are trying to get our immune systems to react against.

This means that, unlike injecting known doses of conventionally acting vaccines, mRNA vaccines eventually (probably) produce varying 'doses' (over differing lengths of time) of the targeted antigen — simply because various people's body cells will react differently to their cellular DNA being prompted to do so.

That's a perfectly reasonable concern. And not one that any of the supposed FDA testing directly looked at.

Point 3

Along the mRNA vaccination line, Yeadon adds that the mRNA vaccines' attempt to mimic the spike protein — which helps to identify the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (for the human immune system to latch onto and mark as a virus that should be destroyed) — may have been misguided.

Yeadon says that he has learned that the spike protein is not biologically inert. Instead of simply being a viral marker (as vaccine manufacturers seem to maintain), Yeadon says that research indicates that the spike protein may be physiologically active and cause (among other things) blood cells to clump together.

He concludes that, if what he read about this is true, injecting mRNA vaccines — which force the body to produce these same spike proteins — merely compounds the clotting problem that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may cause on its own.

Therefore, Yeadon wonders whether the mRNA COVID vaccines (that are designed to prompt immunity to COVID by creating the very spike proteins that are to be targeted) might be creating a further clotting problem, even in the absence of being infected with COVID. Recall that such a clotting problem has already been witnessed in a tiny-tiny fraction of vaccine-injected patients.

And what, wonders Yeadon, will happen over the long-term with these mRNA vaccines?

Being novel in concept and implementation, no one knows. Certainly, none of the safety testing so far has endured long enough to be sure.

Point 4

SARS-CoV-2 variants, Yeadon thinks, are not a threat to the vaccines' efficacy. He says that the variants' changes, at a molecular level, are too slight to impact the vaccine-prompted body's successful identification of them.

Note

About this, I am less confident than Yeadon. I think adequate variant coverage depends upon:

the precise nature of the mRNA vaccine's molecular structure,

the recipient's body's interpretation of those instructions,

the randomness of the overall immune system's response to the spike proteins thereby generated

and

the exact molecular differences (and where they are) displayed by the variants in question.

On this topic, Yeadon is adamant that mRNA vaccine manufacturers' alleged wish to create vaccine booster shots — those boosters being slightly modified to match the evolving SARS-CoV-2variants — combined with the FDA's announced willingness to approve these booster vaccine modifications without any further testing — are nonsensically dangerous.

Point 5

Unqualified faith in COVID vaccines, Yeadon fears, is leading to the idea of mandating 'vaccine passports'.

He points out that such a mandate would be catastrophic to freedom, as well as being completely unnecessary from a public health perspective:

He observes that vulnerable people, who do get the vaccine, are protected against the illness. So, why should they care what other people do?

Similarly, he thinks, why should healthy younger folk — who have no statistically good health reason to fear an infection — be afraid of other people, who are not vaccinated?

In short, says Yeadon, vaccine passports make no sense at all. Except to escalate Government control of our lives.

Yeadon concludes that we should beware the hysteria that has escalated the COVID threat to a degree that it does not deserve. Your freedoms are about to be lost, he warns, if this trend continues. And keep in mind, he adds, that once it is lost, freedom will not find its way back to us.

That, I think, is indisputably true.

The moral? — Is deliberately fostered COVID ignorance and hysteria —as well as massively imposed Government control — dangerous?

One does not have to agree with Dr. Yeadon's perceptions and conclusions to see the debate-worthy merits of what he says.

My objections to COVID-control measures to date are similar to Yeadon's. Virtually no one with a wide-reaching public platform is trying to evaluate and respond to the pandemic through scientific eyes, intelligently-focused data-gathering and insightfully-evaluated policy possibilities.

Most of what we experience is propaganda.

There are, naturally, exceptions. But for some reason, no one influential actually promotes either these investigators' inquisitiveness or their findings.

For an example of how information-presentation should be done, see Professor Roger Seheult's (MD) video about the delta variant:

MedCram, Coronavirus Update 127: Delta Variant and Vaccines, YouTube (20 July 2021)(precise data analysis begins at roughly 9:00 minutes into the video)

Notice that Seheult seems to contradict Dr. Yeadon's fears about the mRNA COVID vaccines in that Seheult makes it clear that he has had zero vaccinated patients, who afterward still got sick from SARS-CoV-2. Seheult seems to be an enthusiastic mRNA vaccine proponent. That impresses me as a frontline anecdotal endorsement of the vaccines' efficacy, if not necessarily their long-term safety.

Nevertheless, notice that Dr. Seheult — and similarly placed working physicians, including the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance — are generally not presented as authorities by the Lamestream or Government.

This, despite the fact that these overlooked medical people are vastly more knowledgeable than the too frequently untruthful and consistently medically vacuous Dr. Anthony Fauci.

So ask yourselves, roughly 21 months after this pandemic began, why does Lamestream, social media and Government-sponsored suppression of even existing investigative data analysis of COVID and its treatments still exist?

Who benefits from escalated COVID hysteria, intentionally maintained epidemiological ignorance, personal vilification of policy critics and widespread censorship?

PeteFree.com

Infuriating, isn't it? — intentionally fostered COVID ignorance