[Figures given in the image above refer to South Africa only. Globally “Years of Lost Life” (YLL) due to lockdowns will likely be counted in billions]
Nick Hudson delivers many insights in this interview.
Here are some of them.
No country produced a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns.
The propagandizing of science is obvious, intended to drive fear and is creating a dangerous mass psychosis.
Is this a conspiracy? No. The planning is going on in the open.
Those using the pandemic to increase the centralization of power probably genuinely believe “their own B.S.”
Centralism has always failed.
Humans innovate and learn to do more with less all the time. Unless Centralists and Malthusians have their way.
Asymptomatic transmission has little science backing it – but even if does happen, it is more likely to transmit immunity than disease.
The dissenting minority will grow and become a majority over time.
God-shaped holes in each of us can leave us susceptible to unworthy leaders and cultish behaviors when we are scared.
The intellectual foundations of mass vaccination and vaccine passports are tenuous.
Censorship is happening in covert, overt and aggressive forms. Even scientists are being censored for merely retweeting (without comment!) per-reviewed scientific papers!
A keen “wildlife guy”concerned about habitat destruction, he still sees the climate change / sustainability agenda is another Malthusian idea being pushed by Centralists.
Being calm and courageous is important for retrieving people one-by-one from the mass psychosis. We need to avoid talk of retribution and instead model moral power and humane behaviour.
Is it a cock up, a conspiracy or an emergent reality? … Yes it is. It’s all three of those things. There are features of our society that lend themselves…
… a bunch of elites enamored of power, as elites have always been… have stumbled across a wonderful way to drive fear into the hearts of people, to divide the populous and under cover of all of that to implement a wide-sweeping vision for our future that we have not consented to.
Talking with Taylor Hudak1independent journalist, publishing in The Last American Vagabond earlier this month Nick Hudson, Co-Founder & Chairman of PANDA2Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics discusses COVID-19 from a statistical perspective, as well as the ongoing ideological battle that COVID-19 has clearly exacerbated.
[This video by Kate Wand summarises the main thrust of this letter to the F.B.I. Please read the letter below for the evidence the authors offer backing up their case.]
[Letter copied from Medium.com. Click footnote numbers to open / close. Footnotes fully visible in original PDF on Scribd.]
Request for expedited federal investigation into scientific fraud in COVID‑19 public health policies
Federal Bureau of Investigation 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20535
U.K. Security Service (MI5); Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Bundesnachrichtendienst; U.S. Department of Justice
Michael P. Senger, Attorney Stacey A. Rudin, Attorney Dr. Clare Craig, FRCPath Retired Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding Randy Hillier, MPP Lanark, Frontenac & Kingston Francis Hoar, Barrister at Law Sanjeev Sabhlok, PhD Brian O’Shea Maajid Nawaz Simon Dolan
This open letter is available for download in PDF format at Scribd.
We are writing this letter to request that a federal investigation be commenced and/or expedited regarding the scientific debate on major policy decisions during the COVID-19 crisis. In the course of our work, we have identified issues of a potentially criminal nature and believe this investigation necessary to ensure the interests of the public have been properly represented by those promoting certain pandemic policies.
During times of crisis, citizens naturally turn to the advice of those they perceive as experts. In early 2020, the public turned to the advice of scientific authorities when confronted with an apparent viral outbreak. Soon after, most nations followed the advice of prominent scientists and implemented restrictions commonly referred to as “lockdowns.” While the policies varied by jurisdiction, in general they involved restrictions on gatherings and movements and the closure of schools, businesses, and public places, inspired by those imposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Hubei Province. The intervention of federal authorities with police power may be required to ensure that those who have promoted these lockdown policies have done so in good faith.
This letter is meant to call the attention of federal authorities in Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States (the “Nations”) to multiple points of evidence about the origin and historical precedent of lockdowns; the scientific literature and debate behind them; the provenance and quality of predominant COVID-19 testing protocols and models; the motivations, biases, and qualifications of certain prominent lockdown supporters; and the source of public-facing communications surrounding these policies.
Although this nation [the United States] has faced many epidemics and pandemics and state and local governments have employed a variety of interventions in response, there have never previously been lockdowns of entire populations — much less for lengthy and indefinite periods of time…3Citing Howard Markel et al., Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic, 298 JAMA 644, 647 (2007). The total duration of nonpharmaceutical interventions imposed by state and local mandate for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were 51 and 53 days, respectively. Id. at 647, Table 1. This length was, generally, representative of the duration of interventions in most cities. Id. Seattle had the longest period of restrictions, nationwide, at 168 days from start to finish. See also Greg Ip, New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly, WALL ST. J., Aug. 24, 2020 (“Prior to Covid-19, lockdowns weren’t part of the standard epidemic tool kit, which was primarily designed with flu in mind. During the 1918–1919 flu pandemic, some American cities closed schools, churches and theaters, banned large gatherings and funerals and restricted store hours. But none imposed stay-at-home orders or closed all nonessential businesses. No such measures were imposed during the 1957 flu pandemic, the next-deadliest one; even schools stayed open.”). While, unquestionably, states and local governments restricted certain activities for a limited period of time to mitigate the Spanish Flu, there is no record of any imposition of a population lockdown in response to that disease or any other in our history.
Not only are lockdowns historically unprecedented in response to any previous epidemic or pandemic in American history, but they are not so much as mentioned in recent guidance offered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). Judge Stickman continues:
Indeed, even for a ‘Very High Severity’ pandemic (defined as one comparable to the Spanish Flu), the guidelines provide only that ‘CDC recommends voluntary home isolation of ill persons,’ and ‘CDC might recommend voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members in areas where novel influenza circulates.’ Id. at 32, Table 10 (emphasis added). This is a far, far cry from a statewide lockdown…4Citing Noreen Quails et al., Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza, United States, 2017 (Sonja A. Rasmussen et al. eds., 2017). The fact is that the lockdowns imposed across the United States in early 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are unprecedented in the history of our Commonwealth and our Country. They have never been used in response to any other disease in our history. They were not recommendations made by the CDC. They were unheard of by the people [of] this nation until just this year. It appears as though the imposition of lockdowns in Wuhan and other areas of China — a nation unconstrained by concern for civil liberties and constitutional norms — started a domino effect where one country, and state, after another imposed draconian and hitherto untried measures on their citizens. (emphasis added)
Judge Stickman’s intuition regarding the real history of lockdowns is in line with the opinion of the foremost infectious disease scholars. Donald Henderson, the man widely credited with eradicating smallpox, wrote in 2006, “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”5Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’toole, and D. A. Henderson, Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science Vol. 4 №4, 2006, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.1109&rep=rep1&type=pdf. To our knowledge, no scientist ever publicly supported imposing lockdowns until Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), personally authorized the “unprecedented lockdown of Wuhan and other cities beginning on Jan. 23.”6Amy Qin, China’s Leader, Under Fire, Says He Led Coronavirus Fight Early On, N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 2020,https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/world/asia/xi-china-coronavirus.html.
The WHO’s recommendations are notable for two reasons. First, the WHO’s conclusion in its February report that this “rather unique and unprecedented public health response in China reversed the escalating cases”23World Health Organization, Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Feb. 16–24, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf. exemplifies the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. While it was possible that a more “flat” curve in Wuhan could be attributed to the CCP’s lockdown, it was at least equally likely that Wuhan had simply witnessed the natural course of this “novel” pathogen. It should have been obvious that the mere issuance of a policy “unprecedented in public health history” did not automatically mean it was effective — especially given the WHO’s own 2019 guidance for pandemic influenza did not advise border closures, mass contact tracing, or quarantine even of “exposed individuals” under any circumstance.24World Health Organization, Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza, 2019, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf?ua=1.
Lockdowns are a Xi Jinping policy, and the significance of that fact cannot be overstated. The idea of locking down an entire state or country and forcibly shutting down its businesses and public places was never entertained, never discussed, and never implemented in any pandemic literature until it was done by General Secretary Xi in January 2020. Lockdowns were never tried before 2020 and never tested before 2020, even on a theoretical basis.27Noreen Quails et al., Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza, United States, 2017 (Sonja A. Rasmussen et al. eds., 2017), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/rr/rr6601a1.htm. The idea of “lockdown” was brought into human history on the order of General Secretary Xi; it otherwise never would have entered the collective human imagination. Anytime anyone endorses a lockdown for any length of time, even a few minutes, they are endorsing a Xi Jinping policy. The remainder of this letter concerns how lockdowns were laundered into the world’s go-to pandemic policy.
A study by researchers at UCLA and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) compared the accuracy of various institutions’ models predicting COVID-19 mortality.33Joseph Friedman et al., Predictive performance of international COVID-19 mortality forecasting models, Nov. 19, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.20151233. Across all time periods, the models produced by Imperial College were measured to have far higher rates of error than the others — always erring on the side of being too high:
The 12-week median absolute percent errors (MAPE), reflecting models produced in July and August, ranged from 22.4% for the SIK-J Alpha model, to 79.9% for the Imperial model… The Delphi and LANL models from July underestimated mortality, with median percent errors of -5.6% and -8.3% at 6 weeks respectively, while Imperial tended to overestimate (+47.7%), and the remaining models were relatively unbiased… The Imperial model had larger errors, about 5-fold higher than other models by six weeks. This appears to be largely driven by the aforementioned tendency to overestimate mortality. At twelve weeks, MAPE values were lowest for the IHME-MS-SEIR (23.7%) model, while the Imperial model had the most elevated MAPE (98.8%)… In the most current models, the 6-week MAPE across models was 7.2%.
Five years earlier, on October 21, 2015, General Secretary Xi personally visited Imperial College London for the announcement of “a series of new UK-China education and research collaborations” including “nanotechnology, bioengineering… and public health.”36Andrew Scheuber, Chinese President sees UK-China academic partnerships at Imperial, Imperial College London, Oct. 21, 2015, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/168497/chinese-president-sees-uk-china-academic-partnerships/. This was the only trip Xi ever made to the U.K. as General Secretary; the trip lasted just four days and involved just one university: Imperial College London.37Wikipedia, 2015 Xi Jinping visit to the United Kingdom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Xi_Jinping_visit_to_the_United_Kingdom. In a speech welcoming General Secretary Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, a goodwill ambassador to the WHO, Imperial College President Alice Gast addressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
Chancellor, you have said that you aim to make the U.K. ‘China’s best partner in the west.’ Imperial College London strives to be just that, China’s best academic partner in the west… As China’s top research partner in the U.K., Imperial’s academics and students benefit from collaboration on a daily basis.38Andrew Scheuber, Chinese President sees UK-China academic partnerships at Imperial, Imperial College London, Oct. 21, 2015, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/168497/chinese-president-sees-uk-china-academic-partnerships/.(emphasis added)
In March 2020, Imperial College produced a report titled “Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment,” concluding:
For the first time since the outbreak began there have been no new confirmed cases caused by local transmission in China reported for five consecutive days up to 23 March 2020. This is an indication that the social distancing measures enacted in China have led to control of COVID-19 in China… after very intense social distancing which resulted in containment, China has successfully exited their stringent social distancing policy to some degree.41Neil M Ferguson and Steven Riley et al., Report 11 — Evidence of initial success for China exiting COVID-19 social distancing policy after achieving containment, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, Mar. 24, 2020, https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-11-china-exiting-social-distancing/.
Imperial College had no way of knowing if this was, in fact, true — failing to discover cases does not mean they do not exist, particularly with a virus that is fatal to hardly anyone except the most vulnerable, and a regime with a long history of fraud— and its conclusion directly contradicted that of the U.S. intelligence community around the same time that China had intentionally misrepresented its coronavirus numbers.42Sonam Sheth and Isaac Scher, The US intelligence community has reportedly concluded that China intentionally misrepresented its coronavirus numbers, Business Insider, Apr. 1, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-found-china-misrepresented-coronavirus-stats-report-2020-4. In a December interview, Neil Ferguson recalled how China had inspired his lockdown recommendations to the U.K.’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE):
I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March… It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could… If China had not done it, the year would have been very different. 43Tom Whipple, Professor Neil Ferguson: People don’t agree with lockdown and try to undermine the scientists, The Times of London, Dec. 25, 2020, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/people-don-t-agree-with-lockdown-and-try-to-undermine-the-scientists-gnms7mp98.
In a time of panic, it’s natural for the public to focus on the worst possible outcomes. Thus, a prestigious institution producing particularly alarmist models can have an outsized impact on political discourse. In this case, the institution in question not only consistently and egregiously erred in just one direction — the “tendency to overestimate mortality” — but also had a special relationship with China as its “best academic partner in the west.”
In early March 2020, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance documents to healthcare workers.44World Health Organization, Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected, Mar. 13, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/clinical-management-of-novel-cov.pdf..The guidance recommended escalating quickly to mechanical ventilation as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients, a departure from past experience during respiratory-virus epidemics.45Philippe Rola et al., Rethinking the early intubation paradigm of COVID-19: time to change gears?, Clin Exp Emerg Med Vol. 7(2), Jun. 10, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7348679/. In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese journal articles, which published papers in January and February claiming that “Chinese expert consensus” called for “invasive mechanical ventilation” as the “first choice” for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress.46Fujun Peng et al., Management and Treatment of COVID-19: The Chinese Experience, Can J Cardiol Vol. 36(6), Apt. 17, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162773/., in part to protect medical staff. As the Wall Street Journal later reported:
Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply. Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich. At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. “We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients,” Dr. Iwashyna said “That felt awful.”47Melanie Evans, Hospitals Retreat From Early Covid Treatment and Return to Basics, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospitals-retreat-from-early-covid-treatment-and-return-to-basics-11608491436. (emphasis added)
In New York and other cities, early and often ventilator use became a common theme, and it had devastating consequences for patients.48Jordan Schachtel, ‘First Choice’: How China and the WHO created mass ventilator hysteria, Sep. 30, 2020, https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/first-choice-how-china-and-the-who. On March 31, 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who had been caring for ICU patients at one of the hardest-hit hospitals in New York City, acted as an early whistleblower, sounding the alarm about the ventilator issue in a widely-shared video:
We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue… I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time… I don’t know the final answer to this disease, but I’m quite sure that a ventilator is not it… This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country … is actually doing more harm than good.49Cameron Kyle-Sidell, From NYC ICU: Does Covid-19 Really Cause ARDS??!!, YouTube, Mar. 31, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9GYTc53r2o&feature=youtu.be.
By May 2020, it was common knowledge in the medical community that early ventilator use was hurting, not helping, COVID-19 patients, and that less invasive measures were in fact very effective in assisting recoveries.51Sharon Begley, With ventilators running out, doctors say the machines are overused for Covid-19, Stat, Apr. 8, 2020, https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/. A New York City study found a 97.2% mortality rate among those over age 65 who received mechanical ventilation.52Safiya Richardson, MD, MPH, et al., Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area, JAMA 2020 323(20), Apr. 22, 2020,https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184. The “early action” ventilator guidance that the WHO distributed to the world killed thousands of innocent patients; the WHO obtained that guidance from China.
4. The World’s Predominant, Wildly-Inaccurate PCR Testing Protocols Are Based on Incomplete, Theoretical Genome Sequences Supplied by China
Virologists Victor Corman and Christian Drosten led the exceptionally-rapid creation of the first COVID-19 PCR test (the “Corman-Drosten Protocol”);53Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, World Health Organization, Jan. 17, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf. it is now the most commonly-used testing protocol in the world for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus which may, in certain cases, lead to the disease COVID-19. (As discussed infra, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon concluded that this PCR test was producing as many as 97% false positives). Corman and Drosten were provided with the in silico (theoretical) genome sequences used to create their PCR protocol by Chinese scientists including Yong-Zhen Zhang and Shi Zhengli, Director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.54Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, Eurosurveillance European Communicable Disease Bulletin Vol. 25(3), Jan. 23, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/. (These genome sequences were then posted to the open-source depository Virological.org on January 10, 2020). The Corman-Drosten Protocol was submitted to the WHO on January 13,55Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, World Health Organization, Jan. 13, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf. eight days prior to the date it was submitted to the medical journal Eurosurveillance for “peer review.”56Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, Eurosurveillance European Communicable Disease Bulletin Vol. 25(3), Jan. 23, 2020, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.
The WHO released the Corman-Drosten Protocol on January 21, the same day it was submitted to Eurosurveillance.57Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, World Health Organization, Jan. 17, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf. Drosten sits on the board of Eurosurveillance, a conflict of interest.58Eurosurveillane, Editorial Board, https://web.archive.org/web/20201224033649/https://www.eurosurveillance.org/board. The Corman-Drosten Protocol was accepted59Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, Eurosurveillance European Communicable Disease Bulletin Vol. 25(3), Jan. 23, 2020, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. by Eurosurveillance the very next day, January 22 (the same day the WHO confirmed human-to-human transmission),60World Health Organization, Archived: WHO Timeline — COVID-19, Apr. 27, 2020, https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-2020-who-timeline—covid-19. an extraordinarily quick turnaround; peer review for scientific journals is an intensive process requiring identification of, and action by, external reviewers, which typically takes weeks to months. Of all 1,595 publications at Eurosurveillance since 2015, not one other research paper was reviewed and accepted in fewer than 20 days.61@waukema, Twitter, Nov. 30, 2020, https://twitter.com/waukema/status/1333612453561831428. Eurosurveillance’s peer review process also requires an author declaration that no conflicts of interest exist, which was, in this case, a false statement.62Eurosurveillane, Evaluation and review process, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/evaluation. This extraordinarily quick turnaround made it impossible for any other PCR protocol to be published before the Corman-Drosten Protocol, which was published on PubMed on January 23,63Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, Eurosurveillance European Communicable Disease Bulletin Vol. 25(3), Jan. 23, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/. giving it a valuable “first-mover” advantage ensuring that it became the predominant PCR protocol in the world.
The molecular biologist Pieter Borger and his team submitted a retraction request for the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol.64Pieter Borger et al., External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, Nov. 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/. According to Borger’s report, the Corman-Drosten PCR test workflow contains multiple, fatal errors. The most glaring issue is the fact that, at the time the protocol was submitted, there was no good reason to believe widespread PCR testing would even be necessary:
The authors introduce the background for their scientific work as: “The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travelers does already occur. According to BBC News65Citing New China virus: Warning against cover-up as number of cases jumps, BBC, Jan. 21, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51185836. and Google Statistics66Citing Google Analytics — COVID19-deaths worldwide, https://archive.is/PpqEE. there were 6 deaths world-wide on January 21st 2020 — the day when the manuscript was submitted. Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought? (emphasis added)
Borger’s report goes on to specify ten major flaws with the Corman-Drosten protocol, the biggest issue being the fact that the entire test is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences supplied by China:
The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China,67Citing Victor Corman and Christian Drosten et al., Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR, Eurosurveillance European Communicable Disease Bulletin Vol. 25(3), Jan. 23, 2020, https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof.
In addition, the primers and probes in Drosten’s protocol are incomplete and non-specific; the primer concentrations are four to five times too high; the GC content (connection strength) is far too low; the annealing temperature difference in primer pairs is up to five times too high; the PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level, rendering the test useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify SARS-CoV-2; and — given the protocol was accepted for publication just one day after it was submitted to Eurosurveillance — it was obviously never subjected to any meaningful peer review.
Corman and Drosten’s PCR protocol thus has every indications of being fraudulent.
In June, a peer-reviewed study was published comparing the accuracy of the COVID-19 PCR test protocols on the short list recommended by the WHO. The PCR protocol developed by the CDC (the N2 US CDC protocol)68Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Viral Diseases, CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, Feb. 4, 2020, http://web.archive.org/web/20200227050956/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download. — likewise based on in silico genome sequences supplied by China — fared little better than the Corman-Drosten protocol:
The E Charité [Corman-Drosten] and N2 US CDC assays were positive for all specimens, including negative samples and negative controls (water).69Sibyle Etievant et al., Performance Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 PCR Assays Developed by WHO Referral Laboratories. J Clin Med Vol. 9(6), Jun. 16, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7355678/.
5. Predominant, Excessive PCR Testing Protocols Came from China
In accordance with recommendations by the WHO and other public health authorities, countless laboratories have engaged in mass PCR testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.71World Health Organization, Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in suspected human cases, Mar. 19, 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331501/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-2020.5-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Fundamental to PCR testing is the concept of “cycle thresholds.” The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from a virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious. Thus, the higher the PCR cycle threshold, the lower the amount of viral load needed to trigger a positive PCR test.
If the PCR cycle threshold indicating a “positive” is set too high, a positive result may not even indicate any meaningful amount of live viral particles. As Dr. Anthony Fauci mentioned in a July 2020 interview, a cycle threshold of 35 or more should not be considered a positive result:
What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard … if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule… So, I thinkif somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.72Daniel Payne, In little noticed July interview, Fauci warned that widely used COVID tests may pick up ‘dead’ virus, Just the News, Dec. 10, 2020, https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/newly-surfaced-video-july-fauci-tests-dead-virus.(emphasis added)
As described by the New York Times, most laboratories and manufacturers in the United States now set their cutoff for a positive PCR test from 37 to 40 cycle thresholds: “Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.”76Apoorva Mandavilli, Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be., N.Y. Times, Aug. 29, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html. At 37 cycles, any viral RNA or DNA will have been amplified over 68 billion times, and at 40 cycles it will have been amplified over 500 billion times.
Doctors interviewed by the New York Times agreed with Dr. Fauci that anything above 35 cycle thresholds is too sensitive. “A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35,” said Juliet Morrison, virologist at UC Riverside. Dr. Michael Mina, epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Using current testing standards with 37 to 40 cycle thresholds:
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found… In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. ‘I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,’ he said.77Id (emphasis added).
The court cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” showing that if someone tested positive for COVID-19 at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chance of that person actually being infected is less than 3%, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”80Id.
To summarize, based on guidance issued by the WHO citing three studies from China, laboratories and manufacturers across the United States and many other countries are using a PCR cycle threshold of 37 to 40 for COVID-19 PCR tests that were created using in silico genome sequences supplied by a laboratory in China, pursuant to which positive COVID-19 case counts have been inflated as much as ten- to thirty-fold.81Id.
6. Studies Showing Significant Asymptomatic Transmission, the Only Scientific Basis for Lockdowns of Healthy Individuals, Came from China
A paper from McGill University concluded that “transmission in the asymptomatic period was documented in numerous studies,” but every one of those studies was conducted in China; where studies outside of China have tried to replicate these findings, they have failed.88Mercedes Yanes-Lane et al., Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis, PLoS One, Nov. 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241536. An Italian study concluded that two asymptomatic individuals who tested positive had been infected by two other asymptomatic individuals, but this was based on 2,800 PCR tests; given the false-positive rate discussed above, the conclusion is dubious.89Enrico Lavezzo et al., Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo’, Nature Vol. 584, Jun. 30, 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2488-1. An influential study from Brunei Darussalam found significant asymptomatic spread,90Liling Chaw et al., Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Different Settings, Brunei, Emerg Infect Dis Vol. 26(11), Oct. 9, 2020, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/11/20-2263_article. but its findings are considerably weakened by a poor case definition; its two findings of asymptomatic spread were that of a young girl with no symptoms who allegedly spread SARS-CoV-2 to her teacher who had “a mild cough on one day,” and a father who remained asymptomatic but whose wife briefly had a runny nose and whose baby also had a mild cough one day.91Justin Wong et al., Asymptomatic transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 and implications for mass gatherings, Influenza Other Respir Viruses Vol. 14(5), May 30, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7300701/.
Absent this concept of significant asymptomatic spread, there is no scientific case for locking down healthy persons. This concept of significant asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and the studies backing it, came from China.
7. The CCP Engaged in an Early, Broad, Systematic, and Global Propaganda Campaign to Promote Its Lockdown Response
Chinese analysts and netizens doubt herd immunity and called it a violation of human rights, citing high mortality in the country compared to other Northern European countries. “So-called human rights, democracy, freedom are heading in the wrong direction in Sweden, and countries that are extremely irresponsible do not deserve to be China’s friend …”101Leng Shumei, Sweden’s herd immunity strategy coldblooded, indifferent: netizens, Global Times, Apr. 25, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1186720.shtml.
That was, of course, before the WHO adopted the bold, contradictory strategy of attempting to rewrite the historical definition of herd immunity wholesale. As recently as June 2020, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity had properly included “immunity developed through previous infection”—but on October 15, 2020, the WHO effectively erased the eons-long history of naturally-acquired immunity from its website:
Chinese company DJI donated drones to 22 U.S. states to help enforce lockdown rules.124Zachary Evans, Chinese Company Suspected of Spying on U.S. Citizens Donates Police Drones to 22 States, Nat’l Review, Apr. 20, 2020, https://www.nationalreview.com/news/chinese-company-suspected-of-spying-on-u-s-citizens-donates-police-drones-to-22-states/. Months later, DJI was blacklisted by the U.S. for having “enabled wide-scale human rights abuses within China through abusive genetic collection and analysis or high-technology surveillance, and/or facilitated the export of items by China that aid repressive regimes …”125Bureau of Industry and Security, Addition of Entities to the Entity List, Revision of Entry on the Entity List, and Removal of Entities from the Entity List, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 15 CFR 744 Docket №201215–0347, Dec. 22, 2020, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-28031.pdf. On July 7, FBI Director Christopher Wray disclosed that the CCP even specifically approached local politicians to endorse its pandemic response:
The significance of China’s global lockdown propaganda campaign is the intent behind it. While the scientific issues described above — criminal negligence by the WHO, alarmist mortality models, dubious PCR tests, and bad studies on asymptomatic transmission — could theoretically be attributed to incompetence, the CCP’s propaganda is evidence of deliberation. Sloppy science may be professionally shameful, but it is neither a crime nor a moral failing. The possibility of corruption and fraud, on the other hand, is another matter.
8. Many Prominent Pro-Lockdown Scientists Show Conspicuous Pro-China Bias
Not only were lockdowns laundered into science with a shocking lack of scientific debate, but many scientists have shown an unusual deference to China in evaluating the continuation of lockdown policies. These scientists have continuously praised China, and many appear to be operating on the assumption that China has, in fact, eliminated domestic COVID-19 cases as the CCP claims, when in fact this claim is a lie, as confirmed by the intelligence community.133Sonam Sheth and Isaac Scher, The US intelligence community has reportedly concluded that China intentionally misrepresented its coronavirus numbers, Business Insider, Apr. 1, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-found-china-misrepresented-coronavirus-stats-report-2020-4. Needless to say, promoting major public policy decisions based on this mistaken assumption can have devastating consequences.
In a May 2020 interview for China Central Television, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the esteemed medical journal The Lancet, emphatically praised China’s lockdowns:
It was not only the right thing to do, but it also showed other countries how they should respond in the face of such an acute threat. So, I think we have a great deal to thank China for …134Global Times, China shows world the right way for pandemic response: The Lancet chief editor, May 2, 2020, https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1187265.shtml.
In July, Horton reiterated his gratitude toward China, tweeting: “Indeed. China should not be ‘blamed’. In my view, we should thank Chinese scientists and health workers for their incredibly selfless commitment to attacking this outbreak. They deserve our unconditional gratitude.”135@richardhorton1, Twitter, Jul. 7, 2020, https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1280617079960371200. And in August, Horton doubled down again in a full-throated piece that had surprisingly little to do with health:
Despite ignorance by many in the West, this article by The Lancet is a powerful endorsement of China’s successful pandemic response. Hate to read stories by those paparazzi journalists who are experts at spinning but have little knowledge of science.138@chenweihua, Twitter, Oct. 16, 2020, https://twitter.com/chenweihua/status/1317014216532963330.
Chinese scientists later submitted an article to The Lancet arguing that SARS-CoV-2 originated in India, in the midst of ongoing border skirmishes with India.139Shen Libing et al., The Early Cryptic Transmission and Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in Human Hosts, SSRN, Nov. 16, 2020, https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr241540. Just weeks later, however, the party line changed again amid economic tensions with Australia, and Global Times claimed the coronavirus may have come from Australia.140Charlie Moore, China claims coronavirus may have started in AUSTRALIA and travelled to Wuhan’s wet market via frozen steak exports — and attacks US alliance with insulting new cartoon, Daily Mail Australia, Dec. 6. 2020, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9024311/China-claims-coronavirus-started-AUSTRALIA.html.
William A. Haseltine, Chairman of the Board of the US-China Health Summit since 2015, has also reserved great praise for China. In October 2020, China Daily syndicated a column from Haseltine in which he towed the CCP’s party line on Sweden, chastising the country for choosing to “forego lockdowns” and base its strategy on “herd immunity,” for which he falsely states that Sweden’s “COVID-19 infection and fatality rates were among the world’s highest”:
Early in the pandemic, on March 25, Haseltine also praised China’s measures in contrast to the United States, most of which had yet to impose lockdowns: “The measures the US is taking to control Covid-19 are far inferior to what was done in China according to @JNBPage in @WSJ — http://ow.ly/BS5R50yVDV2. For more details see an interview quarantine of an American in Shanghai — http://ow.ly/nz3050yVDXO.”142@WmHaseltine, Twitter, Mar. 25, 2020, https://twitter.com/WmHaseltine/status/1242870021422034944?s=20. Later that day, Haseltine continued: “Two months of lockdown in Hubei province in China has been lifted, although Wuhan remains under quarantine until April 8. This is an important moment, and testament to the effectiveness of containment measures.”143@WmHaseltine, Twitter, Mar. 25, 2020, https://twitter.com/WmHaseltine/status/1242887061310443521?s=20. Haseltine praised China again on May 20: “It is possible to eliminate Covid without effective drugs or vaccines. This is how they did it in Wuhan, China.”144@WmHaseltine, Twitter, May 20, 2020, https://twitter.com/WmHaseltine/status/1263158816365064194?s=20.
On June 4, Haseltine again compared the U.S. negatively to China: “The steps China has taken to protect its population through testing and tracking is truly impressive. The US, on the other hand, is failing.”145@WmHaseltine, Twitter, Jun. 4, 2020, https://twitter.com/WmHaseltine/status/1268578282573889539?s=20. And again on September 15: “Has the US has done [sic] all it can to control Covid-19? Covid can be contained without a vaccine or drug. China now has near zero new infections. ACCESS Health & the @RockefellerFdn explored how they did it with the use of digital technologies. http://ow.ly/I4Ch50BrEpJ.”146@WmHaseltine, Twitter, Sep. 15, 2020, https://twitter.com/WmHaseltine/status/1305927462795214851?s=20.
On March 17, Frieden urged the U.S. to emulate China’s expansion of hospital capacity: “When @voxdotcom posted this yesterday I thought hospitals might need to triple their beds and ventilators for pts with #COVID19. Now data suggests we may need as much as 10x more. China built 1K bed hospitals in 8 days, urgent action needed in US now.”154@DrTomFrieden, Twitter, Mar. 17, 2020, https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1239988987604983808?s=20.
In August, Frieden praised China several times, contrasting its “success” with that of the U.S. On August 10: “Meanwhile in China. They report they can now do 4.8M PCR tests/day. Schools are opening and staying open. Mask-wearing is, where appropriate, nearly universal. Last week, they had an average of 34 cases/day. That’s a case rate less than 1/5,000th that of the US.”156@DrTomFrieden, Twitter, Aug. 14, 2020, https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1294339295747215362. On August 15: “This reflection from an American teaching in Chengdu — where Covid lockdowns were strictly enforced — examines the nuances of life in China and how the country was able to crush the curve.”157@DrTomFrieden, Twitter, Aug. 15, 2020, https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1294787213331398657?s=20. And on August 16: “Thoughts about huge, unmasked crowds at festivals in Wuhan!? Well, that’s the reward for crushing the curve — you get back to near pre-Covid reality. But that’s probably not a reasonable goal for most places, where simmering control is a realistic best-case scenario.”158@DrTomFrieden, Twitter, Aug. 18, 2020, https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1295773328523825158?s=20. And on August 18: “China reported a case rate less than 1/5,000th of the US’. It’s possible for us to control Covid too if Americans work together and fully support public health.”159@DrTomFrieden, Twitter, Aug. 18, 2020, https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status/1295777614016262145?s=20.
While these individuals are unique in their pro-China, pro-lockdown bias, as scientists they’re far from alone in their apparent ties to the CCP. In June, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) disclosed that 189 of its grantees had received undisclosed funding from foreign governments.160Jeffrey Mervis, Fifty-four scientists have lost their jobs as a result of NIH probe into foreign ties, Science, Jun. 12, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/fifty-four-scientists-have-lost-their-jobs-result-nih-probe-foreign-ties. In 93% of cases, including that of Charles Lieber, chair of Harvard’s chemistry department, the undisclosed funding came from China.161Office of Public Affairs, Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases, U.S. Dep’t of Justice Press Release №20–99, Jan. 28, 2020, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related. The co-founders of CanSino Biologics, a Chinese vaccine company collaborating with Canada, were found to be members of the CCP’s Thousand Talents Plan for co-opting and incentivizing scientists to transfer research and knowledge to China.162Sam Cooper, Chinese vaccine company executives worked in program now targeted by Western intelligence agencies, Global News, Dec. 2, 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/7483970/cansino-nrc-covid-vaccine/. According to the Harvard Crimson, the largest gift in the history of Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health came in part from a “pawn of the CCP,” a “cheerleader for a government responsible for significant humanitarian crises” through a series of shell companies, the largest of which was named in the Panama Papers163Guillermo S. Hava, The Other Chan: Donation Sanitization at the School of Public Health, The Harvard Crimson, Oct. 19, 2020, https://www.thecrimson.com/column/for-sale/article/2020/10/19/hava-the-other-chan/.
There is nothing immoral or illegal about merely being wrong. But given the magnitude of the decisions being made during the COVID-19 crisis, if even a handful of influential scientists are cross-incentivized to support lockdowns regardless of any real data or results, this can have an outsized impact on both public opinion and policy.
9. Many Other Influential Lockdown Supporters Are Both Woefully Unqualified to Be Advising World Leaders on Pandemic Policy and Often Show Conspicuous Pro-China Bias
In addition to the many scientists with ties to China, a number of woefully unqualified individuals have held themselves out to the public and politicians as experts with regard to COVID-19 epidemiology and lockdowns, when in fact their backgrounds reveal them to have no such expertise. Many of these, too, have shown unusual deference to China.
On January 25, 2020, Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist in Harvard’s nutrition department with little background in infectious disease, wrote, “HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!! How bad is that reproductive R0 value? It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad.”164@DrEricDing, Twitter, Jan. 25, 2020, https://threader.app/thread/1220919589623803905. This was the first of a months-long series of dubious, but widely-shared, alarmist tweets by the previously unknown Ding, by virtue of which he gained hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers and became one of the leading advocates of strict COVID-19 mandates, despite his evident lack of qualifications.165Tom Bartlett, This Harvard Epidemiologist Is Very Popular on Twitter. But Does He Know What He’s Talking About?, The Chronicle of Higher Educ., Apr. 17, 2020, https://www.chronicle.com/article/this-harvard-epidemiologist-is-very-popular-on-twitter-but-does-he-know-what-hes-talking-about/.
Ding is an alumnus of the World Economic Forum’s Global Shapers, a group of young people that considers Taiwan a part of Greater China166Global Shapers Community, Taipei Hub, http://web.archive.org/web/20201024004411/https://www.globalshapers.org/hubs/taipei-hub. and has campaigned during the COVID-19 crisis to share “their personal experiences of combating the coronavirus in their cities and of adapting to a new normal.167World Economic Forum, Global Shapers Community Annual Report 2019–2020, https://weforum.ent.box.com/v/gsc-report-2020. His enormous Twitter following irked many of his colleagues, prompting prominent Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch to denounce him as a charlatan: “OK lots of people think this is an intramural tiff. In the sense that we have been working @CCDD_HSPH for a decade and at @HarvardEpi for 25y to establish ID epidemiology as a field of excellence & we don’t like a charlatan exploiting a tenuous connection for self-promotion, yes.”168@mlipsitch, Twitter, Mar. 19, 2020, https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1240846136589660165.
Columbia virologist Angela Rasmussen agreed with Dr. Lipsitch’s assessment: “Eric Feigl-Ding is a charlatan. If Dr. Lipsitch sounds condescending, it’s because EFD has repeatedly claimed expertise he doesn’t have in order to get attention. He sensationalizes data and distributes outright misinformation. He’s harmful to public health and I disdain that too.”169@angie_rasmussen, Twitter, Apr. 14, 2020, https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1250240307037233153.
These denunciations by Drs. Rasmussen and Lipsitch are noteworthy in that both have supported limited lockdowns and criticized both pro- and anti-lockdown scientists and commentators. However, their denunciations of Ding have not slowed down his Twitter campaign, and he has continued to present himself in attire worn by a medical doctor, completely inappropriate to his background as a nutritionist.170@DrEricDing, Twitter, Oct. 20, 2020, https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1318693240309223424.
Tomas Pueyo is an engineer and MBA with no background in health or epidemiology who came to sudden fame for a March 10 article on the self-publishing site Medium titled “Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now,” in which he implored leaders around the world to implement lockdowns on China’s model to counter rising COVID-19 cases. “The total number of cases grew exponentially until China contained it. But then, it leaked outside, and now it’s a pandemic that nobody can stop.”171Tomas Pueyo, Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now, Medium, Mar. 10, 2020, https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca. (emphasis added)
Not only was Pueyo unqualified to be dispatching this type of epidemiological advice to world leaders, but Pueyo’s March 10 article contains a number of red flags. First, Pueyo several times refers to the coronavirus as a “pandemic.” However, as of March 10, the WHO had not yet declared the coronavirus a pandemic,174World Health Organization, Archived: WHO Timeline — COVID-19, Apr. 27, 2020, https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-2020-who-timeline—covid-19. and per the article, cases accounted for less than 0.0015% of the world’s population. In the article, Pueyo then goes on to implore leaders:
But in 2–4 weeks, when the entire world is in lockdown, when the few precious days of social distancing you will have enabled will have saved lives, people won’t criticize you anymore: They will thank you for making the right decision. (emphasis added)
Not only was the coronavirus not yet a pandemic, but as of March 10 there were fewer than 200 cases in the entire developing world outside China. Pueyo had no good reason to call the coronavirus a pandemic, no good reason to believe the entire world would be in lockdown in two to four weeks, and, above all, no good reason to be advising world leaders to lock down.
On March 19, Pueyo posted another Medium article titled “The Hammer and Dance,” which again went viral, explaining the strategy Pueyo described as “the Hammer” — quick, aggressive lockdowns when outbreaks occur — followed by “the Dance” — tracing, surveillance, and quarantine measures.175Tomas Pueyo, Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance, Medium, Mar. 19, 2020, https://tomaspueyo.medium.com/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56.
On March 22, three days after Pueyo’s “The Hammer and Dance” was published, a strategy paper by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) entitled “How to get a grip on COVID-19” (later dubbed “the Panic Paper”) was secretly distributed to members of German parliament and leaders of certain media outlets — this paper played an outsized role in encouraging the German government to implement a nationwide lockdown in March 2020.176Parliamentwatch, Das interne Strategiepapier des Innenministeriums zur Corona-Pandemie, Apr. 7, 2020, https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/blog/informationsfreiheit/das-interne-strategiepapier-des-innenministeriums-zur-corona-pandemie. After the BMI refused to release the Panic Paper to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, it was leaked by FragDenStaat, a whistleblower site.177Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community, Wie wir COVID-19 unter Kontrolle bekommen, Strategiepapier des Bundesinnenministeriums, FragDenStaat, Mar. 22, 2020, https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/4123-wie-wir-covid-19-unter-kontrolle-bekommen/.
From the earliest possible date, physicist Yaneer Bar-Yam has urged the entire world to adopt the strategy of attempting to eliminate COVID-19 entirely as China had supposedly done through the global adoption of strict social distancing measures. On February 2, Bar-Yam praised China’s supposed rapid construction of a hospital: “Hospital built in days in China is now operational.”187@yaneerbaryam, Twitter, Feb. 2, 2020, https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1224050641443704838?s=20. On February 28, Bar-Yam quoted the WHO’s report from its China Joint Mission which sent the world into lockdown: “China’s uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons for the global response.”188@yaneerbaryam, Twitter, Feb. 28, 2020, https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1233386860958887936?s=20. That same day, Bar-Yam continued “We should all acknowledge and thank China for their aggressive response to the Wuhan coronavirus. This includes stopping almost all travel of their citizens to the world to prevent contagion elsewhere.189@yaneerbaryam, Twitter, Feb. 28, 2020, https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1233388113512292354?s=20. In February, Bar-Yam launched the website www.endcoronavirus.org, which was soon translated into 17 languages, urging countries around the world to implement Wuhan-style lockdowns.190@yaneerbaryam, Twitter, Apr. 26, 2020, https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1254455465200816134?s=20.
Bar-Yam has spent the better part of a year admiring China’s lockdowns — including the CCP’s murderous lockdown in Xinjiang — and promoting the use of China’s data despite allegations of fraud. On July 18, Bar-Yam praised China’s “wartime” lockdown in Xinjiang: “17 new cases, shut the city down. Don’t give it a chance. China coronavirus: ‘Wartime state’ declared for Urumqi in Xinjiang.”191@yaneerbaryam, Twitter, Jul. 18, 2020, https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1284585257761734656?s=20. This same lockdown simultaneously caused incredible concern among human rights watchers and activists due to the CCP’s concomitant acts of genocide in Xinjiang against Uyghur Muslims and other Turkic minorities.192@SophieHRW, Twitter, Jul. 18, 2020, https://twitter.com/SophieHRW/status/1284566661597671425?s=20.
During crises, citizens trust experts with major policy decisions. For individuals to hold themselves out to the public and their leaders as experts in a crisis when they lack the necessary qualifications is bad enough; if they are somehow cross-incentivized to do so, it’s much worse.
10. Several Top National Health Officials Among the Nations Are Woefully Unqualified and Show Conspicuous Pro-China Bias
Hajdu even earned a special nod from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “We noticed relevant reports and applaud the Canadian health minister’s objective and fair remarks.”206Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin’s Regular Press Conference on September 18, 2020, Sep. 18, 2020, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1816244.shtml.
As commentator Spencer Fernando pointed out, “Propaganda Patty … appears to be one of the only people on Earth who actually believes China’s official virus numbers.”207Spencer Fernando, Propaganda Patty Defends Communist China Yet Again, Sept. 13, 2020, https://spencerfernando.com/2020/09/13/propaganda-patty-defends-communist-china-yet-again/. Apparently unrepentant, Hajdu again scolded a journalist questioning data, echoing her April sentiments: “Mr. Speaker, do you know what will help Canadians’ lives? If the member opposite and the leader of the opposition stop their members from sharing fake and dangerous news like the member from Lethridge and the member of Carleton stay focused on saving lives of Canadians instead of spreading conspiracy theories.”208True North, Hajdu slanders journalist as “dangerous” and “fake news”, Nov. 26, 2020, https://tnc.news/2020/11/26/hajdu-slanders-journalist-as-dangerous-and-fake-news/.
Matt Hancock is a former economist and civil servant who had little to no background in public health or natural science before becoming health secretary of the United Kingdom. Prior to COVID-19, Hancock reportedly showed little interest in his role: “For him, it’s all about promoting himself and using it as a stepping stone to his next job,” said another NHS chief. “Tech is the only area in which he’s made a mark… But his belief that tech can solve many of the NHS’s difficulties had led to him being derided by people he needs to respect him.”209Denis Campbell, Who’s Matt Hancock? The health secretary’s only legacy will be how quickly he’s forgotten, The Guardian, Jul. 24, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2019/jul/24/matt-hancock-health-secretary-legacy-quickly-forgotten-nhs.
In April 2020, China’s National Health Commission reported that Hancock and his Chinese counterpart, Ma Xioawei, had spoken over the phone to discuss future collaboration during the COVID-19 crisis: “Hancock spoke highly of China’s commitment to fighting COVID-19 and China-UK cooperation during the pandemic, and said that the UK is willing to enhance exchanges and collaboration with China …”214National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China, NHC minister speaks on phone with UK health secretary, Apr. 23, 2020, http://en.nhc.gov.cn/2020-04/23/c_79551.htm?bsh_bid=5572099213. Three weeks later, CGTN reported that Hancock and Ma held a digital meeting of high-level health officials from China and the UK in a bid to increase cooperation amid the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, including discussing “lockdown-lifting strategies:”
Hancock said he appreciated the cooperation so far between the two nations in their joint response to the epidemic, and expressed that the UK is willing to strengthen anti-epidemic cooperation with China and to use the epidemic prevention and control agreements as an opportunity to deepen bilateral health and global health cooperation… They held in-depth discussions on topics including lockdown-lifting strategies and reiterated their willingness to strengthen experience sharing and technical cooperation to jointly safeguard the people of the two countries.215CGTN, Public health experts from China and UK move to develop greater cooperation, May 16, 2020, https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-16/Public-health-experts-from-China-and-UK-move-to-strengthen-ties-QwmBNLjJp6/share_amp.html?__twitter_impression=true. (emphasis added)
During the COVID-19 crisis, Christian Drosten assumed the role of Germany’s most influential health official, though as a virologist he has little background in epidemiology, infectiology, or public health.216Tim Loh, Germany Has Its Own Dr. Fauci — and Actually Follows His Advice, Bloomberg Businessweek, Sept. 28, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-09-28/christian-drosten-germany-s-dr-fauci-worries-about-second-wave-of-covid. Drosten’s central role in creating the wildly-inaccurate COVID-19 PCR test has already been discussed. In a May 14 press conference, Drosten referred to: “this concept in the pandemic research of ‘The hammer and the dance,’” but this is not true — as discussed above, the term has no history, it was invented by Tomas Pueyo on March 19.
11. Prominent Lockdown Supporters Have Proven Unusually Indifferent to the Devastating Consequences of Their Policies
In addition to their pro-China bias, lockdown proponents have proven strangely stubborn in their support of these policies, continuing to promote economically- and socially-destructive measures seemingly without concern for their terrifying real-world consequences; tragically, these consequences are all too real.
A survey found that 22% of Canadians were experiencing high anxiety levels, a four-fold increase from before the COVID-19 crisis, while the number reporting symptoms of depression doubled to 13%.228Morganne Campbell, Canadians reporting higher levels of anxiety, depression amid the pandemic, Global News, Oct. 10, 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/7391217/world-mental-health-day-canada/. More than 40 U.S. states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality.229American Medical Association, Issue brief: Reports of increases in opioid- and other drug-related overdose and other concerns during COVID pandemic, Dec. 9, 2020, https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-12/issue-brief-increases-in-opioid-related-overdose.pdf. And, according to the CDC, despite mass PCR testing and the enormous number of false positives, at least 100,947 excess deaths in 2020 were not linked to COVID-19 at all.230Lauren M. Rossen, PhD et al., Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020, U.S. CDC MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Vol. 69(42), Oct. 23, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6942e2-H.pdf.
Though at little risk from the virus itself, young people bore an outsized share of the burden of lockdown. More than seven in ten adults aged 18–23 said they experienced common symptoms of depression.231Cory Stieg, More than 7 in 10 Gen-Zers report symptoms of depression during pandemic, survey finds, CNBC, Oct. 21 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/21/survey-more-than-7-in-10-gen-zers-report-depression-during-pandemic.html. The CDC revealed that young adults aged 25–44 saw the largest increase in “excess” deaths from previous years, a stunning 26.5% jump,232Amanda Prestigiacomo, New CDC Numbers Show Lockdown’s Deadly Toll On Young People, The Daily Wire, Oct. 22, 2020, https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-cdc-numbers-show-lockdowns-deadly-toll-on-young-people. despite accounting for fewer than 3% of deaths from COVID-19. This increase literally surpassed the increase in excess mortality of older Americans, who are at much higher risk of COVID-19 fatality. Since young people are at very low risk for COVID-19 fatality — 20–49-year-olds have a 99.98% chance of surviving the virus, per CDC data — this shocking increase in deaths is largely attributable to deaths of “despair,” in other words, deaths by lockdown.233Id.
That lockdown supporters may not want to acknowledge these facts does not make them any less real. The suffering caused by these policies cannot be undone, but it can at least be prevented going forward, and justice can be obtained if these policies were imposed in bad faith.
Under the United Nations’ Covenant on Civil and Political rights, it is incumbent on any government imposing disease control measures to utilize the “least restrictive means” available to effectively achieve the public health goal.253 International Commission of Jurists, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Jul 1, 1984, https://www.icj.org/siracusa-principles-on-the-limitation-and-derogation-provisions-in-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/. With the examples of Sweden, Florida, South Dakota, Belarus, and others successfully deploying means far less restrictive than China’s lockdowns to manage COVID-19 — without incurring any excess mortality or results worse than lockdown areas — it is difficult to understand how any world leader can continue to impose these measures in good faith.
In the 20th century, the term totalitarian was born to describe certain regimes that used modern technology to control every aspect of citizens’ lives, binding them to the state by breaking all pre-existing social bonds. One such regime was the Soviet Union, and there is a growing expert consensus that China today is likewise totalitarian.254Francis Fukuyama, What Kind of Regime Does China Have?, The American Interest, May 18, 2020, https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/05/18/what-kind-of-regime-does-china-have/; Robert C. O’Brien, The Chinese Communist Party’s Ideology and Global Ambitions, White House National Security Council, Jun. 26, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/chinese-communist-partys-ideology-global-ambitions/. Totalitarian regimes utilize any and all means in the pathological monopolization of power. Though they deliver an exceptionally low quality of life to their citizens, totalitarian states are advanced political organisms, punching above their weight in geopolitics with their unparalleled ability to keep secrets and execute complex operations — the archetypal example being the clandestine rearmament of Germany in the 1930s. In the wilds of geopolitics, the lion underestimates the snake at its own peril, and with lockdowns, the CCP appears to have delivered the world a hefty dose of snake oil.
Throughout 2020, lockdown measures have been quite popular, but that popularity is deceptive. For the general public, the idea that anyone might accept some outside incentive to support such devastating policies while knowing them to be ineffective — needlessly bankrupting millions of families and depriving millions of children of education and food — is, quite simply, too dark. Thus, the public supports lockdowns because the alternative — that they might have been implemented without good cause — is a possibility too evil for most to contemplate. But those who know history know that others with superficially excellent credentials have done even worse for even less.
Furthermore, most of the public believes that if there were anything untoward about the science behind lockdowns, intelligence agencies would stop them. For obvious reasons, those who work at intelligence agencies do not have the luxury of such complacency. Given the gravity of the decisions being made, we cannot ignore the possibility that the entire “science” of COVID-19 lockdowns has been a fraud of unprecedented proportion, deliberately promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators to impoverish the nations who implemented it.
This letter is to be construed only as a recommendation that the above matters be investigated by law-enforcement authorities as a matter of national security. This is not a formal criminal complaint, nor are these facts necessarily indicative that any crime may have been committed by any individual named herein, a determination that can be made only by appropriate legal authorities.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of January, 2021, by:
Citing Howard Markel et al., Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic, 298 JAMA 644, 647 (2007). The total duration of nonpharmaceutical interventions imposed by state and local mandate for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were 51 and 53 days, respectively. Id. at 647, Table 1. This length was, generally, representative of the duration of interventions in most cities. Id. Seattle had the longest period of restrictions, nationwide, at 168 days from start to finish. See also Greg Ip, New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly, WALL ST. J., Aug. 24, 2020 (“Prior to Covid-19, lockdowns weren’t part of the standard epidemic tool kit, which was primarily designed with flu in mind. During the 1918–1919 flu pandemic, some American cities closed schools, churches and theaters, banned large gatherings and funerals and restricted store hours. But none imposed stay-at-home orders or closed all nonessential businesses. No such measures were imposed during the 1957 flu pandemic, the next-deadliest one; even schools stayed open.”).
Citing Noreen Quails et al., Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza, United States, 2017 (Sonja A. Rasmussen et al. eds., 2017).
Daniel Harries, ‘Copy China’s response to COVID-19,’ WHO expert urges rest of the world, CGTN, Feb. 26, 2020, https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-26/-Copy-China-s-response-to-COVID-19-WHO-expert-urges–OnNfwORI3u/index.html.
Pieter Borger et al., External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results, Nov. 27, 2020, https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/.
Mercedes Yanes-Lane et al., Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis, PLoS One, Nov. 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241536.
Rebecca T. Leeb, PhD et al., Mental Health–Related Emergency Department Visits Among Children Aged <18 Years During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, January 1–October 17, 2020, U.S. CDC MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Vol. 69(45), Nov. 13, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945a3.htm.