Do you know the difference between SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19? Over 90% of adults do not.

  • SARS-CoV-2 is the coronavirus and it is susceptible to antivirals and prevention measures (prophylactics)
  • Covid-19 is the immunological consequence of contracting the coronavirus and it may require treatment
  • Covid-19 severity is measured by hypoxia and biochemical and immunological indicators (CRP, D-Dimer etc)

Since early 2020, the public has been asking: “Why is there no transparency about Covid? Why no open data?”

Why isn’t comprehensive data being collected/made available, despite the calls of medical experts?

There is a criminal failure at the heart of public health management – and it can’t be 100% accidental

Why has there been so little emphasis and such a lack of progress on testing and testing infrastructure from early 2020 to today?

Vaccines help but aren’t 100%. Danger comes from someone infected not someone unvaccinated. What about antigen testing preboarding?

Why won’t anti-vaccine sentiment go away? Why is it intensifying and spreading?


  1. Anything less than best possible testing to minimise virus spread 100% risks public health
  2. Lack of honest open data is a big reason millions reject Covid-19 vaccine i.e. they conclude no data equals proof of grift
  3. Lack of testing networks speak to unprecedented confusion or obfuscation in public health authority pandemic management
  4. Anything less than full spectrum testing is perpetuating the virus
  5. Total testing would need to test antibody tiers (IgA, IgM, IgG) and B-cell/T-cell activation (immunological memory)
  6. PCR + antigen (lateral flow) combination testing show both infectiousness and immune system neutralising antibody titers
  7. If testing is not free, testing will happen less for poor/working people, perpetuating the virus
  8. If testing is not standardised, test results will not give consistent data, perpetuating the virus
  9. Some vaccinated (and some unvaccinated) are super-spreaders but there’s no data whether vaccine or natural immunity leads to less infectiousness
  10. Without comprehensive testing protocols standardised and part of coordinated public health response Coronavirus will become endemic


  • Proper testing shows up individual infectiousness and/or immunity (neutralising antibodies) to SARS-CoV2
  • Testing is non-discriminatory but if it costs money, it will discriminate against poor/working class
  • Antigen (lateral flow) test very accurate for “am I infectious?” but inferior to PCR for immune system antibody response
  • PCR test doesn’t target infectiousness – which is dumb and defeats the purpose of gateway portal test point mandates (e.g. airports)
  • France and other European countries test for neutralising antibodies (PCR) which is accepted as vaccine equivalent but doesn’t show infectiousness
  • USA vaccine restrictions and vaccine mandate satisfied by proof only, no interest in antibodies, no widespread antigen (lateral flow) test protocols
  • UK testing and travel guidelines take into account immunity (PCR) but make limited use of antigen (lateral flow) at borders


  • Public health independent experts point out transparent open data – simple honesty – is the best way to ensure confidence and overcome vaccine hesitancy
  • Why is there no publicly available data on neutralising antibody levels for natural immunity?
  • Why is there no public data tracking on vaccine-induced immunity (antibody response)?
  • Why is there no public nexus testing (e.g. wastewater) – to reveal outbreaks so public health resources can target efficiently?
  • When there’s a lack of public data it means public health policy is subordinated to political and corporate-profit agenda
  • There’s no public data tracking ongoing testing of antibody/immunity of people from vaccine trials (completions or terminations)
  • There’s no public data tracking cases (infections) unvaccinated, natural immunity, vaccine immunity (2 doses, 3 doses, etc) over time
  • Why wasn’t testing focused on neutralising antibody titers from April/May 2020 as the most effective, useful data before treatment or quarantine/lockdown (or, later, vaccination)?
  • Why do none of the available SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols include the full spectrum of neutralising antibody IgG IgM IgA + aggressive T-cell titers + memory B-cell activation?
  • Daily rapid antigen testing targets minimisation of viral spread, which is what we want eliminated, rather than simply targeting the exclusion of unvaccinated, which won’t necessarily limit viral infections
  • Individual neutralising antibody / infectiousness test results can’t be faked – unlike vaccine certificates or vaccine passports
  • Individual immune system response to vaccine (or prior infection) varies wildly – it defies logic to fixate on ‘got vaccine’ to prevent spread
  • Why is there almost no coherent variant tracking? Why is variant testing left to pooling and extrapolation?


  • Why aren’t antigen (lateral flow) tests available in the home and at every public portal (airport, venue, office, mall, etc)?

  • Try finding price of an antigen testing kit – very simple, surely?
  • SingClean (on Linkedin) supplies Germany and is authorised by German govt
  • If you’re in Germany you can see prices but not if you’re in the UK or the USA where it’s censored
  • Try searching Ali Baba simply for Covid-19: all results are censored
  • FDA has only authorised Coronavirus test kits as medical devices – effectively creating an impossible barrier to entry
  • FDA approval criteria includes a testing infection period that’s designed to serve market exclusion of antigen (lateral flow) test type
  • FDA medical devices standards ensure only PCR tests can return high accuracy, antigen tests at best 30% accurate by dint of testing only infectious participants
  • This means the only way to get FDA authorisation (EUA) for rapid antigen (lateral flow) tests is to cheat or bribe – hence hardly any antigen tests available in the US and those available sell at 20-50x cost of manufacture

How can it be “Vaccine or Test” when vaccine doesn’t stop infectiousness – and logically it would be “Vaccine AND Test”?

How can a vaccine passport be better than a sufficient up to date negative antigen (lateral flow) test i.e. “not infectious”?

Why do mandates not take a negative Covid-19 test + high antibody score or negative antigen (not infectious) result not equivalent (or better) to vaccination certification?


  • Given the vaccination objective is to get the immune system to work up antibodies against exposure to Sars-COV2, why’s there no combination of testing infectiousness and tracking of post-vaccine/post-infection antibody response?
  • Shouldn’t that be the basis for vaccine need?
  • Wouldn’t it also create a non-judgmental way to encourage vaccine hesitant to get the shot?
  • Antibody/T-cell/B-cell numbers show who has reacted well to vaccination, who may need boosters, who’s fought off SARS-CoV2 and acquired natural immunity, who may need vaccine despite a prior infection
  • Covid testing (PCR) measures active circulating antibodies, not immunological memory (i.e. long-term immunity)
  • Circulating antibody titers are not predictive of T-cell or B-cell long-term immunological memory
  • Most important, the antibody/T-cell/B-cell immune system numbers show how safe a person is from being infected and/or infecting others with Coronavirus



  • The quantitative IgG antibody test selectively detects antibodies directed against the protein S at the spike of the virus. Since all the vaccines currently in use are addressing this specific protein S, the test allows to adequately measure the human immune response resulting from vaccination as well as immune responses resulting from a prior infection. The test can be performed after recovery and any time during the vaccination period but is recommended after 2-3 weeks post vaccination.
  • Cellular immunity tests, on the other hand, isolate immune cells and stimulate them with spike proteins of the virus. This enables measurement of the amount and activity of T-Cells, which are responsible for eliminating ill or altered cells. T-Cells together with antibodies make up the human immune response. Therefore, cellular immunity tests are complementary to antibody tests.
  • COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Test


  • Antigen test is fast and cheap – less than $1 per test to produce at scale
  • Antigen test isn’t as accurate at detecting immunity but is perfect for testing infectiousness which is what matters in public health


  • Rapid T-B-nA testing: antigen = lateral flow
  • At home antigen tests for infectiousness
  • Rapid public peer-reviewable results
  • Judiciously placed testing points (e.g. at schools, malls, public transport interchanges, etc)?
  • Free testing as a public health priority
  • Free treatment if testing results show infection and high risk
  • Proper testing has 100% demonstrable benefits
  • Proper testing has no downside except cost to government and shifting the needle away from purely political public health policy


  • Polling shows even the vaccine hesitant are not against regular testing if it’s free and especially if it’s a test they can take at home
  • In economic terms, testing is surely cheaper than potentially bankrupting disruption of sledgehammer lockdowns – cost benefit analysis makes this clear
  • The major difference between focus on testing and fixation on lockdown is who pays: testing is a govt expense, lockdown expense hits the citizen/business


  • How can there be no pandemic test-and-trace – or at least test-and-advise – protocol?
  • Coronavirus outbreaks are reduced to zero if the R (infection rate) is below 1 – target doesn’t have to be zero
  • Waste water testing should be ubiquitous
  • The UK authorised and distributed antigen tests for free to everyone
  • How can governments (and institutions) argue endlessly over mask mandates in schools, vaccinating children, lockdowns, freedoms curtailed, quarantines, travel restrictions, when these could be settled by an open, logical, follow-the-data decision making?
  • Pool testing is unnecessarily vague yet it’s US standard – almost as if it’s trying to prolong pandemic by deindividuating positive Covid-19 testing
  • FDA/CDC public health refuses at home antigen testing because “it might change behaviour” – a pre-Covid standard – but what about pregnancy kits?
  • Testing doesn’t need to be welded to tracking if the link creates public discontent
  • There’s a wilful repetition of the presumption testing must always include tracking that’s too consistent to be accidental
  • Test-and-trace (instead of simply comprehensive T-B-nA testing) distracts public scrutiny away from REAL government failure (or refusal) to fund simple provision of comprehensive testing infrastructure by instead stoking fear of future abuse (tracking surveillance)






  1. Prior infection and Covid-naive vaccination and vaccination after recovery from Covid-19 can all reduce risk and levels of SARS-CoV-2 infection
  2. Vaccine immunity – and to a lesser extent natural immunity – protect to varying degrees depending on the continued mutation evolution of variants
  3. Vaccines and prior infection will accelerate viral clearance even if infected
  4. Fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and will efficiently transmit infection, including to fully vaccinated contacts
  5. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory including amount of SARS-CoV2 viral exposure and individual immune system factors


  • Exposure: if you are exposed to a lot of SARS-CoV2 it will infect you and could hit you hard (symptoms, Covid-19 severity)
  • Infection: including symptoms and Covid-19 severity – will be reduced in severity by vaccine and past immunity (i.e. by neutralising antibodies and immunological memory)
  • Recovery: if you’re hit hard by Covid-19, the silver lining is high level of long-lasting antibodies and immunological memory, i.e. potentially long lasting resistance
  • Resistance: if you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and it infects you but your natural or vaccine immunity clears the virus quickly, the downside is lower level of priming of immune system against future coronavirus


  1. IgA. IgA antibodies are found in areas of the body such the nose, breathing passages, digestive tract, ears, eyes, and vagina. IgA antibodies protect body surfaces that are exposed to outside foreign substances. This type of antibody is also found in saliva, tears, and blood. About 10% to 15% of the antibodies present in the body are IgA antibodies. A small number of people do not make IgA antibodies.
  2. IgG. IgG antibodies are found in all body fluids. They are the smallest but most common antibody (75% to 80%) of all the antibodies in the body. IgG antibodies are very important in fighting bacterial and viral infections. IgG antibodies are the only type of antibody that can cross the placenta in a pregnant woman to help protect her baby (fetus).
  3. IgM. IgM antibodies are the largest antibody. They are found in blood and lymph fluid and are the first type of antibody made in response to an infection. They also cause other immune system cells to destroy foreign substances. IgM antibodies are about 5% to 10% of all the antibodies in the body.
  4. IgE. IgE antibodies are found in the lungs, skin, and mucous membranes. They cause the body to react against foreign substances such as pollen, fungus spores, and animal dander. They are involved in allergic reactions to milk, some medicines, and some poisons. IgE antibody levels are often high in people with allergies.
  5. IgD. IgD antibodies are found in small amounts in the tissues that line the belly or chest. How they work is not clear.


  • The immune system has numerous distinct and complimentary kinetics of immunological memory:
  • IgA prevents viral replication in the upper airways (nose/throat) – where Omicron variant particular targets
  • Vaccination is more predictable in strong short-term antibody IgM/IgG response than naive prior infection
  • Vaccines and prior infection generate IgM then IgG but only natural infection promotes antibody IgA


  • Vaccines infection generates IgM then IgG antibodies but doesn’t promote antibody IgA or long-term immunological memory
  • Vaccine immunity is waning over time (3-6 months plus) and also losing efficacy as variants evolve
  • Vaccine immunity focus is on spike protein not other aspects of SARS-CoV-2 hence narrow but strong specific antibody response
  • Immunity from vaccination + prior symptomatic infection = high level short-term antibodies IgM IgG and IgA and long-term immunological memory IgA
  • Vaccine efficacy and natural immunity vary greatly between individuals and by viral load exposure, severity of past Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 variant
  • mRNA vaccine causes higher short-term immunity response to coronavirus but wanes after 3-6 months
  • adenovirus vector vaccines not as high  as mRNA short-term but as a more traditional mechanism the protection wanes slower
  • Vaccination is effective for 3-6 months after double/boosted dose (in sampled participants):
  • Vaccination primes the circulating antibodies IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein – positive titers from vaccine is well proven


  • Symptomatic infection from Covid-19 creates substantial natural immune memory across all kinetics
  • Natural immunity is giving cross immunity to successive variants so far from alpha to Omicron
  • About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection i.e. natural immunity
  • Natural infection provides immunity to SARS-CoV2 – extent of antibody response depends on severity of infection
  • Natural immunity lasts longer but short-term may not be as strong as vaccine immunity
  • Natural (prior infection) immunity can be combined with vaccination
  • Documented cases of unvaccinated with prior Covid-19 infection (natural immunity):
    • Estimated efficacy 94·8%
    • Hospitalisation prevention 94·1%
    • Severe illness 96·4%
  • MoH Summer Surge Data:
    • Between 5 July and 3 August over half a million infected but unvaccinated
    • 1% of weekly new cases were in people who had previously had Covid-19 (natural immunity)
    • Antibodies against SARS-CoV2 spike and receptor binding domain (RBD) declined moderately over 8 months
    • Memory B cells against SARS-CoV2 spike increased between 1 week and 8 weeks after infection
    • Proportion of subjects positive for CD4+ T cells (92%) remained high at 6 to 8 months after infection



  • Dvir Aran, Technion“These numbers look very low. The data suggest that the recovered have better protection than people who were vaccinated.”
  • Peter Marks, FDA“We know that the immunity after vaccination is better than the immunity after natural infection.”


  • Natural infection data (USA Feb 2020 to May 2021):
    • 0 – 17     26.8 / 73    37%
    • 18 – 49   60.5 / 138   44%
    • 50 – 64     20.4 / 62    32%
    • 65+ 12.3 / 54    23%
    • Total 120.3/ 328   37%
    • N = 254 blood samples post infection
    • N = 51 long term follow up
    • Antibodies against SARS-CoV2 spike and receptor binding domain (RBD) declined moderately over 8 months
    • Memory B cells against SARS-CoV2 spike increased between 1 week and 8 weeks after infection
    • Proportion of subjects positive for CD4+ T cells (92%) remained high at 6 to 8 months after infection

We found that Spike antibodies showed better durability than Nucleocapsid antibodies. During the first six months, spike antibodies also showed better durability (half-life 97 days) than the subset of Spike-RBD antibodies (half-life 62 days), whereas both Nucleocapsid and N-RBD antibodies showed similar persistence (half-life 47 days). Similar conclusions were drawn in a study by Fenwick et al. [42] who reported differential waning of SARS-CoV-2 humoral responses, with antibodies recognizing the trimeric Spike being more persistent compared to antibodies recognizing nucleocapsid. The analysis of our cohort revealed a bi-phasic decline of antibodies with an inflection point at ~6 months post symptom onset.



  • 18+ months into pandemic, how can there be no definitive public health protocols for mask use?
  • Why is there so little thorough study data on masking, mask policy or airflow viral load?
  • Why has the study of masking been allowed to be a merely political / civic law enforcement wedge issue?
  • Public health should be organised as a medical issue regardless of which “team” is in power
  • There should surely be no uncertainty about these basic issues of public health
  • The next pandemic may be worse


  • Cloth, silk and other fabric masks are not effective
  • Studies show unequivocally: any mask below N95 rating is not useful against SARS-CoV-2
  • Air filtration systems are exponentially more effective than masking using current widely available technology
  • Planes have filtration systems running the air with over 99% effectiveness at removing airborne (aerosol) particulates
  • HEPA air filtration (as on planes) is the equivalent of permanently worn N99+ mask


  • USA: California, New York City, Florida, Colorado, Seattle, Oregon
  • UK: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar
  • EU: Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Holland
  • Global South: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa
  • Asia: India, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonescia


  • Studies show cloth masks are not effective – anything below N95 is ineffectual
  • PPE for COVID-19 must include, at minimum, N95 respirators or higher, isolation gowns, i.e. standard surgical clothing
  • Surgical and non-respirator face masks do not protect persons from aerosolised or airborne infectious diseases and cannot be relied upon for novel pathogens such as COVID-19 over air filtration and – if high-risk exposure – N95+ face masking
  • Examples of N99+ mask include: powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) with high efficiency particulate air filters as protection against aerosol generating procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases like ventilated patients
  • Open and continuous communication about any potential exposure to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases
  • Screening protocols to identify patients who may have COVID-19 infections
  • Plans to ensure prompt isolation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections in airborne infection isolation rooms
  • Protective PPE for nurses and other health care workers providing care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections including airborne and contact precautions
  • PPE for COVID-19 must include, at minimum, N95 respirators or higher, isolation gowns, eye protection, and gloves
  • OSHA recommends that if N95 respirators are not available, employers should use higher levels of respiratory protection such as N/P/R100s, elastomeric respirators, powered-air purifying respirators, and others
  • A Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) with high efficiency particulate air filters must be worn during aerosol generating procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases
  • All donning and doffing should be performed in a separate room, with a buddy system to ensure efficacy and hands on training
  • 14 days paid precautionary leave for a nurse or other health care worker who is exposed to COVID-19 – ended with two negative antigen tests (1-2 days apart)
  • Exposure incident procedures: Employers must identify, evaluate, and investigate potential worker exposures including techniques like wastewater testing – locally managed medical and testing follow-up services must be provided, free of charge, to all exposed employees




Why is there zero definitive info on medical prophylaxis?

Why no policy on individual prevention?

Why no open debate on evolving treatment protocols?


  • Much talk about cases of damage from the spike protein post-vaccine but reasons have been hard to pinpoint. Could it be down to not asperating the needle prior to injection, and thus occasional inadvertent injection of the vaccine into the bloodstream – which is known to be extremely dangerous?
  • How many who’ve had the vaccine got their needles aspirated?
  • Why would there be aggressive, partisan exclusion of ANY prophylactic that’s cheap and universal and proven safety record?
  • Amplifying overdose victims is propagandist; never sincere.


  • Vaccine gives (high estimate) 90% protection from SARS-Cov2
  • Ivermectin prophylactic + treatment inclusion adds 0%-5% protection (i.e. it is useless or it is a bit useful)
  • End result potentially saves tens of thousands of lives WITH the antiviral versus withou
  • No downside to using all possible probable non-harmful preventions,m treatments, etc
  • Where’s the medical logic in banning ivermectin or predisposing against any medication promising even a single percentage better outcome likelihood?
  • Regeneron makes REGEN-COV: a mixture of two monoclonal antibodies: casirivimab and imdevimab
  • “[Regeneron] is an important treatment before you get to the hospital” Dr Nancy Foster, President Travis County Medical Society
  • “It must be given before symptoms worsen to the point of a patient being hospitalized. If you show up to the ER short of breath, it’s too late” Dr Scott Clitheroe, Travis County Medical


  • Is the dosage level required to get enough ivermectin into play for anti-Sars-CoV2 viral replication significant? Because Pfizer’s last line of defense for its ritonivir combo drug (that works like ivermectin) is it needs a much lower (safer) dosage to be effective as an anti-SARS-CoV2 protease inhibitor
  • Where’s the medical logic in banning ivermectin or predisposing against any medication promising even a single percentage better outcome likelihood?
  • Could this be because while Ivermectin inhibits many mechanisms (as you’ve reported), this makes it less effective – by dose – against any one specific mechanism? Might this require higher dose Ivermectin to be as effective as Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which targets only one mechanism?
  • (Even though obviously the Pfizer drug is far more likely to become resisted by viral mutation as it is single mechanism rather than Ivermectin’s multiple mechanisms of action)
  • Is the dosage per mechanism significant? I’ve not yet found a paper answering this question!








  • Reduces likelihood of hospitalisation (and worse) for elderly, comorbidities and immunocompromised – which is the majority of the population
  • Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 – especially hospitalisation and life-threatening complications – remains demonstrable even for young people, unless specifically at risk
  • Antibody levels in part come from extent of viral load exposed
  • Passing natural infection might engender lower antibodies than a double or triple (i.e. regular) dose of vaccine
  • Natural immunity is absorbed into long-term B-cell memory as mRNA inspired response does not
  • Systemic side-effects from vaccine especially mRNA vaccine more common in people previously infected
  • Science by Press Release is never honest
  • Vaccine immunity is demonstrated neutralising antibodies IgM/IgG but less convincing on IgA and long-term immunological memory B-cell stimulation
  • Vaccines tend to give more definitive high equivalent viral load so can stimulate less variable IgM/IgG antibody and some T-cell response than – for example – low viral load natural exposure


  • Large UK study of systemic/vaccine side effects after natural infection:
    • 1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19
    • 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2
    • 56% more likely to experience a severe side effect that required hospital care



  • Vaccination seems to reduce likelihood of hospitalisation (and worse) for elderly, comorbidities and immunocompromised but needs boosters every 6-12 months
  • Vaccines probably reduce likelihood of severe illness including hospitalisation and death for young and middle-aged versus naive natural infection – 3-6 months after most recent vaccination
  • Young have greater absolute risk from vaccination versus older people though risk is very low (under 1%) across all agees
  • Older people and immunocomprimised people much higher risk from Coronavirus
  • Severe illness including hospitalisation and death exponentially higher impact by comorbidities (including being fat, low Vitamin D) than vaccine status
  • Young people recover fast
  • Young males risk greater from mRNA vaccination than from Covid-19
  • Should young people be forced to take the individual risk for the sake of older, vulnerable members of the public?
  • Myocarditis young – especially young males – incident percentages higher than simply catching Covid and higher than baseline – possibly lack of aspiration?
  • Incidents of myocarditis and pericarditis in Norway (no aspiration) 240% higher than Denmark (aspiration) same vaccine, same 90%+ vaccinated population
  • Vaccine efficacy press release 2020: overall efficacy 92·8% | prevent hospitalisation 94.2% | prevent severe illness 94.4% | prevent death 93.7%


  • CDC still recommends a full vaccination dose for everyone including young children
  • CDC recommends:
    • mandated boosters for all elderly
    • mandated for immunocompromised
    • mandated for frontline health workers and other public workers
    • recommends booster for all J&J single dose vaccinated
    • recommends boosters for all vaccinated after 6 months


Pfizer/Moderna (i.e. NIH – as patent holder) aren’t sharing their vaccine recipe because they need to protect the mRNA platform, quite separately from the debate over proliferating vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in the context of saving lives in the Coronavirus pandemic.
It’s possible the big pharmaceutical corporations don’t object to letting poor countries make their own vaccines. The problem is with sharing the mRNA platform itself – specifically – because it is a multipurpose technology way beyond targeting spike proteins with potential for revenue streams that dwarf the billions made from SARS-CoV-2.
The mRNA platform has myriad uses as a cancer delivery drug, which is perhaps the biggest prize in medical science – a bonanza of incalculable trillions that could roll on and on for decades. This is why the patent isn’t going to be shared. It won’t be shared until the technology can be shared in a way that doesn’t open access beyond targeted Coronavirus usage. The vaccine corporations will doubtless be working on a nerfed version. If they find it, there will be a fanfare of “patent sharing”.



Bioscience Tech


mRNA Tech





  • Infections is the number/trend generating most of the headlines in the media and on the news:
    • It is partly indicative of a rise or fall in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence
    • But frequently number of infections fluctuates according to how many tests are being sampled
    • Health authorities keen to justify lockdown or more vaccine take up will ramp up testing to generate higher infections so it looks like a sudden spike
    • Conversely health authorities trying to look effective and on top of Coronavirus will reduce testing so it suddenly looks like the virus is on the way out


  • New infectious are front page news, hospitalizations and deaths are regularly cited in prominent graphics but the circle is never squared by recording (and reporting) recovery alongside infected
  • An infection (case) is a key data point but it needs a virus cleared (recovered) data point too
  • But at population scale, new positive tests (infections/cases) need follow-up negative tests (recovered, virus cleared) to make useful public policy
    • Length of time between infection and recovered
    • Provides public # of active infections – i.e. virus prevalence – across a given population, county, outbreak area, etc
    • Opens potential for analysis of natural v vaccine immunity in speed of viral clearance, severity of disruption
    • Builds coherent non-pharmaceutical corporate trial data on antibody titer levels and impact of virus duration on subsequent immunological response
    • Gives public health authorities a direct line on assessing new variant behaviour (e.g. highly infective, mild symptoms, quick to clear or low infection rates but aggressive once it takes hold)
  • Hospitalisations listed under Covid-19 are 75% hospitalized for other reasons antigen/PCR testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 after admission
  • Variability in death-by-Covid records because half the records list as “death by Coronavirus” anyone who tests positive when kicking the bucket
  • Whereas half health authorities only record as a “death by Coronavirus” if the death is caused by Covid-19 directly

  • “The Great Barrington Declaration” is signed and published in Great Barrington MA (USA) (Kulldorff, Gupta, Bhattacharya 4-Oct-2020) – “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection”

    How do we beat the Coronavirus pandemic?

    1. Minimise Covid-19 casualties
    2. Temporary social disruption
    3. Support against economic damage (especially to small business)
    4. Protect psychological damage to parents and children
    5. Reduce SARS-CoV-2 direct and corollary impact on healthspan?


    • All vaccine programmes must include properly tracked – with an opt out – no mandates
      • Why is there no official protocol for aspirating before injection of vaccine, to ensure none of the vaccine is intravenous?
      • Aspirating ensures vaccination goes intramuscular, not intravenous because intravenous is dangerous
      • Intravenous doesn’t happen often but it is more common in younger people and warned against by vaccine makers
      • Lack of aspiration is the prime candidate for what could be causing the relatively rare but nonetheless real adverse reactions
      • Significant incidents of post-vaccine myocarditis, thrombosis and other extreme adverse reactions to the mRNA vaccines in particular
    • Because pharmaceutical is immune from prosecution, government is caught in its own trap: it can’t change advice to include aspiration because doing so would admit an astronomical class action by thousands of vaccine injured
    • End result of the government covering itself is no change to aspiration advice which directly leads to unnecessary death and suffering (and fuel for vaccine hesitancy)
      • Guilt and negligence aside, government must adequately fund full adverse injury cover – especially if big pharmaceutical companies continue to be protected from all liability
      • Lack of government sponsored cover for Covid-19 and vaccine adverse effects (injury) is one of the main reasons millions choose to stay unvaccinated
      • Contrary to the public messaging vilifying wilful ideological rejection of vaccine, over 75% of unvaccinated are working and precarity classes – disproportionately ethnic minorities, often without a doctor or medical cover


    • Proper testing (with opt-out on tracking) and fast response to positive tests: antigen in every home


    • Unshackled doctor-prescribed prophylactics and other treatments per doctor patient relationship
    • Particular care for immunocompromised people in particular with a full range of prophylactics


    • Encourage mask use on public transport and indoor spaces but optional; antigen testing at every threshold
    • HEPA filtration systems on all enclosed public transport and underground stations/terminus


    • Open data – no censorship – no patrician ‘lies for the perceived public good’
    • Full tracking of public antibodies and immunity using PCR testing – especially post-vaccine post-infection
    • Vigilant public health measures like wastewater testing, resources targeted on outbreaks


    • The Significance of the Nuremberg Code
    • No mask mandates – no vaccine mandates
    • No lockdown – no forced community quarantine
    • No closure of business – no curfew – no state-sponsored violence against the citizen
    • No travel restrictions but antigen testing at every travel portal
    • Public portal antigen protocol: shops, offices, venues, airports, stations, schools, churches, etc
    • No vaccine passports – no coercive threat-to-income compelled behaviour



  • Monopoly on science on my side only – ignorant heresy to dispute my orthodoxies
  • Ad hominem attack to discredit heterodox opinion is dishonest and counter-productive; and evades taking on the real substance
  • Money matters – everybody knows this – so obfuscating profit motives undermines faith
  • Health and medicine science is not political – everybody knows this – so every time messaging conflates asserting fact with obvious politicisation it will alienate



    • Minimise SARS-CoV-2 incursion, spread and longevity in the population
    • Encourage robust immunity to SARS-CoV2 across the population
    • Encourage focus on reducing comorbidities
      • Why no public health messaging on tackling known comorbidities like weakened immune system or obesity etc?
      • Why is there no broadcast messaging about immune system healthiness, like Vitamin D, Zinc, obesity, smoking, judicious diet, fitness, or proven cheap Covid-19 prophylactic nasal spray/eye drops?
      • It makes no medical sense whatsoever not to frontline these easy personal interventions likely to save tens of thousands of lives (at the very lowest)
      • Vitamin D and the Immune System (Aug-2011)
      • Vitamin D Prevent Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: Systematic Review (15-Feb-2017)
      • Individual health and individual immune system aids: vitamin D, Zinc, weight loss, less smoking, cardiovascular exercise, etc
      • CDC: Obesity, Race/Ethnicity, and COVID-19


    • Advise all reasonable metrics known to increase protection against Covid-19:
      • Test portals
      • Air filtration interiors
      • Free antibody-appropriate vaccination
      • Doctor access to unrestricted antivirals
      • Concordant reduction efforts against co-morbidities
      • Public advisories on strengthening immune system, citizen trust: antigen tests in every household + isolate when positive antigen with no isolation if/when double negative antigen, community wastewater testing


      • Antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgT, IgA) against SARS-CoV2
      • Stimulate memory B-cells
      • Educate killer T-cells
      • Reduced SARS-CoV2 viral load
      • Shorten period of SARS-CoV2 infectiousness
      • Faster viral clearance
      • Long-lasting multiple vector antibody titers against future exposure
      • Unvaccinated with no natural immunity look most likely to be hospitalised by severe Covid-19
      • Covid-19 deaths appear to be higher percentage among unvaccinated without natural immunity
      • Therefore natural immunity and vaccine immunity reduce severity of Covid-19
      • Some evidence supports vaccination giving 3-9 months less likely to be hospitalised, less likely to die
      • Contracting Covid-19 is more dangerous than aspirated vaccination as a way to prime immune response


    • Vaccination gives non-trival boost to antibody immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants without the risk of contracting the virus
    • Natural immunity from infection is broader, more potent and more long-lasting than immunity from vaccine
    • Natural immunity depends on the viral load of infecting exposure
    • Risks to most people – especially elderly, immunocompromised and co-morbidities – from Covid-19 outweigh natural immunity from naive exposure
    • Recovering from the virus gives 8x-12x level of short-term and long-term antibody immunity
    • SARS equivalent immunity has lasted 10+ years
    • mRNA vaccine immunity is shown to wane considerably after 6 months




    • “The Great Barrington Declaration” is signed and published in Great Barrington MA (USA) (4-Oct-2020)
    • “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection”
    • The declaration rejects current [2020] handling of public health response to the pandemic
    • By October 2021 signatories and supporters are a de facto medical alliance – the largest expert movement of its kind since the Second World War
    • Great Barrington Declaration is authored by three of the world’s pre-eminent epidemiologists with key vaccine and public health expertise:
      • Dr Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University)
      • Dr Sunetra Gupta (University of Oxford)
      • Dr Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford University Medical School)
      • (plus thousands of doctors across the world at every level of medical care and research)
    • NIH Directors Fauci and Collins Target the Great Barrington Declaration (18-Dec-2021)





    Peter McCullough – Children’s Health Defense – Medical Advisory

    Dr Peter McCullough ‘Therapeutic Nihilism And Untested Novel Therapies’ | RUMBLE VIDEO (5-Oct-2021)

    Professor Mattias Desmet talks about his work that connects past historical episodes of what is called “Mass Formation” (aka Mass Psychosis) and Coronavirus (3-Dec-2021)

    “As a now triple-vaxxed person who has had the virus previously I am intent on living my life as normally as possible, which includes not unduly worrying about it or demanding others do so. And I would argue that expecting otherwise from me would make you functionally an anti-vaxxer.”

    Is it worth wearing masks? Should it be mandatory? Do masks impact viral load?

    The general function that masks serve is mitigation rather than absolute protection. The idea that “masks do NOT prevent the transmission of respiratory viruses” based on my understanding evinces the same fundamental misunderstanding of how a virus causes diseases that underlies much of what’s gone wrong in this pandemic.

    Becoming “infected” with a respiratory virus is not the same thing as being exposed to it. Nearly everyone’s immune system is capable of fighting off low-level assaults by any kind of pathogenic virus, but by the same token, there is a threshold beyond which nearly everyone’s immune system will succumb to that same virus. So preventing infection is not a binary “1/0” question; it’s more like a sliding scale that goes from 1 to 1M, and at “1”, you don’t even notice that you’ve fought it off and at “1M”, your immune system is overwhelmed and you’re on your way to the ICU and a vent.

    The function of the masks is to keep the exposure level closer to “1” than “1M”. Yes, there is presumably quite a bit of leakage through and around the mask, but if you are in an enclosed space for a limited period of time (a grocery store for example) and everyone is in a mask there, the amount of virus in the air will be significantly less than if everyone was unmasked. Much of the time the difference may not be significant enough to matter, but theoretically sometimes it will. Again, this only applies in densely populated enclosed spaces where people are there for limited periods of time. It would be very unlikely to work, for example, to prevent household transmission. And it should be obvious, that it’s not going to make a difference outdoors, except possibly in the most extremely crowded situations imaginable.

    It should go without saying that having a gala where the guests are unmasked but the server are masked makes no sense whatsoever from a public health standpoint. As journalist Glenn Greenwald points out, it’s a “grotesque” display of symbolic power and humiliation.

    Coronavirus indoor spread is mostly as aerosols against which non-N95 masks are not super-protective, but again, it’s a cumulative set of factors: ventilation, amount of time spent in the space, how many people are in the space, how much virus is being put out by the infected person(s) in question, how robust is the immunity of the people being exposed, mask efficacy, etc. Even a bad mask may reduce by viral exchange by a few percent and that could be enough to be the difference between exposure to an infection-level viral load or escaping infection.

    Universal masking is to me just one factor that in some situations probably reduce the total amount of virus in a given airspace, and so could reduce the chances of an exposure becoming an infection. It’s not all or nothing, however. Nothing is all or nothing!

    It’s relative, and given that it’s relative, there’s no reason to worry about whether everyone is wearing a mask. If there are 50 people there, and 2 or 3 aren’t wearing a mask, it’s not likely to make an appreciable difference in the overall level of risks, therefore no need to “mandate” masks anywhere, just put out a recommendation and let adults decide for themselves. This applies to almost everything else COVID: nothing should’ve ever been mandated because nothing offered absolute protection, it was always just generally reducing the overall risks within reasonable bounds and that’s best achieved through education, messaging, advisories and leaving people to make their own social cost benefit analyses.