Red flag Square

Red flags that suggest we’re being deceived by public health zealots


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on print
Share on email

THEY SAY in investing circles you should never catch a falling knife. The dissociation between facts and policy has increased these last few months hence there has been a futility in trying to analyse the actions of the Scottish and British governments, a futility akin to nailing jelly to a wall.

I have had to wait for a real sea change in policy and reasoning behind it before writing anything sensible that is not out of date by the end of day. Omicron has been that sea change.

For two years the British and Scottish governments have played a game of cat and mouse, announcing almost identical policies only a few days apart to maximise their apparent differences on a day-by-day basis.  We have had various slogans to endure from following the science, to protecting the NHS to being somehow boosted by the bells. I have still no idea what this is supposed to have meant.

The trend in public policy has been towards ever increasing authoritarianism and managed ambiguity in messaging, to ensure confusion alongside demoralisation because those messaging know people can only keep up so far and for so long with constant swings in rules. Most of us are frankly too busy with our own lives and only show concern when we are personally affected.

We have transitioned from voluntarism to coercion, no doubt all for the greater good, whatever our betters determine that is. Omicron has brought a new phase and one that we have not knowingly seen before. We are no longer in science-directed coercion, we are in state approved deceit. This is serious. We have never before been deceived into taking a course of action involving our own health and loss of autonomy.

The closest we came was the ‘dodgy dossier’ before the Iraq War. This is worse than that because it involves the people the government is meant to serve and protect. No matter the cause, no democracy can pass the test of deceiving its people for the greater good. At that point, democracy is in effect suspended.

Why is Omicron at the centre of deceit and what is that deceit? For over six months the Bow Group has drawn attention to concerns over ‘novel vaccines’. These use a novel technology, deploying foreign protein over almost every cell in the body. No vaccine has ever done this before. To use novel vaccines and not develop conventional vaccines made us very wary of the competence of government.

We warned of side effects, within days of a Norwegian scientist publishing the reason behind a sudden increase in rare blood clots in young adults. As usual the government ignored a letter we sent to the Department of Health but in any case removed some vaccines for use in young people.

Over recent months it has become clear there is a serious risk of heart inflammation, myocarditis from mRNA vaccines, especially in young men. The government has had to publish this given it could NOT easily avoid doing so. Data from Israel and elsewhere is showing even higher rates of myocarditis than here. Israel has a very high rate of vaccination as far as the third dose.

When Omicron arrived it did so with two warnings. The first was the vaccines used to give us our little passports, have not worked in preventing transmission. All the imported Omicron cases were in vaccinated people. So, we knew from day 1 vaccination was not going to stop transmission, because the index cases were proof of failure. The second was that this was a very mild variant, with the scientists who discovered it expressing surprise over the UK government’s reaction.

The government reacted to Omicron by announcing new measures very rapidly, just as news of Downing Street parties was causing political embarrassment. It announced a vaccine booster programme and marketed that very heavily as a way of beating Omicron.

Here is the issue. A vaccine booster, aimed at huge numbers of people including young adults, was marketed against a strain of Covid that was reported as very mild from the get-go. The side effects have not been widely reported by the government except by a dry written statement and the pressure selling has been on the supposed benefits.

Yet we know from previous rounds of immunisation these vaccines don’t last very long. This isn’t that surprising really. HIV has not had an effective vaccine in 40 years. It’s clear that Covid-19 vaccines work by reducing the severity of infection, boosting our innate immunity with a high concentration of antibodies and that concentration wanes over time. We knew from a Nature paper in Oct 2020 boosters would be needed33

So, we know the vaccine works by reducing personal risk, while infected, for a short amount of time. This should not be a concern. It is perfectly sound to offer winter boosters, indefinitely, to those at high risk – as we do for influenza. What we do not is mass vaccinate everyone for influenza, four times a year, indefinitely, and prevent them working or travelling if they do not.

We certainly do not cancel GP appointments to make sure vaccines are delivered. This is the overfocus of amateur con artists, boiler room pressure salesman whose sole goal is making that sale.

I would call this not only coercive but deceitful. There is no possible way any pharmaceutical company would be allowed to pressure sell in this manner. It is clear as day vaccination does not prevent transmission effectively.  Those vaccinated have been repeatedly assured this latest dose is what they need but we know it won’t be and that indefinite boosters will be needed.

Be it excessive zeal, or political funding by pharma companies, or the need to distract from the Prime Minister’s ottoman of disasters, we are now in a Britain where young adults are receiving multiple doses of vaccine. Each vaccine dose entails an increased and it appears increasing risk of serious side effects. For young adults where personal benefit is infinitesimally low, I cannot see this as moral or anything approaching informed consent.  It cannot validate any restrictions of public life from a lack of vaccination status.

Nor can mass testing be remotely justified. Mass testing in the absence of symptoms is really just screening. We see more nuance with 200,000 cases than we did with 20. Policies are implemented completely independent of case numbers. Of course, most of these positive tests are not cases. They are subclinical. These people are and remain perfectly well. That is not something you can base emergency care policy on. There are again, to the surprise to some in Downing Street, clear guidelines on health screening. They are the Wilson criteria:

  • the condition should be an important health problem
  • the natural history of the condition should be understood
  • there should be a recognisable latent or early symptomatic stage
  • there should be a test that is easy to perform and interpret, acceptable, accurate, reliable, sensitive and specific
  • there should be an accepted treatment recognised for the disease
  • treatment should be more effective if started early
  • there should be a policy on who should be treated
  • diagnosis and treatment should be cost-effective
  • case-finding should be a continuous process

While Covid-19 does tick many of the above boxes it does not tick them all. There is no early treatment available though this is the choice of the NHS. There are many therapies available from vitamin supplementation to small molecule drugs that have proven effective. The lateral flow tests are anything but accurate, often changing within a few hours when repeated.

There is no surveillance programme for those once isolated, and no, a phone call from a call centre to ask how they are does not cut it. If you isolate someone, you have made them either a patient or a prisoner. Only the intent is different. If you will not treat them or make clinical observations you have simple imprisoned them.

There are of course questions of whether this is remotely useful when diseases are endemic and widespread. If a virus is very contagious you better be sure to isolate every single case or you are wasting your time. If you isolate someone from their work and support network you will need to factor in impacts of mental health and revenue collection. Of course, none of this is happening because it would require competence in holistic medicine.

Public health is not holistic, crucially it lacks something many are aware of. It lacks patient care. Public health doctors do not care for patients. It is a ‘no patient’ specialty, as is pathology and forensic medicine. So, public health doctors have not had had practical experience of treating holistically for decades. This almost ensures overfocus on one pathology.

Cancer care pathways have collapsed. Mental health conditions and severity have spiralled. None of this has been factored into government policy which treats us not as patients but as liabilities. It is a very ugly and paternalistic approach to humanity.

Above all, for the sake of democracy, we must ask is the medicine we are being forced to swallow any good for the vast majority of us, or are we now being deceived? Has message pressure taken on such a life of its own as to become the monster in our midst?

I have never believed vaccination would end Covid-19. I never believed the vaccine would be a one-off because we knew very early on of people having Covid-19 several times. That was red flag number 1. Immunity does not last.

There has never been a plan or anything close to it, for reducing the severity of Covid-19 through medicines or surveillance. That was red flag number 2. We only treat the critically ill.

There has been no political discussion weighing risks and benefits on an individual basis. That was red flag number 3. There has been no informed consent on that basis.

There has been coercion into treatment and conventional vaccines available elsewhere (such as Russia and India) have not been licensed – while we continue to use experimental vaccines. This violates the principles laid out in the Nuremburg Code and Helsinki Declaration. This was red flag number 4.

Medical ethics have been shredded, pulped and recycled away. We are starting to see long term issues emerge from side-effects in young adults who would not otherwise have been ill, from vaccines that do not effectively prevent transmission. In my book, maybe in others, we are approaching a place where misselling of a coerced medical therapy is a crime against humanity.

It does not matter that these vaccines have helped prevent death and serious illness in many. It is the hierarchy of benefits and risks by different subgroups of our population that matters, and many have had risks imposed on them that would not be acceptable from any other treatment, nor do I believe from this one.

This is no different to saying a severe blood transfusion reaction negates the benefits from blood transfusion.

That said, if someone has a reaction and didn’t really need that blood, or did, but basic checks were not in place to prevent the wrong product given, it could be forgiven on the grounds that overall blood transfusion is a good thing.

That we use blunt tools now, does not excuse us from not using sharper tools that were always available to us.

If you appreciated this article please share and follow us on Twitter here – and like and comment on facebook here. ThinkScotland is not for profit and relies on donations  – You can help support ThinkScotland publishing these articles by making a donation here.

Image by Paul Brennan from Pixabay 


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on print
Share on email
Scroll to Top