Updated 10 January with further personal comments A new peer-reviewed study of public covid data in six northern European countries (in which I was one of several authors) has discovered that the pre-existing seasonal nature of coronaviruses had more impact on reported covid ‘case’ and ‘death’ numbers than any of the government public health interventions – including vaccinations, lockdowns, masks and travel restrictions. The scientific study was published in the peer-reviewed, Journal of Clinical Medicine.
The cynic in me says the vaccine was rolled out from late December 2020 in the knowledge that, whether it worked or not, seasonality meant it could be claimed a success.
It took Prof Puri and I nearly three years to get the following study published. It forecasts COVID deaths remarkably accurately for many counties but UK and US deaths exceed the forecast. End-of-life care? Cook MJ, Puri BK. A Novel and Accurate Method for Estimating Deaths and Cases During Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases Including COVID-19. Int J Gen Med 2023;16:4705–18. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S435975
I don’t agree with Norman that there was a pandemic at all (and perhaps he doesn’t think that anyway) but I am happy that he’s reading the literature than I’m missing.
That lockdowns did anything but harm & always will became clear to me quickly.
It’s more than irritating that few people of influence will say so & ideally say why this is.
In brief, for lockdowns to “work”, you have to believe a number of untrue things.
One in particular is that asymptomatic transmission is an important driver of epidemic spreading.
Even if you’re in Narrative #2020, you know it doesn’t.
Sick people involuntarily go into “lockdown”.
You don’t need to order sick people to do that.
I no longer accept the viral model of acute respiratory illnesses.
Pretend I do, for a moment.
In order to be a good source of infection, you’d need to be carrying a lot of the pathogen.
If you were so carrying, you would have symptoms. It’s attacking you & you’re fighting back.
The other end of the scale also applies. If you’re well, you cannot be a good source of infection.
With asymptomatic transmission dismissed, logically, the only additional people forced to remain out of circulation by lockdowns are those who are completely well.
Those ordering politicians to enforce lockdowns know that perfectly well.
Their objective was nothing to do with “public health” (itself a nonsense idea that’s relatively new).
A few things jumped out at me in the abstract, Norman:
"However, these results are correlations and not causations."
Incredible! I have never read that in any of the pro lockdown studies. I've never read in the abstract of any horseshit modelling study any disclaimers like "these results derive from assumptions many of which we know will be wrong".
I've never read in any masking study that "this observational data should be treated with caution as when we change the period of observation the supposed effect of masking completely disappears".
"Caution should be exercised when extrapolating these findings."
I've been pointing this out to anyone who will listen for two and a half years yet pretty much everyone in New Zealand believes the first lockdown saved us from covid. I'm sure everyone reading this will understand the puzzled, slightly sheepish looks I have received for those years.
I suspect we closed the borders in time preventing it getting properly introduced and as it was the end of a warm, sunny summer here everyone probably had pretty good vitamin d levels.
Norman, the way you wrote this brief article, you partially obscured that you were one of the authors of this study!
I hope that when you and your co-authors used the word "pandemic" (which you did throughout the paper), you solely mean the period of time during which the WHO had said there was a pandemic, not that there actually was a pandemic.
I liked your statement in the conclusion portion of the study, "we suggest that it is time for the epidemic modelling community to revisit current modelling techniques to explicitly account for seasonal influence."
It was obvious by June 2020 that covid was following seasonal patterns, at least in the main. The neglect of modelers to take this into account was glaring from very early on.
Congrats on getting an against WHO / CDC / NHS tyranny paper published in a mainstream journal. Albeit with ‘required’ caveats and neutrality. Many lost their jobs for expressing the views empirically evidenced in your paper. And indeed NPIs were not neutral in outcomes but highly negative for costs and benefits as a whole since they increased poverty and unemployment, suicides, mental illness, inflation and business failures. Most nations have still not recovered economically from this self-imposed disaster and the results will show up in reduced longevity, as did the austerity regime that followed the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. White Brits and N Americans show lost life years from 2010 resulting from government measures to balance the books after bailing out speculators, banks and Wall Street.
Thank you Norman, the study is outstanding IMO, and very valuable to have it in a peer-reviewed journal. Well done all.
Regarding your additional points, isn't the point of your study that the cause of the patterns of deaths (and hospitalisations etc) was most likely a seasonal virus, and not interventions? The fact that the deaths follow the coronavirus seasonal pattern indicates that they are more likely to be connected with the virus rather than the interventions, no? The study seems to me to be clear evidence in support of the virus theory rather than the iatrogenic or NPI theory. I suppose you could argue that the virus deaths were greater than they should have been owing to faulty treatment protocols, and I'm sure that is true to some extent. However, it would still mean the virus was responsible for the deaths – in line with the findings of your study, no?
(Of course I agree that the virus is nowhere near deadly enough to warrant lockdowns and NPIs, even if they worked, which they don't.)
Given that the PCR test is a completely fraudulent diagnostic method and that CONVID cases are declared based on this fraud, or on less, the CONVID case and death numbers are of course equally fraudulent.
"I was disgusted that the Declaration was still pushing for ‘targeted protection’ - i.e. lockdown - of the elderly." Amen, brother! That too was a vicious and absolutely unjustifiable human rights violation.
The cynic in me says the vaccine was rolled out from late December 2020 in the knowledge that, whether it worked or not, seasonality meant it could be claimed a success.
It took Prof Puri and I nearly three years to get the following study published. It forecasts COVID deaths remarkably accurately for many counties but UK and US deaths exceed the forecast. End-of-life care? Cook MJ, Puri BK. A Novel and Accurate Method for Estimating Deaths and Cases During Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases Including COVID-19. Int J Gen Med 2023;16:4705–18. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S435975
I don’t agree with Norman that there was a pandemic at all (and perhaps he doesn’t think that anyway) but I am happy that he’s reading the literature than I’m missing.
That lockdowns did anything but harm & always will became clear to me quickly.
It’s more than irritating that few people of influence will say so & ideally say why this is.
In brief, for lockdowns to “work”, you have to believe a number of untrue things.
One in particular is that asymptomatic transmission is an important driver of epidemic spreading.
Even if you’re in Narrative #2020, you know it doesn’t.
Sick people involuntarily go into “lockdown”.
You don’t need to order sick people to do that.
I no longer accept the viral model of acute respiratory illnesses.
Pretend I do, for a moment.
In order to be a good source of infection, you’d need to be carrying a lot of the pathogen.
If you were so carrying, you would have symptoms. It’s attacking you & you’re fighting back.
The other end of the scale also applies. If you’re well, you cannot be a good source of infection.
With asymptomatic transmission dismissed, logically, the only additional people forced to remain out of circulation by lockdowns are those who are completely well.
Those ordering politicians to enforce lockdowns know that perfectly well.
Their objective was nothing to do with “public health” (itself a nonsense idea that’s relatively new).
Best wishes
Mike
.
At This Point
Telling Someone
That The Vaccine Is Safe And Effective
Is Like Telling A Cancer Victim
That They Look Good In Short Hair.
.
Just read the paper now.
A few things jumped out at me in the abstract, Norman:
"However, these results are correlations and not causations."
Incredible! I have never read that in any of the pro lockdown studies. I've never read in the abstract of any horseshit modelling study any disclaimers like "these results derive from assumptions many of which we know will be wrong".
I've never read in any masking study that "this observational data should be treated with caution as when we change the period of observation the supposed effect of masking completely disappears".
"Caution should be exercised when extrapolating these findings."
I don't remember that ever being said about all the "data" coming from China at the start of the covid debacle. Here in New Zealand our first lockdown began "working" pretty much from day one (nicely shown in chart here https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30225-5/fulltext). I've never heard a singe "expert" or "public health" official here state "as it takes two weeks for lockdowns to start having an effect, we should be cautious in attributing the disappearance of covid to the lockdown intervention" And the two week lag is according to the pro lockdowners "science" not mine as shown here https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-03-2020/siouxsie-wiles-toby-morris-why-are-we-locked-down-for-so-long-blame-the-lag).
I've been pointing this out to anyone who will listen for two and a half years yet pretty much everyone in New Zealand believes the first lockdown saved us from covid. I'm sure everyone reading this will understand the puzzled, slightly sheepish looks I have received for those years.
I suspect we closed the borders in time preventing it getting properly introduced and as it was the end of a warm, sunny summer here everyone probably had pretty good vitamin d levels.
This (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.20248936v1) is one of the best real world studies of lockdowns I read, it's hugely damming and has sat on preprint for three years.
Even after all I've seen since 2020, I'm still gobsmacked at what has happened to science and how weak minded the majority of western society is.
And it seems to get worse not better.
We can't go on lying like this can we?
Thank you,as always, to Professor Fenton: the truth will out ,slowly but surely,despite denials, obfuscation and vested interests.
Never again!
Remove ANY data generated from the fraudulent and meaningless PCR tests and you have NOTHING.
Go back to old WHO's pandemic criteria of excess mortality instead of excess cases and you have NOTHING either!! #WHOsponsoredGENOCIDE
Norman, the way you wrote this brief article, you partially obscured that you were one of the authors of this study!
I hope that when you and your co-authors used the word "pandemic" (which you did throughout the paper), you solely mean the period of time during which the WHO had said there was a pandemic, not that there actually was a pandemic.
I liked your statement in the conclusion portion of the study, "we suggest that it is time for the epidemic modelling community to revisit current modelling techniques to explicitly account for seasonal influence."
It was obvious by June 2020 that covid was following seasonal patterns, at least in the main. The neglect of modelers to take this into account was glaring from very early on.
Congrats on getting an against WHO / CDC / NHS tyranny paper published in a mainstream journal. Albeit with ‘required’ caveats and neutrality. Many lost their jobs for expressing the views empirically evidenced in your paper. And indeed NPIs were not neutral in outcomes but highly negative for costs and benefits as a whole since they increased poverty and unemployment, suicides, mental illness, inflation and business failures. Most nations have still not recovered economically from this self-imposed disaster and the results will show up in reduced longevity, as did the austerity regime that followed the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. White Brits and N Americans show lost life years from 2010 resulting from government measures to balance the books after bailing out speculators, banks and Wall Street.
Thank you Norman, the study is outstanding IMO, and very valuable to have it in a peer-reviewed journal. Well done all.
Regarding your additional points, isn't the point of your study that the cause of the patterns of deaths (and hospitalisations etc) was most likely a seasonal virus, and not interventions? The fact that the deaths follow the coronavirus seasonal pattern indicates that they are more likely to be connected with the virus rather than the interventions, no? The study seems to me to be clear evidence in support of the virus theory rather than the iatrogenic or NPI theory. I suppose you could argue that the virus deaths were greater than they should have been owing to faulty treatment protocols, and I'm sure that is true to some extent. However, it would still mean the virus was responsible for the deaths – in line with the findings of your study, no?
(Of course I agree that the virus is nowhere near deadly enough to warrant lockdowns and NPIs, even if they worked, which they don't.)
Willie Soon refers to his Covid paper in this interview with Tucker Carlson
https://open.substack.com/pub/vigilantfox/p/astrophysicist-drops-a-nuclear-bomb?r=peo1w&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Given that the PCR test is a completely fraudulent diagnostic method and that CONVID cases are declared based on this fraud, or on less, the CONVID case and death numbers are of course equally fraudulent.
Thank you, Dr. Fenton.
.
It Comes Down To Self-Esteem.
Not Intelligence.
The More Self-Esteem You Have The Less Likely You Were To Take The Vaccine.
If Your Esteem Is Derived From Clinging To A Group And To The Consensus Of Those Held In “Higher Esteem” Then By Necessity You Followed The Dictates.
If Your Self-Esteem Is Independent Of What Others Think, Or Think Of You, You Didn’t.
.
Big red flag: Why is Steven Hatfill on this paper?
"I was disgusted that the Declaration was still pushing for ‘targeted protection’ - i.e. lockdown - of the elderly." Amen, brother! That too was a vicious and absolutely unjustifiable human rights violation.