COVID MADNESS – By Mick Skelly MSc

The world seems to have gone crazy. The fundamental idealistic principles underpinning science, that everything should be doubted and questioned, that the best science is disinterested and thus untainted by ego or any form of profit, that science can only be expressed in terms of probabilities at best, that vested interests, maintaining the status quo or ‘custom and practice’ are all toxic to the dialectic at the heart of science and that the opinions of the great and ‘good’, of the ‘wise’, are only as good as the evidence they can bring to, and the logical rigorousness of, the arguments they construct upon this evidence; all of this seems to have been thrown out of the window.

Now people who have never read a scientific paper, or have the knowledge or training to read such research papers critically, seem to feel that once they have read a newspaper or seen something on TV and chatted about it with a few similar people over a meal and drawn some ill-informed conclusions that their opinions carry great weight and should be taken seriously! At least as seriously as the evidence provided by scientists, researchers or clinicians who can provide even strong evidence that differs from a popular narrative. Indeed such people seem to believe that they and their opinions should be instrumental in enforcing compliant behaviour in people who choose to differ, no matter how well-informed the latter are.

The people who loathed the economic ‘experts’ who stated that Brexit was economic nonsense and characterised the ‘experts’ predicting Climate Change as doomsters who must be wrong whatever their knowledge or credentials, now hang on the words of any doctor or academic who poses as having the expert and final answer to Covid, even when they change their minds the next week. After all you have to listen to the ‘experts’, at least when it suits your prejudices.

Indeed such would be ‘enforcers’ with their binary ‘right thinking’ urge to conform and need to feel comfortable and righteous by attempting to force others to conform now dismiss dissenting science expressed in peer reviewed journals, and even the government’s own objective evidence as expressed in the Office of National Statistics, (ONS), data as somehow just being ‘conspiracy theories’! I.E. for such people strongly ‘felt’ opinions, are somehow superior to facts!

In short , in a clear example of the Dunning – Kruger effect, uncritical thinking is now being used to inform expressions of anger and even fundamentally authoritarian controlling language and behaviours to the edge of implied, if not actual violence. Ibsen’s play, ‘An Enemy of the People’ springs to mind, and how, on the one hand the force of the state and, on the other hand, peer pressure via attempts to manufacture guilt and shame, are used to enforce compliance, even when such compliance works against the best interests of the compliant, as in Ursula K. Leguin’s novel, ‘The Dispossessed’.

People who usually complain about the ‘woke’ or about an intrusive ‘nanny state’ attempting to control or limit their behaviour, from limiting their financial agency via taxation to their personal agency via implicitly critical ‘healthy living’ or Climate Change campaigns etc. or attempting to limit how they express themselves in regard to the language they use, have discovered their apparent right to criticise and, preferably control, other people for daring to make their own informed and free choices.

This highlights the inherent righteously small-minded conservatism of what suddenly seems to be the majority of the British public. As noted by Frank Wilhoit in ‘The Travesty of Liberalism’: ‘Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect…’

Some observers have argued that we are heading to somewhere on a continuum between Orwell’s ‘1984’ and Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ with social media as the new Soma. I consider that it is worse than that and unless people choose to become better informed and act on the best and most critical research, no matter how uncomfortable and demanding, then we are heading to the dystopia that William Rees Mogg and his co-author identify as the inevitable end product of de-regulated, neo-liberal globalised capitalism in the book, ‘The Sovereign Individual’. A world of a few super-rich, who have worked, largely via avoiding taxation, to destroy the Western democracies, and who are now free to totally exploit the rest of humanity, outside of the mercenaries they employ to protect them and enforce their whims. Do not believe me, read the book for yourself, it is there in black and white as Rees Mogg’s considered ‘expert’ opinion.

Indeed a recent book by Whitehead and Perry, ‘Taking America Back For God. Christian Nationalism in the United States’ identifies what are fundamentally anti-democratic and racist sentiments in the American right. Sentiments expressed through violent action when Trump was voted out of office.

This might be seen as merely the last effort of what is largely becoming an aging minority, in the changing US demographic, clinging to the nineteenth century ideas that informed the concept of ‘manifest destiny’ and (white) American exceptionalism. Nonetheless, there is an anti-intellectual element who increasingly believe that if democracy does not preserve their status, associated with both their race and their religion, then democracy should be brushed aside. Presumably democracy will be replaced by a ‘Gilead’ style theocracy ironically rooted in ideas taken from Social Darwinism that supposes an inherent white Caucasian or Aryan superiority. For such people, at least a proportion of them, turning the ‘culture wars’ into a real war cannot come soon enough since they assume that they must prevail. Generally they have the guns and God is on their side after all.

However either the ‘business as usual but more so’ envisaged in ‘The Sovereign Individual’ or the ‘Godly consumerism’ of the American ethno-nationalist right will also mean maintaining most of the current economic status quo in terms of extractive capitalism, with environmental destruction, inclusive of man-made climate change, being just part of the package.

This being the case either of these dystopias might just be a brief space between now and a re-run of the Great Permian Extinction, with human beings merely being one of the many species to go. Of course the super-rich believe that even if most people die somehow they will be able to create refugium for the very few. Obviously, in reality, the well-armed mercenaries are likely to take the few places available rather than give them to their ruthlessly irresponsible masters. The American Christian right tend to disbelieve in Climate Change, portraying it as yet another conspiracy against them, and anyway, as they are the ‘chosen’ they will be saved and their lifestyles preserved, or they will be taken up in ‘the rapture’.

It strikes me that the people eager to enforce compliance to the State, currently hand-in-glove with an apparently co-dependent ‘Big Pharma’ and supra-national agencies like the WHO, at this moment in time are largely those people eager to condemn ‘big government’ and state provision usually and who cry ‘foul’ when they perceive any of their freedoms curtailed by ‘the nanny state’. These people just want the world to return to their idea of ‘normal’ and to live their lives just as they feel like doing, usually without any thought for the long-term future.

As one of these people said to me, in regard to my concerns regarding ‘climate change’ over the course of even the second half this century. ‘Oh I don’t know what you are bothered about that for, you’ll be dead by then!’ And so I will but my child will not, and if my child has children then they will be the ones to suffer the most. In short these tend to be people who only care about what affects them directly and are otherwise fundamentally irresponsible. Even their current convenience is more important to them than the quality of life for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the relatively near future.

How should we think about such people? How should we value their opinions? This is actually how people ‘normally’ are, after all, in our society with its focus on individualism (see the book ‘The Selfish Capitalist’ by Oliver James to understand some of the harm this does). Reflecting, perhaps, that ‘normality is the psychopathology of the average’.

Like most people seem to be today the ‘baby boomer’ generation in particular, and I am one of them, cling to their echo chamber and seem especially averse to reading anything that reminds them of the reality of the pre-war past (like the book ‘Don’t Let My Past Be Your Future’) or the unfolding future, or even fact-based alternative perspectives on the present. This is the richest generation of the richest and most technologically advanced society that has ever lived on the Earth and the best they, we, can do is, as one American commentator put it, create a culture of utter banality.

Cake, circuses, playing as recreation and trying to hide from the facts. How else can a history of general denial of the facts, regarding environmental degradation and climate change for example, even resistance to being honest about the effects of smoking etc., be explained?

Denial of the facts when they imply change, especially radical change in a way that compromises the present economic orthodoxy and ‘profits for the few’, is hard wired into our socio-economic system. Indeed when anything questions the obvious fantasy of infinite ‘growth’ on a finite planet, including the need to use more rare metals for items to sustain our current consumerism and ‘lifestyle’ than there actually are on the entire planet, then such questioning or suggested alternatives are derided as ‘fantasies’!

The social construct that is ‘economic reality’ is referred to as if it was an actual object that could be touched, as if it were more real somehow than the earth beneath our feet and the air we breathe. As if ‘economic forces’ were somehow the same as gravity and not just one way of organising human activity that we can keep or reject. Some people believe in ‘the invisible hand of the market’, without any understanding of what Adam Smith actually meant by that or the regulatory and moral framework he believed capitalism could not work without (see his ‘A Theory of Moral Sentiments’ as well as ‘The Wealth of Nations’), in the same way that some people believe in God. Worse, just as some people believe that they are the only ones to fully apprehend God’s otherwise ineffable purpose and are thus entitled to use coercion if not downright violence to enforce their perception of ‘God’s will’ there are also those with the same certainty in regard to economics.

The belief in capitalism is just as much metaphysics as a belief in God and, as Capra put it, as a belief in any other ‘ism’, Communism, Fascism and ‘scientism’.

‘Scientism’ is when the language of science is used within a context of corrupted scientific process to make something appear to be scientific when the real focus is on making money, on status and on taking and/or holding power, or other forms of self-aggrandisement.

‘Scientism’ has been detailed in regard to health care in books such as; ‘Schizophrenia, A Scientific Delusion?’ by Mary Boyle, ‘Let Them Eat Prozac’ by Professor David Healy, ‘Bad Pharma’ by Doctor Ben Goldacre and ‘Toxic Psychiatry’ by Doctor Peter Breggin.

‘Bad Pharma’ highlights the corruption at the heart of the pharmaceutical industry, the corruption of the research and regulatory process complete with rigging research to indicate positive results, gagging clauses in order to prevent negative results being revealed with drug companies happily marketing what they know to be useless, even dangerous drugs that will cause deaths if they know the profits will be big enough.

In terms of breaking the law, both criminal and civil law in ways that sometimes resulted in the unnecessary deaths of patients; here (below) is how the ‘Big Pharma’ criminal ‘Top Ten’ is ranked.

Biggest ever pharma lawsuits by settlement amount: Ranking the top ten

10. Amgen – $762m

9. Bayer and Johnson & Johnson – $775m

8. TAP Pharmaceutical – $875m

7. Merck – $950m

6. Eli Lilly and Company – $1.4bn

5. Abbott Laboratories – $1.5bn

4. Johnson & Johnson – $2.2bn

3. Pfizer – $2.3bn

2. Takeda Pharmaceutical – $2.4bn

1. GlaxoSmithKline – $3bn

Taken from the paper produced by Tiash Saha and updated in 2021 for ‘Pharmaceutical Technology’. All these are fines for activities breaking criminal and civil laws. Some of these activities have resulted in deaths or permanent negative effects on health.

It should be obvious that organisations indulging in criminal activities for which they are successfully prosecuted are surely to be defined as characteristically being criminal organisations.

Therefore, fundamentally, some people are criticising individuals, who do not go along with a narrative provided by entirely profit focused criminal organisations and the people within the ‘system’ they have successfully corrupted or at least duped in some way, as somehow being wrongheaded!

This corruption has also been present during the planning for and the management of the Covid Pandemic, see the BMJ editorial; ‘Politicisation, ‘corruption’ and the suppression of science’. The BMJ is not some spoof ‘conspiracy theorist’ web site but a serious medical journal.

Surely it is the people who are rejecting this evidence who are the ones who are misguided and delusional.

Note the data from the Office of National Statistics, (ONS), given below. This is official government data. As can clearly be seen death rates per 100,000 whether crude or age adjusted, are not particularly exceptional in 2020, even for the last decade when death rates have been lower than the average, although not by much, with 2019 being unusually low.

If you take the trouble to add 2019’s and 2020’s Age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 together and then divide by two it results in a roughly average death rate per 100,000 at 984.25. Lower than 2015, 2013, or 2012 and then lower than 2010 back to 1990 at the least. Indeed most years from 2010 back to 1990, and beyond that to the 1950’s if you care to look at the ONS data, have age-standardised mortality rates far higher, sometimes several times higher, than 2020.

Year	Number of deaths	Population (Thousands)	Crude mortality rate (per 100,000 population)	Age-standardised mortality rate  (per 100,000 population)
2020	608,002	59,829	1,016.20	1,043.50
2019	530,841	59,440	893.1	925
2018	541,589	59,116	916.1	965.4
2017	533,253	58,745	907.7	965.3
2016	525,048	58,381	899.3	966.9
2015	529,655	57,885	915	993.2
2014	501,424	57,409	873.4	953
2013	506,790	56,948	889.9	985.9
2012	499,331	56,568	882.7	987.4
2011	484,367	56,171	862.3	978.6
2010	493,242	55,692	885.7	1,017.10
2009	491,348	55,235	889.6	1,033.80
2008	509,090	54,842	928.3	1,091.90
2007	504,052	54,387	926.8	1,091.80
2006	502,599	53,951	931.6	1,104.30
2005	512,993	53,575	957.5	1,143.80
2004	514,250	53,152	967.5	1,163.00
2003	539,151	52,863	1,019.90	1,232.10
2002	535,356	52,602	1,017.70	1,231.30
2001	532,498	52,360	1,017.00	1,236.20
2000	537,877	52,140	1,031.60	1,266.40
1999	553,532	51,933	1,065.80	1,320.20
1998	553,435	51,720	1,070.10	1,327.20
1997	558,052	51,560	1,082.30	1,350.80
1996	563,007	51,410	1,095.10	1,372.50
1995	565,902	51,272	1,103.70	1,392.00
1994	551,780	51,116	1,079.50	1,374.90
1993	578,512	50,986	1,134.70	1,453.40
1992	558,313	50,876	1,097.40	1,415.00
1991	570,044	50,748	1,123.30	1,464.30
1990	564,846	50,561	1,117.20	1,462.60

Admittedly a review of the ONS data suggests that, using rounded figures, around 390 (per 100,000 person-years) vaccinated people died with Covid and 939 unvaccinated people (per 100,000 person-years) died with Covid over January to November 2021. However, this hardly supports the assertion that 90% of people dying with Covid are unvaccinated. During the same period of 2021 around 1,502 unvaccinated people died of other causes compared to 2,829 vaccinated people. Remembering that Covid is not the main cause of death in the UK at this time and comes in around third. It also has to be remembered that this represents people dying with Covid not necessarily dying directly from Covid. Indeed when comorbidities, particularly diabetes, are added in along with relative poverty/deprivation then being a slim, otherwise healthy and wealthy person, preferably a woman, living in a ‘good’ area of the UK looks better than being vaccinated, and with no risk of ‘adverse events’ from any of the vaccines.

Overall the average age at death in the UK for people dying with Covid is 82.4 years whilst average life expectancy in the UK is 81.2 years. Living through the pandemic years, according to the data, has not been significantly more dangerous in actuality than any time since the Second World War. In terms of average trends 2020 and 2021 do not even represent a return to ‘normality’, as the average over the last eighty years, with death rates per 100,000 remaining lower than most preceding years.

All the above data being factual, and mainly from the government’s own data, why the massive panic any sensible person might ask?

Apparently, regarding Covid, the UK did pretty badly in comparison with most other developed, and some less developed, countries, even worse than Sweden which did not lock down and ‘crash’ its economy and trusted its citizens to be sensible. Noting that the other Scandinavian countries did significantly better than Sweden and used very quick reactions to the perceived threat of the Covid pandemic, using short focused lockdowns and protection of the vulnerable and balancing the overall health needs of their peoples, inclusive of socio-economic factors, in a more coherent way than the UK. They also felt able to rely more on the good sense of their citizens than the UK government. Again see ‘The Assault on Truth’ by Peter Oborne.

What might be the reasons for the UK’s relatively poor performance?

Firstly the NHS has been designedly under-resourced and lacking in sensible workforce planning for years, inclusive of significant bed reductions. This has been knowingly enforced by government policy.

Secondly Brexit, and a growing reputation for ‘immigrant intolerance’ if not increasing racism in the UK, especially England, plus improving job opportunities in the EU, reduced the number of non-indigenous care workers in both social care and the NHS upon which both relied to an extent.

These two factors ensured that both sectors were understaffed. Indeed the rush to ‘get Brexit done’ before new European financial regulations came in (January 2020) to prevent tax evasion and money laundering, ensured that these critical, ‘essential’, health and social care areas would be understaffed during a pandemic.

Thirdly the lack of staff and year round numerical resilience in the workforce means that the NHS is always over-stretched due to predictable ‘winter pressures’ every winter. Everyone with any knowledge of the NHS must have known that a highly infectious pandemic would push the NHS further into crisis.

Fourthly the Government’s own pandemic preparations, for the most likely threat to National Security according to COBRA and governmental assessments, had been consciously run down by the government in order to save money in the short term. This false economy was to result in massive expenditure, made worse by incompetence, wilful mismanagement and profligate ‘crony capitalism’ during 2020 and into 2021, all detailed in Peter Oborne’s book, ‘The Assault on Truth’.

Fifth, although a highly infectious SARS CoV virus had clearly been predicted as the most likely cause of a pandemic in the Government’s own plan, (which was forgotten, apparently, by the people responsible for implementing it!) the need for the space to isolate the infectious patients from others and from one another for infection management purposes, plus the possible infection of staff, and the need for infected staff to be off work and to isolate if they were infected were not accounted for. Planning for this may have been in the original Pandemic plan, but who knew as it seems to have been misplaced!

Sixth, this need to have fewer beds, for quarantine purposes, in the same space and requiring more staff (partly to compensate for those off sick) led to a shortage of beds. There were knee jerk reactions, expensive ‘Nightingale’ units that could not be staffed, shunting sick elderly out into care homes; i.e. the sick being put amongst the most vulnerable, what did they expect to happen? Also an increase in discriminatory ‘do not resuscitate’ notices that affected the old and the disabled. All of this has been documented and this magnified the death rates whether the deaths were from, associated with, or even unrelated to Covid.

However despite all this the perception of what was happening was apparently entirely dissonant with what was actually happening according to the ONS statistics. (See above.) The necessary reduction in beds plus a slight, in real terms, increase in mortality rates plus a significant increase in morbidity rates stressed some areas of the NHS to near destruction. Demonstrating the real world effects of the lack of an effective government strategy in relation to ‘future proofing’ the NHS. Even so this was not the case across the whole of the UK, some areas not doing too badly in real terms despite being Covid ‘hot spots’ for short periods. It should be noted that increased vulnerability to high levels of morbidity in reaction to any virus, inclusive of post-viral syndromes (such as ‘long Covid’) had all been predicted in the literature largely as a result of government socio-economic policies, such as ‘Austerity’ for example. Prior to the effects of Austerity see ‘The Spirit Level’ by Wilkinson and Pickett and the even much earlier ‘Inequalities in Health’ in regard to this.

There was a sense of panic and what seemed to be a siege mentality along with an understandably widespread desire to exert control, over the pandemic and over those who could somehow be blamed in any way. Our society seems to have become inclined toward a ‘blame culture’ focusing on anyone perceived as ‘different’. Increasingly, in regard to the Covid pandemic, this seemed to be centred on people who had not been vaccinated although by the end of 2021 these accounted for only 35% of the people hospitalised with Covid (https://fulfact.org/health/economist-vaccination-status/) and vaccinated people were just as likely to be infected and transmit Covid as unvaccinated people.

In absolute numbers more vaccinated people were admitted to hospital because of Covid than unvaccinated, for those around 80 years of age this was 1,373 after two doses against 134 unvaccinated, ten times more vaccinated than unvaccinated people. Per 100,000 people this was an approximately two to one ratio favouring the vaccinated as the majority of the over eighties are vaccinated, i.e. being vaccinated might be the best option for the over eighties however they are also amongst the most at risk from serious vaccine-related adverse events. (Data from the UK Health Security Agency.) In short the evidence indicated that it should be left for the individual to decide what risks to take with their own life. A second consideration, noted by the UKHSA, is that the useful effectiveness of the vaccinations may be short lived (currently estimated as between 10 to 14 weeks) whilst no one knows what the long term effects of repeated vaccinations of these new, experimental, vaccines might be on the human immune system, especially of the experimental mRNA vaccines.

As one doctor put it, ‘this is the first time in medical history that the ineffectiveness of a medication is being blamed on the people who have not taken it’.

It should be underlined that being vaccinated does not stop an individual catching Covid 19, especially the highly infectious Omicron variant, or of transmitting it to other people. Since, when they are working optimally, the vaccines appear to reduce the chance of dying from Covid it would appear that the unvaccinated are more at risk from the vaccinated than vice versa.

Indeed an FDA report of Pfizer research showed 24% higher ‘all-cause mortality’ in the vaccinated experimental group than in the placebo group – see Appendix One below. This being the case it could be argued that the research seemed to indicate that it was generally safer not to be vaccinated!

However, there had been a plan that could be acted upon all along dating back, in terms of inception and pre-planning at least, to 2016. This was the plan for a ‘worst case scenario’ that relied on the most lucrative form of intervention with the greatest potential to provide the best long-term returns on any investment and to keep future research funding rolling in. The answer had to be vaccines.

This was not something hidden or any sort of conspiracy, the plan, such as it was, existed entirely in the open and might have been informed by some good intentions, or not, that happily coincided with profiteering. Anthony was a driving force behind this and his motives have been questioned (see the book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ by Robert F. Kennedy Jnr.). The plan was entitled ‘The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) Presentation to the WHO’ and presented to the WHO in 2017. It pushed the hope of vaccines and that they should be rushed into use even if still experimental if a serious epidemic or pandemic should arise before the vaccines were proven to be safe. (See Chapter 15 in Peter Breggin’s ‘Covid 19 and the Global Predators’) This is simply a matter of documented fact. The plan did rely on convincing the WHO to ditch the evidence-based pandemic plan it already had.

Furthermore the threat was potentially, indeed most probably, global, the customer base was definitely global and the corporations were all ‘globalised’. Therefore, sensibly, the planning had to be global and thus needed to involve, if not suborn, trans-national organisations such as the WHO and persuade structures within nations, such as the American National Institute for Health (NIH) and the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), to accept and conform to the plan.

This was the beginning of an overwhelming narrative that has tended to drown out dissonant voices to the extent that the ill-read binary-thinking now perceive this narrative to be ‘common sense’ and despair at, and reflexively condemn, anyone who dares to demur.

Needless to say CEPI comprises and is funded by Big Pharma, investors in Big Pharma inclusive of Bill Gates and his associates plus the areas of Academia most likely to be involved in the research and to make careers out of such research, if not directly profit via shares in the corporations involved.

For the pharmaceutical corporations and their investors all this was just business as usual. See a health disaster in the offing, avoid any cheap preventive measures, especially by governments, whilst downplaying clear socio-economic risk factors. Recognise the probability of a pandemic as an opportunity and seek to maximise profits from it. Just doing what any sensible capitalist organisation would do. (N.B. the down to earth and irrefutable ‘Bad Pharma’ by Doctor Ben Goldacre.)

For the self-styled libertarian nationalist and reflexively Republican American right this created a tremendous sense of disconnect that could only be addressed via a counter-narrative of a sinister conspiracy. Obviously the worst run conspiracy in history being so out in the open and right in the face of anyone making the slightest effort to look for it. This had to be the result of entirely atypical bad eggs and evil people who were fundamentally out to destroy the United States of America and thus the overarching plan, of which the pandemic was just a part, had to be linked to communism. It did help to support the conspiracy theory that from Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates to Pfizer there were major financial interests in Chinese laboratories and vaccine factories indirectly connected to the Chinese Communist Party, because that is how the Chinese economy works.

In an era of globalised multi-national corporations with loyalty only to the bottom line and a history of asset stripping and out-sourcing this was bound to be the case. An authoritarian police state with modern industrial plant and a cheap, well-controlled, workforce and fewer ethical constraints is definitely the right place to research and to manufacture rather than those Western democracies, particularly the well-regulated countries with ‘workers’ rights’. Discounting this soulless economic ‘reality’ the American far right, and any fellow travellers, studiously miss-joined the dots and created the conspiracy they were looking for.

In reality all of what is happening is explicable in terms of de-regulated, neo-liberal globalised capitalism that is focused absolutely on profit at any cost and without any moral or ethical constraints. This economic ideological system, as we now know it, was the creation of the American economist Milton Friedman in his essay of 1951. Friedman’s work underpinned the position of Hayek and was the guiding principle of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, not to mention General Pinochet.

Essential to this form of free market capitalism, at one time thought to have been what destroyed communism in Russia and brought history to an end, is ‘globalisation’. The ability of money to move anywhere in the world in order to invest and make more money. As William Rees Mogg makes clear this also demands that people have no loyalty to any country, have a number of citizenships, make their main domicile in a low tax country and keep the bulk of their money in off-shore tax havens. Ultimately, that people focused on making money should have loyalty only to the money that they are making, and to themselves with a horizon no more distant than their own lifetime.

This approach to capitalism is as American as apple pie. What it is and what it leads to is made explicit in ‘The Sovereign Individual’, co-authored by William Rees Mogg. Other critiques of its direct effects include ‘The Erosion of Character’, ‘The State We’re In’ and ‘The Selfish Capitalist’, also please note any literature regarding the health effects of this model, such as ‘Inequalities in Health’, Townsend and ‘The Spirit Level’ by Wilkinson and Pickett, and the works of Professors Marmot and Layard. All ‘experts’ the right do not like.

The American right have to try to blind themselves to this economic ideology’s worst effects in America and pretend something else is going on. They conclude that what is actually happening is a sinister long term conspiracy combining rabidly capitalist global corporations and billionaires and the un-Godly Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and, by logical inference, somehow tracing back to Reagan and Thatcher, obviously closet communists, who knew?!

This is conflated with the idea of Climate Change as a pseudo-scientific fiction, another conspiracy to increase the cost of ‘gas’ and ruin the God-given American way of life and even prevent any increases in the standard of living whilst increasing taxation and this is all linked to the ‘conspiracy’ of the ‘liberal woke’ to prevent President Trump from keeping office.

This nonsensical inability to place the blame where it lies, with an amoral de-regulated neo-liberal globalised free market extractive capitalism based on the fantasy of unlimited resources on a finite planet, undermines books such as Breggin’s ‘Covid 19 and the Global Predators’ as the implicit bias and misreading of actuality is painfully blatant to anyone who does not share their prejudices and world view.

However books such Breggin’s do articulate a great deal of hard scientific evidence that is easy to check, disprove or corroborate for anyone not too idle to look up their references.

As the graph below indicates most places have done better than the UK, especially India.

Taken from: ‘Our World in Data’.

Note that, between November 2020 and February 2021, Indian doctors would have had to underestimate death rates by several orders, in order to be doing as badly as the UK. The accuracy of Indian data has been questioned but earlier Indian data and reportage from India noting the massive initial impact of Covid regarding overwhelming the Indian health care system, actually supports the supposition that their data, overall, is probably relatively accurate. Certainly not incorrect by orders of magnitude.

However looking at comments on the data provided in the chart above there seems to be a determination by Western commentators to contrive to fit it to the narrative that only vaccines can be the answer via the implication that Indian doctors and the Indian state are both corrupt and incompetent. Or possibly only competent at covering their corruption. Which, one might argue, would still make them more competent than the UK government bearing in mind the range of alleged acts of malfeasance and entitlement, from PPE contracts and via suspect lobbying to ‘party-gate’ the UK government seems to be guilty of, plus its avoidance of any serious inquiry into its handling of the pandemic to date.

More worrying is the repeated misrepresentation of the research, particularly in regard to the effectiveness of the vaccines (Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) delta variant of concern breakthrough infections: Are vaccines failing us? Ali Nowroozi MD1,2 and Nima Rezaei MD, PhD2,3,4) and their potential dangers (Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel. Mevorach et al. New England Journal of Medicine) but also in relation to ‘protection’, such as the real effectiveness of masks and why the WHO did not initially recommend them then changed their minds without reference to any change in the evidence base, and in relation to potential risk reductions via ‘treatment’ inclusive of vitamins.

Many, if not all, Indian states provided a prophylactic treatment regime containing high dose Vitamin C plus Zinc, as Vitamin D supplementation is usually not required in such a sunny climate, plus low dose Ivermectin. In some other countries low/safe dose hydroxychloroquine has been the drug of choice. In some Asian countries, such as Japan, there has been some long term partial immunity, of immune system sensitivity/reactivity, due to previous SARS infections predating SARS CoV2 (Covid 19).

Certainly the American physician Dr. Peter McCullough, amongst others, have claimed significant successes with a combination prophylactic or initial home treatment for Covid with Vitamin D, C plus zinc and low/safe dose hydroxycholoroquine. Breggin and McCullough also reference Dr. Zelenko in terms of a cheap and effective early/prophylactic home treatment.

However the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (N.B. Professor Carl Heneghan) conducted a meta-analysis of generally poor research usually using rather dangerously high dose hydroxychloroquine treatment regimes, recorded no real benefits and definite debits. This research has been criticised, alongside research relating to Ivermectin, by doctors like McCullough and Breggin, and the human rights lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. as being designed to fail, using dangerously high if not lethally toxic doses of the drugs with very ill people when they are intended as either a prophylactic or as an early treatment for people who are not seriously ill with Covid.

Also there is a lack of funding for research related to out of patent cheap medicines combined with even cheaper vitamins and minerals, nutrition and acknowledging the effects of relative poverty and other socio-economic factors. High grade double-blind randomised long term trials with huge samples are not done and it becomes easy to deny ‘real world’ results such as those that seem emergent from observing Indian data, noting the graphic evidence above.

Designing research to ‘rubbish’ any possible treatment is essential in order to obtain Emergency Use Authorization, (EUA), from the American Food and Drugs Administration, (FDA), for experimental treatments represented as vaccines without the usual safeguards. In short there is a massive financial incentive to invalidate anything but the vaccines. (Pfizer are reputed to be making $1,000,000 per minute from their problematic mRNA vaccine.)

Personally my own biases incline me toward believing the Oxford data and the more down to earth ‘good sense’ of Professor Heneghan regarding the current overreaction to the Omicron variant and the limitations of the vaccines, with a reference to developing natural immunity as the preferred option and as much as is safely possible.

I readily acknowledge that my perceptions are partly informed by my political bias against the right wing politics of people like Breggin and McCullough. Their blatant political bias seems to blind them to flaws in the pathway or direction created by the capitalism they espouse and their brand of ‘reward theology’ that sees the rich as more ‘Godly’, until they get too rich. The moral arbiters of the Godly ‘rich enough’ and the un-Godly ‘too rich’ being people like Breggin who will cut individuals like Trump a great deal of financial and moral ‘slack’ for political reasons and on a Make America More White and Christian (preferably Protestant) Again ticket.

Despite all this, all the same they may have some right on their side in terms of the wider research and evidence base. I may be wrong and for this reason the key point to reading such books by such authors is to interrogate the references they use to support their case.

I do not believe the ‘global conspiracy’ hypothesis, it is too simple and too convenient and too easy in excusing the economic system espoused most strongly by the Republicans and the American (rich) and/or ’libertarian’ if illiberal right.

That there has been a systemic overreaction and largely global mismanagement of the Covid Pandemic is without doubt, from the extant evidence base. That this has been focused in rich Westernised countries capable of paying a great deal for largely ineffective vaccines, in terms of preventing infection and transmission at least, is also without doubt.

Beyond this there is evidence of adverse effects from the vaccines. When just over 800,000 American’s had died from Covid over 940,000 Americans had had adverse effects from the vaccines, including over 4,000 deaths and a significant number of ‘serious adverse events’ with life-long impacts on health. The Pfizer vaccine alone produced over 42,000 recorded adverse events including over 1,200 deaths in the first 90 days of it use. This is from Pfizer’s own data released by the FDA after legal action and a court ruling in the US. (See the Appendix below for the reference.)

It should be noted that when a medication is ‘rolled out’ as a treatment normally only between 1% and 10% of the actual real world total of adverse events are recorded. That would suggest a possible, if hopefully improbable, real world effect of at least 420,000 adverse events and 12,000 deaths for just one of the vaccines!

At this point is should be remembered that if a (presumably fully insured) person in America is diagnosed as needing hospitalisation because of Covid 19 then the hospital receives an extra payment in excess of $13,000. If the patient has to go into intensive care then this results in a payment of over $35,000. Thus there is a very strong financial incentive to over diagnose and over treat Covid in America. This may, or may not, have an impact on reported and apparent case levels in America.

Here it should be noted that the PCR test is being used to identify ‘cases’ and is therefore being used as a form of diagnostic tool, a role it was not designed for.

It is normal in Western medicine to define a ‘case’ as comprising an individual who requires medical treatment, probably hospitalisation, for a diagnosed disease, with the diagnosis being based upon symptoms and clearly measureable signs. This is not true for Covid where a person with traces of the virus but no symptoms and no other measurable signs can be, totally abnormally, classified as a ‘case’.

This will obviously lead to a massive over statement of ‘case’ levels in countries using the PCR as if it were a diagnostic tool. This would include the UK. Also where traces of the Covid virus are found in people just pre or post mortem this can lead to an over-rating of Covid-related deaths. I.E. someone dying from a heart attack with traces of the Covid virus via a positive PCR test in the last twenty-eight days can be recorded as a Covid death! The current data suggests that the numbers of people dying from Covid is routinely being over-rated in the UK and some other Western countries, including Sweden. I add this since Sweden has out-performed the UK in having less deaths from Covid.

This is combined with the noted reality that adverse vaccine-related effects will be routinely, and quite normally, underrated.

A number of individuals are highly at risk, for a number of health reasons, from a Covid infection (although the Omicron variant may not pose as great a risk). For the highly at risk individual it is probable that the risks inherent in taking the vaccine might be less than not taking it and that they will benefit from the vaccine. However there remain a significant number of people in the general population who will probably be more at risk from the vaccine than from Covid.

This would probably be true of most fit people, below fifty at least, and most probably/almost definitely true for healthy children.

This is my reading of the wider evidence base and expressed on a continuum of probability.

This being the case it should be left to the individual to become informed and then left to their judgement whether or not they choose to take a gamble on the vaccine totally based upon their individual circumstances. People should not be criticised for not making the choice you would make and vice versa.

For the State to directly pressure people via mandating vaccines as a condition of employment for public sector jobs or indirectly via vaccine passports or generating peer pressure is to contravene the Nuremberg Codes and, in relation to jobs, UK employment law (see Appendix below for reference). That the government is prepared to recourse to such behaviour, inclusive of illegality, in the context of lower annual mortality rates, per 100,000 of population, in 2020 and 2021 than in the 1990’s should be of concern to anyone with an interest in human rights, or even in good science, who lives in the UK.

However even more worrying is the apparent readiness of British people to turn their backs on the facts in order to judge and attempt to assert some form of moral superiority and even control over other British/UK citizens from a position of arrogant ignorance. It is not just intellectually pathetic it is a clear threat to rational discourse in favour of feelings and prejudice. Not a sound basis for any democracy and a state of mind more conducive to fascism, even in the form of ‘state capitalism’ as espoused by a supposedly communist China.

Fascism wrapped in a red flag is still fascism and is where the aims of the State and the interests of powerful individuals and corporations in the private sector are conflated to benefit some individuals in the State and in the private sector. In this case the State has to delude the people, via ‘bread and circuses’ usually combined with appeals to ethno-nationalism as ‘patriotism’ and/or other forms of prejudice, that what is good for the people running the ‘Party’ is good for the nation.

Fear is also a good motivator, from fear of the ‘other’, of ‘foreigners’ to fear of disease, usually linked to some ‘othered’ sector of the community or to said ‘foreigners’.

What is most disturbing for some of us is that the Left in the UK seems all too keen to jump on this bandwagon with an authoritarian and judgmental bent, eager to manufacture and then occupy some faux moral high ground.

People who have exercised the free choice rooted in the sovereignty over their own body fundamental to medical ethics in practice and fundamental to any democracy are being derided and attacked. The selected ‘othered’ minority are simply people who have elected to assert their obligation to themselves in making an informed choice not to be vaccinated, or not to continue to be vaccinated into an apparently never-ending course of relatively ineffective experimental vaccines with no long term safety data.

Indeed in normal times the rate of adverse events in the first 90 days of the Pfizer vaccine would have resulted in the American Food and Drugs Administration withdrawing it from the market as too dangerous! What has changed? This question is especially relevant after the publication of this BMJ investigation: BMJ INVESTIGATION Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. By Paul D Thacker. BMJ 2021; 375: n2635.

The Pfizer whistle-blower alleged that Pfizer, true to form in relation to previous fines for criminality, undermined the research methodology and corrupted the data to provide a false impression of both the efficacy and the safety of its mRNA vaccine. Noting that the mRNA vaccine relies on an artificial replication of the spike proteins on the Covid virus and that no one knows what repeated exposure to such experimental vaccines might have on the human immune system. However there is some evidence, quoted by both Doctor McCullough and Doctor Breggin, the latter in the book ‘Covid 19 and the Global Predators’ that such artificial organic structures can cause inflammatory problems, amongst other health effects, and, paradoxically, undermine the body’s immune response to Covid!

Certainly the ONS data does not justify retaining this problematic experimental vaccine in use in an attempt to address mortality rates per 100,000 of the UK population that are less than any time before 2008 and where it is a treatment for the third listed cause of death in the UK and where the average age at death from Covid is higher than average life expectancy. (See above.)

The study by Talic. Et al. published in the BMJ in 2021 (Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis) basically concluded that all the research was flawed and that all these public health measures were, in effect, unproven and only ‘associated with reductions in the incidence of Covid 19.’ This was in combination although handwashing seemed the most effective individual behaviour from the data. Nonetheless they recommended conformity, presumably to be ‘on the safe side’ and to avoid attracting criticism.

Other research related to masks, includes a fairly open and apparently un-stratified meta-analysis that is laid out in tabular form in the paper: ‘More than 150 Comparative Studies and Articles on Mask Ineffectiveness and Harms’. BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER   DECEMBER 20, 2021 

This is supported by other research given in greater detail e.g. Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 1: Friable mask particulate and lung vulnerability Boris Borovoy, Colleen Huber, Q Makeeta, see also Part 2.

However even as I write someone has been on the radio advocating extensive use of masks, aligned with a narrative unsupported by wider research. It reminded me of a very minor controversy in my own profession, physiotherapy, in the 1980’s. Some physiotherapists in my specialism were determined that only the contract-relax form of relaxation should be used as other forms of relaxation had not been proved by research and therefore contract-relax must be the best. However the actual history of this was that the first relaxation researched by psychologists was contract-relax. After this any psychologist wanting to do research involving relaxation could save a lot of time and effort by using contract-relax. Thus through repetition the false impression was given regarding the superior efficacy of contract-relax.

This was like the creation of a reality by the Bellman in ‘The Hunting of the Snark’; the idea that if a figure of authority repeats something often enough with conviction it becomes true! Interestingly the efficacy of masks is being accepted, after the WHO changed its mind, with reference to the WHO as an ultimate authority. I can remember British psychiatrists rejecting direction from the WHO after a massive study linking neuroleptic medication to more frequent and severe relapses and poorer outcomes in schizophrenia, even though this was backed up by a retrospective study of American data. The WHO were not authoritative enough then, why now, and without really convincing, much less definitive, evidence?

Every health care profession’s history is littered with similar examples, as is all science and this is described at length by the philosopher of science, Kuhn. Also some diseases, or conditions or syndromes become iconic in some way and attract mythologies. This has been written about in regard to the social construction of illness and in relation to both tuberculosis and HIV. To imagine that this process would not be affecting any socially constructed mythologies and judgements around Covid would be naïve to the point of stupidity.

Due to the lack of clear supportive evidence for the course of action being taken by most governments, including the UK there is a legal case from Lawyers for Liberty currently at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, for the Court’s consideration (Case 143/21) taking the UK government to court for contravening the Nuremberg codes and for Crimes Against Humanity. Doctors for Covid Ethics have sent: OPEN LETTER AND NOTICE OF LIABILITY FROM DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS TO THE EMA AND THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING COVID-19 VACCINATION notifying them of their personal liability for any and all untoward effects of the vaccines they are mandating, or coercing people into taking.

It would seem that political games are being played with people’s health, well-being and even lives in a way that is creating aggressive ill-will and fomenting division in an already fragmented and increasingly unequal society. In this the Left are as much at fault as the Right as being without thought for the damage that might result from these attempts to wrong foot the current Tory government for political gain and via appealing to prejudice. Appealing to an ill-informed populism making use of only a small segment of the available wider research and via misrepresentation of the overall available data.

Poor research, often merely indicating ‘associations’ or being based on corrupted data or indicating fairly low level probabilities is being misrepresented as definitive and absolute via an ‘either – or’ binary mind-set and being increasingly used in an authoritarian, rather than authoritative, way.

The ‘Left’, the more supposedly liberal and ‘green’ parties are being drawn into adopting a more dictatorial and authoritarian position, ultimately dependent on a narrative increasingly demanding a ‘nurturing parent’ role from an apparently incompetent and self-centred government. The Left are doing this merely in pursuit of a lead in the polls and is beginning to look more illiberal and condescending.

Fear is being used as a means of manufacturing consent: N.B. the book ‘A State of Fear’ by Laura Dodsworth, whilst people too worried by the lack of a true scientific consensus are increasingly taking the tack of wanting answers, like a child, rather than evidence upon which to make an adult choice.

Worse some people appear to be stating, more or less, that they do not care about the facts a person brings to the argument, they would rather cling to their opinion, a rather adolescent perspective at best. In actuality their opinion seems to boil down to, ‘You should do what you are told to do, be unthinkingly compliant and do what the majority are doing.’

This is a grim reminder of Emily Dickinson’s poem:

‘Much madness is divin’st sense,

To a discerning eye,

Much sense the stark’st madness.

‘Tis the majority

In this, as all, prevail.

Assent and you are sane,

Demur you’re straightway dangerous

And handl’d with a chain.

That there are obvious dangers in such a conformist state of mind should go without saying.

However, there is already a backlash on the libertarian Conservative right and should the Omicron variant, and any subsequent variants, prove relatively benign as they become endemic and should the evidence referred to in this document become better known the public will lose their fear, return to ‘adult’ mode and, with the aid of the billionaire owned mainstream media, the curtailing of freedom via lockdowns and mandating behaviours and potentially dangerous vaccines will be characterised as a fundamentally left of centre/socialist madness that temporarily afflicted an otherwise far right, pro-consumerism, low tax, small-state and austerity inclined libertarian Tory party.

This narrative is already being rehearsed by Tory back-benchers who are beginning to seize upon the research I have referred to in this document. This is obviously a clear danger to any left wing party and especially the Scottish Greens and a SNP in pursuit of decisive support in an independence referendum with the aim of creating a Scotland with a ‘greener’, fairer and more egalitarian economy.

Those members of the public currently keenest to browbeat or bully fellow citizens into compliance will never own their culpability but will blame the politicians they usually do not support for somehow being responsible for misleading the public via a policy of misinformation, manipulation and control. This will serve to reduce public trust in politicians and in science, further prioritising opinion over facts.

Politicians of all stripes are currently manufacturing divisive intolerance via misinformation in the guise of safeguarding ‘the public’, with the ‘side effect’ of social control in the present. This is a very old tactic that usually proves effective in the short term, look how well it worked for Hitler, and disastrous in the long term. Whoever gets the blame it is least likely to be those supported by the mainstream media. In Scotland it will be the SNP and then the Greens who, it has to be said, have shown authoritarian impulses, who are lining themselves up to take the blame.

A plague on all their houses. 

APPENDIX 1:

SHORT SUMMARY OF DATA WITH TWO QUESTIONS.

(N.B. This represents only a fraction of the available data.)

ONS data suggests death rate per 100,000 in 2020 are on the high end of average for the last decade, lower than most previous years when the demographic was younger. I.E. 2020 was not particularly exceptional. See: Comparing age adjusted all-cause mortality rates in England between vaccinated and unvaccinated Norman Fenton and Martin Neil. Survival rates estimated as over 99% decreasing to around 96% for over 80’s. ‘Case’ criteria is altered from someone requiring medical treatment to anyone with any trace of the virus creating an artificially inflated perception of the Covid threat. (See main paper above.)

• Evidence emerges that Pfizer has falsified research results and science and doctors who question the rapid roll out of experimental treatments are suppressed in the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations who have a track record for just this. 1)BMJ Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports. 2) BMJ Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science. When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die. Kamran Abbas. 3) The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy Harald Walach 1, 2, 3,*, Rainer J. Klement 4 and Wouter Aukema. Paper forcibly retracted against the authors’ wishes. This censorious behaviour is normal for pharmaceutical corporations: see ‘Bad Pharma’ by Doctor Ben Goldacre and ‘Let Them Eat Prozac’ by Professor David Healy.
• Pfizer data forced by legal action to be released by the FDA reveals over 1,200 killed by mRNA treatment in first 90 days and further ‘serious adverse events’. (See immediately below.)
• BNT162b2 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 Table 1 below presents the main characteristics of the overall cases. Table 1. General Overview: Selected Characteristics of All Cases Received During the Reporting Interval Characteristics Relevant cases (N=42086) Gender: Female 29914 Male 9182 No Data 2990 Age range (years): 0.01 -107 years Mean = 50.9 years n = 34952 ≤ 17 18-30 31-50 51-64 65-74 ≥ 75 Unknown 175a 4953 13886 7884 3098 5214 6876 Case outcome: Recovered/Recovering 19582 Recovered with sequelae 520 Not recovered at the time of report 11361 Fatal 1223 Unknown 9400 a.
• Evidence for protective measures being effective is too poor to be conclusive. BMJ ‘Investing in public health is our best route to sustainable healthcare.’ Fiona Godlee.
• Real efficacy of ‘vaccines’ is not proven, BMJ ‘Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are.’ Peter Doshi reports.
• RCT funded by pharmaceutical corporations endorsing boosters actually reveals high levels of ‘adverse events’ but concludes the risk levels are acceptable, to whom? ‘Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial’. Reinforced by Israeli trial: ‘Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against Covid-19 in Israel.’
• Please note: 1) Letter of liability regarding vaccines sent: OPEN LETTER AND NOTICE OF LIABILITY FROM DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS TO THE EMA AND THE MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING COVID-19 VACCINATION. 2) International Criminal Court is notified of illegality of governmental actions: ‘Tuesday the 17th of August 2021 Additional claim made to the International Criminal Court On the 20th of April this year we the undersigned, issued a 27-page ‘Request for Investigation’ (Request), to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, alleging that certain members of the UK government and its advisors, were complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity and breaches of the Nuremberg Code. On the 28th of April 2021 we received a formal acknowledgement from the ICC and were assigned a case number (143/21). 3)’ ‘FIFTY YEARS LATER: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NUREMBERG CODE’ EVELYNE SHUSTER, PH.D. New England Journal of Medicine.
• mRNA experimental treatment a particular risk to boys: SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Children Ages 12-17: A Stratified National Database Analysis.
• Sweden has less deaths per 100,000 than the UK without lockdowns and significant harm to the economy and despite over-recording of Covid deaths. Sweden does less well than Norway, Finland, Iceland and Denmark. They have the most effective model.
• Employment lawyer notes illegality of any employer mandating any medical treatment as a condition of employment: https://odysee.com/@ResistanceGB:f/Anna-Care-Workers:3
• FDA resignations demonstrate disquiet about the vaccines and are after evidence of an FDA ‘cover up’. ‘The Meaning of the FDA Resignations’ BY JEFFREY A. TUCKER   SEPTEMBER 14, 2021   
• Unvaccinated are no threat: ‘COVID-19: stigmatising the unvaccinated is not justified’ Günter Kampf guenter.kampf@uni-greifswald.de
• Evidence that vaccinated are less at risk is questioned: FDA REPORTS ALL CAUSE MORTALITY HIGHER IN VACCINATED THAN UNVACCINATED ETC. 1) Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection? Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated – compared to just 1% who had been infected previously. David Rosenberg , Jul 13 , 2021 9:24 AM FDA report finds all-cause mortality higher among vaccinated 2) FDA report shows Pfizer’s clinical trials found 24% higher all-cause mortality rate among the vaccinated compared to placebo group. Rosenberg. 3) Thousands of Medical Professionals Declare COVID Policies “Crimes Against Humanity” Sep 28, 2021 WASHINGTON, D.C. — As of 7 p.m. ET on Monday, September 27, 2021, more than 5,200 doctors and scientists have signed the “The Physicians Declaration,” condemning policymakers for authoritarian approaches of forcing a “one-size-fits-all” COVID treatment strategy which is resulting in “needless illness and death.” 

Questions in the light of the above.

If my son develops a ‘serious adverse event’ from the mRNA treatment he feels constrained, by both the threat of the vaccine passport and peer pressure, to take, who will be held legally liable?

Why is the Scottish government apparently prepared to violate the Nuremberg Code and UK employment law, especially as this apparently may imply a significant risk to public finances?

The scientific evidence remains conflicting, sometimes apparently a victim of self-interested ‘confirmation bias’, nonetheless the principle of informed consent and that experimental treatments should not be imposed by any means of coercive persuasion remains paramount. There is no good scientific evidence to support the unethical mandating of any medical intervention, much less what are actually, in law, experimental treatments. There are also significant political risks to the SNP, in particular, in pursuing such a policy. See the main document.

I wish you well.

Mick Skelly. MSc. MCSP.

Last year, well before Christmas, I sent this short summary with a longer E-mail, containing the same two questions, to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

To date I have had no reply.

Mick Skelly.

04/01/2022