Covid Facts & Figures

Do the Unvaccinated Ppose a Risk to the
Vaccinated?

Forcible intervention is already established and deemed acceptable in certain cases where there ‘is a risk to public health as a result of rabies, cholera or tuberculosis’. In most other cases (except in cases where the patient is mentally unfit, or physically incapacitated), consent is required by law. To breach consent also breaches the once-inviolable codes of the Nuremberg Charter / Nuremberg Code; the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights; the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For governments to apply duress in the case of Corona vaccines, they must be able to show that, (1) the unvaccinated pose a risk of transmission as severe as ‘rabies etc.’, and (2) that the disease itself poses a severe risk. We address both issues here.

 So, how dangerous are the Unvaccinated?

In order to assess this, we need to take a closer look at the following:

• Viral loads;
• Vaccine efficacy;
• Natural immunity; and
• Excess deaths.

Viral Loads

Studies have been undertaken to test both vaccinated and unvaccinated Covid patients to determine the extent of the viral load in each. The evidence indicates that there is no difference between the two groups. As such the Covid vaccines do not appear to decrease the possibility of passing infections to others.

Vaccine efficacy

At the start of the vaccine roll-out, the Government and media were emphatic that the vaccines were ‘95% effective’. It is worth noting that efficacy (e.g. ‘95% effective’) actually describes ‘relative risk’ reduction: the relative risk of catching Covid is reduced by 95% if you take the vaccine. In fact, the metric we need is not ‘relative risk’ but rather ‘absolute risk’; that is, the ‘absolute risk reduction of catching Covid. When you calculate the “absolute risk” it turns out to be only a 1% risk reduction.

Using the term ‘vaccine’ may also be misleading, because, unlike traditional vaccines, the new MRNA drug does not immunize you or prevent you from catching the virus, nor stop you from spreading the virus to others – a fact already well known, as it has received wide coverage. Boris Johnson himself has explained this, and the pharmaceutical manufacturers agree: their Covid vaccines are effective in reducing the seriousness of the Covid infection, but have little bearing on contagion or transmission.

This is borne out by data provided by PHE (Public Health England, prior to its name change to HSA, Health and Safety Authority). Taking a snapshot of in three weeks in September 2021 (weeks 36 – 39) for all age groups above 30, we can see that rates of Covid cases are higher in those that have been vaccinated than for those that have not been vaccinated.

This same is true for a snapshot of the data for week 42 (18th October 2021) of the pandemic, again using data from the UK HSA:

Or, for the same information in the form of a graph:

These figures raise important questions. Is governmental pressure to accept the vaccine consonant with the government’s own data? Is it right to place non-vaccinated people under duress – and so to breach time-honoured legal codes – when available data shows that vaccination has little discernible impact on either neither transmission or efficacy?

What about natural immunity?

A large number of studies are increasingly showing evidence of robust natural immunity from natural Covid infection. One such study published in The Lancet (screenshot below) found that, 1. the risk of repeat infection decreased by 80.5-100%; 2. only 0.7% became reinfected; 3. 0% became reinfected (compared to 4.3% among those not previously infected); 4. “Frequency of death due to repeated infection was 0.01%”. If natural immunity is as strong as The Lancet study shows, then is there any reason for enforcing vaccine mandates on the Covid-recovered, or those with proven immunity?

Excess deaths, age groups 10 to 59

Recent ONS statistics (see graph below) show that deaths in under 60s is higher among those that have been vaccinated than those who have not been vaccinated. Before governments enforce mandates on the unvaccinated population, it may be worth pausing to ask what the cause of this unexpected discrepancy may be? We need to understand the causes of the increased death rates among the vaccinated.

Conclusions

In the light of the government’s own statistics, and recent research on natural immunity, it is increasingly hard to understand the Government’s claims that vaccination is the best/only route out of the pandemic. Its own data shows that unvaccinated people pose no greater risk to those who have received the vaccines, nor to those who are not vaccinated. According to its own statistics, the vaccinated are more likely to catch Covid than the unvaccinated.

Are these findings enough to reassess the current trend to see unvaccinated people as a ‘threat’? Can we compare an unvaccinated person to someone with ‘rabies, cholera or tuberculosis’, or to the mentally unstable or incapacitated (as per the current NHS legal position)? Medico-legal practice prior to the pandemic would answer with an emphatic ‘no’. Yet a significant majority seem willing to accept mandates that create a two-tier society and deprive people of their livelihood. Some governments are able to enforce vaccination on people who oppose it – in a clear violation of the freedoms upheld, protected, and enshrined in law since the holocaust of the second world war. It is time to ask: what has changed?

Downloadable document here.

Covid Vaccines – Are They Safe & Effective?

The government maintains that Covid vaccines are safe and effective. Most media outlets, too, focus almost solely on the benefits of vaccination, and the dangers of remaining unvaccinated. However, there is growing evidence emerging that the vaccines may not be as safe and effective as they suggest. To explore the subject thoroughly, we need to turn to the government’s own statistics. Here, we follow statistics provided by the Office for National Statistics “ONS”, or the figures published by the NHS and the Health Security Agency “HSA” (formerly Public Health England “PHE”).

When Covid first hit in March 2020, or thereabouts, we decided to follow these governmental sources of data, rather than relying solely on media outlets. We tracked the numbers of Covid cases, along with the numbers of hospitalizations from Covid, and – crucially – the numbers of deaths from Covid. This allowed us to see for ourselves the extent of the Covid problem. As we did so, we were surprised to see growing inconsistencies between the stats and the headline news. For example:

• The number of people who have died from Covid with no other co-morbidities in England & Wales from the start of the pandemic to the end of the 2nd quarter of 2021 (this is the latest data at the time of writing) was 16,261. By comparison, we found that in 2018, deaths from flu & pneumonia had been 29,451; and

• The average age of a Covid death in the UK is 83, whereas the average age of death in the UK (all cause mortality) is 82 and 85 for males and females, respectively.

Although this gave a far less worrying picture than the media presented, the elderly and immune compromised are still greatly susceptible to Covid. The real vulnerability of elderly and sick people to the virus seemed to justify the introduction of a vaccine that had not passed its full trial stages, and which is still deemed experimental. However, we were far more cautious when the vaccine roll out was offered to people who were less vulnerable – for whom the risk of serious illness and death was minimal (see Covid Risk). We were surprised to see very little discussion of the experimental nature of the vaccine, and what that might mean for the nation. It is little understood that the current Covid vaccines are in phase 4 trials until 2023. It normally takes a minimum of between 5 to 10 years to develop a vaccine and to undertake studies on different age groups, and stages of pregnancy, and possible responses to different medications, etc. Without the full studies needed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, we were not fully reassured by the government’s faith in them, nor in the strong media ‘hype’ that seemed to surround them.

Adverse Reaction Reporting Systems

Seeking answers for our concerns, we turned to another government source for information. The Medicines & Health Regulatory Authority (MHRA) runs a reporting system for adverse reactions to vaccines and medicine, known as the Yellow Card Scheme. The system was introduced in 1964 after the thalidomide tragedy. Equivalent reporting systems exist across the world (as we see below), allowing medicines and vaccines to be monitored for safety. The schemes collect information from healthcare professionals and by members of the public alike (patients, users or carers) – anyone who has noted or experienced an adverse reaction to a drug or medicine – and this allows the regulatory bodies to monitor and investigate side effects, and to spot problems as they emerge. The MHRA website, for example, explains that the purpose of the scheme is to signal an early warning if the safety of a medicine or a medical device requires further investigation. Here, the MHRA is explicit: they will review issues and, if necessary, take action to minimize risk and maximise benefit to the patients.

Worthy as the schemes are, it is worth noting that they admit shortfalls. According to the MHRA, the Yellow Card Scheme data only accounts for approximately 10% of all serious adverse reactions, and around 1% to 4% of all minor adverse reactions to any vaccine or medicine.

The Covid vaccines are no exception in terms of reporting of adverse reactions. Three COVID-19 vaccines – the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna – are currently used in the UK. All have been authorised for supply by the MHRA under an emergency authorization, “following a thorough review of safety, quality and efficacy information from clinical trials. In clinical trials, the vaccines showed very high levels of protection against symptomatic infections with COVID-19” (although recently, the BMJ and other publications have raised questions over the integrity of the clinical trials data provided by Pfizer in this respect).

It is true that all vaccines and medicines have some side effects, and these side effects need to be balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness. While regrettable, a degree of adverse reaction is to be expected, too. Also, reported events are not always proof of side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, especially when vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness. Given all this, the MHRA’s role in investigating the adverse reactions is crucial. Its ability to respond quickly is paramount – especially if they see an unusual increase in the number of reports.

Let’s turn to the Yellow Card Scheme now and review its data on the Covid vaccines. Remembering that the data only represents around 10% of what the real numbers are likely to be, the Yellow Card Scheme reports the following (as of 3rd November 2021):

If the MHRA is correct that reports only represent 10% of serious adverse reactions and fatalities, this would point to there actually being17,000 fatalities. To put this in context, the adverse effects of the Covid vaccines are higher than all other vaccines in the history of the scheme put together. This is cause for grave concern. What is more, there is no indication that the MHRA has investigated, or intends to investigate, any of these reported adverse events. Although its stance may be explained by a wish not to undermine the current vaccine roll out, still, the government is legally obliged to keep us informed, so that we can give informed consent to the jabs – especially as the vaccines are still in their experimental stages.

Among the categories of adverse reactions listed within the yellow card data we find (among many others) the following:

• Cardiac disorders;
• Blood disorders;
• Eye disorders;
• Gastrointestinal disorders;
• Immune system disorders;
• Skin disorders;
• Vascular disorders; and
• Muscle and tissue disorders.

Concerns over heart problems

One of the common issues with these vaccines relates to heart problems. The incidences of cardiac disorder seems to have sky-rocketed, especially among younger males. A German news outlet, ‘REPORT 24’, kept track of incidences of professional athletes (mainly footballers, but also rugby players, cricketers and other sportsmen and women) suffering heart attacks either during a match or in practice sessions, and between June and October 2021, they documented 75 cases. More have occurred since and have made headline news.

A recent study from the American Heart Association also indicates that the Covid Vaccines are causing increased risk of heart issues and recent UK statistics from the ONS (see graph below) show that excess deaths (i.e. deaths above normal average figures) in people under 60 is higher among those that have been vaccinated than those who have not been vaccinated. Could the higher excess deaths in the vaccinated be linked to heart-related side effects of the vaccines?

The aforementioned question is reasonable when we consider a study of 566 patients who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines – in which signs of cardiovascular damage soared following the shots. Published by the American Heart Association in the prestigious paper, ‘Circulation’, we see that the risk of heart attacks or other severe coronary problems more than doubled in the months after the vaccines were administered. That is, patients had a 1 in 4 risk for severe heart problems after the vaccines, compared to 1 in 9 before. In simple terms, the risk of heart attacks more than doubled after vaccination.

Similar reactions to the vaccines are noted elsewhere, based on reporting schemes in other countries. Like the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme, these agencies also state that reported incidents represent a fraction (as low as 4%-10%) of actual cases. For example:

• In the European Union, ‘EudraVigilance’ has logged 1,038,776 reports of 2,536,526 adverse events, including 27,242 deaths (up to 9th October 2021);
• In Australia, ‘DAEN’ has logged 63,672 reports of 204,746 adverse events, including 566 deaths (up to September 29th);
• In the USA, ‘VAERS’ has logged 701,559 reports including 14,925 deaths (up to 10th September 2021);
• In Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland have all temporarily halted the use of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people under the age of 30, due to heart risks.

Doctors worldwide have also pointed to the alarming incidence of reactions and deaths. In June 2021, Dr Tess Lawrie in wrote an open letter to Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, arguing that: “The MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans”. There have also been calls for clearer ONS data on the rise in deaths of young males in England and Wales, as investigation of official ONS data indicates that since the Covid vaccine has been rolled out to teens, there has been a significant increase in deaths in this population.

Presumably in response to all this, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) refused to recommend mass vaccination for children aged between 12 and 15. However, the Government went ahead in any case. Within two weeks of that roll out, there have been 6 reports of sudden death in children of that age group in England.

Another doctor aware of the risks posed by the vaccine is Dr Peter McCullough in the USA. One of the most highly published and well-regarded academics and clinicians of his generation, and an experienced reviewer of clinical trials, Dr McCullough explains that if a new treatment shows even 25 deaths, then the trial is immediately stopped for safety reasons. He expresses puzzlement that the FDA has allowed an experimental Covid vaccination scheme to continue in the face of thousands of deaths. Although 70% of his patients have received a Covid vaccine, he no longer advises his patients to take it owing to the high incidence of severe side effects – advice that, despite his eminence in the field –Wikipedia describes as ‘contributing to Covid-19 disinformation’.

Concerns over Vaccine efficacy

Another question emerges over the government’s statement that the vaccines are ‘95% effective.’ When the vaccine manufacturers say that the vaccines are 95% effective, what they are actually saying is that the ‘relative risk’ is reduced by 95%. However, the metric that is important is not ‘relative risk’ but rather ‘absolute risk’. When you calculate the ‘absolute risk’ it turns out to be only a 1% risk reduction (as this article explains).

Using the term ‘vaccine’ is also misleading, because, unlike traditional vaccines, the new MRNA drug does not actually prevent you from catching the virus, nor stop you from spreading the virus to others. The scientific data in this respect is clear, as Boris Johnson himself has admitted on national television. Pharmaceutical manufacturers say the same: that Covid vaccines (only) reduce the seriousness of the Covid infection.

What does all this mean? Let’s take a snapshot look of the data provided by PHE (prior to its name change to HSA) in respect of weeks 36 to week 39 (6th to 27th September) of the pandemic year, 2021, as shown by people from age 30 to 80 plus. Looking at the last 3 columns, you can see the rates of Covid infections among the various age groups for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, and the resulting effectiveness figures:

Now, here’s a snapshot of the data for week 42 (18th October 2021) from the UK HAS in those age-groups which likewise shows the rates of Covid infections among the various age groups for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. For all age groups over 30 the cases are much higher in those that are vaccinated:

Or, for the same information in the form of a graph:

Worryingly, for all age groups above 30, we see that the cases of Covid are far higher in those that have been vaccinated than for those that have not been vaccinated.
The same situation is reported in the USA. Following an assessment of all the available research literature on the Covid vaccines, Professor Allon Friedman from the Indiana University School of Medicine concludes:

“The Pfizer and Moderna trials show that in lower risk populations (which account for most of society) COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce mortality. Therefore, vaccine mandates, which are enormously costly and terribly divisive, are a cure worse than the disease.” 

Concerns over fertility, pregnancy and still births

Other concerns over the vaccines are also gathering momentum. Recent data available from Public Health Scotland shows that cases of ovarian cancer in 2021 are much higher than the 2017-2019 average. Deaths of new-born babies have also reached the upper warning threshold, indicating that factors beyond random variation may have contributed to the deaths. With nearly 40,000 menstrual disorders reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, scientists also warn of potential issues with infertility. Real world data shows the rate of miscarriage following Covid 19 vaccination is as high as 82%.

We find that mainstream news is reluctant to attribute these problems to the vaccine program, and remains silent on the matter.

It is not clear why the UK government continues to recommend vaccines for pregnant women, especially given the warnings it highlights in its own official report. The report, prepared upon the emergency authorisation of the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19, suggests safety concerns. It states that the Pfizer jab was not recommended for use during pregnancy, and that before receiving a jab, it was important to rule out any chance that a woman was pregnant. It goes on to say that women of child-bearing age should avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.

Similar concerns were raised over a study on pregnant women receiving the vaccine, as it was found that the Covid-19 vaccine candidates could trigger an immune reaction against a human protein responsible for the formation of the placenta. The possible damage to mother and baby was spelt out in a report presented to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020, issued by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg a medical doctor and epidemiologist (also a member of the Bundestag, German Federal Parliament, from 1994 to 2009), and Dr Mike Yeadon, a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an allergy and respiratory researcher. But despite their concerns, the phase 3 trials went ahead.

Concern deepens in light of the UK government’s decision to offer all pregnant women the Pfizer jab, from April 2021 – despite no scientific studies to confirm the safety of the use of the Pfizer vaccine during pregnancy. The recommendation came from the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), citing ‘real world data from the United States’, which purported to show that pregnant women had been vaccinated without any safety concerns being raised; and that the rate of miscarriage was just 12.6%. Deeper analysis of the study shows that of the 127 women who received the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccines during the first-second trimester, 104 of them sadly lost their babies. What the ‘real world data’ from the USA proved was that the actual rate of miscarriage was as high as 82%.

Concerns over boosters

Because of the waning efficacy of the initial Covid vaccines (calculated at approximately five months or less), booster shots are now deemed to be necessary. Possible side effects are still unknown.
However, we will return to this topic to discuss the mechanism of the Covid vaccines, which work by suppressing certain immune responses in the body – which may include for example, immune responses for keeping cancer in check. This raises concerns for boosters, and repeated boosters (which the government plans to roll out for at least two to three more years). What will be the cumulative effect of shots that continually suppress immune responses in the body?

The success of natural immunity

To offset the worrying news on vaccine efficacy, studies in natural immunity provide a ray of hope. A large and growing body of research shows evidence of robust natural immunity against Covid infection, and – tellingly – against its inevitable variants. One study published in the Lancet found that the risk of repeat infection decreased by 80.5-100%; moreover, only 0.7 became reinfected; 0% became reinfected; and the frequency of death due to repeated infection among the Covid-recovered was only 0.01%:

Conclusion

Given the high number of ‘Covid-recovered’ people in the population, we draw hope from studies showing how well natural immunity serves to fight off infection. In comparison, and in the light of the government’s own statistics, the efficacy of the vaccines needs more discussion. Before vaccine mandates are considered, we would suggest a pause to evaluate the evidence. This may open up alternative methods of overcoming the pandemic, such as early intervention treatments (see Early Treatments article).

We would also like the government to curb the strong media narrative that the vaccines are the only route out of the pandemic – and especially its critical stance towards those who are risk-averse to the experimental vaccines. Above all, we ask for special awareness of the risks amongst the younger populations, and for women wanting children.

Urgent discussion is needed on how and why normal regulatory assessment and safety procedures have been waived aside.

Downloadable document here.

So, What about Early Treatment for Covid 19?

The failure to treat early symptoms of Covid 19 is one of the criticisms levelled at governments and institutions across the world. Successful early treatment is usually the bedrock of medical intervention – yet this has not been the case in the treatment of Covid 19. Government advice has been to ‘stay at home’ until you need hospital care, and apart from recommending certain vitamins, there is no early treatment protocol for Covid. Nevertheless, according to an article by twelve FDA authors, there is substantial ‘real world evidence’ from reliable doctors who have developed successful early treatment plans, and which provides an acceptable source of data, according to the FDA.

So, if some doctors have made a difference by treating the disease early in its onset, could this approach be more widely used? Could early treatment save lives and ‘save the NHS’ by reducing hospitalisations? The outlook is hopeful. Many frontline doctors and GPs report outstanding drops in hospitalisations and mortality through early intervention. Happily, these are not just local studies, but ‘real world’ evidence from almost every continent. Thus, several protocols have emerged that appear to protect patients and health services alike.

One such study is by Dr S. Chetty from Port Edward in South Africa, who treated patients with his own early treatment approach during the second wave of Covid infections, in December 2020. He serves an under-privileged community and could not order the many medical tests that form part of the Covid-19 work-up, as his patients didn’t have medical insurance, while his nearest referral hospital was several kilometers away. Rather remarkably, his response was to move out of his house into a tent on the front lawn of his building, and to examine and treat his patients from there. In the course of his work, Dr Chetty realised that the Covid-19 infection course followed distinct phases. About 8-10 days following viral infection, the disease moves into the inflammatory and thrombotic (clotting) phase – and it is this second phase that proves to be the determining factor. Patients either recover, or deteriorate, needing hospitalisation. Not leaving anything to chance, Dr Chetty intervened early and decisively. He has treated more than 7,000 patients without needing to prescribe oxygen, nor referring any for hospitalisation. He also reports no mortalities. His protocol includes promethazine, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and other supportive nutrients.

Another significant study from Africa is by Dr Jackie Stone, a Zimbabwean family physician, who reports tremendous reductions in hospitalisations and deaths since starting early treatment and prevention using ivermectin in combination with other treatments in her community.

In the United States, Dr Peter McCullough and colleagues utilised a highly effective early treatment protocol, which was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in 2020. As an internationally recognised academic and clinician associated with Baylor University, Texas, Dr McCullough’s method was widely adopted, and his article quickly became one of the most downloaded articles in the history of that publication. His approach was applied through groups of physicians via a network of telemedicine locations, and met with great success. For example, a recent study applied the approach to nursing home residents, and was associated with a statistically significant (60%) reduction in mortality. Dr McCullough’s US network of 250 doctors, along with a dozen telemedicine services, continue to provide early outpatient treatment to 10,000 to 15,000 Covid patients daily.

Likewise, doctors in Greece, Italy, southern France, Central America, South America, India, and East Asia are reducing Covid death rates by approximately 85% by offering similar treatments. Although this receives virtually no mainstream media attention, successful treatment regimens are found to consist of a “neutriceutical bundle” (Vitamins D and C, plus zinc and quercetin), either hydrochloroquine with zinc (used extensively to treat SARS-CoV-1 in 2002-2004) or ivermectin, azithromyocin (to treat secondary bacterial infections), steroids, anticoagulants (to prevent blood clots) and in some cases, monoclonal antibodies (from recovered Covid patients) and colchicine (a drug used in gout).

Based on current data, Dr McCullough estimates we could have saved a staggering 85% of the 600,000 Americans who died of Covid19 with early outpatient treatment.

Mexico also sheds light on the potential of early treatment. Drs Lima-Morales et al associated their early intervention protocol (termed ‘TNR4’) with 85% recovery rates within 14 days, Patients treated with TNR4 had a 75% and 81% lower risk of being hospitalized or death, respectively, than the comparison group. The protocol is based on ivermectin, azithromycin, monteleuklast and acetylsalicyclic acid.

The same trends are borne out in Peru. The Chamie-Quintero study from Peru found that after ivermectin was introduced, deaths started to fall about 11 days later, and within a month, deaths were down about 75%.

Given its sheer size, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh adds considerable weight to the argument for early treatment. Despite a population equal to the fifth largest country in the world, with huge density and overcrowding, it has been able to announce itself all but clear of Covid. On 6th August 2020, the state Health Department introduced ivermectin as a prophylaxis for close contacts of Covid patients and health workers – as well as allowing patients to treat themselves. The Indian Express cites the Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer, Vikssendu Agrawal, saying:

“Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus”.

He goes on to claim that timely introduction of ivermectin since the first wave helped the state maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high population density: “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population”.

As Uttar Pradesh’s population is over two thirds that of the America, it is useful to compare their Covid case numbers. This graph shows cases in Uttar Pradesh (the blue line) against those in the USA (the red line), from July 2020 to October 2021:

The next graph shows what happened to Covid case numbers once ivermectin was introduced to the whole population as a treatment and prophylaxis. We see that although cases spiked in April-May 2021 (black line), the actual death rate (red bars) was generally contained, and indeed both Covid deaths and Covid cases fell considerably in the following months. In October 2021, Uttar Pradesh announced that – with only 15% of its total population vaccinated – its active case count was lower than 150, and that 50% of its districts were Covid-free.

Another example of ivermectin administered nationally comes from Japan. Speaking at an emergency press conference held on 13th August 2021, the chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association, Dr. Haruo Ozaki, announced some 18,000 new infections daily. By September 2021, Ozaki had appeared on national television, urging doctors to use ivermectin, and a little over a month later, Covid-19 was under control in Japan, with the death count easing. In an interview with the The Yomiuri Shimbun on 5th August 2021, Ozaki spoke in detail about his opinion that ivermectin should be used in Japan, when it appeared that his earlier calls for usage had not been heeded. However, once ivermectin was allowed as a treatment – after the emergency press conference in mid-August – the cases fell quickly. They are now down 99% from the peak.

This graph shows what happened to Covid case numbers once ivermectin was introduced to the population of Japan as a treatment during the last wave of Covid cases:

In comparison, here is a graph comparing Covid cases in UK, USA, Canada and Japan. All countries show relatively low case numbers in Spring-Summer 2021, but as the Delta variant spreads, the cases rise dramatically. In the US and UK, where there is no thorough early intervention, cases continue high, whereas in Japan, once ivermectin was permitted, cases drop dramatically, and continue to drop:

The same is found when we compare Covid deaths in UK, USA and Canada with those in Japan, where millions of lives seem to have been saved:

The lack of early treatment elsewhere in the world has prompted the growth of organisations devoted solely to the development of early treatment protocols. Frontline Covid Critical Care (FLCCC), for example, enters the void created by public health and academic institutions, who have remained notably silent on the matter. The FLCCC has also recently produced a protocol focused on treating symptoms of Long-haul Covid-19. They were the first group to identify corticosteroids as efficacious as a treatment modality (since confirmed by an Oxford study) and are now advocating for other additional medications such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine. The latest early treatment protocol suggests the additions of Nitazoxanide, Antiviral mouth wash (e.g. iodine), Dual anti-androgen therapy, Fluvoxamine and Monoclonal antibody therapy, amongst other things.

Another such initiative is the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD). A truly grassroots initiative, it brings together clinicians, health researchers and patient representatives from all around the world to advocate for the use of ivermectin against Covid-19. The seed was planted late in December, when Dr. Tess Lawrie watched Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) testify before the US Senate on the potential of ivermectin for prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Looking further into the data, she decided to conduct a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the data for herself – and was struck by the seeming efficacy of the drug in reducing mortality and morbidity. As a doctor, she considered it her duty to inform the UK health authorities about this potential breakthrough treatment. However, there has been no significant response from the UK government.

There is, indeed, a surprising silence in the mainstream media towards good news stories of early treatment. Some outlets even seem to advocate the opposite. For example, responding to news from Uttar Pradesh, the Guardian has twice published articles attempting to discredit ivermectin, including politicizing the data as ‘rightwing’ (15th July 2021), and the astonishingly erroneous description of ivermectin as a ‘new drug’ (13th Oct 2021) – this, despite ivermectin’s widespread use since the 1970’s for a range of conditions, a Nobel prize and numerous research articles. Similarly, The Lancet published an article denigrating hydroxychloroquine, which they later retracted with an apology. Meanwhile, some doctors, who speak out on the issue of effective treatment and informed consent, find themselves side-lined. One doctor, GP Dr Sam White, who was suspended for his views in June 2021, has been battling his case in the courts and has recently won his case.

Conclusion

Given the many, well documented uses of early treatments for Covid, we have evidence that treating the illness early has saved millions of lives – and could save millions more. This raises serious questions for governments and healthcare services across the world:

• Why did we not resort at once to the classic medical practice of treating disease early in its onset?
• Why did we not call immediately for research into early treatment – nor respond proactively or positively to the wealth of existing and emerging data?
• Why are we not hearing ‘good news’ stories of Covid treatment – and why does such information appear to be suppressed and distorted?

These anomalies are inconsistent with governments’ wishes to save lives and protect healthcare services. Urgent answers are required.

Downloadable document here.

So How Dangerous is the Covid Virus?

After two years of battling with pandemic conditions, it is very hard to question the pandemic itself. Querying figures announced by governments, or challenging the experts, seems to question “science itself”. It may even seem a betrayal of the suffering and tragedy that Covid has brought to many.

Contradicting the global picture of the pandemic also leads to the question, ‘why?’ Why would any government contradict its own data to ‘fabricate’ a narrative? Why would they scare us so? Weighed down by two years of pandemic reporting, and without any obvious reason, the idea that the pandemic is a ‘mistake’ or a ‘deception’ seems absurd. No wonder opposing voices are criticized, labelled as ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’. We can see evidence of an unprecedented wave of censorship that has silenced experts across the world since the pandemic began. Yet the right to question government policy underpins free speech and democracy. Liberty to investigate accepted facts, lies at the heart of good science. It differentiates debate from propaganda.

With the virtue of hindsight, we can now investigate:

• How bad was the death rate?
• How many ‘excess deaths’ were there?
• Who died – and why?
• Were hospitals ‘overrun’?
• How serious is the virus as an illness?
• What about new variants?
• How serious is ‘long Covid’?
• What happened to open debate?

How bad was the death rate?

When we look back at the available data, we see that cases rose in early March 2020, and peaked around mid-April 2020. They then fell, forming the typical bell curve that you expect to see in respect of cases of a virus (see the blue line in the graph below). The graph also plots the number of Covid deaths during the first wave in 2020 (see the red line).

Yet there are clear issues with the accuracy of the death figures. Firstly, anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive PCR Covid test is counted as a Covid death. In other words, the statistics monitor ‘death with Covid’, not ‘death from Covid’. In addition, research has shown that people who die have an average of 2.9 co-morbidities – other illnesses that cause death.

Reviewing the available data supplied by various Government agencies, we can we see that death from Covid alone (i.e. with no other co-morbidities) from the start of the pandemic to the end of the 2nd quarter of 2021 was 16,261. By comparison, we found that in 2018, deaths from flu & pneumonia had been far higher, at 29,451.

The inaccuracy of death rates is further exacerbated by the ubiquitous reliance on PCR tests as the measure. PCR tests are widely accepted as being unreliable (even by the person who invented them). Thus, they produce a misleadingly high percentage of false positives. As such, the figures of those who died “with” Covid are likely to be far lower than reported.

Matters were not helped by some wildly inaccurate projections of Covid deaths supplied to the government by advisors such as Neil Ferguson’s group at Imperial College London (ICL). The extent of inaccuracy can be show, for example, by ICL’s prediction for Sweden. In March of 2020, ICL projected that if Sweden maintained its then response of ‘no lockdowns’, deaths in Sweden would pass 40,000 shortly after 1st May 2020 and continue to rise to 96,000 deaths by June 2020. Although Sweden maintained its low impact response, its total Covid death count as of March 2021 was a little over 13,000. The ICL modelers played a direct and primary role in selling the concept of lockdowns to the world. The governments of the United States and United Kingdom explicitly credited Ferguson’s forecasts on 16th March 2020, with the decision to embrace the once-unthinkable response of ordering their populations to stay at home.

How many excess deaths were there?

Another metric that assists with assessing the seriousness of Covid, is the number of excess deaths (i.e. deaths above average) during the pandemic year of 2020. This was falsified by the BBC, when it claimed that:

“There were close to 697,000 deaths in 2020 – nearly 85,000 more than would be expected based on the average in the previous five years. This represents an increase of 14% – making it the largest rise in excess deaths for more than 75 years.”

The true figures, once age standardized, are provided by the Office of National Statistics (ONS), which showed that there were 608,002 deaths in 2020 making it the highest excess deaths since 2008. Yet the increase in excess deaths as a percentage reported by the BBC was especially misleading as 2019 happened to be a low deaths year and it also failed to take note of the age standardized numbers of excess deaths in previous years.

If we compare excess death rates in 2020 for various countries around the world (see graph below), we can see that Sweden – without lock down, mandatory restrictions or school closures – had much lower excess deaths compared to the UK, with its lockdowns, restrictions and school closures.

Who died – and why?

The Covid virus, although highly infectious, sadly effects people who are very old, very sick, or in the last months of life. These are the same elderly and vulnerable people who succumb to flu. The good news, in respect of Covid, is that the average age from a Covid death in the UK is not significantly different than the average age of death in the UK for ‘all cause’ mortality:

• Average age of a Covid death in the UK is 83;
  
• Average age of death in the UK (all cause mortality) is 82 for males and 85 for females.

Thus, Covid is age stratified in terms of impact (i.e. it tracks normal mortality).

People in a hospital or care settings are the most vulnerable. Early in the pandemic, hospitals had a policy of moving as many elderly Covid patients out of hospital into care homes, as soon as possible. This in hindsight turned out to be a disastrous move, as it meant that Covid spread through care homes that were ill-prepared for dealing with an infectious virus. Many elderly may have died in this way.

The death rate may also have been affected by an apparent change in policy regarding resuscitation of elderly, frail and vulnerable patients. A new blanket policy of ‘Do not resuscitate’ (DNR) was introduced, in respect of patients aged over 60. This, along with the an apparent increased administration of midazolam (an end of life drug), without case-by-case examination, is an extraordinary change from usual practice, the effects of which have yet to be discovered. In some cases (in particular the USA), we saw the incorrect treatment of patients with a dangerous new drug called remdesivir and inappropriate use of ventilators.

Above all, the perceived seriousness of Covid was affected by another unusual government policy. Contrary to usual medical practice of treating disease early in its onset, the government advised patients to ‘stay at home’ and call for an ambulance in the case of a dramatic decline. Officials stated there is no available early treatment for Covid. In fact, early treatments were readily available, many with proven track-records. Doctors across the world who embraced such protocols reported vast reductions in hospitalization and deaths. Yet (perhaps to boost the vaccine policy) the government and mainstream media began censoring these reports early in the pandemic. Had early treatments been advised – as happened elsewhere – many lives could have been saved, making Covid ‘just another’ potentially serious, but usually treatable illness.

Were hospitals ‘overrun’?

Hospitals certainly felt the brunt of Covid. There were fewer beds available, due to the government policy of reducing the number of beds in wards to provide social distancing for patients. There were also fewer nurses available due to PCR testing and nurses testing positive and having to stay off work (even if they had no symptoms – i.e. a false positive). Even so, a SAGE paper claimed that a staggering 40.5% of Covid infections in the first wave were caught in hospital. Yet despite all this, the NHS appear to have managed to cope with Covid admissions. Additional facilities, known as ‘Nightingale Hospitals’, were built, but in the main, remained unused. In fact, hospitals were said to be so quiet during the first six months of the pandemic that nurses were making tic-tok dance videos, as if to prove the point.

How serious is the virus as an illness?

Covid-19 was first classified as a ‘high consequence infectious disease’ (HCID) in the UK on 16 January 2020, when it was still known as the “Wuhan novel coronavirus”. HCIDs are serious diseases that arrive in the UK from other countries, and have the potential to spread domestically. According to the UK government’s definition, an HCID has several features among which is a ‘typically high case-fatality rate’. As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 was no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK – mainly because better information was showing mortality rates to be low overall.

Using the available data, a Stanford epidemiologist produced a study that provided the estimates of the survival rates for Covid infections. Listed by age groupings, we see that chances of survival, even for over 60s, is very high:

These findings are supported by data from the CDC (US ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’). Here, a graph showing fatality ratios again shows that the chances of survival are very good, even with pre-existing conditions (blue data shows people with no pre existing conditions and red data shows those with pre existing conditions):

What about new variants?

Virologists state that when a virus mutates, it generally mutates as a weaker strain. It may be more infectious, but usually with lower numbers of hospitalizations and deaths. This was clearly the case with the Delta variant. Thus, as can be seen from the following graphs, although the Delta variant (wave three) was serious in terms of spread, it did not prove to be as serious as the original virus (waves one and two).

Nevertheless, the media and the Government have continued to react as if the Delta (and now, the Omicron) variant poses as high a level of threat as the original virus. This is even more remarkable because someone who has been infected with the Covid virus and recovers (‘Covid-recovered’) is found to be immune from the virus and all of its mutations. As has been found by study published in the Lancet (see next graphic).

Mutations generally happen in small increments (maximum of around 3%) and ‘T Cell immunity’ can easily deal with these very slight mutations, recognize the mutation for what it is, and competently deal with it. Given there have been a high number of cases, it stands to reason that there are also a high number of people with good natural immunity. In short, virologists regard mutations as less fearful.

How serious is ‘long Covid’?

For people in low-risk categories of contagion or death, Covid is generally feared for its complications, or long-lasting symptoms known as ‘long Covid’. It is true that Covid can damage various organs, with debilitating long-lasting effect. How this compares to similar post-viral syndromes is still a topic for research as is the consequence of leaving the disease remaining unmonitored and untreated in its early stages. Any disease ‘left to itself’ until it becomes acute, is liable to create long-term damage – a risk that can be mitigated by early treatment.

What happened to open debate?

Given the consequences of the pandemic, we might have expected vigorous attention to the discrepancies and issues outlined above. In fact, a great deal of expert comment supports the alternative views offered above – but is routinely censored from mainstream news and platforms such as YouTube, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. By announcing a state of emergency, the government has allowed traditional and social media to silence individuals who wish to discuss or oppose the official view. Censorship has become an outstanding feature of the pandemic, itself incapable of debate.

The startling degree of censorship may be related to the new restrictions. The government, wishing to encourage compliance, may have exaggerated the level of threat. Certainly, we see that fear was a formally-recommended tactic, among others, to encourage such compliance in the general population. This itself is worrying.

Conclusion

The global response has been to portray Covid as serious enough to warrant emergency measures, including a sudden and drastic loss of freedoms in the form of lockdowns, mask-wearing, and now, mandates for vaccination and Covid passports.

The rationale for this loss of freedoms is ‘to save lives’ – despite the real figures seen above. In the UK, another emotive arguments for the emergency-level response has been the government’s plea that we ‘protect the NHS’. In contrast, previous outbreaks of flu (some with higher mortality rates) have brought calls for the government to ensure a health-care service with enough resources to ‘protect the public’.

Restrictions have been imposed to control the spread of a disease we now know to be highly treatable, and to bolster a health service – which despite huge pressures – manages to cope.

By sticking faithfully to the facts presented by government itself, we have seen that – yes –Covid undoubtedly poses a great risk to the elderly and the vulnerable, in the same way flu poses such a risk. However, the data on hospitalisations and deaths clearly shows that Covid is no more of a risk than the flu. Coupled with the use of early treatments, there is no clear reason to turn Covid into a particular threat; nor to make Covid a source of fear, for which we give up our freedoms without further debate.

Downloadable document here.