We have not been and are not facing what RFK Jr has termed “a mismanaged pandemic,” a stance supported by most “health freedom” celebrities. What we are dealing with is fraud, tyranny and mass murder.
Reifying the Big Lie that there ever was a "pandemic" caused by a "unique viral pathogen" in 2020 covers up the crimes of what actually happened in the hospitals and nursing homes, covers up the staged events that created the illusion of a medical emergency and provides cover for those who designed and executed this operation.
Perpetuating the lie that there was a pandemic (all pandemics are fictions) justifies the “pandemic preparedness industry” through which Big Pharma Corporations and their investors can keep siphoning trillions from taxpayers via public/private partnerships- the public foots the bill, the private sector reaps the profits.
This bogus pandemic fairy tale needs to be confronted head on in the "health freedom movement" as those with the biggest audiences by and large reinforce the "pandemic" narrative and create fertile ground for justifying all sorts of future "emergency measures." .
There was no pandemic ever- there is no "lab leak"- there is no "unique viral pathogen"- there is no "China Virus"- there is no "bioweapon"- There is no "There" there.
It is all fraud piled on top of fraud.
The only pandemic that occurred was one of violent government and medical assault against people, of false attribution of death, and of intense propaganda using fraudulent tests and bogus studies.
The official narrative of "Covid" is fiction- all facets of it.
Thanks for the update. I think you did quite well with the data you had available. I tell you who didn't do well with the data THEY had available (and still don't)...the CDC and other health authorities.
Regarding risk, two related questions I've had for a long time are these:
1) By how much did SARS-CoV-2 infection increase the risk of hospitalization and death, divorced from iatrogenic harms, bias in cause of death attribution, etc. - and for whom?
2) When did those risks "begin"? How do we know/are we sure?
Your discussion is very interesting. If I may be presumptuous enough to suggest you consider in any future work, "Consider the source". I have been following Fauxi for almost 40 years and he truly is the embodiment of "if his lips are moving, he is lying". Fauxi's AIDS lies, so brilliantly destroyed by the great Peter Duesberg, were legend long before the Covid Scam. As an example, Fauxi lied about heterosexual spread of AIDS for almost a decade. It is not a small thing to say is he fundamentally changed sexual relations by introducing the fear of AIDS. He intentionally did it to build massive support to finance his evil empire which expanded exponentially with the AIDS scam. He may have lied about the risks of heterosexual sex by factors of 1000, a monstrous lie, much like teenage Covid risks. When it didn't matter, Fauxi admitted he was wrong on that great forum for scientific debate, Oprah.
While this may be weak statistics, in law you can discount any information from someone who is a proven liar. Maybe we can create the Fauxian prior based on the Fauxi Factor:
Fauxi Factor = Frequency of lies times the Magnitude of the impact
All I can add-being a dimwit when it comes to graphs and stats etc-is that 2 friends, dedicated followers of lockdowns, masks and the jabberwocky-have been afflicted by a variety of infections in the past 12 months or so; the younger one is struggling with a chest infection ,treated with antibiotics, but not tested for bacterial versus viral origin; last year,she had a severe bout of flu; the older friend developed severe shingles earlier this year, and caught the lurgy last year while on holiday in NZ: at least, the tests were positive.
These 2 would accept more jabs and still have not questioned the rationale for the official GBH imposed on us.
However, I'm gleefully noting the unravelling of the draconian nonsense inflicted by High Priestess Sturgeon and her commissars : burner phones, lost Whatsapp chats, Devi Sridhar's belated admission that Zero Covid was not-a good-idea:( many of us plebs could have told her so); and finally, the opportunity to employ lockdown intrusions to bolster the case for independence.
My understanding is antibodies have also been debunked, or at least there is no controlled scientific experiment proving that antibodies are specific to a unique disease. In short there is no way to test for "covid" nor any "virus".
Thinking further about the Fauxian prior based on the Fauxi, I realized I left out a critical, experimentally important component which I humbly submit for consideration:
Modified Fauxi Factor = Frequency of lies times the Magnitude of the impact times (Mainstream Media appearances) to the power of S
Yes, we can only work with the limited data available, which remains a problem until now due to Public Health Authorities hiding behind "individual record confidentiality" and, of course, once a death Certificate has been incorrectly issued, there is no going back.
The survival rate of 99.7% seems entirely realistic based on this and other data but again, as you correctly note, this is an overall figure not representative of each age cohort. In fact, it seems that for the age cohort below 70, there is a survival rate of 99.95%. This again reflects not only the weaaker immune response in older patients but also the iatrogenic effects of the response, particularly pronounced in older cohorts.
A lovely article, agree until the last paragraph. The last 3 bullet points have been chewed over in all sorts of other places, but are not supported by the analysis in this article. The counter factuals for the various contributions of altered medical care, eg what was "denial of appropriate medical care" and what would have been the outcomes otherwise, are essentially little more than educated guesses,
KELLY: "I think I'm right in saying JN1 is a sub-sub-sub-sub variant of Omicron. So it's related to other previous ones that your listeners would have heard about. It's been labelled a variant of interest though by the World Health Organisation on the 20th of December. And so we are interested, we are monitoring, and we have seen in Australia over quite a rapid period, you know, since early December that that new strain has- is now the dominant strain in Australia, as has occurred in many other countries. As you said in your introduction, there's no evidence, though, that it's related to more severe disease. And when you look at the wave we're having now, which is substantial- you know, I know people that have COVID, I'm sure you and many of your listeners would also know people. So that's a sign that COVID is circulating in the community. But there's really been no evidence of an increased rate of death, even and including in aged care, and ICU rates remain relatively stable. So whilst there's a lot of cases, and yes, it has had an effect on hospitalisation as you mentioned, particularly in the eastern states, there is evidence to show that this wave is less severe than previous waves, and this is the way that we're going to see COVID now and into the future."
AND
KELLY: "...the hospitalisation- remember that as people come into hospital, they are tested. You know, I had to have some- something- a small procedure in November. And, you know, I was tested twice. I wasn't there because of COVID and ended up being negative, but- so some people that come into hospital are tested, but they're not there due to their COVID, if that makes sense. But that aside, there are people that are sick from this virus as has been the case all throughout. But we're not seeing the kind of, you know, huge disruption to the community or to health services, or that very, you know, massive severe disease and death that we were seeing earlier in the pandemic. And that's mainly due to hybrid immunity that we have at the moment from previous infection, but crucially, from our high vaccination rates."
AND
KELLY: ...And you mentioned that the vaccination rates could be improved and that they are being improved in the two weeks before Christmas, and that this will be in the- in our monthly report nationally will be published today demonstrates that that rate of vaccine did increase, particularly in older people and including in aged care. So I think that's heading in the right direction, and I would encourage anyone listening that is eligible for a booster to go and get one.
ORITI: Kenny, I want to ask you about that now. Let's turn our attention to the boosters. A month ago, we actually reported on this story. Two new boosters became available for Australians. Are you confident they're effective against J.N1?
KELLY: Yes, they are effective against J.N1 and all other variants that are currently circulating. So this was a shift in the vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna, reflecting the change in the virus over recent- over the last year. Of course, you can't do that on a real time basis like we do with flu vaccine. We do change that every year on the basis of what's circulating at the time. But then it takes time to make these vaccines. So these are XBB vaccines, which are closely related. They’re still Omicron and they still- the tests we've had both here in Australia and elsewhere is that it works against J.N1 as well.
ORITI: Are you concerned about the uptake though? I mentioned those figures in the introduction there. You did express some optimism a moment ago, but sent that message for people to go and get their boosters. I mean, it's clear a lot of people are not. A lot of people say: I've had my three or my four. That's it, I'm done for now. Are you concerned about that, that our immunity will wane over time? And we're going to continue to see more variants.
KELLY: Yeah. Look, I think one of the reasons why we're seeing a wave now and the previous waves is a waning of immunity. Of course, anyone that gets COVID now are protected from that- from the first three doses. And we have very high rates of three doses of vaccine, so they will get a boost to their immunity from this latest wave. I am concerned about the- those that are more vulnerable to severe disease – so that's people who are over the age of 75 in particular. And so the ATAGI advice at the moment is that they should be getting an extra dose, and that includes those in aged care.
The reality is, though, Thomas, as you've mentioned, that people are kind of sick of it. They feel that they're relatively protected. Their lived experience of COVID now is nowhere near as severe for most people compared with earlier in the in the pandemic, but it is still a serious issue for those that are more vulnerable to severe disease. And they definitely should be getting a vaccine along the lines of the ATAGI advice right now. There'll be more advice later in the year for the ongoing COVID vaccination program, and we'll obviously be talking about that at the appropriate time.
ORITI: Yeah, because I was going to ask, because the Department of Health website says: if you've already received your recommended doses in 2023, you don't need any other doses and should wait until new advice is provided. So you're saying we'll be expecting that advice later this year? Is that right?
KELLY: Yes. I think we certainly will want that before winter. I think we need to as similar- as countries like Australia in other parts of the world – the UK, thinking of the UK, US and Europe, for example – they're starting to get more into a pre-winter top up idea, if they’re- and there's a bit of different views there in different countries as to who should get a top up. But an annual booster or something like that might be where we go. But of course we'll be guided by the ATAGI advice, and they in turn will be guided by the best evidence at the time.
So for the moment, you're right. The people under the age of 75, there's no- if you've had a vaccine, and there's a lot that didn't during 2023, they shouldn't be getting another boost at this stage. But if you haven't had a 2023 booster, you can get one. For those over 75, it's highly recommended that they get a second booster, and for 65 to 74, that's a matter to discuss with your GP, including those with other high risk illnesses younger than that.
ORITI: We're almost out of time, but what if you're not? What if you're in your 30s, 40s? Happy, healthy – you're saying I could go and get the booster now. Is your advice they should? If they haven't got comorbidities and they're in a younger age group, should you just go out and get it?
KELLY: Look, I think that's a personal choice issue, if people- and it depends on how people are feeling about their own personal risk. In reality, people at that younger age group are not at- are no longer at risk of severe disease from- severe complications from COVID, really, in the majority. So it's a risk benefit equation people should consider. The other thing I'd say, though, Thomas, is those that are eligible in that higher risk group for antiviral treatments, they should have that plan with their GP, get a test and get a prescription. There was 93,000 people had antiviral treatment in December, which was the highest through the whole year. So that's encouraging that that’s- people are taking that advice. It also reflects what we were talking about before. That's a very key statistic we look at for what's actually happening in the community. It's sometimes more helpful than the actual- the voluntary information in that way.
"In conclusion we were naïve and too trusting of the authorities, but also at that time we were blind to the iatrogenic healthcare effects and the issues with PCR testing."
Perhaps, but it may be more accurate to amend the former part of that conclusion to read "In hindsight, we were too trusting of the authorities."
What was the alternative, hysterical admission to the conspiratorium?
You know best what conclusions to draw from such information as was slowly forced into the public sphere at the point of a solicitor's pen, but I require more evidence to blandly accept naivete as the reason for trusting these particular authorities.
The original pandemic response plan was measured and realistic. When it was abandoned in favor of..... what replaced it, the situation was not conducive to the sort of investigation that would have justified abandoning all trust.
That you might somehow think that you "should have known" would be natural and normal from any person with a conscience and sense of duty. So, fine; be regretful in your efforts to maintain intellectual and moral integrity, but don't be surprised when folks respond with "so you've got a conscience and 20-20 hindsight binoculars and think you should have done better? Perfectionists gonna perfectionist."
Sorry, prof, aim for perfection and be content with "very good indeed."
Thanks for the update and the link to the paper.
Oh, and thanks for sticking to the verifiable evidence. It's been quite the struggle for we onlookers to avoid haring off after the wildest of speculations being bruited about. A few such as yourself have been steadying influences, and the value of that is perhaps higher than you may realize.
Boy, you are speaking my language. I've always thought we couldn't know the real IFR because nobody really knew how many people had contracted this virus pre "official Covid." That is, the denominator ("Covid cases" or "Covid infected") was completely unknown. And is still unknown.
I'm also suspicious of antibody results because I don't think these tests capture everyone who had a "prior infection." I also think public health agencies have concealed the number of people who tested positive for antibodies in the earliest antibody tests (which became widely-available only in late April 2020).
In my research, I have identified scores of Americans who had Covid symptoms in November and December 2019 and January 2020 who later tested positive for antibodies. What stands out to me about these results is that people in at least 17 states tested positive for antibodies. How could we have "isolated" cases or "no spread" if people in 17 far-flung states and communities all had Covid at roughly the same time?
These results tell me this virus was spreading person-to-person across the country. The virus didn't just fall out of the sky and infect a few people. Also, those people were infected by unknown people and they were spreading it to other people as well (those people just didn't get later antibody tests that we know of).
From this deductive-reasoning exercise, I conclude that tens of millions of people must have been infected before, say, March 1, 2020. My next question is: If this is true, where were all the excess all-cause deaths ... if the IFR was 1 percent, 3.4 percent or even 0.3 to 0.5 percent?
Nobody can find a spike in excess deaths in the world before March 1, 2020. FWIW, that includes China, supposedly the birth place of virus spread. In China, per China officials, fewer than 200 people in the entire country of 1.4 billion people had died "from Covid" by the end of January. Maybe China concealed Covid deaths, but even if there were, say, 2,000 Covid deaths by this date, the IFR would be miniscule - about the same as the flu, as the authors note.
Lastly, did the virus suddenly and belatedly become "lethal?" After the lockdowns to prevent spread? That also doesn't seem plausible to me.
This isn't a criticism directed at anyone. I wish that we didn't talk about it (the virus) being 'covid' or Covid-19'....it makes it something 'special' or even 'novel' ( as the KC Keith with his questioning of a witness in the Hallett Inquiry was at great pains to establish). Yes, I know we've had Asian Flu, Russian flu, Swine flu but the common denominator is the term 'flu'. Fauci is on record saying that people weren't sufficiently scared of the 'flu ( too complacent for Big Pharma's ops, perhaps) so this flu like illness was specifically labelled 'Covid-19'..and people could 'own' that label in a way that wasn't 'just' the flu going around. All the fear propaganda and draconian restrictions plus the jabs were built on that term, 'Covid-19'. For me it was the virus, a flu like illness, circulating in 2020, which caused no greater impacts on mortality than other flu like illnesses, which circulate this country and others in different parts of the world.
A neighbour still talks about having had Covid-19 recently....it has become established as something worth talking about! A badge of belonging.
We have not been and are not facing what RFK Jr has termed “a mismanaged pandemic,” a stance supported by most “health freedom” celebrities. What we are dealing with is fraud, tyranny and mass murder.
Reifying the Big Lie that there ever was a "pandemic" caused by a "unique viral pathogen" in 2020 covers up the crimes of what actually happened in the hospitals and nursing homes, covers up the staged events that created the illusion of a medical emergency and provides cover for those who designed and executed this operation.
Perpetuating the lie that there was a pandemic (all pandemics are fictions) justifies the “pandemic preparedness industry” through which Big Pharma Corporations and their investors can keep siphoning trillions from taxpayers via public/private partnerships- the public foots the bill, the private sector reaps the profits.
This bogus pandemic fairy tale needs to be confronted head on in the "health freedom movement" as those with the biggest audiences by and large reinforce the "pandemic" narrative and create fertile ground for justifying all sorts of future "emergency measures." .
There was no pandemic ever- there is no "lab leak"- there is no "unique viral pathogen"- there is no "China Virus"- there is no "bioweapon"- There is no "There" there.
It is all fraud piled on top of fraud.
The only pandemic that occurred was one of violent government and medical assault against people, of false attribution of death, and of intense propaganda using fraudulent tests and bogus studies.
The official narrative of "Covid" is fiction- all facets of it.
Thanks for the update. I think you did quite well with the data you had available. I tell you who didn't do well with the data THEY had available (and still don't)...the CDC and other health authorities.
Iatrogenic deaths.
Clotshot deaths.
democide.
Well done, Gentlemen.
Regarding risk, two related questions I've had for a long time are these:
1) By how much did SARS-CoV-2 infection increase the risk of hospitalization and death, divorced from iatrogenic harms, bias in cause of death attribution, etc. - and for whom?
2) When did those risks "begin"? How do we know/are we sure?
Your discussion is very interesting. If I may be presumptuous enough to suggest you consider in any future work, "Consider the source". I have been following Fauxi for almost 40 years and he truly is the embodiment of "if his lips are moving, he is lying". Fauxi's AIDS lies, so brilliantly destroyed by the great Peter Duesberg, were legend long before the Covid Scam. As an example, Fauxi lied about heterosexual spread of AIDS for almost a decade. It is not a small thing to say is he fundamentally changed sexual relations by introducing the fear of AIDS. He intentionally did it to build massive support to finance his evil empire which expanded exponentially with the AIDS scam. He may have lied about the risks of heterosexual sex by factors of 1000, a monstrous lie, much like teenage Covid risks. When it didn't matter, Fauxi admitted he was wrong on that great forum for scientific debate, Oprah.
While this may be weak statistics, in law you can discount any information from someone who is a proven liar. Maybe we can create the Fauxian prior based on the Fauxi Factor:
Fauxi Factor = Frequency of lies times the Magnitude of the impact
Keep up the great work.
A man only becomes a failure when they refuse to correct mistakes they can easily fix.
All I can add-being a dimwit when it comes to graphs and stats etc-is that 2 friends, dedicated followers of lockdowns, masks and the jabberwocky-have been afflicted by a variety of infections in the past 12 months or so; the younger one is struggling with a chest infection ,treated with antibiotics, but not tested for bacterial versus viral origin; last year,she had a severe bout of flu; the older friend developed severe shingles earlier this year, and caught the lurgy last year while on holiday in NZ: at least, the tests were positive.
These 2 would accept more jabs and still have not questioned the rationale for the official GBH imposed on us.
However, I'm gleefully noting the unravelling of the draconian nonsense inflicted by High Priestess Sturgeon and her commissars : burner phones, lost Whatsapp chats, Devi Sridhar's belated admission that Zero Covid was not-a good-idea:( many of us plebs could have told her so); and finally, the opportunity to employ lockdown intrusions to bolster the case for independence.
My understanding is antibodies have also been debunked, or at least there is no controlled scientific experiment proving that antibodies are specific to a unique disease. In short there is no way to test for "covid" nor any "virus".
Thinking further about the Fauxian prior based on the Fauxi, I realized I left out a critical, experimentally important component which I humbly submit for consideration:
Modified Fauxi Factor = Frequency of lies times the Magnitude of the impact times (Mainstream Media appearances) to the power of S
Where S = the number of major Scams Fauxi has run
FYI …S will be increasing soon
Yes, we can only work with the limited data available, which remains a problem until now due to Public Health Authorities hiding behind "individual record confidentiality" and, of course, once a death Certificate has been incorrectly issued, there is no going back.
The survival rate of 99.7% seems entirely realistic based on this and other data but again, as you correctly note, this is an overall figure not representative of each age cohort. In fact, it seems that for the age cohort below 70, there is a survival rate of 99.95%. This again reflects not only the weaaker immune response in older patients but also the iatrogenic effects of the response, particularly pronounced in older cohorts.
A lovely article, agree until the last paragraph. The last 3 bullet points have been chewed over in all sorts of other places, but are not supported by the analysis in this article. The counter factuals for the various contributions of altered medical care, eg what was "denial of appropriate medical care" and what would have been the outcomes otherwise, are essentially little more than educated guesses,
.
I’ve Had Eight Shots
And I Want More !
The More Bizarre The Chemicals
The Better.
.
What do you think about recent comments made by Paul Kelly, the Chief Medical Officer in Australia? See this transcript: https://www.health.gov.au/news/chief-medical-officer-professor-paul-kellys-interview-on-abc-news-breakfast-on-12-january-2024
Quoting Paul Kelly from the article:
KELLY: "I think I'm right in saying JN1 is a sub-sub-sub-sub variant of Omicron. So it's related to other previous ones that your listeners would have heard about. It's been labelled a variant of interest though by the World Health Organisation on the 20th of December. And so we are interested, we are monitoring, and we have seen in Australia over quite a rapid period, you know, since early December that that new strain has- is now the dominant strain in Australia, as has occurred in many other countries. As you said in your introduction, there's no evidence, though, that it's related to more severe disease. And when you look at the wave we're having now, which is substantial- you know, I know people that have COVID, I'm sure you and many of your listeners would also know people. So that's a sign that COVID is circulating in the community. But there's really been no evidence of an increased rate of death, even and including in aged care, and ICU rates remain relatively stable. So whilst there's a lot of cases, and yes, it has had an effect on hospitalisation as you mentioned, particularly in the eastern states, there is evidence to show that this wave is less severe than previous waves, and this is the way that we're going to see COVID now and into the future."
AND
KELLY: "...the hospitalisation- remember that as people come into hospital, they are tested. You know, I had to have some- something- a small procedure in November. And, you know, I was tested twice. I wasn't there because of COVID and ended up being negative, but- so some people that come into hospital are tested, but they're not there due to their COVID, if that makes sense. But that aside, there are people that are sick from this virus as has been the case all throughout. But we're not seeing the kind of, you know, huge disruption to the community or to health services, or that very, you know, massive severe disease and death that we were seeing earlier in the pandemic. And that's mainly due to hybrid immunity that we have at the moment from previous infection, but crucially, from our high vaccination rates."
AND
KELLY: ...And you mentioned that the vaccination rates could be improved and that they are being improved in the two weeks before Christmas, and that this will be in the- in our monthly report nationally will be published today demonstrates that that rate of vaccine did increase, particularly in older people and including in aged care. So I think that's heading in the right direction, and I would encourage anyone listening that is eligible for a booster to go and get one.
ORITI: Kenny, I want to ask you about that now. Let's turn our attention to the boosters. A month ago, we actually reported on this story. Two new boosters became available for Australians. Are you confident they're effective against J.N1?
KELLY: Yes, they are effective against J.N1 and all other variants that are currently circulating. So this was a shift in the vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna, reflecting the change in the virus over recent- over the last year. Of course, you can't do that on a real time basis like we do with flu vaccine. We do change that every year on the basis of what's circulating at the time. But then it takes time to make these vaccines. So these are XBB vaccines, which are closely related. They’re still Omicron and they still- the tests we've had both here in Australia and elsewhere is that it works against J.N1 as well.
ORITI: Are you concerned about the uptake though? I mentioned those figures in the introduction there. You did express some optimism a moment ago, but sent that message for people to go and get their boosters. I mean, it's clear a lot of people are not. A lot of people say: I've had my three or my four. That's it, I'm done for now. Are you concerned about that, that our immunity will wane over time? And we're going to continue to see more variants.
KELLY: Yeah. Look, I think one of the reasons why we're seeing a wave now and the previous waves is a waning of immunity. Of course, anyone that gets COVID now are protected from that- from the first three doses. And we have very high rates of three doses of vaccine, so they will get a boost to their immunity from this latest wave. I am concerned about the- those that are more vulnerable to severe disease – so that's people who are over the age of 75 in particular. And so the ATAGI advice at the moment is that they should be getting an extra dose, and that includes those in aged care.
The reality is, though, Thomas, as you've mentioned, that people are kind of sick of it. They feel that they're relatively protected. Their lived experience of COVID now is nowhere near as severe for most people compared with earlier in the in the pandemic, but it is still a serious issue for those that are more vulnerable to severe disease. And they definitely should be getting a vaccine along the lines of the ATAGI advice right now. There'll be more advice later in the year for the ongoing COVID vaccination program, and we'll obviously be talking about that at the appropriate time.
ORITI: Yeah, because I was going to ask, because the Department of Health website says: if you've already received your recommended doses in 2023, you don't need any other doses and should wait until new advice is provided. So you're saying we'll be expecting that advice later this year? Is that right?
KELLY: Yes. I think we certainly will want that before winter. I think we need to as similar- as countries like Australia in other parts of the world – the UK, thinking of the UK, US and Europe, for example – they're starting to get more into a pre-winter top up idea, if they’re- and there's a bit of different views there in different countries as to who should get a top up. But an annual booster or something like that might be where we go. But of course we'll be guided by the ATAGI advice, and they in turn will be guided by the best evidence at the time.
So for the moment, you're right. The people under the age of 75, there's no- if you've had a vaccine, and there's a lot that didn't during 2023, they shouldn't be getting another boost at this stage. But if you haven't had a 2023 booster, you can get one. For those over 75, it's highly recommended that they get a second booster, and for 65 to 74, that's a matter to discuss with your GP, including those with other high risk illnesses younger than that.
ORITI: We're almost out of time, but what if you're not? What if you're in your 30s, 40s? Happy, healthy – you're saying I could go and get the booster now. Is your advice they should? If they haven't got comorbidities and they're in a younger age group, should you just go out and get it?
KELLY: Look, I think that's a personal choice issue, if people- and it depends on how people are feeling about their own personal risk. In reality, people at that younger age group are not at- are no longer at risk of severe disease from- severe complications from COVID, really, in the majority. So it's a risk benefit equation people should consider. The other thing I'd say, though, Thomas, is those that are eligible in that higher risk group for antiviral treatments, they should have that plan with their GP, get a test and get a prescription. There was 93,000 people had antiviral treatment in December, which was the highest through the whole year. So that's encouraging that that’s- people are taking that advice. It also reflects what we were talking about before. That's a very key statistic we look at for what's actually happening in the community. It's sometimes more helpful than the actual- the voluntary information in that way.
END OF QUOTES
See full article here: https://www.health.gov.au/news/chief-medical-officer-professor-paul-kellys-interview-on-abc-news-breakfast-on-12-january-2024
"In conclusion we were naïve and too trusting of the authorities, but also at that time we were blind to the iatrogenic healthcare effects and the issues with PCR testing."
Perhaps, but it may be more accurate to amend the former part of that conclusion to read "In hindsight, we were too trusting of the authorities."
What was the alternative, hysterical admission to the conspiratorium?
You know best what conclusions to draw from such information as was slowly forced into the public sphere at the point of a solicitor's pen, but I require more evidence to blandly accept naivete as the reason for trusting these particular authorities.
The original pandemic response plan was measured and realistic. When it was abandoned in favor of..... what replaced it, the situation was not conducive to the sort of investigation that would have justified abandoning all trust.
That you might somehow think that you "should have known" would be natural and normal from any person with a conscience and sense of duty. So, fine; be regretful in your efforts to maintain intellectual and moral integrity, but don't be surprised when folks respond with "so you've got a conscience and 20-20 hindsight binoculars and think you should have done better? Perfectionists gonna perfectionist."
Sorry, prof, aim for perfection and be content with "very good indeed."
Thanks for the update and the link to the paper.
Oh, and thanks for sticking to the verifiable evidence. It's been quite the struggle for we onlookers to avoid haring off after the wildest of speculations being bruited about. A few such as yourself have been steadying influences, and the value of that is perhaps higher than you may realize.
Boy, you are speaking my language. I've always thought we couldn't know the real IFR because nobody really knew how many people had contracted this virus pre "official Covid." That is, the denominator ("Covid cases" or "Covid infected") was completely unknown. And is still unknown.
I'm also suspicious of antibody results because I don't think these tests capture everyone who had a "prior infection." I also think public health agencies have concealed the number of people who tested positive for antibodies in the earliest antibody tests (which became widely-available only in late April 2020).
In my research, I have identified scores of Americans who had Covid symptoms in November and December 2019 and January 2020 who later tested positive for antibodies. What stands out to me about these results is that people in at least 17 states tested positive for antibodies. How could we have "isolated" cases or "no spread" if people in 17 far-flung states and communities all had Covid at roughly the same time?
These results tell me this virus was spreading person-to-person across the country. The virus didn't just fall out of the sky and infect a few people. Also, those people were infected by unknown people and they were spreading it to other people as well (those people just didn't get later antibody tests that we know of).
From this deductive-reasoning exercise, I conclude that tens of millions of people must have been infected before, say, March 1, 2020. My next question is: If this is true, where were all the excess all-cause deaths ... if the IFR was 1 percent, 3.4 percent or even 0.3 to 0.5 percent?
Nobody can find a spike in excess deaths in the world before March 1, 2020. FWIW, that includes China, supposedly the birth place of virus spread. In China, per China officials, fewer than 200 people in the entire country of 1.4 billion people had died "from Covid" by the end of January. Maybe China concealed Covid deaths, but even if there were, say, 2,000 Covid deaths by this date, the IFR would be miniscule - about the same as the flu, as the authors note.
Lastly, did the virus suddenly and belatedly become "lethal?" After the lockdowns to prevent spread? That also doesn't seem plausible to me.
This isn't a criticism directed at anyone. I wish that we didn't talk about it (the virus) being 'covid' or Covid-19'....it makes it something 'special' or even 'novel' ( as the KC Keith with his questioning of a witness in the Hallett Inquiry was at great pains to establish). Yes, I know we've had Asian Flu, Russian flu, Swine flu but the common denominator is the term 'flu'. Fauci is on record saying that people weren't sufficiently scared of the 'flu ( too complacent for Big Pharma's ops, perhaps) so this flu like illness was specifically labelled 'Covid-19'..and people could 'own' that label in a way that wasn't 'just' the flu going around. All the fear propaganda and draconian restrictions plus the jabs were built on that term, 'Covid-19'. For me it was the virus, a flu like illness, circulating in 2020, which caused no greater impacts on mortality than other flu like illnesses, which circulate this country and others in different parts of the world.
A neighbour still talks about having had Covid-19 recently....it has become established as something worth talking about! A badge of belonging.