- This topic is empty.
March 30, 2021 at 15:44 #69620Tatyana
Clark, by the way, about that.
I remember much more freedom as a child, we were allowed to go anywhere and adults willingly interacted with us. Of course, there were fenced-in areas like a military facility or a factory, but you could go to any place, including the city administration, theater, museum, trolleybus depot – and adults smiled at us and willingly told us about what they were doing, often trying to treat us. This activity was our favorite on our children’s city walks. We were free to take fruits growing right on the streets. There was a great sense of community, freedom and the feeling that this city is ours.
Now every piece of land and every building is in private hands and access is closed. Even older children and teenagers feel like guests and prefer to spend time safely at home. Today it’s impossible to spend several hours on the street without money, since a child will have nothing to eat and to drink.
Where did the free water go?!
We had a standpipe in residential areas and drinking fountains in public places!March 30, 2021 at 15:55 #69622SA
Some hope that capitalism will deal with climate change. It may be the ultimate opportunity to get rid of the then useless workers who just live on state funds. The robots will do all the essential work in your rich man’s atmospheric bubble.
Socialism in Russia and the USSR did not work. It had from the outset too many enemies, and even then the west, fresh from the 1st world war, sent troops and weapons to help the white army. The Russian revolution, having just won control with a programme of socialism, had to fight a few more years of bitter fighting. There was a robust debate between Lenin who felt that Communism in one country will not succeed and hoped that the Russian revolution would ignite similar revolutions in Europe, but it was not to be. Later the fight intensified between the internationalists and the localists and ended up with Stalin as a winner, and the rest as they say is history. The tragedy of socialism is that this one go at trying it has failed, and although China has turned into a success story, it is now becoming very much a capitalist society to survive this rampant market capitalism.
Please show me where the hope of this new socialism is going to come from?March 30, 2021 at 15:58 #69623josh R
I would agree completely, on your points regarding the politicisation of these events, the failings it exposed in the decades long policy of crippling the NHS and ignoring health professionals in favour of ludicrously remunerated “consultants”, & most all of the other wider issues you refer to in regards to the skewed political & corporate landscape that has played such a part in our collective misery.
“But we need to separate facts and truths from how these are used by rulers and manipulated. The problem is now so serious that it is difficult for individuals to recognize these facts as absolute truths but to question everything.”
Yes, there are those who feel cast adrift in their inability to trust those who we would hope were competent & honest in the administration of the state. Just as there are those who feel securely anchored in their inability to conceive of the idea that those people charged with the administration of the state may be incompetent and/or dishonest.
In both instances, “question everything” is probably preferable to believe/disbelieve everything. But that would be in an ideal & unrealistic world. In our day to day lives, we’re kind of stuck with having to trust in those who know a bit more than ourselves, and “trust” is the key.
I get the impression that much of the maligning of people who are squarely questioning the narrative as it is portrayed, rests on the idea that they are blithely & ignorantly basing their objections on Facebook memes and conspiratorial propaganda, that they get labelled & dismissed under the catch all term “anti vaxxer”.
But much of the dissent stems from consideration of information presented as “facts and truth” by a whole host of knowledgeable & qualified professionals who are just as plausible as those paraded by the MS media & establishment.
In fact, their apparent lack of ‘conflict of interest’ lends them a degree more credibility due to the well practiced self interest evident in establishment circles. To discount dissent as simply ignorant & poorly informed reactionary bloody mindedness fails to do justice to the honestly & quite legitimately informed concerns.
I’m not saying that you yourself are discounting that dissent, just that that seems to be a pervasive theme in public discourse. As it also seems to be a theme on the other side of the conversation as opinion has become polarised.
Saying all that, I can think of no solution other than letting people decide for themselves. And that’s where the sticking point seems to lie.
“….there is no conspiracy in planning such an event (Event 201).”
It doesn’t strike me as conspiratorial either, convenient or curiously coincidental at best. But that might be my cognitive dissonance at being unable to imagine that this horrific sh!tshow was deliberately engineered as a pre-emptive effort to impose a whole rash of authoritarian controls on the world :-)))) But I honestly cannot conceive of that being the case.
I know that a few hundreds of thousands or a few millions of dead Arabs, a few tens of thousands of dead austerity poor, a few hundreds of thousands of starving Yemenis or sanctioned Iraqi toddlers, or the millions of ‘others’ if you want to go back further than 30 years, I know these “dead” don’t cause our policy makers any sleepless nights.
And I know that “overpopulation” and eugenicist sentiments aren’t unheard of amongst the great & the good.
But even with all that, I still can’t imagine that this COVID crisis was deliberately manufactured.
However, in regards to Event 201 being part of some nefarious pre-emptive effort, I wouldn’t say definitively that it was or it wasn’t, it simply falls into the category of “I’ll never know, one way or another,” so I’m not inclined to spend any mental energy wondering.
I don’t know precisely what “theories” abound on the subject as those aren’t conversations I am privy to nor do I seek them out. However, I can perhaps sympathise with those who would latch on to this planning exercise. Norad’s Vigilant Guardian on 9/11 & Visor Consultants’ simulation drill on 7/7 have attracted a lot of attention & intrigue over the years, along with the “first you simulate, then you go live” concept. So I’m not surprised that Event 201 has attracted such speculation.
As an aside, I don’t think Gates did anyone any favours when he appeared on BBC Breakfast (in April 2020, I think) & indirectly suggested that the event hadn’t even occurred, BMGF having been involved in the Event itself:
“…We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”
But like I say, I don’t put much stock in the outright conspiracy idea, although as Vidal succinctly put it, I’m not averse to ‘analysing’ events which are bundled up in conspiracies. As such, I do find Event 201 interesting, because of what it can reveal about the decision making once the ‘pandemic’ had been categorised as such.
The only thing I’ve been particularly drawn to was the exercise where participants ‘gamed’ narrative management during a pandemic, in relation to MS media & tech (Event 201 Pandemic Exercise Segment 4-Communications) and how that later played out in 2020.
Admittedly, I did find it ‘spooky’ that the participants had been involved in a simulation based on a hypothetical virus that they apparently identified using the acronym “nCoV-2019”. With the WHO subsequently adopting the acronym “2019-nCoV” in January and how that has come to dominate our lives, I’m sure that even the participants themselves found it “peculiar”, to use Peter Power’s 2005 terminology.
Regardless of what COVID is or isn’t, my primary concern is that it has been mismanaged, misrepresented & exploited by individuals, corporations & institutions whose motives I am very sceptical of.
I am very much not convinced by the solutions they propose or the justifications they give, not out of bloody mindedness or a selfish sense of my own personal integrity, but out of a fear of the very real & assorted horrors that may, & in some instances most definitely will, be unleashed.
You mentioned in an earlier post that “experimental gene therapy vaccine, sounds very much like…antivaccine teachings.”
I hadn’t realised that was a contentious term, but I’ve just googled around and it seems the various ministries of truth/fact checkers seem to have taken exception to it too, so I see where you’re coming from.
But, in my defence:
YouTube (4m 4s) – American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy: mRNA Vaccines for COVID-19
The American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:
“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.
These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”
[ASGCT.org November 17, 2020]
“Moderna … describes its product not as a vaccine, but as ‘gene therapy technology’ in SEC filings. This is because neither Moderna nor Pfizer … make any claims about their products creating immunity or preventing transmission.” Additionally, Moderna’s SEC filings specifically state that “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA,”
[David Martin Ph.D. + US SEC Moderna June 30, 2020]
I guess as new technologies develop & these tools/products need to conform to indemnity, regulation & marketing requirements, then definitions can change. But, as they stand, I don’t think they qualify as ‘vaccines’ under the medical definition, although ‘branding’ is obviously another field.
Vaccine, medical definition:
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
[CDC.gov Immunizations: The Basics, Definition of Terms]
mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they do not fullfil the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
Neither do they inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fullfil the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.
Dr Tal Zaks (chief medical officer at Moderna Inc) was a bit more candid in his 2017 TED talk (The disease-eradicating potential of gene editing) when this wasn’t such a “hot” issue & mandatory compliance wasn’t on the cards.
I also understood that the FDA had only granted the jabs Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) and that they will remain in trials through 2023, hence the reference to “experimental”. “Permitted” for emergency use rather than “Approved” in the usual sense of the word is obviously not a distinction the marketing department likes to draw attention to.
I guess it will get ‘less’ experimental as time goes on. If Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s comments on NBC back in February are any indication, folk will have plenty of time to get used to regular jabbing:
“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine…It’s going to be the same with Covid. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for Covid to be protected.”
Of course, that’s assuming their product doesn’t turn out to be another Protonix, Prempro, Chantix, Depo-Testosterone, etc. etc. oh! no matter, I guess they’re indemnified for that now.
If they manage to keep the gravy train rolling, it will be interesting to see how they handle pricing in light of the Epipen rip off & the few billion $$$ in criminal fines they’ve racked up since the turn of the century.
………I’m loathe to add this last link because I did not come across it myself & have not looked into it. Worse still, I came across it chatting to an Aussie over breakfast who showed me it on his phone. So if anything has the potential to be ‘conspiracy’ claptrap, then this will be it. But the claims and the supposed CV of the man making them would be, if both those things checked out, something worth sharing.
I did google the name briefly & the Google algorithms & various ministries of truth (for whatever they’re worth) did seem to throw up a lot of dismissive stuff.
So, massive caveat, I only came across it a few days ago, from a completely unknown source & I haven’t made any efforts to verify it’s authenticity or plausibility:
YouTube (11m 15s) – Del Bigtree (The Highwire): mRNA Jab – Watch Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, DVM
(additional) warning: the interview is introduced by quite an excitable presenter, or perhaps just very Ameri……… sorryMarch 30, 2021 at 16:06 #69624josh R
“It named the very virus that was to later consume our world for 12 months”
Sorry Clark, I didn’t mean to suggest they’d predicted all the details you fastidiously unearthed, merely that they’d used the acronym “nCoV-2019” and that the WHO later adopted a very similar designation, “2019-nCoV”.
Thank you for sharing the Wikipedia page & for taking the time to go into some statistical analysis/explanation.
But to be honest, I’ve trudged through more medical/scientific writing over the past 12 months than I would have wished upon myself in 100 lifetimes and, as I mentioned a couple of times in the overly ‘verbose’ comments earlier, I look elsewhere for comprehensive & authoritative information so don’t pay much attention to “comments” other than for opinion.
I don’t mean to be dismissive or pompous (although I realise it does sound very pompous & dismissive), it’s just that when I wrote that “I gave up a long time ago trying to work out how dangerous COVID is or isn’t”, it wasn’t out of difficulty grasping the literature, it was more out of a lack of confidence in the data & an understanding that science quite invariably has competent & convincing voices on either side of research & I was best out of it.
Funnily enough, it was a paper by Dr Brown (published in August 2020 – Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation) & specifically focusing on IFR & CFR data such as that with which you seem familiar, that probably convinced me to find something less taxing to read :-)))
Although peer reviewed & published, I’m sure there’ll be equally qualified people expressing a contrary opinion, such is the nature of science. Incidentally, his conclusions were quite different to those that you cite.
To my simplistic layman’s mind, there were 2 particular features of the COVID data collection & presentation that have made me disinclined to trust the ticker tape of terror.
Firstly, the changes to the procedure involved in processing the Medical Certificates of Cause of Death (MCCD), implemented as part of the March 25th 2020 Coronavirus Act, seemed destined (if not specifically designed) to result in a substantial over reporting of COVID fatalities. It went much beyond the common “with/from COVID” death reporting concerns that were being voiced more widely at the time.
The guidance by the Chief Coroner a day later was also very ominous, suggesting that s/he could not “envisage a situation” where any coroner would speak publicly about these changes. Thankfully, some brave handfuls of professionals, in the UK & abroad, did express their concerns and the OffGuardian did quite a comprehensive report on the detail & implications of these MCCD changes, on 5th May.
These changes to reporting, invariably under the onus of necessity & expedience in an emergency, was duplicated across Europe & US. I think the simultaneous adoption of these policies simply dates back to the 2005 WHO International Health Regulations & the subsequent emergency powers Acts adopted by individual states. Thus everyone acts in ‘lock step’ under the requisite ‘circumstances’. Unfortunately that applies to ‘bad’ directives as much as ‘good’ ones.
I imagine most of us are familiar with politicians fudging the numbers: juggling troop deployments between ‘theatres’ of engagement, discounting mercenaries & “off the books” forces, in order to mislead reporting of particular military involvements; or shuffling the jobless from one ‘training’ scheme or ‘waiting’ period to another, to misrepresent unemployment statistics. So the changes to MCCD reporting didn’t inspire confidence…..in actual fact, it felt more like fraud if I’m honest.
Secondly, the PCR test debacle just completely delegitimised all the case reporting figures. Again, this was an issue that was raised quite comprehensively in those first few months of the ‘crisis’ but was sidelined & maligned. I imagine that was even before there was a slur in our vocabulary for people who raised such concerns.
The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis, had been quite forthright in stressing that his Nobel Prize winning invention was not a diagnostic tool and that had been a discussion in the scientific community decades ago; even clinicians were separately reminding authorities that clinical diagnosis does not come from a test alone; and, perhaps worst of all, concerns were rife over the Corman-Drosten paper, which initially proposed the rt-PCR COVID test, due to its rapid publication one day after it was submitted (without peer review), in a journal for which 2 of the paper’s authors declined to mention that they were also editors (?!?), & which was immediately endorsed, before publication, by the first non-medical doctor DG of the WHO.
rt-PCR tests & hence COVID case statistics have thus stunk for a long time.
The President of Tanzania (Chem. Ph.D?), getting positive COVID tests on pawpaw & goat samples seemed humorous at the time (love how the MS swarmed his dead self with denigration & false claims about his passing to suggest that he got some kind of comeuppance – not very ‘Woke’).
The Lisbon Appeal Court ruling that rt-PCR tests were unreliable was nice for Portugal.
The Borger report which finally exposed Drosten to peer review was damning.
And, incredibly, the WHO itself finally came out and tacitly admitted that rt-PCR tests with a cycle threshold over 35 were invalid, in new guidance issued exactly a year after adopting the dubious test in the first place & scaring the bejesus out of everybody, day in, day out for 12 months.
With the new WHO ‘guidance’ released on 20th January 2021, the number of cases predictably plummeted. Of course, the decline in numbers is supposed to be due to the wonders of vaccination, despite the fact that this tremendous decline in case numbers happened across regions & states irrespective of how many or how fully people had been vaccinated.
So on those 2 points alone, even if I could bring my self to trawl through another stack of papers analysing the dangers of COVID, and assume that I’m in any way qualified to understand what they’re going on about, I’m not particularly inclined to because the very source data seems compromised, fudged, massaged, politicised or whatever.March 30, 2021 at 17:20 #69635ET
Geert Vanden Bossche’s open letter. After the letter he explains his reasoning.
Not sure what I think about this as yet.
As far as Event 201 goes I think too much is read into it. It was the fourth such exercise carried out by the John Hopkins University over the years. Previously the had used a flu pandemic and small pox as their scenarios.
“Similar to the Center’s 3 previous exercises—Clade X, Dark Winter, and Atlantic Storm—Event 201 aimed to educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.”
In terms of naming a new virus there are agreed conventions on that as there are with new chemicals etc. Coronaviruses have long being considered a likely candidate for a pandemic. If I were going to give a name to a fictitious car for a scenario I might call it “Etesian 3.0 GTI 16 valve” names of winds being very fashionable.March 30, 2021 at 20:04 #69640Clark
Josh, I know what I make of Geert Vanden Bossche’s letter and I have some specific questions about it, but before I go into that, what do you make of it?March 30, 2021 at 20:09 #69641Clark
Tatyana, exactly the same has happened here. Public drinking water has just started to be returned; I think it’s due to public pressure about having to buy and dispose of plastic bottles all the time, but there are nowhere near as many public water points as there were. And all commercial activity is to some extent secret, whereas companies and organisations used to be proud to show the public their operations. I used to be able to walk into any university in the country and just start talking to people. Now, it’s all “papers, please” at the campus gates.March 30, 2021 at 20:14 #69644Clark
SA – “Please show me where the hope of this new socialism is going to come from?”
The big, hopefully massive UK Kill the Bill demo in London and everywhere else will be on Saturday. Coming?March 30, 2021 at 21:00 #69645Clark
And Josh, you are indeed very verbose, but I have actually encountered most of the arguments you present, and I still think there’s a genuine pandemic, with an IFR of at least 0.5% if everyone needing hospital can get in, and several times that if no one can. And I think that not because of the opinions of experts, but because I’ve been reading the graphs; they really don’t leave much room for doubts, and certainly not the ones you’ve raised here. If you’re interested in the reasoning that has led to this conclusion, just say and I’ll explain.March 31, 2021 at 05:19 #69653SA
I am always wary of these Casandra like supposedly eminent scientists who come from nowhere with visions of gloom and doom which of course is invisible to all the other scientists. I have skimmed through his paper and found one or two odd statements but meanwhile look at this:
Vaxopedia – Who is Geert Vanden Bossche?March 31, 2021 at 07:22 #69658josh R
Following my earlier thoughts about Event 201, in response to your comment, I had a dig around & came across what appears to be a promotional video released by the organisers.
For reasons that may resonate with points you made yourself, about how this ‘pandemic’ has been handled, I found the video interesting & thought to share it.
If you can force yourself through 10 minutes of painful viewing, perhaps it offers some clues to the disaster that was 2020:
YouTube (11m 45s) – Centre for Health Security: Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Highlights Reel
“The dumbing down” of society is a trope that has often been rolled out, usually in relation to us Plebs, but what struck me watching this video was the idea of “the dumbing down” at the managerial level.
Watching the participants in the video put me in mind of people on a work’s training ‘do’ who, in the main, just wished they didn’t have to be there & were silently wondering what nibbles would be on offer during break time or if expenses covered the hotel mini bar, hoping they’d be allowed to go paint balling next year instead.
Barely able to look at one another in case they were asked to volunteer an opinion, let alone pretend to listen to what others had to say, a bit of hamming it up for the camera & some desperate attempts to string together some trendy buzzwords, gleaned during motivational brainstorming sessions in their respective offices beforehand.
It seemed almost impossible to imagine such a roomful could come up with a coherent thought between them if it hadn’t been suggested by someone who sounded vaguely ‘grown up’ and had a swanky PowerPoint presentation to hand, with lots of pictures & colourful graphs.
If that’s indicative of the calibre of people chosen & entrusted with managing a global crisis, it’s not hard to imagine that they would sign off on any slick & glossy brochure of action points, lobb(i)ed at them by the likes of competing profiteers & the ‘behind closed doors’ groups who stage managed such a dire bunch of talking heads to parade in front of the cameras.
It felt like watching a cross between “The Office” and “Independence Day”, more ‘low’ than ‘highlights’ and, whilst not quite as slick as the WEF’s ‘look at how happy you’ll be when you’ve got fk all & we own Everything’, equally dispiriting.March 31, 2021 at 07:37 #69659josh R
I’ve not dug into this any further than the clip of his interview.
To me, it’s just another voice in the choir, talking about stuff I don’t really understand & cannot predict.
What did seem unusual, was that he would seem to be about as pro vaccine as you can get, if his CV is as presented & he’s not gone senile (hard to tell with academics & doctors).
I really haven’t got an opinion on the veracity one way or another. As I’ve mentioned before, this stuff is so far above my pay grade or ability to confirm or deny that he may as well be talking Dutch.
What prompted me to share it was just how ‘dire’ it sounded and, as with anything, folk can pass it over or not, as they see fit.
If there’s any truth to it, it’s useful to know.
If it’s all a load of bogwash, thank the gods!March 31, 2021 at 09:12 #69662Clark
Josh, I’ve got twelve seconds into the Event 201 video before encountering major cognitive dissonance:
– “It began in healthy looking pigs…”
No. They look like overcrowded, traumatised pigs with minimal natural diversity, in a barren, squalid and essentially industrial setting. If I was one of them, I wouldn’t be feeling healthy.
I’ll keep watching. Meanwhile, Geert Vanden Bossche’s letter. Reading it with “beginner’s mind”, who would you say it’s written for? Who’s his intended audience, and what response is it intended to evoke? Crucially, is it written for his peers, and if not, why not?March 31, 2021 at 09:27 #69663Clark
Two minutes fifteen seconds in; I feel like we’ve asked for a tool to help change a fuse, and someone has helpfully offered a lawnmower.
I did an “exercise” like this in my first year of uni. Much lower budget though. “Someone’s developed a quark bomb the size of a briefcase, a hundred times more powerful than an H bomb. It has fallen into hands unknown, but they’re making demands. We all take roles; government, business leaders etc. What should be done?” Got bored and skived off to smoke weed with my friends.March 31, 2021 at 09:38 #69664Clark
Oh dear. Now they’re all talking about problems with money.
And herein lies the problem. Everyone – governments, businesses, populations – all human behaviour is enslaved to money, yet it’s the one thing in all of this that has no existence beyond human imagination.March 31, 2021 at 10:12 #69665Clark
Overall, well done John Hopkins Uni; not bad, considering. They pitched a pretty good scenario at the talking heads, who in turn correctly identified that organisation being dependent upon money is a major problem.
Thankfully, actual events are turning out much less bad than that. The world is on course for about four or five million deaths after eighteen months rather the than sixty-five million of the scenario. You can see what’s happened here at Worldometers, click the “logarithmic” buttons on the “Daily New Cases” and “Daily Deaths” graphs near the top of the page to get the “Total Cases” and “Total Deaths” graphs. Infection didn’t continue to increase exponentially, which would be a straight rising line on these graphs (note the increments on the vertical axis); in the second half of April 2020 the Total Cases lane starts to bend towards levelling off, and at about the start of May the Total Deaths line clearly turns a corner.
Societal behaviour achieved this.March 31, 2021 at 14:16 #69666josh R
I only read through that letter as a courtesy to yourself & the 2 (!) comments asking my opinion, but I think I would have been happier to have paid no more attention to this fella than simply having watched the short video I posted earlier.
I know that probably sounds ignorant, but I am a little further removed from the immediacy of all this than yourselves and quite enjoy not being on the Corona merri-go-round, wherever possible. This thread is the only time I’ve bothered having the conversation & that’s turned into a great long saga!
Clarke – “who would you say it’s written for? Who’s his intended audience,”
GVB – “As a scientist I do not usually appeal to any platform of this kind…(this letter being) an exception”
I only followed the link left by ET so I don’t know what “platform of this kind” he’s referring to or who that specific audience might be.
Clarke – “Crucially, is it written for his peers, and if not, why not?”
Absolutely not written for his professional peers, I think he’s quite clear about that.
GVB – “For those who are not experts in this field, I am attaching below a more accessible and comprehensible version of the science”
It’s obviously written for the likes of everyday folk (like me!) & people in policy/decision making positions?….I feel like I’m taking a comprehension test 🙂
He’s also quite clear about the more science’y stuff you’re looking for. A paper to be published later, but a summary on LinkedIn (which could possibly be more technical) & analysis having been sent to the WHO which would, no doubt, be more in depth.
GVB – “I am completing my scientific manuscript, the publication of which is, unfortunately, likely to come too late”
GVB – “…a summary of my findings…on LinkedIn”
GVB – “I provided international health organizations, including the WHO, with my analysis….based on scientifically informed insights”
Clarke – “and what response is it intended to evoke?”
Well, I only just skimmed through the “more accessible” bit (it’s late & I can’t be arsed with it all just now). But when I saw the words “bioweapon of mass destruction”, the first response that sprang to mind was “sh!t meself!!” :-)))
But, I think Bossche put it a bit more intelligently, as follows:
GVB – “So, there is not one second left for gears to be switched and to replace the current killer vaccines by life-saving vaccines.”
The fact that he’d “urged (The international health organisations) to consider (his) concerns and to initiate a debate” seemed quite reasonable, given what’s on his mind.
Overall, I think I’ll side with you on this one and, personally, I’ll just write him off as a crack pot for the time being, until I hear otherwise or come across corroborating reports from sources I’m more familiar with.
The alternative is that this is going to be a flippin’ lonely planet, even if he’s only half right. Ignorance/cognitive dissonance can be bliss sometimes :-)))
Sorry, let me be more serious for a moment. Scientists spend their entire careers exploring various possibilities & arguing the toss over what is & what isn’t, so I’m not heading for the hills just yet.
I’ve not seen anyone else I’m familiar with going on about this and, as I’m sure you’ll be the first to agree, there’s a lot of hysterical rubbish out there.
Admittedly, apart from Craig’s site, I only trawl through the online once a week, for a couple of days, and I wasn’t due to have a browse till tomorrow so maybe there’s a conversation being had that I haven’t yet read.
But to be honest, after a stupid number of hours spent churning out a ridiculous volume of “spittle-flecked” “blather” over the past few days, I’m inclined to extend my absence from the digital world a few more days, CM blog included.
Beach, coffee shops, bicycle rides & general pottering are calling me. Hopefully when I next click on, Bossche will have calmed down a bit.March 31, 2021 at 14:36 #69667ET
I have enjoyed your contributions. Don’t stay away too long and enjoy your pottering.March 31, 2021 at 16:30 #69668Clark
Josh, yes, it’s written for non-specialists – at the start, but then it gets too specialised for such an audience, and he directs us to a lot more material on his own website.
Remember that non-specialists includes the majority of politicians, and he specifically addresses it to them. It starts out superficially plausible with its analogy to antibiotic resistance, but rapidly escalates to over their heads making specialised claims about which parts of the human immune system do what in which order.
So how would politicians respond? By turning to their scientific advisers, of course, who would turn to the leaders in immunology at the universities. So he should have presented all this in the scientific / immunology literature in the first place, because that’s the regular forum for issues like this to be debated and tested. And it isn’t like he hasn’t had time; talk of developing vaccines for a mass immunisation programme started over a year ago, and nothing Bossche mentions is a development since then. So he should have been writing letters and presenting papers to the major scientific / immunology journals warning of this potential catastrophe for over a year.
Instead he’s presenting directly to the public right as the vaccination programme is scaling up.
I think he’s hoping for money; either a bribe to shut up (which could come from governments or the pharmaceutical industry), or some of the action in the form of his company / companies getting contracts in development and manufacturing. Note that his background is veterinarian, and he warns about animal reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2. Maybe he’s hoping to vaccinate all the mink farms.
Seen this before, in fact it’s a pattern. His background is actual scientific work, but most of his career development has been business, developing companies. An academic he is not. He and his argument remind me a lot of the UK’s very own Mike Yeadon, and more broadly he falls into the ‘professor’ Patrick Holford category, a pill salesman who progressed to pill manufacturer, who went on to buy himself an honorary professorship and used it to boost his company’s pill sales.
Sorry to be so heavy about this but we’ve all been touched by fear, death and protracted lockdown over here, and I don’t mean from the media, it’s personal. Two at my Quaker meeting have died (I’m an atheist attender), a friend employed at a care home recovered but his colleague died, a couple of close friends in their 70s had it, one was almost symptomless but the other needed oxygen support in hospital for a while, etc., I can’t even remember all the various incidents over the last year. And I’d choose your two months of early lockdown over our five months or more of late ones, no question.March 31, 2021 at 17:31 #69669SA
What I found interesting about the event 201 video was how despite running such an exercise none of the lessons were applied. That is presumably because there is no overall structure to run such an emergency which can overrule individual nations. For example the WHO is a very cautious body that is beholden to the donors and dare not upset them. They also cannot take any decisions or any advice against what is perceived as economic interest. Also it seems that in this exercise everyone seems to be turning to private big pharma to come up with the goods.
The only way this pandemic could be dealt with effectively is through a coordinated effort following simple well tried measures, stop spread by limiting people’s movement inside countries from infected areas, and internationally, testing and tracing and strict isolation of all suspects and take adequate contact precautions. It would involve governements everywhere to commandeer resources and hand over the actual clinical decisions to public health officials and other experts, not to sit down pontificating with mathematical models.
This is what I wrote to my MP in March last year:
“The government is proposing to give businesses and self employed and those on zero hour contract support during this crisis which is highly commendable. Would it not be possible to give this help a positive twist so that the recipients are actually involved and committed? This can be done by way of requisitioning both workers and premises. Of course details need to be worked out, but currently the majority of the nation seems to be asked to sit at home helplessly whilst a minority are bearing the burden in carrying out essential services. The government and local councils can use this to for example do the following:
- Requisition resources to organise transport safely for NHS and other essential workers.
- Requisition resources to help the food industry to arrange and expand home food deliveries.
- Organise locally a system of volunteers to ensure that the vulnerable are cared for.
- Organise queues at places such as supermarkets.
I am sure there are other activities but this is just a blueprint.”
This sort of requisitioning is done during wars and essential for cohesiveness and support for all. Instead the government relying on market capitalist principles can only try and sort the problem by market means, with the inexperienced private sector being handed over the bulk of the contracts and action.April 1, 2021 at 16:59 #69680ET
Things getting a little fraught in Ireland. It’s bizarre. What difference does it make what nationality people are if your purpose is to reduce the risk of importing the virus.
“There are further fears about an impact on the Common Travel Area, given it has been proposed that the Isle of Man be included in the list of high-risk countries.”
Despite its fairly comprehensive border closure and quarantine rules the IOM is battling an outbreak thought to be linked to ferry staff, having had no cases from May 2020 to end of December 2020.April 1, 2021 at 20:54 #69694Clark
ET, I’ve been watching the graphs for the Isle of Man. I see there were eight cases on 29 March, but that was a sporadic day in a falling curve; the average is falling decisively, and I’m hoping it’ll be back to zero within days.April 1, 2021 at 21:31 #69696ET
Yeah Clark, things are improving and hopefully we’ll have zero cases soon.
Here is the IOM’s own dashboard.April 12, 2021 at 00:26 #70010J
Worth noting the 2011 and 2012 spike in excess deaths at care homes, especially in relation to the so called “Liverpool Care Pathway” (which appears to have functioned as a little more than a tool of the eugenics crowd.) I did hear anecdotal accounts of elderly patients “changing” their will shortly before an untimely death.
For care homes themselves, changes to funding and an assortment of rule changes served to cause night time staff to be less numerous and therefore more overworked with far fewer supervised toilet visits, causing them to force draconian restriction of fluids in order to minimise bed wetting, in turn causing droves of elders to die from nothing more than dehydration. But there too, the rules for reporting and declaring deaths were finessed and/or changed, such deaths often explained as ‘overheating’ and ‘flu’. Meanwhile Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards or DoLS could be used to deny access between family and patients (from both directions) on the say so of private medical staff or friendly magistrates, which in certain circumstances could even result in an individual indefinitely detained without trial or any kind of transparent process. It all sounds wild doesn’t it?
However, far less wild than many of the provisions within the Emergency Coronavirus Bill 2020, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill 2020 and the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill 2021. The former we should note, once again, substantially altered the process for the reporting of deaths and cause of death.