Fear is How We Fall!
This past week we have Canada banning any unvaccinated people over the age of 12 from all forms of public transport, Germany banning unvaccinated citizens from most public places (with their parliament now debating whether to make the vaccinations mandatory, taking a leaf out of Austria’s book), Italy hot on their heels, Greece fining anyone over 60 €100 a month for failing to get vaccinated, and most of the free world banning travel from most of Southern Africa for a new variant that South Africa brought to the attention of the World Health Organisation, just in case you weren’t up to date with what’s going on.
I can’t imagine how you wouldn’t be, though, because the ‘mother-of-all-viruses’ is all any of the mainstream media talk about these days?
The Way to Keep People Locked into their Product is Fear
Fear sells. This excerpt about John McAfee on Wired explains exactly how:
‘He started McAfee Associates out of his 65-metre-square home in Santa Clara. His business plan: create an antivirus program and give it away on bulletin boards. McAfee didn’t expect users to pay. His real aim was to get them to think the software was so necessary that they would install it on their computers at work. They did. Within five years, half of the Fortune 100 companies were running it, and they felt compelled to pay a licence fee. By 1990, McAfee was making $5 million (£3.2 million) a year with few overheads and little investment.
His success was due in part to his ability to spread his own paranoia, the fear that there was always somebody about to attack. Soon after launching his company, he bought an eight-metre Winnebago, loaded it with computers and announced that he had formed the first “antivirus paramedic unit”. When he got a call from someone experiencing computer problems in the San Jose area, he drove to the site and searched for “virus residue”. Like a good door-to-door salesman, there was a kernel of truth to his pitch, but he amplified and embellished the facts to sell his product. The RV therefore was not just an RV; it was “the first specially customised unit to wage effective, on-the-spot counterattacks in the virus war.”
Diddlers, Killer Programs and Other Threats to Your System*. “The reality is so alarming that it would be very difficult to exaggerate,” he wrote. “Even if no new viruses are ever created, there are already enough circulating to cause a growing problem as they reproduce. A major disaster seems inevitable.”
In 1992 McAfee told almost every major news network and newspaper that the recently discovered Michelangelo virus was a huge threat; he believed it could destroy up to five million computers. Sales of his software spiked, but only tens of thousands of infections were reported. McAfee was criticised for his proclamation, but it worked in his favour, as he explained in an email in 2000 to a computer-security blogger: “My business increased tenfold in the two months following the stories and six months later our revenues were 50 times greater and we had captured the lion’s share of the anti-virus market.”
This ability to infect others with his own paranoia made McAfee a wealthy man. In October 1992 his company debuted on Nasdaq, and his shares were suddenly worth $80 million (£51 million).’
It seems the marketing gurus have taken their cues from the dearly departed John McAfee because fear is all we’re being sold these days?
It’s no secret that the UK government launched a fear campaign at the beginning of 2020.
‘Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.
Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.’
‘SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.
Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”
One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.’
One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March  the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.
“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”’
Dr. Harvey Risch (Professor of Epidemiology – Yale School of Medicine: ‘…we’ve had a pandemic of fear…’
In an interview with Jan Jekielek for ‘The Epoch Times’ Doctor Harvey Risch had a lot to say about the level of unnecessary fear promoted regarding COVID-19, and how effective early treatments were discounted as a means to treat patients.
‘Jan Jekielek: Dr. Harvey Risch, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Harvey Risch: Thank you. Nice to be with you.
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Harvey Risch, as a professor of epidemiology at Yale, you’ve been watching the development of this pandemic. Just characterize it for me in general. What are we looking at here, and how has the response fared?
Dr. Harvey Risch: Overall, I’d say that we’ve had a pandemic of fear, and the fear has affected almost everybody, whereas the infection has affected relatively few. It’s serious in some of those people, as we’ve seen. But by and large, it’s been a very selected pandemic, and predictable. We didn’t know at the beginning how predictable it was. At least we laypeople, so to speak, in the pandemic, didn’t know that.
I’m sure that the pharma companies and countries who had experienced it slightly before us had a better picture than we did, but it was very distinguished between young versus old, healthy versus chronic disease people. We quickly learned who was at risk for the pandemic and who wasn’t. However, the fear was manufactured for everybody, and that’s what characterized the whole pandemic—is that degree of fear and people’s response to the fear.’
‘Jan Jekielek: Yes. Let’s talk about the China piece of this … Actually, as you were talking about the fear element, there was all this imagery of people dropping dead ostensibly from the virus. There was all this imagery of lockdowns, and then there was all sorts of propaganda around the success of lockdowns in that system, and look how we’ve conquered, how few people have died because of our great policies. How does this intersect with what we saw here in North America?
Dr. Harvey Risch: We look at the videos that we got from Wuhan and the surrounding area in retrospect to see what was real about that, and what wasn’t. You have to recognize that almost every year there’s been an epidemic release from the live food markets in China, in various places. What was different about this one is that China has admitted to those right away and tried to fix them, whereas the present one, it did not do that.
It withheld information about it for two months, at least, and that withholding of information is a totally different behavior than how China has been in the past. That appears to be a very significant difference as to why it would do that. We know now that some of those videos were not truthful videos about that man falling over in the street and playing dead and things like that. We have reason to believe that those were artificial videos made to induce fear.
While the virus did get out in Wuhan and the lockdowns were there to suppress it, and they worked, in fact, when you suppress 100 percent of the population, you weld their doors shut and so on, you can do that. We’re not as draconian in the United States, at least haven’t been, and so it’s clear that the virus got out.
Whether there was an intention that it would be controllable on the local, but exportable to the rest of the world, is a risk-benefit equation that had to have been made in China at the time. In other words, China also faced the risk that this could get out and affect the whole country.
It did get to other places besides Wuhan, but I think they calculated that they would be able to control it better than we could. They also knew that chloroquine treated it because they had published on that five or more years in the past. We published on that too from NIAID at NIH, a paper on chloroquine and virus infections. I think it might’ve been SARS1 from 2005 that that was published, so we knew.
So, I wrote a paper looking at just hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir, which were the two agents that were being talked about in studies at the time in early-mid 2020, and I didn’t expect much to come out of that other than to say, “Look, here’s something that we could be using.”
My naïve state, thinking about it as just science here, and I had already Dr. Zelenko, who had been using it very successfully. He had treated 800 patients. He had had two or three deaths, two people who were too late to treat, one who didn’t stay on the regimen. So essentially, he was saying that his regimen of hydroxychloroquine and zinc, vitamin D, and other things, supportive medications that he was using, and the recipe for treatment worked extremely well.
It’s like, don’t believe your lying eyes. He knows that it worked because he was dealing with those 800 patients himself. Many of them were high-risk patients, so he knew that it was working.
I came into this. I wrote an op-ed for Newsweek saying, “Here it is. We should use it. There’s no cost, and even if it doesn’t work, it’s 100 percent safe because it’s been used in tens of billions of doses for 60 years in hundreds of millions of people. Even if it doesn’t work, it can’t do any harm.” Then I got pushback from my colleagues saying what do I know about infectious disease and epidemics and so on.’
‘Jan Jekielek: What were you thinking?
Dr. Harvey Risch: I was thinking of cognitive dissonance. In other words, here I know it’s safe. At that time when I wrote the paper, there were five studies. Within another four or five months, there were 10 studies involving more than 40,000 patients who had been studied, including some national studies in Iran and Saudi Arabia—with tens of thousands of patients that provided very clear fivefold or better protection against mortality with this drug, and that’s not even using the recipe.
That’s just using hydroxychloroquine either by itself or with zinc, by and large, in these studies. It was very clear that the evidence was extremely strong, as strong of evidence as I’ve ever seen in anything in my career in epidemiology for an association, the magnitude of an association.’
‘This is my bread and butter of the field that I understand and how it does these studies. What these studies were purporting to say was accurate, and a very strong signal. So I was nonplussed to find that people were saying, “These are anecdotal.” When Dr. Fauci would come in and say, “Oh, that evidence is anecdotal,” and I’m looking at 40,000 patients.
I’m looking at clinicians who’ve now treated more than 150,000 patients with fewer than two dozen deaths with hydroxychloroquine, and he’s saying it’s anecdotal, and I’m saying, “These 50 doctors all know that it’s not anecdotal. They’ve been using it in their practices for a year or a year-and-a-half.”
So, where is this disconnect? This disconnect has to be on purpose. It’s not an accident. It’s a smear campaign against the drug for a purpose. Where is the purpose coming from for why one would suppress something that costs 80 cents a day to treat? It’s even cheaper than ivermectin. Ivermectin is $10 a day or whatever it is. Hydroxychloroquine is a tenth of that.’
‘Jan Jekielek: I’ve heard discussed a number of times the recommendation to the CDC to study how many of the children that are listed as having died with COVID actually died from COVID, It’s something like in the 400 or something like this. Right?
Dr. Harvey Risch: From October to October of 2020 to this year, I think there were 491 deaths in the five-to-11-year range with COVID. Now, that’s the problem. Kids in the hospital with some serious underlying condition that happened to be COVID-positive, that are asymptomatic and tested and found to be battling or infected with the virus, get called dying from COVID. But in fact, in the CDC’s own review slides, they say COVID-associated deaths.
They’re not even saying what they’re from. They’re just leaving it to the reviewer to try to figure out what they mean. In fact, a study that came out earlier this year showed that among hospitalized children with COVID, about half were there because of the COVID, and half were there that happened to have COVID. So, we take the 490 and divide by two, we’re down to about 245, something like that, that might’ve died with COVID.
I think that it’s not just five-to-11s. I think that that’s zero to 12, that number. But the point of that is that among these 200 or 240, almost all of those have chronic conditions, either diabetes or obesity. Or they have immunocompromised because they’ve had cancer or other chronic conditions that put them at very high mortality risk from COVID because of their conditions. Healthy children, probably zero or very close to zero of that number.
Marty Makary at Johns Hopkins reported on the study from his institution of 48,000 children. He asserted that no healthy children in that study had died from COVID. So, that’s the real bottom line. Are we talking about zero or one or five across the country, or 10? We don’t really know exactly, but those numbers are smaller than the number of children who’ve died from influenza each year in past years when we’ve had flu epidemics, as we usually do, except for last year.
It’s a tenth of the number that die from traffic accidents. It’s lower than the number who get hit by lightning, and certainly lower than what flu does. So, why are we potentially forcing all children to get vaccinated to save approximately zero, since we know, we can tell who are the high-risk children? Why aren’t we vaccinating the high-risk children?
Why aren’t we letting parents and doctors decide who’s at high risk, and letting them choose whether to be vaccinated or not? There’s pros and cons for that discussion, and I’m not going to argue either side because it’s a real discussion.
The real discussion is, however, that all children across the country do not need to be vaccinated because they’re not protecting anyone. They’re not protecting adults from the illness. They’re not protecting elderly. They’re not protecting other children. They’re not protecting teachers by getting vaccinated, and they’re not protecting themselves because healthy children don’t need it for themselves.
People will argue every one of the things that I just said, but in fact, it’s very clear that children do perfectly well with this illness when they get it. Either they’re asymptomatic or they have a headache, they’re a little tired, they sleep a little long for a day or two, and that’s about it. That’s the extent of COVID in young children.
It’s not much different than a light flu or a cold in children, and that is probably how the illness is essentially meant to be manifested in a society where all children get it as little children, get through it without a big ruckus, and go on. Then everybody’s protected after that, and adults don’t have to worry about it because they all had it as children.
That’s most likely how this whole thing would work, but what happened now is we as immunologically naïve adults are exposed to this and react totally differently because we didn’t get it as children, and we don’t have that immunity. Well, some people do.
You have to explain why 75 percent, plus or minus, of people who’ve had COVID had it asymptomatically. That’s the adults who have had COVID. There’s a lot of immunity in the population because of all these people who’ve had it asymptomatically.
Jan Jekielek: Okay. I just wanted to stop on that 75 percent of all adults. This is a study you’re talking about specifically, yes?
Dr. Harvey Risch: There’s been two or three studies mostly done by CDC, where they’ve sampled blood samples in blood banks to test for COVID over time and compared that to the number of individuals who have been PCR tested or symptomatic who’ve been symptomatic of COVID.
What they found is in the first study in early to mid 2020, approximately sevenfold the number of people who’ve actually had COVID by testing is seven times the number who actually were symptomatic with COVID. Now, in the recent year with the Delta strain, that’s come down to more like three to one. So, it’s somewhere in that range.
What that means is, when a state for example, reports that it’s had 200,000 cases per million, the people with COVID, that’s by testing. So, it’s either symptomatic or people who were screened and got tested. Two hundred thousand cases per million is 20 percent of the population has had COVID by testing or symptomatic. That means if you multiply that by five, essentially, everybody’s had COVID.
If that number is five, between three and seven, I’m just saying if it’s approximately five, then that’s the ballpark for estimating where the real immunity is, and that’s why you see states like North Dakota, South Dakota, other states that have minimal or no lockdowns, where everybody mixed, lots of people got COVID early.
People didn’t get very sick because they had relatively young, healthy populations that were doing most of the mixing, that they built up large amounts of population immunity, what we call herd immunity early on, and so they were largely done.
Now, Delta came. Some of the people, some of that natural immunity might have been not quite enough to deal with the Delta, so they’ve had a very small, low-level bump over the last few months that is probably going down also. But nothing like the states that locked down like Vermont and Hawaii and so on that spent all their time locked down, and with very severe curtailments of mixing.
And now are having these waves of pandemic that are bigger than what they first saw in early 2020 because it was misguided to try to suppress something that was going to be endemic no matter what anybody did.
The realization of when you take measures that just prolong the pandemic, it just gives it more time to build up, and you have more and more waves. If you let the pandemic go through the society in a controlled, safe way in the first waves, and you control how people respond to that infection in a way that minimizes their damage, their personal damage, you get through it, and that was the exact opposite.
That was what we were trying to say early on in April, May, June of 2020. You have to let this get through the population and develop natural immunity, and that is how we would solve it. That didn’t happen because of financial interests for selling products to deal with it instead of letting it happen on its own.’
‘We already know there’s evidence from Public Health UK that the vaccination reduces by a small increment the ability of the immune system to cope with infections in general. For most people, middle-age or younger, they have good immune systems and are able to cope. You cut it by a little bit, it doesn’t have that much damage.
But if that happens each time you get vaccinated, and you have to get vaccinated every six months, by the time three or four years have passed, now you may have made a sizeable amount of damage across the population to people for other illnesses—flu, respiratory syncytial virus, other coronaviruses, maybe even the common cold.
We don’t know what’s going to happen to people’s immune response to that after this long-term buildup of minor increments of damage. So, these are all the virologists’ considerations as to how to manage the pandemic, and why the vaccination strategy was a very simplistic idea at first. Why it was what I call in the range of plausibility argument, not scientific arguments, that the whole pandemic has been forced on people’s acceptance based on plausibility.
Vaccine, that sounds plausible. We’ll go with that without understanding the real scientific ramifications of it, which were suppressed. Our government agencies suppressed that and so on, as early treatment was suppressed because of plausibility arguments.
Well, hydroxychloroquine, even though it’s been safely used in hundreds of millions of people, now we’ve got COVID. We don’t know it’s safe in COVID. Even though we know it’s safe for all those tens of millions of people in malaria and rheumatoid diseases and autoimmune diseases and so on, safe for them, but not safe for COVID.
What evidence is there not safe for COVID? None because we actually didn’t let you use it for outpatients because we blocked that in March of 2020 before it really had a chance to be widely used in official capacity. So, you have to ask where all this malfeasance came from and why it left plausibility arguments driving people’s social acceptability of these messages.’
‘Jan Jekielek: You’ve touched on this already, but I guess as we finish up here, what does this whole reality of the fear and the reaction and corporate interest, what does this say about the medical professional as it stands of what needs to happen?
Dr. Harvey Risch: Without being too dramatic about this, there was an outstanding essay in Tablet Magazine from a few months ago written by Ashley Fernandez talking about why doctors in Germany in the 1930s became Nazis. The whole public health institution and the medical institution in Germany in the 1930s promoted the Nazi propaganda and messaging construed for how to manage public health.
At times of famine they decided that if this whole society couldn’t support food for everybody, that they would remove the people who needed the food the least—meaning helpless, handicapped, disabled young people, frail, elderly, and so on—who were expendable when the food had to go around to the people who needed it, whatever that meant.
They operationalized rational considerations without human moral considerations. Public health has the risk of doing that, and that’s what happened to us in our society. I was recognizing this more than a year ago. When you have big lies being propagated as propaganda through the media, through the government, through agencies, and so on, don’t believe your lying eyes.
All these doctors treating outpatients successfully, “oh, no, those drugs don’t work.” This was a big lie then. Why and who was purveying this? This is, I think, why Dr. Fernandez wrote this essay in the first place, because she was recognizing the commonalities to what was happening now when you have so much day in, day out propaganda, that people believe it because they’re bombarded with it through all of the major media.
They accept these messages, and they act on those messages instead of the truth, the reality of life and science and medicine. Doctors, I think, are just as frightened, just as anxious as everybody else, and maybe more so. Because they’ve invested so much time and effort into getting their careers going, they may feel they have more to risk even than just Joe Plumber or somebody else.
They went into their field because of stature and considerations of accomplishment and doing well for society and their patients and all of that. They may feel that they are at higher risk in some intangible way, I think.
They’re more likely to toe the line, and those lines have been enforced on them through the corruption of all the medical agencies, the medical review boards of all the states, largely. The pharmacy review boards have all pushed a top-down message coming from FDA, CDC, WHO.
I have to get in a comment about the FDA and its website. This is something that has made me the angriest over this last year-and-a-half. In July of 2020, the FDA mounted a website warning against hydroxychloroquine used for outpatients. The website’s still there.
It says, “Warning, hydroxychloroquine should not be used for outpatient treatments because of risk of cardiac adverse events,” and then in the small print, the fine print underneath that big, bold, black letter warning, it says, “We base this warning on adverse events that we have observed in hospital patients.” This is a fraud.
They used hospital disease, which all medical professionals recognize is a different disease, as I’ve said, than outpatient flu-like illness. That has stood up there. Everyone that says hydroxychloroquine can’t be used points to that website and says, “Here’s the reason why we can’t do it.” The states, the AMA, the pharmacy boards, they all point to that. Foreign countries, their governments all point to that, saying, “We can’t do it because the FDA says not to do it.”
I’ve railed against this in the media that we are a part of, and the way that the propaganda reacts to this is, “Ignore it. Ignore all of this.” I’m saying this now because the general public has to be the one that gets angry. The general public should be furious at the way people have been treated in the country by suppression of these drugs, by that kind of website that suppresses the ability of doctors to practice medicine.
This is what should’ve been done, and why people should be angry. They should be angry at their government. They should be angry at President Trump for not leading the fight in this when he was in power. They should be angry at the government now for not leading the fight to make these drugs available. These drugs work, there’s no question, and they should’ve been out there, whether or not vaccines are used. There’s a role for vaccines, and I’m not saying that.
There’s no role for universal vaccination, but there is a role for targeted vaccination for people who have reasons to do the risk-benefit analysis and see it’s in their benefit. There’s a reason why those people will still get COVID, because the vaccines are not 100 percent effective.
They still need to have treatment, and these drugs are the treatments of choice. This has to be there, and people need to be angry about this to see why these drugs have been suppressed from them for reasons that have nothing to do with the science and the medicine.’
A News Study has found that Mass Vaccination is Failing to Stop Covid Transmission
A new study in ‘The Lancet’ published on the 1st of December, 2021, has found that mass vaccination is not stopping COVD-19 transmission.
‘Successful vaccine rollouts have failed to stop Covid transmission, with new data showing the prevalence of the virus increasing in fully jabbed individuals, according to a medical study in The Lancet.
Examining new infections in Germany, researchers found that the rate of cases among fully vaccinated individuals aged 60 and older has risen from 16.9% in July to 58.9% in October.
Offering a clear assessment that fully vaccinated people are increasingly becoming the source of Covid transmission, the study identified a similar situation in the UK. Throughout Britain, the number of household contacts exposed to unvaccinated cases (23%) was slightly lower than the number exposed to vaccinated individuals (25%).
In the space of three weeks in Britain, 100 Covid cases were reported among individuals who are 60 or older. Out of those infections, 89.7% of people were fully vaccinated, while 3.4% were unvaccinated.
More concerning for researchers, in Israel, an outbreak that infected multiple healthcare workers and patients, as well as their family members, came from a fully vaccinated hospital patient.
Backing up the fears expressed in the study, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently lists four of the five areas across the US with the highest percentage of fully vaccinated individuals as high transmission counties.’
End the Pandemic, Lose your Fear, Educate Yourself
Ask yourself how much money is being made off the back of this pandemic, and who stands to gain the most by it?
There’s certainly a case to be made for pharmaceutical companies wanting to push this fear as much as possible: Pfizer, alone, has more than doubled their revenue in 2021 over 2020. That’s just one of the vaccine manufacturers, and don’t forget about all the companies raking in the cash through provision of vaccination services, logistic services, signs, dividers, face masks, faulty PCR tests, to name but a few.
The UK media was told to stay on point with the UK government’s message of fear at the beginning of 2020, and they’ve certainly benefited from massive cash injections by way of advertising. Sensastionalist headlines bring clicks, clicks mean people are seeing their adverts on their channels. They have no interest in ending this.
There are plenty of positive sources of information, outlets that aren’t selling the perpetual doom ‘n gloom message. Many respected scientists and doctors have put their careers at risk to bring the truth to light. The tech giants have colluded in silencing any voices that offered hope. Why are these voices being silenced?
Stop taking everything the media and our governments are telling us at face value: investigate their claims, rigorously. Educate yourself. Lose the fear, reject bad science, bring back the smile.