Truth Digging In Times Of Crisis
Combatting Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories Through Open Dialogue and Informed Consent.
Summary: One of the many challenges the pandemic has presented us with, has been discerning truth from mainstream and conspiracy narratives, and everything in between. This article aims to foster a dialogue between different viewpoints, with the hope to build bridges and reduce division amongst each other. Topics: 1) Numbers as the basis for public health policies (and what they have in common with bikinis); 2) Prevention and risk factors: why some get severely sick, while others don’t; 3) Where do effective treatments rank in the pandemic response? 4) What can we expect from the first Covid-19 vaccines? 5) Governing in a pandemic: from democracy to technocracy; 6) How do the choices we make today, shape our ‘New Normal’?
Covid-19 and the War on ‘Truth’.
One of the many challenges 2020 has presented us with has been discerning truth, given the plethora of conflicting information we receive about Covid-19 on a daily basis. The other challenge has been conversing with the large group of people who think they fully comprehend the ‘truth’ – including what’s best for them, me, and society at large – and who defend their standpoints with a fanaticism that leaves me wondering in dismay, if this is how civil wars start.
I wish more people would embrace ‘not knowing’, as this would open up a space for learning, critically examining each others view points based on all the information available, and potentially arriving at a more complete version of the truth. As the parable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates:
“Humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true” – yet incomplete.” 1
The two leading ‘truth narratives’, as I understand them, are:
• The Mainstream (dominant) narrative (as propagated by politicians and mainstream media): Covid-19 threatens the lives of so many people that authoritarian measures, like lockdowns and mass vaccination, are warranted; The only way we can protect each other from the virus is through mass-vaccination of the entire world population. As soon as everyone is vaccinated, we will be able to return to “life as normal”.
• The Conspiracy narrative: Covid-19 is a man-made technocratic scam, and fear, lockdowns and vaccines are used by an evil elite to gain full control over our bodies and behaviour, through microchips, tracking and vaccine passports – resulting in an ultimate form of totalitarianism, as described by George Orwell in his novel 1984. Key figures who are benefitting from the pandemic are Bill Gates, Fauci, Big Pharma, and Internet giants like Amazon and Facebook.
What to believe? Who to trust? Might both narratives carry a grain of truth? I really don’t know, but given what might be at stake in addition to our health (personal freedom, constitutional rights, privacy and sovereignty over health and body), I believe it is more important than ever to stand together, and to critically and objectively investigate all information – even information that seems so absurd it makes you cringe.
Check your bias
“Most individuals would rather believe something is true because they feel it is true, hope it is true, or wish it were true, rather than deny their emotions and accept that their beliefs are false. Often the use of logical reasoning requires a struggle with the will, because logic sometimes forces one to deny one’s emotions and face reality, and this is often painful.” ~ An introduction to science 2
How do your emotions affect the information you readily accept or reject?
Both Covid-19 narratives are driven by fear: whether it is fear of illness and death, uncertainty, a lack of control, or people in power. Conspiracy theories result from a lack of trust in our government, journalists and science – probably for good reasons, which Charles Eistenstein explains in his essay The Conspiracy Myth.
If we want to uncover the whole elephant, and combat the division seen amongst people today, we would be wise to not take conspiracy theories too literally and dismiss them entirely, but instead try to understand where they originated from – even when if feels uncomfortable. The invitation is to approach the information in this article with the mind of a scientist: with curiosity, an awareness of emotional impulses to reject information because ‘you don’t like it’, and a willingness to change your viewpoints in the face of compelling evidence. Critical questions are offered throughout the article in order to consider different possibilities and encourage conversation.
My intention for this article
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” Rumi
I’m not interested in debunking or strengthening either of the two narratives. Rather, I will try to expand on them by digging a little deeper, and looking for what Rumi described as the ‘field between wrong and right’. I’m specifically looking for credible sources (e.g. scientific studies and specialists) that add perspective to the conversation, and that didn’t make it to conventional news channels.
One thing I think everyone agrees on, is that we want the current situation to end, and return to life as normal as soon as possible. The disagreement lies in how to get there, and at what cost. I will attempt to illuminate this highly complex issue by exploring the following topics:
1 Case numbers and mortality rates as the basis for public health policies.
2 Prevention and risk factors: why some get severely sick, while others don’t.
3 Where do effective treatments rank in the pandemic response?
4 What can we expect from the first Covid-19 vaccines?
5 Governing in a pandemic: from democracy to technocracy.
6 How do the choices we make today, shape our ‘New Normal’?
Let’s start digging.
1 Case numbers and mortality rates as the basis for public health policies.
“Statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital” Aaron Levenstein
Numbers are powerful, and form the basis for major public health decisions in the response to the pandemic. Numbers can also be misleading, and concerns have been raised both regarding accuracy of testing methods, and classification systems.
Testing and case numbers
Public Health decisions to combat Covid-19 are largely based on the number of ‘positive cases’ obtained through PCR testing. Two issues have been raised regarding the way these numbers are obtained:
• Contrary to other illnesses, a ‘positive case’ of Covid-19 doesn’t refer to a sick person, but to anyone who tests positive, even when asymptomatic.
• More and more experts are coming forward denouncing PCR testing was not designed for mass screening, and has resulted in an unprecedented number of ‘false positives’.3-10 The original study on which the use of the test was based has been flagged as ‘fatally flawed’, and a retraction-request letter has been submitted to the journal in which it was published.3 Meanwhile legal actions against the use of this test as the basis for pandemic response measures have been initiated in Portugal 9 and Germany.10 The WHO has adjusted their testing recommendations (which will likely result in a drop in case numbers) in December 2020 – around the same time mass vaccination was initiated.
These issues pose significant challenges to our ability to gain insight into the severity of the problem, or to compare Covid-19 to other infectious diseases – yet the numbers are given enormous power by policy makers and the media, and strongly influence risk perception and fear amongst people. While underestimating risk may cause careless behaviour, overestimating risk causes unnecessary fear and anxiety 11 – and ultimately results in more power for those in charge. The combination of this power with a lack of transparency around the above noted issues provides fuel for conspiracy theories.
Critical Questions:how did the study in question make it through the peer review in record time, and how is it possible that this one study served as the basis for the pandemic response? Are numbers intentionally being inflated, and if so: why? (i.e. is the resulting fearto anyones advantage?)
Mortality rates
Another point of contention is the number of Covid-19 related deaths. Knowing actual death rates is key to gaining insight into the question of which interventions are justified to stop the spread of Covid-19. How do classification systems discern between death from and death with Covid-19 – especially if we can’t rely on PCR testing for an accurate diagnosis?
To complicate matters, excess mortality (the increase in deaths from all causes during the pandemic compared to what we would have expected under ‘normal’ conditions) can’t be simply ascribed to Covid-19 deaths, given that the overall crisis conditions have affected peoples’ health in more ways than one: e.g. by delaying other serious medical treatments, people avoiding the hospital out of fear of the virus, the effects of ongoing lockdowns on mental health, causing increases in suicides, substance – and domestic abuse, and disproportionate famine in developing countries. In addition, financial incentives to hospitals treating Covid-19 patients may also skew the numbers.12, 13
“When all these anomalies are added up, it becomes apparent that we simply don’t have an accurate death toll from this new coronavirus. But it seems clear that the correct rate is just a little worse than the rate for the 2017-2018 flu.” – Timothy Allen, governor of the College of American Pathologists and chair of the Department of Pathology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.13
A CDC report 14 on excess mortality in the US also outlines the limitations associated with excess death estimates, and the uncertainties surrounding cause of death – particularly amongst younger age groups:
“(…) adults aged 25–44 years have experienced the largest average percentage increase in the number of deaths from all causes from late January through October 3, 2020 (…) Future analyses might shed light on the extent to which increases among younger age groups are driven by COVID-19 or by other causes of death.”
Critical Questions:I wonder how (both policy and individual) decisions might change if the daily counts of infections and deaths were accompanied by daily counts of death due to the pandemic response (including suicide, domestic violence, delayed treatments), and common causes of death by age group?
2 Covid-19 prevention and risk factors: why some get severely sick, and others don’t.
Understanding why some people get so much sicker than others is crucial to effective prevention and early treatment of those at risk. Many risk factors have been proposed, including population demographics (age, sex, overall health), environment, race, and the availability of health care.15, 16 Of particular interest are those that reveal valuable area’s for intervention: Diet, nutrients and prior immunity.
A) Diet & Nutrients: Do widespread deficiencies sustain the pandemic?
While common sense, as well as science17, dictates that nutrients play an important role in the prevention against viral infections, they haven’t been given the attention they deserve in the pandemic response, and have even been opposed for lack of evidence. This is finally changing, as science is catching up with Covid-19 specific studies on diet and nutrients.
• Vitamin D
Evidence to support the benefits of vitamin D against COVID-19 has been accumulating, and shows that having higher vitamin D levels not only dramatically reduces symptom severity (resulting in less hospitalisations, ICU use, or death), but also reduces infection and infection time – thereby decreasing transmission rates and slowing the spread.
Since governments are still not implementing widespread vitamin D screening and supplementation in the fight against COVID-19 , over 200 doctors, scientists and leading authorities have signed an open letter urging for governments to start doing so (dose recommendations are included, but for optimum results I recommend getting your vitamin D levels tested and dose accordingly).
“Evidence to date suggests the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic sustains itself in large part through infection of those with low vitamin D, and that deaths are concentrated largely in those with deficiency. The mere possibility that this is so should compel urgent gathering of more vitamin D data. Even without more data, the preponderance of evidence indicates that increased vitamin D would help reduce infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, & deaths.(…) There is no need to wait for further clinical trials to increase use of something so safe, especially when remedying high rates of deficiency/insufficiency should already be a priority.” 18
Knowing that safe and inexpensive vitamin D supplementation can safe lives and reduce the spread of the virus, “the wait-and-see attitude adopted by governments does not sit well in the scientific community“, reports the NL Times. Professor of Medicine Michael Holick of Boston University adds that “people are waiting for a magic miracle pill or vaccine, but they overlook something as simple as vitamin D.” 19
• Vitamin C
Along the same lines as vitamin D, vitamin C deficiency is also common in patients at risk of developing severe Covid-19 symptoms, and the evidence supporting its use to reduce infection rates, duration, severity and mortality (mortality in hospitalised patients reduced by as much as 80% in one trial) is now available and has resulted in the launch of an International Vitamin C Campaign.20
• Prevention and Treatment Protocols
Doctors at TheFront Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance have developed effective prevention and treatment protocols which include a combination of vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin, zinc and melatonin, in combination with pharmaceutical agents. Their website includes dose recommendations.
• Inflammation: Omega-3 & Omega-6 ratio
The ratio in which omega-3 versus omega-6 fatty acids are consumed is a well known factor in overall health and inflammation. The average western diet is low in omega-3 (anti-inflammatory), and high in omega-6 (pro-inflammatory), thus contributing to more inflammation: a risk factor for Covid-19 complications. A pilot study on omega-3 blood values and death from Covid-19, suggests that the risk of dying from Covid-19 was lower in people with higher omega-3 values. Conversely, a report in the journal Gastroenterologyassociates omega-6 linoleum acid (LA) with increased organ failure and mortality from Covid-19.
These results provide important clues as to which foods to have more or less of, in order to reduce inflammation and Covid-19 risk.21
B) Prior immunity and vaccination
Pandemic responses worldwide are built on the assumption that people had no pre-existing immunity to Covid-19 prior to the pandemic. However, a growing body of evidence documenting SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells (pre-existing immunological responses to Covid-19) questions this notion – indicating that prior exposure to older corona viruses may protect against Covid-19. This has many implications for pandemic planning, mass-immunity, population susceptibility, vaccines, and measuring the extent of pandemic spread. 6, 22, 23
Similarly, flu vaccination might also affect the immune response to Covid-19, however scientists disagree on wether the flu shot might worsen, or lessen Covid-19 symptoms, and rigorous trials are needed to confirm this causality.
Critical Questions: how much funding and priority is given toresearch on prevention & risk factors, compared to vaccine research? Is one considered more important than the other, and why?
3 Where do effective treatments rank in the pandemic response?
A recent study on Covid-19 risk factors confirms that death rates among hospitalized patients have fallen dramatically since the early weeks of the pandemic, suggesting that doctors have gained more insight in the treatment of severe Covid-19 symptoms. 16 The availability of safe and effective treatments of Covid-19 might eliminate the need for population wide vaccination – thus avoiding the cost and risks associated with such a large-scale operation.
Yet doctors don’t feel supported in their ongoing research efforts to identify these treatments, while vaccine research received the bulk of funding. What’s especially disturbing is that doctors advocating for early treatment with old ‘off-label’ medications, risk being censored, labeled a ‘conspiracist’, and even loose their license.5, 6, 8, 24, 25
“It will all be needless death from here on out, given that there is a readily available scientific solution to the pandemic” said Dr. Pierre Kory, President of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), in an emotional testimony to the senate. He pleaded for the swift review of the already expansive and rapidly emerging medical evidence on Ivermectin, which he claims has a near 100% efficacy rate for both the prevention and the treatment of patients with severe Covid-19. 22 Dr. Kory’s findings were disputed by The Associated Press (AP) and Facebook, which was quickly rectified by trialsite. 26
Somewhat similar, when doctors shared promising results of low doses of hydroxychloroquine as part of their treatment protocol, they were shamed and ridiculed, taken to court in some countries, and the America’s Frontline Doctors website was taken down.23 In spite of the drugs’ proven safety profile (in most countries it is available without a prescription), several studies (including the Solidarity Trial led by the WHO) using toxic doses, too late in the disease progress, claimed that the drug was too dangerous to treat people at risk of dying from Covid-19. One of these studies was retracted only two days after publication in the Lancet, due to an unverifiable database. 27 Meanwhile, The WHO and a number of national governments had changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of this one flawed study.
A Yale professor of epidemiology explains the hydroxychloroquine controversy in an article entitled: The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It, in which he stated:
“I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.” 25
Of course, all this raises numerous Critical Questions that beg for answers: Why do doctors not feel (financially and otherwise) supported in their search for effective Covid-19 prevention and treatments?How does the funding they receive compare to vaccine research?How did a majorly flawed study get through the Lancet’s pear review? Why are certain parties intentionally censoring and blocking safe and effective low-cost treatment options?
4 What can we expect from the first Covid-19 vaccines?
Various experimental Covid-19 vaccines are currently being tested, and have been approved for emergency use in December 2020, after the release of the first interim test results. While some welcome these experimental vaccines with open arms, and with high hopes that this will mark the end of the pandemic, others emphasise the limitations and risks associated with an accelerated vaccine. Will the new vaccines proof to be the ultimate solution everyone is hoping for?
The Pfizer/ BioNTech Vaccine
The preliminary results published in the Pfizer/ BioNTech interim report in the New England Journal of Medicine sound promising, and exceeded all expectations (95% vaccine efficacy). 28
However, experts caution that these headlines paint an incomplete picture (remember those bikinis I referred to earlier?) to the public, and stress the need for more information, more especially pertaining to the vaccines’ ability to prevent severe symptoms, ICU visits and death in vulnerable populations, and to reduce transmission and achieve herd immunity: all the reasons people are getting vaccinated for. 29-33
Given the weight the Pfizer report carries, and the conflict of interest inherent in any study that is entirely funded by the manufacturer of the vaccine, I decided to dig a little deeper.34
What does 95% efficacy mean?
What the interim results show, is that of the 43,548 participants there were 170 cases of Covid-19, 7 days after the second dose, 8 of which were participants who received the vaccine, and 162 among those who received a placebo. A ‘positive case’ qualified as a positive PCR test + 1 symptom (e.g. a cough or headache). This resulted in a relative risk reduction of 95% (154/162) of developing mild (common cold type) symptoms. Since very few participants developed severe symptoms, and nobody died of Covid-19, no evidence was collected regarding the vaccines’ effect on either. Contrary to the vitamin C & D studies discussed earlier, the trials are not designed to study effects on infection, hospital admissions, Intensive Care use, and death. Rather, it seems that the current trials are designed to succeed.30, 32
Also noteworthy is that the FDA report mentions there were 20 times moresuspected than confirmed cases in both groups which were excluded from the analysis. In other words, an appreciable large group of participants who had symptoms but no positive PCR test, were not considered relevant for the overall vaccine efficacy. As pointed out by Peter Doshi, co-editor of the British Medical Journal: Including this group in the analysis would significantly reduce the vaccines’ efficacy to an estimated 19-29%: far below the required 50%. 33
Effects on immune response, transmission and herd-immunity
The interim report does also not report on the vaccines’ ability to initiate an immune response, and the duration of that immune response, given that these are only preliminary results, and “collection of phase 2/3 data on vaccine immunogenicity and the durability of the immune response to immunization is ongoing.”
However, the impact on infection, transmission and herd-immunity is of utmost importance to the mass-vaccination debate. Many people think everyone should get vaccinated in order to protect the vulnerable – but this has not yet been established. On the contrary, a publication entitled “What can we expect from first-generation Covid-19 vaccines?” 35 questions the vaccine’s impact on transmission and herd immunity:
“Notwithstanding these caveats, COVID-19 vaccines are needed, even if they have minimal impact on transmission and despite the challenges of vaccine allocation. What such vaccines are likely to achieve might not be herd immunity (…) If COVID-19 vaccines have acceptable effectiveness in reducing morbidity and mortality in high-risk groups, they would have an important role, irrespective of impact on transmission and population immunity. (…) Crucially, it will be important to communicate to policy makers and the general public that first-generation vaccines are only one tool in the overall public health response to COVID-19 and unlikely to be the ultimate solution that many expect.”
If the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection and transmission, it might even drive the evolution of more virulent mutations: simply because the vaccine keeps patients alive that otherwise would have died; thus facilitating the shedding and spreading of a more deadly virus. 36
Safety: rare and long term side effects (adverse events)
As specified under the study’s limitations (discussion section):
• The study is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably;
• The placebo group will not be continued beyond 3,5 months for ‘ethical reasons’, so there won’t be a control group to compare long term benefits and harms against – an enormous limitation for a study that aims to study vaccine safety!
So what are some of the risks associated with this new class of mRNA vaccines?
Two months into the roll out of vaccines, reported adverse reactions include severe allergic reactions & anaphylaxis, and death, particularly in ‘frail and elderly’ people.
Perhaps more concerning, is that the long-term risks that entire young and healthy generations are subjected to, are still largely unknown. And if everyone get’s vaccinated, there won’t be a long term comparison group either. Based on what is currently known about corona viruses and mRNA vaccines, there is a potential, yet unknown risk of auto-immune disease, infertility, and vaccine enhanced disease: the paradoxical phenomenon where a vaccine induces worsening of disease on exposure to the virus. This can manifest through antibodies (Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)), or cell-based enhancement (Th2 immunopathology), and can potentially be lethal – particularly in the elderly. Proving ADE after vaccination can be difficult, particularly when more severe illness can also be attributed to a more virulent strain. A recent literature review about Covid-19 risk of ADE-risk concludes :
“The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”37
A Critical Question here is: is it responsible and necessary to subject the entire young, healthy and working population (with a low risk of dying from Covid-19) to experimental vaccines of which the effects on auto-immunity and fertility are yet unknown? Or are there other ways to protect our elderly?
Informed Consent: an individualised Covid-19 Vaccine Risk-Benefit analysis
While it’s understandable that people desire a fast solution to the pandemic, it is imperative that vaccine decisions are based on realistic expectations, and an individualised risk-benefit analysis.
Based on the studies referenced above, the best protection we can hope for from the current vaccines, is that they (like vitamin C and D) may help prevent severe symptoms, hospitalisations, and death (although this has not yet been proven). They will likely not prevent infection and transmission (unlike vitamin C and D), provide long-term or herd immunity (especially given the virus’ rapid mutation), nor eliminate the virus, and, just like the flu-shot, repeat doses may be required with every flu-season.
It is very important to understand that getting vaccinated now, means consenting to participate in a medical experiment, since vaccine studies haven’t completed, and much remains unknown about potential long term side effects of these new technologies. In addition to severe allergic reactions, there is an unknown risk of autoimmune disease, infertility and disease enhancement, which needs to be carefully weighed against each persons individual Covid-19 risk. Add to this equation a growing body of knowledge on other safe, effective, and highly affordable prevention and treatment options, and decide which makes most sense for your particular situation, based on your health, risk factors and personal preferences. Now your decision is based on informed consent.
The American Frontline Doctors explain all the above, including age and health based vaccine recommendations, in great detail in their white paper on experimental vaccines for Covid-19, and in this videopresentation.
A matter of solidarity?
The choice to get vaccinated may be driven by fear of illness and death, desperation for a solution, unlimited faith in medical science, or a sense of ‘solidarity’, rather than on evidence, and that is all understandable. But please recognise that these are personal, subjective reasons, that are not shared by everyone. While a call for solidarity and standing together by all getting vaccinated may seem noble, it also creates division when there is no consensus on the ‘best’ solution to the pandemic: in this case population-wide vaccination.
Mass-vaccination is based on the premise that this will result in herd immunity, that it has proven to be superior over other prevention and treatment options, and that the risk of getting sick with Covid-19 outweighs the risk of vaccine injuries, the risk of vaccine driven mutations, or the cost of mass-vaccination versus other options. Anyone who questions this narrative, is quickly labeled ‘anti-vaxxer’ and shamed for lacking solidarity – thereby dismissing doctors, scientists and others who warn there is insufficient evidence to support the anticipated outcomes, that the risks of these vaccines are still largely unknown, and who advocate for an approach in which vaccinating vulnerable populations, as well as investing in (research on) prevention and treatments are all equally important.
Critical Questions that needs clarification in order to combat conspiracy theories is: Why is mass-vaccination promoted as the ultimate solution to the pandemic, and favoured over other important parts of the solution – considering thatevidence supporting mass-vaccination is inconclusive, while evidence regarding other prevention and treatments is building, and the cost of mass-vaccination programs is far greater than the use of existing medications? Why is there talk about potentially mandating vaccines, but not for example, proof of vitamin D status?
5 Governing in a pandemic: from democracy to technocracy.
It is becoming increasingly clear that public health policies are not based on scientific consensus, and neither is science immune to manipulation – all of which feeds the notion of a ‘conspiracy theory’, or a ‘hidden agenda’. But it may not be as spooky as an evil elite planning to take over the world.
Emergencies like pandemics require governments to operate differently, and (temporarily) shift from democracies into autocratic technocracies (meaning the concentration of knowledge, political power, and resources in the hands of a few). While this allows for fast decisions, scientists are cautioning for the risks of relying on a few medical-scientific experts: 38-41
“As the response to the pandemic unfolded, it has become all too clear that the work of scientists has put a powerful constraint on political action. Presidents and prime ministers now fear to step outside the boundaries set by science. Technocracy is replacing democracy. (…) Experts are sought not only to set political objectives, but also to formulate moral norms. At that moment, democracy is in jeopardy.” 38
The problem with relying on such a narrow area of expertise is the topic of the article Public health experts: The technocratic takeover of democracy comes at a high price for all of us. 39
“Absent other voices, public health emergency response measures risk being overly prescriptive and unnecessarily wide-reaching. (…) Deciding how best to manage a pandemic requires consideration of economic, social and civil liberty factors, in addition to health. The heavy reliance on medical-scientific experts does not reflect this. A broader suite of expertise needs to be involved in decision-making.”
In addition to the concentration of knowledge and power, an editorial in the British Medical Journal entitled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption”, and suppression of science” highlights the problematic conflict of interests of scientists and other government appointees in charge of the pandemic response. What is needed is more transparency and accountability, and a separation of decisions on products and policies from financial interest.
“The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.” 40
It is easy to see how a flurry of retracted and flawed studies on tests and treatments, pushing for mass vaccination in the absence of sound evidence, and overall lack of transparency provides fertile ground for conspiracy theories; especially when combined with the authoritarian response to the pandemic (justifiable or not), and the enormous profits made from PCR-tests and vaccines – by the same people who are involved with policy decisions and information censoring.
If we want to combat conspiracy theories and protect our democracy, governments need to safeguard our freedom of expression and stop the censoring of information. What is needed is an open dialogue, and transparency – NOT the suppression of information.
6 How do the choices we make today, shape our ‘New Normal’?
One thing that has become evident to me in the course of writing this article is that this discussion is about much more than our health. It touches on the very core of who we are, what we value, how we see the world and how we want to live our lives. Through the choices we make in response to Covid-19, we cast a vote for the kind of future we wish for our selves and our loved ones.
One choice we are faced with in 2021 is whether or not to get vaccinated.
For many, the choice not to get vaccinated involves both health-, as well as political considerations. Contrary to mainstream conviction, this ‘anti-vote’ was born from a great concern for society and civil rights like:
• Freedom of speech and uncensored media;
• Sovereignty over ones’ body, informed consent and the freedom to choose between (experimental) vaccines, and other ways to optimise ones’ immune status and reduce their risk of infection and transmission to others: most importantly diet and nutrition;
• Transparency, accountability, and the protection of democratic rights by our governments.
Lastly, it is a way of pausing, and asking: What kind of a world do I want to co-create?
If you are getting vaccinated because you expect a swift return to ‘life as normal’, you may want to ask yourself these Critical Questions:
Does a vaccine that doesn’t prevent infection and transmission ascertain a return to normal? What does this new normal, a Great Reset, a Green or 4rd Revolution, wealth redistribution, and Building Back Better exactly entail? Who are behind these terms, and what do these people stand for? Will we regain all the rights and freedoms we gave up this year? Will the economy stabilise? Will the innumerable small businesses that went down recover?
If mandatory vaccination (direct or indirect) becomes a new norm – where will it end? Corona viruses are here to stay. New viruses will likely emerge. Will our choice today set the tone for future responses, resulting in a cocktail of vaccines for every flu season? Or will we put our resources towards understanding more fully why some people are getting so much sicker than others, so that we can learn to protect ourselves in other ways?
Wrapping Up: A Third Narrative
I started this exploration with an intent to gather a more complete, and less polarised picture of issues surrounding the pandemic. As I gathered more information, a third narrative revealed itself. Contrary to popular belief, it turns out that not everyone who questions the mainstream narrative believes that Covid-19 was invented in order to submit the worlds’ population to an evil elite and a new world order.
Labelling critical thinkers as ‘conspiracists’ has become a popular and effective way to shut down and ridicule anyone who raises questions, including specialists in their field. It takes courage to challenge the mainstream – even writing this article I feel a growing respect for those risking their professional reputation in order to share their truth with the world. For all I know, they must have a very good reason to do so.
This third narrative expands on both mainstream and conspiracy narratives, and:
• Acknowledges the tragic deaths that resulted directly from Covid-19, as well as those that resulted from the response to the pandemic;
• Considers different scientific viewpoints, as well as the limitations inherent within scientific data;
• Appreciates the challenges of governing during a pandemic, as well as the need for transparency, accountability, and the protection of civil rights;
• Recognises that vaccine research holds promise, yet much remains unknown – whereas nutrients like vitamin D and C have shown to decrease infection, transmission, illness severity and death rates, and are important tools to stop the spread;
• Calls for a multifaceted solution, that may include vaccination of risk groups, and other prevention and treatment options, depending on individual circumstances and preferences.
What’s next?
I truly hope this article may serve as a bridge, and helps developing tolerance and empathy amongst people with different viewpoints – knowing that most of us are afraid and in need of each other, and ‘the truth’ is not exactly set in stone. I look forward to continuing this conversation with those who wish to uncover the entire elephant, and who appreciate different opinions as vehicles for truth. If this is you, please join me and other truth diggers here, or sign up to my newsletter. Lastly, the reference list below includes a variety of resources, video’s, interviews and scientific studies for those wishing to deepen their understanding of the topics discussed in this article.
1. Parable of blind men and an elephant – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
2. An introduction to science: scientific thinking and the scientific method https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html
3. Corman Drosten Review Report: 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. Submitted 2020 Nov 27. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
4. Viral cultures for Covid-19 infectious potential assessment. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020 Dec 3. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advancearticle/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1764/6018217
5. (PODCAST) Interview with Dr. Lee Merritt on Covid-19 treatments and PCR-testing. NewsRadio.https://www.spreaker.com/user/9808558/dr-lee-merritt-10-21
6. (VIDEO) An education in viruses and public health. Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer, explains issues with PCR testing, vaccine mandates, and the high prevalence of prior immunity. American Institute for Economic Research, 2020 Nov 21. https://www.aier.org/article/an-education-in-viruses-and-public-health-from-michael-yeadon-former-vp-of-pfizer/
7. (VIDEO) Roger Hodkinson, pathologist, expert in virology, and the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, a biotech company that manufactures COVID-19 PCR tests, stressed that PCR tests cannot diagnose infection and mass testing should cease immediately. Original testimony: https://vimeo.com/487152219. Interview: https://vimeo.com/485062851
8. (VIDEO) James Lyons-Weiler, a biomedical research scientist, speaks at the PA Medical Freedom Press Conference about vaccine risks, available treatments and PCR tests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoeCB0MudgA
9. A Portuguese court ruled that the PCR test is “not a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2” and can not be used as the basis for quarantine. https://geopolitic.org/2020/11/21/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/
10. Cease & Desist papers served on prof. Drosten by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, attorney and member of The German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee. Original (in German): https://drive.google.com/file/d/122Th1BKJfS-BnNSoGPSPvnJQXpBDFJNm/view and English translation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17X4GmMXn_m-vDwqEy9vMhbNqzodAEW3b/view
11. Most Americans are misinformed on COVID-19. That makes them too cautious or too careless. USA Today, 2020 Aug 26. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/26/covid-19-misinformed-americans-too-scared-too-careless-column/3430354001/
12. Physicians Say Hospitals Are Pressuring ER Docs to List COVID-19 on Death Certificates. Here’s Why. Foundation For Economic Education, 2020 April 29. https://fee.org/articles/physicians-say-hospitals-are-pressuring-er-docs-to-list-covid-19-on-death-certificates-here-s-why/
13. Covid-19 death toll is inflated. Real Clear Politics, 2020 May 29. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/29/us_covid-19_death_toll_is_inflated.html
14. Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19, by Age and Race and Ethnicity — United States, January 26–October 3, 2020. CDC, 2020 Oct 20. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6942e2-H.pdf
15. The Covid-19 Riddle: Why Does the Virus Wallop Some Places and Spare Others? New York Times, 2020 May 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/world/asia/coronavirus-spread-where-why.html
16. Impact of Sex and Metabolic Comorbidities on COVID-19 Mortality Risk Across Age Groups: 66,646 Inpatients Across 613 U.S. Hospitals. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020 Dec 18. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1787/6041643
17. Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect Against Viral Infections,” published April 23, 2020
18. Over 200 Scientists & Doctors Call For Increased Vitamin D Use To Combat COVID-19. Scientific evidence indicates vitamin D reduces infections & deaths. Open letter, 2020 Dec. https://vitamind4all.org/letter.html
19. Scientists urge government to issue Vitamin D advice, “arrogance that the government wants to wait”. NL Times, 2020 Dec 26. https://nltimes.nl/2020/12/26/scientists-urge-government-issue-vitamin-d-advice-arrogance-government-wants-wait
20. Vitamin C—An Adjunctive Therapy for Respiratory Infection, Sepsis and COVID-19, Nutrients, 2020 Dec. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/12/3760/htm
21. Mortality From Coronavirus Disease 2019 Increases With Unsaturated Fat and May Be Reduced by Early Calcium and Albumin Supplementation. Gastroenterology, 2020 Sep. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7250771/
22. Pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2: the knowns and unknowns. Nature Reviews, 2020 Aug. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z.pdf?origin=ppub
23. Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? BMJ, 2020 Sep 17. https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
24. (VIDEO) Pierre Kory, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center, delivers passionate testimony during the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w
25. The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It. Newsweek, 2020 July 23 https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
26. Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Case of Ivermectin for Publicly-Subsidized Research. TrialSite, 2020 Dec 13. https://trialsitenews.com/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-the-case-of-ivermectin-for-publicly-subsidized-research/
27. Lancet, NEJM retract controversial COVID-19 studies based on Surgisphere data. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-controversial-hydroxychloroquine-study/
28. Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Eng J Med, 2020 Dec 10. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home
29. Pfizer vaccine results are promising, but lack of data ‘very concerning,’ experts say. National Geographic, 2020 Nov 10 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/pfizer-biontech-interim-report-promising-but-lack-of-data-very-concerning
30. Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed. Forbes, 2020 Sep 23. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/?sh=1f8124c55247
31. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination — An Ounce (Actually, Much Less) of Prevention. N Eng J Med, 2020 Dec 10. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2034717?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article.
32. Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. 2020 Oct 21. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
33. Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data, BMJ, 2021 Jan 4. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
34. Industry Funding of Clinical Trials: Benefit or Bias? JAMA, 2003, July 2. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/196846
35. What can we expect from first-generation COVID-19 vaccines? Lancet, 2020 Sep 21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505651/
36. Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. Plus, 2015 July 27 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198
37. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. Int J of Clinical Practice, 2020, Oct 28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcp.13795
38. Offline: the coming technocracy. The Lancet, 2020 Dec 12. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32668-4/fulltext#coronavirus-linkback-header
39. Public health experts: The technocratic takeover of democracy comes at a high price for all of us. Lens, 2020 Aug 3. https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2020/08/03/1380991/public-health-experts-the-technocratic-take-over-of-democracy-comes-at-a-high-price-for-all-of-us
40. Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science. BMJ, 2020 Nov 13. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425
41. (VIDEO) SARS-CoV2 and the Rise of Medical Technocracy. Dr. Lee Merritt’s presentation at the 2020 conference of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_logo&v=sjYvitCeMPc&app=desktop