As a young medical student, I admired Tony Fauci. I bought and read Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, a vital textbook that Fauci co-edited. In reading his new memoir, On Call, I remembered why I admired him. His concern about his patients’ plights, especially HIV patients, comes through clearly.
Unfortunately, Fauci’s memoir omits vital details about his failures as an administrator, an adviser to politicians and a key figure in America’s public health response to infectious disease threats over the past 40 years. His life story is a Greek tragedy. Fauci’s evident intelligence and diligence are why the country and the world expected so much of him, but his hubris caused his failure as a public servant.
It is impossible to read Fauci’s memoir and not believe he was genuinely moved by the plight of AIDS patients. Since the first time he learned of the illness from a puzzling and alarming case report, his laudable ambition has been to conquer the disease with drugs and vaccines, cure every patient and wipe the syndrome from the face of the earth. He is both sincere and correct when he writes that “history will judge us harshly if we don’t end HIV”.
When an aide in 1985 offered to quit when he contracted AIDS for fear of scandal at Fauci’s beloved National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci hugged him, declaring “Jim, you crazy son of a bitch, there is no way in the world I would ever let you go”. This was Fauci at his best.
But Fauci paints an incomplete picture of his attitude toward AIDS patients in its early days. In 1983, in response to a case report of an infant with AIDS published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Fauci told the press that AIDS might be spread by routine household contact. There was no good evidence then and is none now to suggest that HIV is transmitted that way. But Fauci’s statement, prominently echoed in the media, panicked the American people, almost certainly leading many to physically shun AIDS patients out of an unfounded fear of catching the disease.
Fauci does not address this incident, so one is left to speculate about why he was attracted to this theory. One possibility is that there was little political support for government spending on AIDS when the public thought it only affected gay men. As the public came to understand AIDS impacted broader populations, such as hemophiliacs and IV drug users, public support for funding HIV research expanded.
Fauci was tremendously successful in eventually building public support for Government spending on treating and trying to prevent the spread of AIDS. Likely no other scientist in history moved more money and resources to accomplish a scientific and medical goal than Fauci, and his memoir proves he was highly skilled in managing bureaucracy and getting his way both from politicians and from an activist movement that was at first highly sceptical about him. (One prominent AIDS activist, playwright Larry Kramer, once called Fauci a murderer.)
Fauci’s response to activist criticism was to build relationships and use them as a tool to push for more Government funding. Fauci’s activist allies seemed to understand the game, staging attacks on Fauci, both playing their part to gain more money for HIV research.
By contrast, his treatment of scientific critics is harsh, crossing lines that federal science bureaucrats should not cross. In 1991, when University of California, Berkeley, professor and wunderkind cancer biologist Peter Duesberg put forward a (false) hypothesis that the virus, HIV, is not the cause of AIDS, Fauci did everything in his power to destroy him. In his memoir, Fauci writes about debating Duesberg, writing papers and giving talks to counter his ideas. But Fauci did more, isolating Duesberg, destroying his reputation in the press, and making him a pariah in the scientific community. Though Fauci was right and Duesberg wrong about the scientific question, the scientific community learned it was dangerous to cross Fauci.
Fauci’s HIV record is mixed. The great news is that, because of tremendous advances in treatment, a diagnosis of HIV is no longer the death sentence it was in the 1980s or 1990s. Fauci claims credit in his memoir, pointing out that the NIAID developed a clinical trial network that made it easier for researchers at pharmaceutical companies to conduct randomised studies of the effectiveness of HIV medications. But any competent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director would have directed NIAID resources this way.
Furthermore, many in the HIV community have criticised Fauci for not using this network to test treatment ideas developed within the community — especially off-patent medications. Fauci is more reasonable when he takes credit for the 2003 creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program (PEPFAR), through which the U.S. sent effective HIV medications to several African nations.
Despite billions of dollars spent on the task, no one to date has produced an effective HIV vaccine or a definitive cure, and the virus remains a threat to the health and well-being of the world population. By Fauci’s own high standard, there is still a long way to go.
In the early days of the war on terror, Fauci became head of civilian biodefence, with the mandate to develop and stockpile countermeasures to biowarfare agents. This appointment made Fauci one of the most well-paid and powerful figures in the U.S. Government. Fauci leveraged his deep knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, streamlining federal contracting rules to issue “sole source contracts” and “rapid research grants” to create constituencies of companies and scientists who depended on Fauci for their success.
In 2005, avian flu emerged and spread among birds, chickens and livestock. Also spreading were worries that the virus could evolve to become more transmissible among human beings. Fauci deployed NIAID money to develop an avian flu vaccine, leading the Government to stockpile tens of millions of ultimately unused and unnecessary doses.
At this point, virologists persuaded Fauci’s NIAID to support dangerous scientific lab experiments designed to make the avian flu virus more easily transmissible among humans.
In 2011, NIAID-funded scientists in Wisconsin and the Netherlands succeeded. They published their results in a prestigious scientific journal, so that anyone with the knowledge and resources could replicate their steps. They effectively weaponised the avian flu virus and shared the recipe with the world, with Fauci and his agency in full support.
The idea behind this gain-of-function research was that we would learn which pathogens might leap into human beings, and that knowing that would help scientists develop vaccines and treatments for these prospective possible pandemics. Fauci, writing to molecular biologists in 2012, downplayed the possibility that laboratory workers or scientists studying these dangerous pathogens might cause the pandemic they were working to prevent.
He also argued that the risk of such an accident was worth it:
In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario — however remote — should the initial experiments have been performed and or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say — as indeed I have said — that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.
The NIH did pause funding gain-of-function work aimed at increasing germs’ pathogenicity. The pause didn’t last long, though. In the waning days of the Obama administration, the Government implemented a bureaucratic process to permit NIH and NIAID to fund gain-of-function work again. Fauci played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in reversing the pause, but his memoir provides almost no information about what he did. This is a gaping, telling hole, given the subsequent history with COVID-19.
Among the projects Fauci and the NIAID funded during these years was research to identify coronaviruses in the wild and bring them into laboratories to study their potential for causing a human pandemic. The work encompassed laboratories worldwide. Fauci’s organisation funded an American outfit, EcoHealth Alliance, which worked with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In his memoir, Fauci goes out of his way to deny that any NIH money went to any activities that might have led to the creation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid. When Sen. Rand Paul (R, Ky.) in July 2021 confronted Fauci with the possibility that Fauci’s NIAID had funded this work, Fauci resorted to cheap debate tactics to obfuscate his and the NIH’s responsibility in supporting this work. It is undeniable that Fauci championed pathogen enhancement for a decade or more.
While the molecular biological and genetic evidence for a laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 is strong, many virologists disagree. (Their entire field would come under a cloud were it true, and many virologists’ careers have been generously supported by Fauci’s NIAID.) The debate on this topic rages on. A review of Fauci’s memoir is not the place to settle the dispute.
But in judging Fauci’s record as a scientist and a bureaucrat, it’s worth knowing that in 2020, Fauci and his boss, Francis Collins, failed to empanel public discussions and debates on this vital topic. Instead, they created an environment where any scientist voicing the lab-leak hypothesis came under a cloud of suspicion, accused of advancing unfounded conspiracy theories. As with Duesberg, Fauci sought to destroy the careers of dissenting scientists.
In his memoir, Fauci writes of a “Right-wing… smear campaign [that] soon boiled over into conspiracy theories”. He asserts, “One of the most appalling examples of this was the allegation, without a shred of evidence, that an NIAID grant to the EcoHealth Alliance with a sub-grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China funded research that caused the COVID pandemic.”
But in Congressional testimony in 2024, Fauci denied that he had called the idea of a lab leak a conspiracy theory: “Actually, I’ve also been very, very clear and said multiple times that I don’t think the ‘concept’ of there being a lab leak is inherently a conspiracy theory.”
This self-serving denial makes a lawyerly distinction between the possibility of a lab origin of the Covid pandemic and the NIH’s funding of EcoHealth Alliance to work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on coronaviruses. These are neither “Right-wing” nor “conspiracy theories”, and the likelihood of a connection between the two is, for good reason, the subject of active bipartisan congressional investigation.
Fauci was quick to gather all the glory of administrative achievements like PEPFAR to himself while decrying any possibility of blame for the origin of Covid. But if he is responsible for the consequences of one (the millions of Africans saved because of PEPFAR), he is responsible for the consequences of the other. This includes the tens of millions who have died due to the Covid pandemic and the catastrophically harmful lockdowns used to manage it. This is Fauci at his worst.
By any measure, the American Covid response was a catastrophic failure. More than 1.2 million deaths have been attributed to Covid itself, and deaths from all causes have stayed high long after the number of Covid deaths themselves diminished. In many states, particularly blue states, children were kept out of school for a year and a half or longer, with devastating effects on their learning and future health and prosperity.
Coercive policy regarding Covid vaccination, recommended by Fauci on the false premise that vaccinated people could not get or spread the virus, collapsed public trust in other vaccines and led the media and public health officials to gaslight individuals who had suffered legitimate vaccine injuries. To pay for the lockdowns recommended by Fauci, the U.S. Government spent trillions of dollars, causing high unemployment in the most locked-down states and a hangover of higher prices for consumer goods that continues to this day. Who is to blame?
Fauci served as a key adviser to both President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, and was a central figure on Trump’s Covid task force that determined federal policy. If Fauci has no responsibility for the outcomes of the pandemic, nobody does. Yet in his memoir’s chapters on Covid, he simultaneously takes credit for advising leaders while disclaiming any responsibility for policy failures.
Fauci implausibly writes that he “was not locking down the country” and “had no power to control anything”. These statements are belied by Fauci’s own bragging about his influence on a host of policy responses, including convincing Trump to lock the country down in March 2020 and extend the lockdown in April.
He discusses the extended closure of schools, now almost universally seen as a bad idea, in the passive voice, as if the virus caused the school closures on its own. In Congressional testimony in 2020, Fauci exaggerated the harm to children from getting infected with Covid, instilling fear in parents that their kids might suffer from a rare complication of Covid infection if they sent them to school. It is impossible not to recall Fauci exaggerating the risk of children contracting HIV from casual contact.
In May 2020, Fauci said that schools should reopen, conditional on “the landscape of infection with regard to testing”. But he also recommended six-foot social distancing, based on no evidence — a policy that made it nearly impossible to open schools. Fauci opposed churches holding services and mass, even outdoors, despite the lack of evidence that the disease spread there. His memoir provides little detail about the scientific data he relied on to support these policies.
All this background makes his discussion of the Great Barrington Declaration all the more galling. The declaration is a short policy document I wrote along with Martin Kulldorff (then of Harvard University) and Sunetra Gupta (of the University of Oxford) in October 2020.
Motivated by recognising that the lethality and hospitalisation risk from Covid was 1,000 times lower in younger populations than in older, the document had two recommendations: (1) focused protection of vulnerable older populations, and (2) lifting lockdowns and reopening schools. It balanced the harms of the lockdowns against the risks of the disease in a way that recognised that Covid was not the only threat to human well-being and that the lockdowns themselves did considerable harm.
Fauci denigrates the Great Barrington Declaration as being filled with “fake signatures”, though FOIAd emails from the era make it clear he knew tens of thousands of prominent scientists, doctors and epidemiologists had co-signed it. In his memoir, he repeats a propaganda talking point about the declaration, falsely claiming the document called for letting the virus “rip”. In reality, it called for better protection of vulnerable elderly people.
Fauci asserted it was impossible to “sequester to protect the vulnerable” while simultaneously calling for the whole world to sequester for his lockdowns. His rhetoric about the Great Barrington Declaration poisoned the well of scientific consideration of our ideas. With brass-knuckle tactics, he won the policy fight, and many states locked down in late 2020 and into 2021.
The virus spread anyway.
Fauci does not mention the success of Swedish Covid policy, which eschewed lockdowns and instead — after some early errors — focused on protection of the vulnerable. Swedish all-cause excess death rates in the Covid era are among the lowest in Europe and much lower than American all-cause excess deaths. The Swedish health authorities never recommended closing schools for children 16 and under, and Swedish children, unlike American children, have no learning loss.
If lockdowns were necessary to protect the population, as Fauci claims, Swedish outcomes should have been worse than American ones. Even within the United States, locked-down California had worse all-cause excess deaths numbers and economic outcomes than Florida, which opened in the summer of 2020. It is shocking that Fauci still does not seem to know these facts.
Near the end of his memoir, Fauci writes that by March 2022, he knew “there would not be a clear end to the pandemic”; the world would need to learn to “live indefinitely with COVID”. He reasons that “perhaps the vaccine and prior infection had created a degree of background immunity”. This is as close as he comes in the book to admitting error.
A part of me cannot help but admire Fauci, but the extent of damage caused by his hubris gets in the way. He once told an interviewer, “If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and a scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science. … Science and the truth are being attacked.” Despite his career accomplishments, no one should give any man, much less Fauci, credit for being the embodiment of science itself.
If Fauci’s goal in writing this memoir is to guide how historians write about him toward the positive, I do not think he succeeded. He will be remembered as a consequential figure for his contributions to the American approach to the HIV and Covid pandemics. But he will also be remembered as a cautionary tale of what can happen when too much power is invested in a single person for far too long.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a physician, epidemiologist and health economist. He is Professor at Stanford Medical School, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a Faculty Member at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. He is a Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration. This article was first published on his Substack page, the Illusion of Consensus, and also appeared in Brownstone Journal.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There was an interesting link on the previous thread about delays in death reporting leading to a statistical artefact that makes the vaccines look like they work even if they are placebos
In summary – if you compare deaths today against vaccinated population today you are underestimating the mortality rate of the vaccinated cohort. It should be deaths today divided by the number in the vaccinated cohort 2-4 weeks ago when they contracted it. With an increasing vaccinated cohort you will always overestimate vaccine efficacy.
The attached shows the apparent mortality rate of a placebo vaccine where deaths today are divided by the size of the vaccine cohort today but the deaths are delayed by 4 weeks from contracting covid.
weeks since vaccine rollout along bottom
https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vaccine-efficacy-statistical-illusion.html
This link was in the previous article as well and is well worth repeatingFrom July 2020 Coronavirus lockdown could cause ‘200,000 extra deaths’
https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/20/coronavirus-lockdown-cause-200000-extra-deaths-13014848/
Saving the NHS sure does seem to massacre a lot of people.
it was a fascinating article that assumed
1 – a vaccine rollout that was a placebo
2 – deaths from all causes being constant across both groups
3 – a 1 week delay in death reporting
4 – calculating mortality in vacced and unvacced groups by dividing all cause deaths today by size of cohort today
I repeated the analysis but assumed there was a virus going round , it infects equally among vaccinated and unvaccinated cohort and leads to death 4 weeks later. Apparent mortality from the virus is deaths today/size of cohort today (but it should be size of cohort a month ago)
And finally….
After 18 months of blaming covid, finally the bbc does an article with context. The nhs was never overrun as per the data, its always been about its efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
Staffing and social care (bed blockers) being the real issues. I should know, I worked in the system. Covid was and is just a side show.
However, still the bbc don’t get it. Its not about increased spending, its about performance / outcomes.
Privatise (at least in part) the nhs and save us all!
NHS grinding to halt and why it’s getting worse – BBC News
De-extorting NHS funding is key!
I knew that would be by Nick Triggle before I even clicked. He’s one of the last remaining voices of reason and evidence in that accursed institution.
That throwing more and more money at the NHS never works is without question. That it should be the eternal solution is insane.
It’s the structure. No bureaucracy of 1.4 million people can ever be remotely functional. As a senior nurse at the RHU in Bath told me a while back, when I asked her about the cult of management in the NHS – “Management? Dickheads with clipboards who stop us working”
Amen to that. Not to mention that the NHS has now been turned into a holy cult, and medics a priestly caste. **** that
Isn’t it funny (in a not-funny way) that these supposedly independent news outlets run almost exactly the same stories as one another? I saw a very similar article to the one you link to above on the guardian.
Most ridiculous is the ‘Independent’ newspaper. Who are they trying to kid? They bend over backwards to push government policy.
I get the impression the NHS has already been flogged off – seems like all their work is now ‘outsourced’ and done by for-profit private companies.
I’m seeing people posting on SM (one iSage member in particular) claiming it’s all caused by government mismanagement of the pandemic.
Dare I say it was people like them who were screaming that all resources be used up trying to eradicate a virus (billions of pounds spent) and are now trying to say the NHS has been underfunded.
Perhaps a more balanced approach on distributing resources may have led to a better outcome?
It was policy – consistent with planned population cull.
‘Voluntary’ sector bought by World’s government some time ago; they’re in ‘lock-step’. Hence zero out-cry against policy when instituted end March/early April 20.
Out-cry now to maintain fear of death to get more ‘funding’ and increase tax
NHS staff are being told that they no longer need to self-declare whether they’ve had the jab or not… because their medical details will be shared by the central medical database.
Around a year ago, we were told we can object to this from happening and we just needed to complete a form and send it to our local GP and ‘opt-out’ online of our details being passed around. I wonder where those in the NHS who ‘opted-out’ stand?
And everyone else who ‘opted-out’
Yes absolutely. This is undoubtedly the introduction to the vaxport for all of us, whether we’re in England, Scotland or Wales.
The State has presumably opted not to honour our mere expressions of opinion.
Just Google ‘my medical files’ and Google will share them with you.
I think in the PHE vaccine surveillance reports there was a column for individuals whose NHS numbers were unavailable to link to NIMS. My initial interpretation of that is that this might be or include those who have opted out of having their data used.
I wonder to what extent the following would also be true:
“Record Number of People Waiting for Vital Heart Scans Due to COVID vaccine injury”
I know no one who has died or been made seriously ill due to COVID, but I know two young, fit men who have had heart “anomalies” requiring hospital treatment following vaccination.
Similar experience, nobody I know has had or even suspected they had symptomatic Covid, but… one dead, two strokes, two MIs all post vaccine, one clotting issues. And, of course, all (Despite Bradford-Hill criteria) nothing to do with the vaccines.
Before winter 2020, the last time I lost a friend/family member was my grandmother over 20 years ago. Since winter 2020, I’ve lost 6 close family friends. Two suicides, one a stroke, two from heart-attacks and I know for certain one died less than 2 weeks after getting the jab.
Still no one I know has died because of covid.
they seem very keen on everyone who is vaccinated getting boosters
but less keen on giving the first doses to the unvaccinated – they haven’t contacted me for 8 months after an initial flurry of phone calls and texts
I had a blue envelope through the door last week, which I put, unopened, on top of the unopened one from the springtime.
Perhaps because I have never made any contact with the Regime for the past two years they have me down as a “contact details unknown” person.
If it’s addressed to “The Occupant”, just returned, noting “Not known here…” TVLA get one of those from us regularly…
The paper quality isn’t too bad, so anything which smacks of “NHS” goes straight into the shredder. There, it is admixed with shredded cardboard boxes, which form the “brown” compost element, and thence into the compost bins.
The most recent blue missive was about the flu jab; at least mine was. I had a blue envelope last year, around March-April about the jab, and nothing at all since, no letter, no email, no text, no phone call. They did – apparently – have door-knockers in our ward of low jab uptake, but no-one knocked at mine, more’s the pity.
Same here. Each step seems to be producing diminishing returns for them.
They must be disappointed in the vaccines.
Doesn’t stop you getting it or passing it on. Wanes over several months.
If you do the calculations of benefit vs health you might come up with some policy to vaccinate people. That calculation looks very different if you have to vaccinate them every 6 months for life.
I’ll stick with my natural immunity until someone can make a strong case otherwise (which I can’t foresee).
But you can’t stick to “natural immunity” if you want to keep a job or eat at a restaurant or go to a play or a sporting event, or attend college, etc.
The world-wide trend is now obvious: “Freedom” only for those who are fully vaccinated and fully vaccinated now means getting a booster jab every six months.
I think they have looked at the real figures that show that around 5-6 months after vaccination the negative effect kicks in and as many people are coming up to that point we could see a large number of double vaccinated infections unless they go for the boosters.
my prediction is that the boosters will wane even quicker. why would an immune system wait until its 3rd 4th or 5th exposure to have a long lasting response?
Virus (vaccine) Interference and Original Antigenic Sin are real, but vaccine manufacturers are ignoring the dangerous effects.
I made it clear to my GP way back, with supporting medical papers, that I would not have the jab. Get NHS texts occasionally, but none from my local practice.
It’s NHS England which are the problem – they absolutely refuse to allow any opt-out from their letters and texts.
It’s clear from the language used in press-conferences and govt statements that they have already, tacitly at least, relegated the unjabbed to being “non-persons”. Together with Johnson’s carefully worded statement relating to “booster” making life easier, it implicitly demonstrates that they will introduce a system of jab-related permissions to travel, work, socialise. They want to concentrate their efforts to ensure that those who have been double-jabbed will keep up with the programme. Otherwise they lose an awful number of taxpayers.
“There were no incidents in Slovenia on the first day of tighter epidemiological restrictions, with some dissatisfaction among unvaccinated citizens, mostly drivers who were unable to refuel their cars without a COVID-19 certificate.”
https://hr.n1info.com/english/news/slovenia-drivers-must-present-covid-certificate-in-order-to-refuel-cars/
I’ve not heard from them for a while either – long may it continue. If I receive any more blue envelopes I shall probably cross through the address, write ‘Unsolicited junkmail – return to sender’ on it and stick it back in the post!
The experimental gene therapy ‘vaccines’ bring on heart problems and the need for heart scans.
Protect and save the NHS – don’t get jabbed
Our friends, who most of the time live in Spain but maintain an apartment here in the U.K. (and pay taxes here) , have come over for medical treatment. He has had his cancer scan postponed this morning while they were in the taxi on the way to the hospital. He is due a heart scan next week also.
They flew over last week and today also received a call from T and T to say they had been a contact of someone with a positive “test” on 8th November (on the flight over?) so now have to isolate for 2 days. They have both been triple jabbed but their Pfizer vaccines are not acceptable in the U.K. as they were administered in Spain. Naturally they are bemused that they have been able to go about their normal lives for 8 days up until today.
As my friend says, they have done everything by the book and are being punished for it. They should have tried the rubber dinghy method!
Then they should tell Test and Trace of all the people they have been in contact with during the past 8 days, including everyone at the Police station, everyone at the local council offices, Mark Drakeford, Nicola Sturgeon, and, of course, the 16 Tesco stores they visited.
These and other issues (vaccine deaths including from initially sub-clinical damage) are showing in the all cause death data
Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional out today
In the week ending 5 November 2021 (Week 44), 11,550 deaths were registered in England and Wales; this was 563 more deaths than the previous week (Week 43) and 16.8% above the five-year average (1,659 more deaths).
It looks bad in all adult age groups. Here is the chart for the 65-74 age group. A zoomed in version of the Florence Nightingale chart appears in the reply. Appears to be worsening in the older age groups again. Boosters?
And here’s the zoomed in chart (it’s per million in age group at mid-year)
By the way thanks for the suggestions on improving the charts. Some of the good ideas I haven’t incorporated yet because they aren’t straightforward to do.
still better than 2008 though (as was 2020)
The weekly age banded data only goes back to 2010. But the monthly age standardised mortality (ASM) goes back to 2001.
You can just about see from that (see attached for England) that in terms of ASM, which typically reflects mortality in the older groups, because death numbers are massively higher in those age groups, has been on an improving trend since 2001 until 2019.
So what I can only put down to lack of access to healthcare and vaccine adverse reactions (numbers say its not deaths from covid) has pushed us back to about 2008-2010 mortality levels it seems if we judge by current mortality levels.
One way to look at it is all the harm from the damaging pandemic responses and dangerous experimental vaccines only pushes us back to 2008 mortality. Another way to look at it is as significant unnecessary death caused by the pandemic response and potentially the vaccines. It may be unreasonable to expect the mortality improvements to have continued, but it’s another thing for mortality to regress to 2008-2010 levels. So I favour the latter viewpoint of unnecessary death albeit we need to put it in context.
What are your thoughts? How do you view it?
this is an important table
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020
improvements year on year, a slight tick up in 2020 back to 2008 levels – probably dry tinder
not really spanish flu
all cause mortality a little above 5 years average but that could be due to lockdown and missed appointments, stress etc
I still think 95% of covid deaths were old age and that if we count them as covid then 200,000 people die of colds every year
You seem to be talking mainly about the effect of covid (as in the disease not the positive test) and what happened in say Spring 2020. And arguing that the effect of genuine covid was minimal because of the dry tinder affect and it affecting those at end of life already. All reasonable, and I wouldn’t disagree.
But I’m talking about a completely different thing which is the higher mortality now (November 2021) when there is essentially no covid about (the disease not the positive test). Should we not be pointing out and trying to ascertain the cause of the current higher mortality? (even if it is only pushing us back to 2008).
there is higher mortality now compared to the last 5 years, a period of exceptionally low mortality. we have a panicked population, vaccines, boosters, old people having things shoved up their nose by people in hazmat suits, a failed NHS that only cares about something that is benign, missed cancer diagnosis, lockdown induced suicide, depression, obesity and alcoholism etc. very hard to disentangle
if we had never had any covid but told people there was and locked down and everything else – I would expect a higher death rate now – that it is higher than the last 5 years but low by historic standards is a blessing
I vote for this statement: “Another way to look at it is as significant unnecessary death caused by the pandemic response and potentially the vaccines.”
Bottom line: The pandemic response made “public health” worse and the vaccines may have done the same (especially in the under 65 cohorts).
This backlog helps conceal vaccine adverse effects. This has all been planned deliberately.
Was the young man’s heart inflammation a result of the vaccine? No no no says the Good Doctor, it was because he had to wait six weeks for a scan, so sorry.
It’s clear it’s a cover up for the effects of the vaxxine unfortunately most people are in denial.
Next year they’ll probably stop reporting/somehow alter all cause mortality data to hide the obvious.
as the disease is endemic the whole ‘with’ or ‘from’ argument becomes more important
I might die within 28 days of having athlete’s foot but certainly not from it
or Strep A. It does kill quite a few (with immune damage), but if you tested you’d have another casedemic
in my age band about 89% of people who die ‘with’ covid are double vaccinated
85% in that age group are double vaccinated
it just doesn’t look like an amazing vaccine to me
certainly after recovering from a mild dose, why would I sign up to a boosters for life programme?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf
Why? To maintain your social credit score.
Will soon be the honest answer.
Home heating, transport and mobility, healthcare: the future is looking a lot like the past, isn’t it?
does anyone have a link to a good explanation of the maths behind
Test Negative Case Control?
Off topic
You may have heard by now that the NSW government opted to extend its SOE powers until March of 2023. You may also have heard that the NSW government did a hard 180 on the extension of the SOE powers. As far as I can tell, both of these things are real.
This, from Reignite Democracy Australia, might explain the first thing.
About 57,000 people in NSW did not come back for a second COVID-19 vaccine, prompting health authorities to stress it is not too late to complete the course…
More than 40,600 people in the state received their first Pfizer vaccine more than six weeks ago but have not had a second, according to the Australian Immunisation Register. An additional 16,100 are past 12 weeks since their first AstraZeneca shot. About 500 people have waited longer than six weeks without getting a second Moderna vaccine.
A new demographic is emerging: the booster resistant.
maybe they have realised there is a difference between vaccine, booster and life-long 6-monthly injections
“Sarah Woolnough, the Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation, said the growing number of undiagnosed patients was a “ticking timebomb” for the NHS.”
Not to mention all those young people with Myocarditis or Pericarditis from the jabs…
As one who has ARVC, a serious heart condition, I must say I’ve seen none of this.
Care has been superb from both the Oxford Radcliffe and Northampton General, as well as my brilliant GP.
Well, you know what they say, it’s the exceptions …..
just another tory scam :
So the NHS has had an above-inflation rise in spending every year since 1949?
“Sarah Woolnough, the Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation, said the growing number of undiagnosed patients was a “ticking timebomb” for the NHS.”
Not that great for the patients either!!
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: Does not protect, kills more
https://hannenabintuherland.com/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=track&action=click&data=WzEzODI2LCI2ZDQ5NjcxYTRlMGE2Y2U3MjNhNjlhNGE2YmQ2NWE0NSIsIjIwOSIsImNlZmM4NzMwNzFjMSIsZmFsc2Vd
Ouch!
This is why :
Not sure if this has been posted before. If so, apologies for the duplication.
Natural Immunity beats “vaccine” by 27 timesIsraeli study: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections.
https://drtrozzi.org/2021/11/16/natural-immunity-beats-vaccine-by-27-times/
Incidentally, if the “mass sacking of NHS staff who refuse to be vaccinated” does happen, has anyone whispered in Saint Boris’s ear “er… Mr Johnson… sir… has it not occurred to you that if we lay them all off at once, we will then be deafened by whistleblowing?” Those who are digging their heels in have time to find alternative careers, and lawyers to protect them.
I suppose it’s too much to hope for that Saint Boris and his merry men are merely bluffing, playing for time, and they are hoping that by then, the plandemic (which they might or might not have created) will have gone away enough for them to say “actually… we don’t need them all jabbed after all”.
Joe Rogan said his doctor, Pierre Kory, is part of a group that has used Ivermectin to quietly treat 200 Members of U.S. Congress for COVID19. Dr Simone Gold, from America’s Frontline Doctors, told that she has prescribed treatments for Congress. She still believes in her oath, but she is vocal saying she has been contacted by many in DC. Can you believe these demons? Healing for them are OK but not for us. Get your Ivermectin while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com