Reply To: Tone and subtext of SARSCov2 propaganda in Britain

Home Forums Discussion Forum Tone and subtext of SARSCov2 propaganda in Britain Reply To: Tone and subtext of SARSCov2 propaganda in Britain


(Mods – May I request that you remove the words “notion of experts” at the end of the title of this thread, because then the thread can cover everything to do with the tone and subtext of SARSCoV2-related propaganda in Britain. I realise you want threads to be more tightly focused than before, but I guess there is a limit somewhere.)

[ Mod: Agreed. The text ” – notion of ‘experts’ ” has been duly excised from the title. ]

The Guardian today wrote up a report from the Office of National Statistics saying that the “data shows 12.1% of population would have tested positive” for “coronavirus antibodies” in December. Like the rest of the media they are doing nothing to “educate” people on what a “coronavirus” is, nor on how the authorities conduct covert testing on samples of the population for many sorts of viruses and bacteria, as one might expect as a matter of defence policy, defensive biological warfare, and the research and development of offensive biological weapons. But never mind that for a moment. Let us assume they ARE using the term “antibodies” in a clear way and that basically they are saying that tests on population samples suggest that in December 2020 12.1% of people in Britain had antibodies against the 2019 strain of the SARS virus known as SARSCoV2 (or perhaps just against SARS in general, but that doesn’t matter). The article of course comes with a strong MESSAGE as one might expect. That message is that the REST of the population is still at risk, and therefore we’ve all got to obey lockdown rules and “be with the programme” regarding the mass vaccination campaign.

And that is total BULLSH*T. Why? Because many people have defeated this virus with the FIRST LINE of their immune defence, which doesn’t involve the production of specialised antibodies. (Anyone who is in any doubt about that statement should ask why the schools were shut.)

Later in the article they “interpret” the 12.1% figure as meaning that “An estimated one in eight people in England had had coronavirus by December”.

What absolute rubbish … it doesn’t imply anything of the kind … but no editor ever got the sack for noticing.

Professor Danny Altmann from Imperial College screams the Big Pharma message: apparently “while the percentage of people expected to test positive for antibodies to the coronavirus has risen slightly, Altmann said it was not rising quickly, meaning natural herd immunity had not developed and that vaccines remained crucial to tackling the disease.”

What a lying a*sehole, who clearly knows which side his career and research grants are buttered on.

The authorities must also of course have an estimate of the proportion of people who have been infected with this or that level of SARSCoV2 viral load (totally different from the proportion who show the antibodies), but as far as I am aware they are keeping quiet about it. Let’s not hold our breaths waiting for Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth or Keir Starmer to ask Matt Hancock or Boris Johnson what the estimate is.

It could easily be 80% or 90%.