1. The Origin Cover Up
Ever since the publication of ‘Viral’ by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley in 2022, the world has been slowly waking up to the realisation that the SARS-Cov-2 virus, which caused of the Covid 19 pandemic, was almost certainly genetically modified to make it transmissible in humans and that the story originally put out by the Chinese authorities, that it had originated in a ‘wet’ market in Wuhan, was a desperate attempt to cover this up.
That’s not to say that a natural origin for a virus of this type is entirely impossible. For we know that SARS-like coronaviruses can jump the species barrier from bats to humans. In 2012, for instance, six men were hospitalised after being infected with such a virus while working in a bat-infested copper mine near Tongguan, in Mojiang county, Yunnan. All this does, however, is make it even more likely that the virus actually escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). For after the 2012 infections, a certain Dr. Shi Zhengli, from that very same institute, started searching the mine for viruses, which were then studied and storied at WIV in order to better prepare the Chinese authorities for any subsequent spill-overs.
Not, of course, that this, on its own, is conclusive evidence in favour of the lab-leak theory. For if the virus did escape from WIV, it raises the question as to why the Chinese authorities didn’t simply admit it. After all, it was being kept there for entirely legitimate reasons. And while its escape may have caused the Chinese government some embarrassment, no regime for studying and storing pathogens is ever completely secure. No matter how rigorous a lab’s procedures may be, accidents can still happen. And if that is what happened in this case, no one would have blamed the Chinese authorities unduly, giving them no reason, therefore, to lie.
This argument only holds, however, if they weren’t also hiding something else: something which they knew would eventually be discovered and for which they wanted to continue denying responsibility even after that discovery had occurred, which they would not have been able to do had they already admitted that the virus had leaked from their facility.
Nor did it take long for the world to discover what this something else was. For when the SARS-CoV-2 genome was published on 11th January 2020, virologists very quickly spotted something that should not have been there. Known as a ‘furin cleavage site’, it consists of a small strand of RNA, just twelve letters long, which spell out the recipe for making four amino acids which, in human cells, divide and reshape proteins to do a whole variety of different jobs, but which, when inserted into the RNA of a coronavirus, can have only one function: to enable the virus to enter human cells and spread throughout the human population.
The discovery that the virus had thus been genetically altered, however, was not just a problem for the Chinese. For the Wuhan Institute of Virology is internationally funded, receiving a significant amount of that funding from the United States. In fact, Chan and Ridley uncovered a whole series of collaborative projects between WIV and various US partners, in many of which chimeric or novel SARS-like viruses were used to infect humanised mice, or mice implanted with human cells, in order to assess their spill-over risk. Even more tellingly, they also came across a proposal from an NGO called EcoHealth Alliance, which was submitted to the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for WIV to study the potential spill-over dangers of SARS-like viruses using a method which would have involved genetically altering them in just the way SARS-CoV-2 was altered. And while DARPA ultimately rejected this proposal on the grounds that it was too dangerous – risking the very spill-over into the human population which the project was intended to prevent – one cannot ignore the possibility that funding for the project – or one very similar – may have been found elsewhere.
With the entire scientific establishment of the United States thus deeply implicated in this potential scandal, a conference call was consequently convened on 1st February 2020 between twelve of the world’s leading virologists in order to discuss what ought to be done. Among those taking part were both Dr Anthony Fauci, who was then director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) as well as chief medical advisor to the president, and Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and a senior advisor to the British government.
Because the conference call was not recorded, we do not know exactly what was said during it. From emails sent between the participants in the days that followed, however – which were subsequently submitted to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee and published in January 2022 – it appears that most of the discussion was devoted to determining whether the virus could have achieved such a sudden gain of function naturally, with the overwhelming consensus being that it could not. One of the twelve participants, Dr. Robert Garry of Tulane University, summed up the general view fairly succinctly when he said that he could ‘not think of any plausible natural scenario in which a SARS-CoV-2-like virus could have gained a furin cleavage site’ without some meaningful intermediate steps, some of which would have been found in related viruses.
Within days of the conference call, however, five of the twelve participants, including Dr. Garry, began drafting a paper, which was eventually published in Nature Medicine under the title ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-Cov-2’, in which they dismissed the existence of the furin cleavage site as irrelevant by arguing that, although such sites ‘have not been observed in related ‘lineage B’ betacoronaviruses’ in humans, ‘it is likely that SARS-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species’. Having thus diverted attention away from the virus’ most salient anomaly, they then attempted a classic piece of misdirection by focusing a large part of the rest of the paper on the suboptimal way in which the virus binds with human ACE 2 receptors, arguing that this indicates that SARS-Cov-2 is, itself, an intermediate step in the evolutionary process and is not, therefore, ‘the product of purposeful manipulation’.
So what caused this radical volte face? From the emails submitted to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee one can again get a sense of the prevailing sentiment within the group, which was more or less in line with the view of Dr Ron Fouchier that any speculation about the lab-origin of the virus would do ‘unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular’. Others noted that it would also probably do great harm to international relations, from which one may deduce that they were already leaning towards some form of cover up. What is inconceivable, however, is that senior government advisers, such as Dr. Fauci and Sir Jeremy Farrar, would have contemplated any such action without first consulting their governments. More to the point, a cover up of this magnitude, involving the suppression of all scientific papers critical of Proximal Origin, as well as the comprehensive censorship of all social media platforms, would simply not have been possible without the full weight of governments behind it. While the ‘front men’, like Anthony Fauci, are the ones that are now taking most of the criticism – and quite rightly so – the idea that they weren’t doing exactly what their governments instructed them to do is therefore simply not credible.
2. Governmental Panic & Misjudgements
This near certainty that, by the first week in February 2020, most governments throughout the developed world knew that the SARS-Cov-2 virus had been genetically engineered also explains why so many of them then panicked and behaved in such ill-judged ways, tearing up long established protocols for dealing with epidemics and focusing, instead, on the one aspect of the virus which now stood out: the fact that it had been genetically engineered to enhance its transmissibility in human beings, transmission, therefore, being what these governments now primarily thought they had to prevent.
Instead of concentrating their efforts on quarantining and treating the sick while identifying and protecting those groups which early epidemiological studies had already revealed to be the most vulnerable – namely the elderly and those with multiple co-morbidities – they consequently put most of their efforts into massive programmes of testing and contact tracing, which anyone with any experience of epidemics could have told them was utterly futile once the cat had got out of the bag, especially in the case of a disease in which, for most people, the symptoms were relatively mild and which didn’t therefore prevent them from going about their lives as usual. The British government even spent billions developing a mobile app which, had it actually worked, would not only have alerted people to the fact that they’d been in contact with someone who had tested positive, thereby requiring them to isolate themselves, but may also have alerted the authorities to any non-compliance.
Apart from the complete disregard for civil liberties which this would have represented, the main problem which all such ‘test and trace’ programmes faced, however, was the fact that they were all predicated on the existence of a reliable test. In 2020, however, the only applicable test available was the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, which, while it is certainly an aid to diagnosis, is primarily a method of detecting and amplifying very small amounts of DNA or RNA in a given sample. This is achieved by exposing the sample to repeated cycles of heating and cooling, known as thermal cycling, during which any DNA or RNA present in the sample is broken down into separate strands which are then used as templates for rebuilding and replicating it using a number of different enzymes. The result is that the amount of DNA or RNA present in the sample is doubled during each cycle.
While the PCR process can thus be a considerable aid to diagnosis, it is not in itself, however, a diagnostic test. Unlike an antibody test, for instance, it is not specific to a particular virus. This means that even when a usable amount of RNA has been recovered, one still has to compare this with the RNA of the virus for which one is testing. Moreover, the accuracy of this comparison is almost entirely determined by the quality of the original sample. This is because the PCR process only replicates what is there; it cannot repair or fill in any gaps in broken or degraded strands of RNA. Even if one is able to retrieve enough of this degraded RNA to compare it with the RNA of the actual virus, therefore, the results can be misleading, leading to false positives, although – importantly – not false negatives.
This is because a broken segment of RNA which does not correspond to any segment of the RNA for which one is testing is simply a negative. It cannot be a false negative. On the other hand, it is quite possible for a broken segment of RNA to actually correspond to a segment of the RNA for which one is testing and yet for the sample to be from a different virus – albeit a related one – the genetic divergence between the two only being found in those segments of the sample that are now lost.
This is why the inventor of the PCR process, American biochemist Kary Mullis, said that it should not be used for general screening. For, due to this issue of sample quality, diagnostic tests based on PCR recovery are only around 95% accurate, which is perfectly acceptable if the test is merely being used to confirm the diagnosis of a patient who is already showing symptoms of a viral infection. It is an entirely different matter, however, if one is testing millions of random subjects. For simple arithmetic would indicate that if one uses a test with 95% accuracy to screen a million people, and if all the false results from that test are positive, it is going to produce 50,000 false positives, which may not seem a lot if the other 950,000 are all true positives. But what if the total number of positive tests in a population of one million is just 100,000? This would mean that the 50,000 false positives would constitute 50% of all positive tests.
If the quality of the DNA or RNA in the original sample is thus vital in the use of PCR tests for diagnostic purposes, so is the quantity of DNA or RNA in the sample. For if a sample contains only a very small amount of DNA or RNA, it has to be put through more cycles of replication and amplification in order to be detected. There is, however, a limit to the number of cycles a sample can be put through before the results start to become unreliable. This is because the enzymes used to rebuild and replicate the DNA or RNA in the sample – especially the four most commonly used deoxyribose nucleotide triphosphates or dNTPs – eventually start to break down, with two major consequences. The first is that the amount DNA or RNA produced in each cycle ceases to double and then continues to decline, such that one gets a diminishing return. Even more importantly, however, replication errors start to creep in, which are then copied in the next cycle and rapidly accumulate.
This means that knowing the maximum number of cycles a sample should be put through in order to consistently obtain reliable results is absolutely critical to the proper use PCR technology. Having reviewed the literature on this subject as, however, there would appear to be a significant spectrum of opinion as to what this is, ranging from 27 at the low end and going all the way up to 41 at the high end, with a consensus forming somewhere in the middle at around 35. If this seems a somewhat unscientific way of determining the answer to such an important question, however, 35 cycles would also seem to be the point at which the quantitative and qualitative issues surrounding PCR converge. For if one has to put a sample through more than 35 cycles before any DNA or RNA is detected, the amount of DNA or RNA in the original sample must surely have been very small, which means that it is also likely to have been a partial or broken strand, making it highly likely, therefore, that any diagnostic test carried out on it will produce a false positive.
Given all of the above, it is fairly reasonable to say, therefore, that putting a sample through more than 35 thermal cycles is actually a misuse of the technology, such that if a sample is put through more than 35 cycles to obtain forensic evidence presented in a court of law, for instance, that evidence should always be challenged by opposing counsel as inadmissible. And yet, during the pandemic, labs carrying out PCR tests for Covid19 in the UK were actually instructed to put samples through up to 45 cycles, thereby not only compromising all UK test data – with far more cases being reported than there probably were – but raising the question as to why the UK authorities should have done this.
To make matters worse, on 5th March 2020, the UK government then made SARS-CoV-2 a notifiable disease, which not only meant that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) had to be informed of all positive tests, but that Covid19 had to be included as a cause of death on the death certificate of anyone who died within 28 days of testing positive. This, therefore, not only had the effect of causing some of those who falsely tested positive to be falsely included in Covid death statistics, but of blurring the distinction between those who died ‘of’ Covid and those who died ‘with’ it.
Of course, many of the stories one hears about such erroneous attributions may be apocryphal. Versions of the same story about the young man whose death was attributed to Covid after he was killed in a motorcycle accident one week after testing positive seem to crop up everywhere. I am reliably informed, however, of one case in which a woman with kidney disease was tested positive for Covid during one of her regular visits to hospital for dialysis treatment. Despite the fact that she then actually died of renal failure, she was consequently listed as a Covid death whether or not her Covid infection – if she actually had one – was a contributing factor.
That’s not to say, of course, that SARS-CoV-2 is not real, that a lot of people weren’t made very ill by it, or that many of those made ill didn’t then die from it. One only has to look at the excess death statistics for 2020 and 2021 to see that it was a very serious disease. Basic mortality figures, however, don’t always tell the whole story and, in some cases, such as this, can even be slightly misleading. For in determining the seriousness of an epidemic, an even more important figure than the number of deaths attributed to it are the number of years of life lost as a consequence. The reason why the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918 to 1921 was so devastating, for instance, is not just because it killed between twenty and fifty million people worldwide, but because most of them were young, therefore depriving human beings collectively of billions of ‘life-years’.
In contrast, the average age of those who have died of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK has been 83 – 81 in men and 85 in women – both of which figures are actually above the average life expectancy for the respective genders.
That’s not to say, of course, that these deaths are somehow unimportant. We all dread dying and most if not all deaths are the cause of grief to someone. But at a time when governments should have been urging people to stay calm and go on with their lives as usual – especially young people, for whom the risks were so small as to be negligible – by publishing the cumulative death toll each day and going on television to tell people to stay at home and maintain social distancing, what politicians and their accomplices in the media actually did was generate huge amounts of irrational fear, the most potent and ubiquitous symbol of which was the wearing of face masks, which served no purpose other than to remind people of the fear which drove them to submit to such an irrational practice.
I say this because surgical masks have a mesh size of 600 microns. The average diameter of a virus, in contrast, is just 5 microns. This means that, relatively speaking, viruses can pass through the weave of a surgical mask with acres of room to spare. This is because surgical masks are simply not designed to protect people from viruses. They are designed to protect people from ‘splash’, both in the form of bacteria-laden spittle coming from the mouth of the surgeon as he talks to his team, and in the form of arterial spray and other bodily fluids emanating from the patient. If you want a mask that will protect you from viruses, you need a HAZMAT mask, which is manufactured to a much higher specification and will cost you considerably more.
While the wearing of face masks may thus have been the most obvious symbol of our collective hysteria, however, compelling people to cover their faces with these useless pieces of cloth was probably one of the least harmful things governments did during this period. Far more destructive was their unnecessary imposition of isolationary social measures which not only closed down large parts of the economy – as well as schools and doctors’ surgeries – but prevented friends and families from getting together to console each other and cheer each other up: social interactions which are absolutely essential for maintaining morale during periods of adversity.
Worse still, with large parts of the retail, hospitality and entertainment industries closed, preventing millions of people from earning a living, governments then took the logically necessary but economically preposterous step of paying them to do nothing, thereby enabling people to go on eating and paying their rent, and hence maintaining demand, while production was inevitably falling. What’s more, they thought they could fund these furlough payments by printing more money, as if increasing the base money supply while the supply of goods and services was contracting wasn’t going to cause inflation.
Not, of course, that it happened over night, not least because with bars, restaurants, cinemas and all but the most ‘essential’ shops closed, there wasn’t a lot for people to spend their furlough payments on. Worried about the future, many people even paid down their credit cards. As soon as the economy started to open up again, however, the extra money in circulation naturally caused inflation to start rising, especially as, with many businesses not reopening and supply chains disrupted, shortages were also beginning to appear.
What makes this whole litany of government misjudgements and mistakes so monstrous, however, is not just the damage they caused, but the fact that none of them were necessary. As demonstrated by Sweden, which did not impose lockdowns and which suffered no higher mortality rate than any other western country, governments would have done better if they had done nothing at all. What makes this even worse, however, is that what they did was not based on their own considered judgements. For feeling compelled to do something but not knowing what, for the most part they simply copied each other, no doubt believing that by doing what everyone else was doing they couldn’t be blamed if it all went wrong. Not only was this sheep-like behaviour a complete abdication of governmental responsibility, however, but it made those making the decisions even more susceptible to those who actually had an agenda: ‘Big Pharma’.
3. The mRNA Vaccines: A Fundamentally Flawed Technology
Not, of course, that governments needed very much persuading to accept the help of a pharmaceutical industry which, for a few hundred billion dollars, was more than happy to come to their aid. In fact, it was more or less inevitable that once governments had discovered that the virus had been genetically engineered and had therefore decided to put most of their efforts into preventing it from spreading, they would opt for programmes of mass vaccination as soon as a vaccine became available. What is a slightly more surprising, however, is the apparent lack of caution they exhibited in opting to go down this route, especially given the fact that all previous attempts to develop a coronavirus vaccine had not just ended in failure but had failed in ways which ought to have caused them some concern.
This is because coronaviruses have successfully coexisted with their human hosts for a long time. And one of the ways in which they have managed to do this is by developing proteins on their surface which mimic human proteins, with the result that the human immune system finds it difficult to differentiate between them. This means that the body’s initial immune response to a coronavirus is usually very weak. This changes, however, if an immune response has already been triggered, as happens when someone is vaccinated, after which any exposure to the actual virus can then set off what is known as a cytokine storm, in which, unable to distinguish between the virus and the body’s own cells, the body’s immune system actually attacks its own cells, resulting in multiple organ failure and death. Unable to solve this problem, it was this, in fact, which caused an international programme to develop a coronavirus vaccine to be abandoned in 2017.
It is also worth noting that many patients who have died from SARS-Cov-2 over the last three years were not actually killed by the virus itself, but by a cytokine storm. Indeed, it is the ever-present possibility of this extreme immune response that turns an otherwise fairly innocuous virus into something more serious.
It was after the collapse of the WHO vaccine development programme, however, that, with respect to coronaviruses, most of the large pharmaceutical companies turned their attention to an alternative method of vaccination, which, instead of using actual viruses – albeit in a weakened state – uses messenger RNA molecules, which chemically instruct human cells to produce a foreign protein specific to a particular pathogen. It is this foreign protein or antigen which then stimulates the immune response, teaching the body to identify and destroy the pathogen in question.
The advantage of this approach is that the foreign protein one selects to perform this role need not be – and, indeed, should not be – one with any similarities to a human protein. That is why, in the case of SARS-Cov-2, the protein chosen for the Covid mRNA vaccines was a peplomer or ‘spike’ protein, the sole function of which is to enable the virus to enter human cells by interacting with their ACE 2 receptors. As such, nothing like it is naturally produced by the human body, thereby eliminating the risk of a cytokine storm when the recipient is exposed to the actual virus.
While mRNA vaccines would thus seem to be the ideal solution for countering coronaviruses, however, employing them in the current context was still, nevertheless, taking a massive risk. For while mRNA technology has been around for quite a while, having been successfully demonstrated for the first time in 2005, even by 2020, no large scale trials had ever taken place. This meant that when governments around the world effectively agreed to field test it on their entire populations, there were two things in particular they did not know. The first of these was how effective these new mRNA vaccines were. Did they, for instance, afford people the same level of protection as a traditional vaccine and, if so, for how long. The second and even more important question, however, was what risks attached to injecting people with a vaccine which induces human cells to produce a foreign protein. What happens to those cells, both in fulfilling this task and when the protein they have created is attacked by the human immune system?
As it happened, the answer to the first question emerged fairly quickly when it was announced that people would need more than one shot, a minimum of two doses being required, very possibly followed by a booster within twelve months. By the beginning of 2022, what’s more, it was also becoming apparent that people who had received three or even four shots could still contract the virus and pass it on, making it fairly obvious, therefore, that the vaccines had failed in their primary objective of stopping the spread.
Not that this stopped politicians from still extolling their benefits or mandating their use. With stunning illogicality, Joe Biden even blamed the continued spread of the virus on those who had refused to be vaccinated, not seeming to realise that, if the vaccines afforded the vaccinated the protection that was claimed, then they should not have been at risk from anyone – whether vaccinated or not – whereas, if the vaccines did not afford them this protection, then there was no point in taking them, making the decision of those who declined to take the vaccine an entirely rational one, especially as, by this point, adverse reactions had started to be reported, the most prominent and well publicised of which was the sudden collapse and even death of otherwise fit and healthy young men who were usually engaged in some kind of sporting activity at the time, the most probable cause being myocarditis or a weakening of the heart muscle due to inflammation.
Not, of course, that we can yet be sure that myocarditis, where diagnosed, or, indeed, any other condition or symptom reported as an adverse reaction to the vaccine is, in fact, vaccine related. For even if a correlation were statistically established – and I’m not sure that even this has been done – we would still need to establish a causal connection. There already exists, however, one theory, which I first heard put forward by Dr. John Campbell in one of his regular YouTube talks, which, if correct, would not only explain how mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis but why they may also be damaging other organs as well.
It stems from the fact that while all vaccines not orally administered are intended to be injected into a muscle, occasionally the needle enters a blood vessel, the evidence for which is usually a small spot of blood at the puncture site. In the case of traditional vaccines, this is not a problem because they actually contain the antigen to which we want the immune system to respond and to which it responds in exactly the same way whether it is encountered in a muscle or the bloodstream. This is not the case, however, with respect to mRNA vaccines, which only cause the antigen to be produced when the mRNA molecule enters a human cell and issues the necessary instructions.
The problem is that mRNA molecules are, themselves, regarded by the immune system as foreign substances and would, themselves, be attacked if they were not protected in some way. In fact, one of the biggest obstacles scientists had to overcome in developing mRNA technology was getting the mRNA molecules into human cells before they were, themselves, destroyed. The solution they came up with was, therefore, to encapsulate the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles, which the immune system does see as alien and which also aid the absorption of mRNA molecules by the recipient cells.
What this also means, however, is that once a lipid-coated mRNA molecule has got into the bloodstream, it can travel anywhere in the body unmolested. And one of the places through which all surfers of the bloodstream pass, of course, is the heart, to the cell walls of which the mRNA molecules then attach themselves. They are then absorbed into the cells and instruct them to produce the desired antigen, in this case the SARS-Cov-2 spike protein. This is then expressed on the surface of the cell where it is attacked by the immune system, incidentally causing inflammation to the cell itself: myocarditis.
Of course, this is just a theory. We don’t know that this is what is actually happening. In order to do so, we would need to run tests to find out and, as far as I know, this has not been done. In fact, there is a lot of work on mRNA vaccines which has not been done, which is the root cause of the problem. Yes, trials were conducted on the vaccines in 2020, but they do not appear to have been particularly thorough, with many of the results being seemingly ignored. In both the Pfizer and Moderna trials, for instance, there was one serious adverse reaction reported for every eight hundred vaccinations administered, a rate far higher than would have been acceptable in any other vaccine trial in history. Indeed, in all previous vaccine trials, a rate of more than one serious adverse reaction in every ten thousand vaccinations would have caused the vaccine’s release to be delayed until the cause of the problem had been discovered and a solution found and tested. In their haste to start using the Covid vaccines, however, governments seem to have thought that, if the vaccines brought the pandemic to an end, then a few adverse reactions were acceptable. They even gave the pharmaceutical companies immunity from being sued for damages if their products killed people, which, of course, is precisely what is now happening.
According to the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS), there were 1,568 excess deaths in England and Wales during the third week of January 2023, an increase of 11% on the five year average for non-Covid related deaths for this same week during 2017 to 2019 and 2021 and 2022. Admittedly, 780, or nearly half of these excess deaths were Covid related and therefore have to be discounted. But the rise in non-Covid related excess deaths is still significant, especially as this one week’s figures merely represents the latest data point in a trend which started in May last year, since when Covid related excess deaths have been falling while excess deaths from other causes have been rising. What’s more, this trend is actually counter to what one would have expected given the fact that there were a lot of excess deaths from Covid during 2020 and 2021 and that most of these were among the elderly, the average age being 83. This means that most of these excess or premature deaths were only brought forward by a few years, with the further consequence that, had these people not died in 2020 or 2021, many of them would be dying now, mostly from other age related causes. This therefore has the further implication that, today, we should actually be seeing fewer non-Covid related deaths than the five year average, not more, which also suggests that the non-Covid related excess deaths for the third week of January 2023 may actually be understated.
Again, of course, we do not know that these excess deaths are vaccine related. For again – as far as I know – no research has been done to find out what is actually causing them. On the contrary, every attempt seems to be being made to deflect attention away from these anomalous figures. Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, has even tried to dismiss their significance by suggesting that these excess deaths could be due to people not receiving their statins for the last three years. Not only does this explanation not account for excess deaths among the young, however – young people not being prone to chronic cardiovascular disease – but it would only account for excess heart attacks due to atherosclerosis not myocarditis.
Even more telling is the fact that similar increases in non-Covid excess deaths are happening in the USA, the EU and, indeed, every country which keeps this kind of data, meaning that it cannot be attributed to the failings of any one health service or system. Just likes in February 2020, however, when governments around the world universally denied that the SARS-Cov-2 virus had been genetically altered, so their response to these excess deaths has been to point to any other cause than the one for which they are actually responsible.
Doubtless, those in government are hoping that, if they deny that there is a problem for long enough, it will simply go away: that either the excess deaths will quickly start to decline or that the anomaly will eventually be normalised by the five year moving average. If John Campbell’s theory is correct, however, I doubt whether either of these eventualities will come to their rescue. For although the damage done to the cells of vital organs due to our immune system’s attacks on foreign proteins on their surface may be less severe than a cytokine storm, in some cases it may well be irreparable, either causing death at some later date or chronic health problems, the increased incidence of which will itself attract attention.
Already, for instance, women are reporting long term post-vaccine symptoms which are very probably caused by damage to the uterus or ovaries, as, indeed, a senior executive at Pfizer has admitted may be the case. Given that women tend to be more persistent than men when it comes to health issues, it is therefore to be doubted whether campaigns by women’s group to have this matter properly investigated will be easy to ignore.
Nor, from a wider perspective, can we afford them to be. For the pharmaceutical companies that have developed this technology do not intend that it should only be used for this one coronavirus pandemic. In December 2022, for instance, Moderna signed a ten year deal with the British government to develop and produce 250 million vaccines a year in the UK. If John Campbell’s theory is correct, however, and it is not just the current batch of Covid vaccines that are fundamentally flawed but the entire mRNA technology, our unquestioning acceptance of this technology could lead to a human catastrophe on a monumental scale.
There is also a clear conflict of interest here. For while the British government clearly has an interest in Moderna manufacturing billions of dollars’ worth of products in this country, and has almost certainly offered them some inducement to set up a factory here, it is also responsible for purchasing millions of pounds’ worth of these products on behalf of its own citizens and owes them a duty of care to ensure that these products are safe. Given the catalogue of failings for which the government has been responsible over the last three year, however, how much faith do we have that this duty of care will be properly discharged?
More fundamentally, what the last three years should have taught us is that we cannot allow governments a free hand in these matters without proper oversight. Too many of the extraordinary measures which the UK government took with respect to Covid were passed with hardly any parliamentary discussion, while criticism was more or less banished from the media. To prevent this happening again, what is required, more than anything else, therefore, is a culture of healthy scepticism and debate, with a strong regard for empirical evidence and rational argument, all of which has been so conspicuously absent throughout this whole debacle. Indeed, one would like to think that if we have learnt anything from the last three years, it would be this. Given the mendacity of our politicians and the unquestioning gullibility of the public, however, I rather doubt it.
