As discussed recently on the TrialSite, the world’s leading online media platform and social network dedicated to objectively tracking clinical trials, an Op-Ed contributor questioned the practice of shut downs associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 spread.
Hamilton, Ontario, July 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Paul Elias Alexander, PhD, a former COVID-19 advisor to WHO-PAHO and to Health and Human Services (HHS), United States, has written the following testimony. He has presented his and his colleagues’ arguments against the idea that asymptomatic people who are positive for COVID-19 are “drivers” of the pandemic. Alexander also vigorously rejects the use of COVID-19 vaccines on children and condemns the harms the lockdowns–which he believes were unnecessary–has done to so many people.
We will start this discussion on the notion of ‘asymptomatic spread’ by stating that there should be no vaccination of children with COVID vaccines. Zero.
These vaccines have no long-term safety assessments, and they do not work like standard vaccines.
Today we talk about vaccinating millions of healthy infants, children, and adolescents, and we know they do not have a substantial risk of acquiring the infection and becoming severely ill or dying. The risk of severe outcome in infants, young children, and young adults is very low: essentially statistical zero (to be precise, the rate of survival in persons aged 0-19 is 99.997%). The risks of these vaccines to children, however, can be catastrophic.
The question is, therefore, why would we subject our child to a vaccine that provides them with no benefit? To do so would be illogical, irrational, absurd, reckless, and dangerous. We say at this time, no, stop, put an immediate pause on this. We are very concerned with the potential harm to children if this is not done. Get the proper safety data collected and assessed first. The threshold for safety must be set at the highest. The use of the vaccine on young persons considered high-risk should be pondered on a case-by-case basis, and any decision should be based on an ethical informed assessment of the balance of the risk versus benefits.
We are not against vaccines and are in no way anti-vaxxers; rather, we support vaccines that are developed properly. Improperly developed vaccines have harmed children in the past. We are pro-vaccine but against these vaccines as their harms are potentially catastrophic. They could set up children for a lifetime of disability or even early death. We cannot just rush into the mass vaccination of healthy people, most importantly children, until we properly assess the risks. How can we be told that vaccines take 10 to 15 years to develop, and yet the COVID-19 vaccines, which were developed in 3 months, are safe? How is this possible when we bypassed the proper animal studies and safety assessment? We need to assess if there are potentially unsafe blood clots and bleeding connected to the vaccines. We have to assess the myocarditis and pericarditis risks. These are all a pressing concern now as alleged cases have emerged, and this is now a real catastrophe unfolding.
We knew very early on that COVID-19 is amenable to risk stratification [categorizing people based on their health status and other factors] and that your baseline risk was measured for mortality. Why not the same approach for these vaccines? Why are members of the public not allowed to have an open public discussion if they think they have been vaccine injured? They must also be given care urgently and treated optimally. Their adverse outcome information must be collected for us to make an accurate assessment of the risk subsequent to vaccination. Moreover, we are talking about the US, Canada, Britain, France, Australia, Italy, all of Europe, the Caribbean, African nations, all of the globe. Every single person on this earth is important and all our lives matter, especially our minority children who often bear the worst from any illness. We are trying to help save all lives.
Claim asymptomatic transmission of COVID drove pandemic ‘not credible’
We will now address the issue of asymptomatic spread.
The claim that ‘asymptomatic’ spread or transmission of COVID-19 is a key driver of the pandemic or even a driver of minimal infection is not credible. Not only is this our hypothesis, we feel strongly that the asymptomatic spread claim was bogus from the start and was used to justify the lockdowns. It had, and still has today, no basis. This was part of pandemic corruption. We have looked at the evidence gathered across the last 16 months and can safely say this was a false narrative that, along with masking, lockdowns, social distancing, and school closure policies, visited crushing harms on society, hurting the USA and the world immensely. That the US Pandemic Task Force and these illogical, irrational, unscientific medical experts could use this falsehood to shutter society, causing so much destruction of life, wealth and property is a shameful and unforgivable scandal. This pandemic response was all about corruption, and there certainly were ingredients other than science at play throughout.
Some of us had the pleasure of working with members of the US Task Force and can attest that some of them are incredibly smart, good people. But they were and are flat wrong on everything related to COVID-19. Every policy was based on their input and guidance, and they created a disaster. Many thousands of people died due to their policies. Never has a President been as ill-served as by these Task Force members. They misled and undercut President Trump at each turn, and one continues to mislead the current administration. On a day-to-day basis, we were watching a clown car in the daily briefings. Their hypothesis on asymptomatic spread cannot be borne out, and we have decided to examine the evidence on asymptomatic spread and give our view. The COVID-19 response should have never been about their supposition, speculation, and assumptions, let alone their whimsy. This is not evidence-based research; this is not science. Speculation and assumption are not science. The Task Force failed catastrophically and must not be allowed to rewrite their history.
As we present our opinions and the evidence that underpins our reasoning, we ask any of the scientists to put forth their data, their science, their proof of its credibility. Once this is shown and proven, we will gladly adjust our position and conclude otherwise. We also apologize for our blunt writing on this matter, for we are angry at the catastrophic failures of the Task Forces and these unsound, irrational experts who have caused so much damage.
The issue of ‘asymptomatic spread’ was such a significant aspect of the pandemic policy decisions that it could not be based on ‘possibility’ or assumptions. We are afraid, however, that it was, and this had catastrophic consequences. They, these absurd and unscientific medical experts, made ‘asymptomatic spread’ the cornerstone of the societal lockdowns, and they did this with no credible basis. There was no strong data or any evidence to support this, and even if this was assumed for several weeks, and even if we took a more cautious approach initially and this was reasonable, we used and kept this false narrative in place far too long to keep draconian and punitive lockdown restrictions in place that had no basis. As a result, lives were lost.
For us to buy “asymptomatic spread,” we need to see the evidence and data, and there is and was none. We operate in a world of evidence-based medicine and research whereby policies must be supported by credible evidence, and even if it is ‘anecdotal’ ‘real-world evidence’, it must have some basis. This had none. The reality is that there is no verifiable, credible evidence, even today, that people have developed COVID-19 from asymptomatic spread. You must torture the data or infections to find a case, and even then it is plagued with the very questionable RT-PCR results.
You just cannot discuss this asymptomatic issue without factoring in the very flawed RT-PCR test with its 97% to 100% false positives at cycle counts (Ct) of 34 to 35 and above (optimal Ct of 24 to 25 denotes real infectiousness and predictive of serious outcomes). This disastrous RT-PCR test cannot be omitted from mention, for it was part of the ‘asymptomatic’ deception.
This duplicitous ‘asymptomatic’ assertion doomed the pandemic response from the start, for all the societal shutdowns and school closures revolved around the premise of asymptomatic spread. Dr. Anthony Fauci can be credited with perhaps the greatest falsehood told to the American population and President Trump. He continues to advance this misleading and duplicitous narrative to the current administration.
‘Lockdown lunatics failed to protect public health’
All these lockdown lunatics failed to protect public health and our elderly in nursing homes. These bureaucrats and technocrats, this ruling elite, these television medical experts. They were flat wrong on everything COVID, yet they run around extolling each other and patting each other on the back. For what? The destruction they caused? We begged them to secure the elderly and high-risk people, but they did not and did not stop the lockdowns. Had we protected the elderly properly from the start, we would have not lost the lives we did. Had we allowed early outpatient treatment using a multi-drug approach (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, corticosteroids, anti-blood clotting drugs, etc. under clinician supervision), we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. With multi-drug early treatment, we could minimize or stop symptoms and thus spread, which would reduce hospitalization and death. Early treatment can be much more effective than vaccines in stopping transmission.
These lunatic lockdown advocates, these medical experts, pretended there was no harm in their lockdowns. It was deliberate, a perverse cruelty. Look at health decline from lockdown isolation (the mental health costs, the dementia), the inactivity, the loss of education due to school closures, lost medical care, loss of employment, and loss of income. As Dr. Jonathan Ketcham wrote in Collateral Global, “Some of these costs, sadly, remain ahead of us, including deaths from delays in cancer screening and treatment, rising opioid overdose, and harms to the life expectancy of today’s children due to lost schooling.” Alarmingly, we see how COVID-19 wreaks havoc differentially due to baseline risks, often elevated in the underprivileged, but also in the case of the underprivileged in terms of the effects of the lockdowns. For example, “while breast cancer screening in Washington state fell by 50% for women overall, the drop was even more precipitous among minorities”. Look at how we have allowed the elderly in nursing homes to suffer, how our aged populations have died lonely, in fright, isolated, confused, in the last days of their lives. It is a scandal.
Duplicity of the CDC in reporting teenage hospitalizations for COVID-19
Before we lay bare this ‘asymptomatic’ fraud, let us show just how duplicitous and incompetent these public health agencies can be and how many lies they (and their leaders) spew in an attempt to deceive and confuse the public. Now they wish to drive fear in parents so as to push them to vaccinate their children. As public health leaders at the CDC and NIH, they must rise above politics and work to inform the public with truth and evidence, and make it their quest to help, not mislead and confuse.
Recently the CDC put out a statement (based on their June 11th 2021 MMWR report) that there is a troubling rise in teens being hospitalized for COVID-19. The first fact that jumps out at us is that there were no deaths. CDC stated that adolescent hospitalization rates increased during March and April 2021 after decreases in January and February 2021. This message went viral in the media 24/7. This misinformation and lie by the CDC and clear effort to lie to the public was couched as a ‘troubling rise’. But the truth is that although there was a rise in March and April, there was a decrease in May back to the level current at the close of February 2021. What garbage, what drivel the CDC has stated here.
The CDC and its director Rochelle Walensky should have known that the hospitalization rate had decreased, but they cherry-picked a portion of the graph and data (the upside of the graph) and presented that without the downside portion that shows the decline. What hubris and deceit by Walensky! Did she not read the data? This incident shows, once again, a badly misinformed or prepared CDC director. And we have no reason to think she is incapable; in fact, her credentials are stellar. We have no reason to think she is that inept. We think something other than science is at play here. People in her agency must be feeding her the garbage to undermine her, and doing it repeatedly.
We ask her, “Please read and study the junk they are giving you before you make a public statement. It is not only your reputation, Dr. Walensky, but that of this brand-name agency, the CDC. The CDC must not be dragged through the mud this way, exposed to ridicule. The public is well-informed and understands much more than public health officials think they do, and thus the preparation and public statements by the CDC must be open, transparent, explicit, and above all, accurate. No lies, no spin, no half-baked tripe. Just pure evidence and truth, balanced information so that the public is informed for their decision-making. Do not mislead the public!”
On the other hand, Dr. Walensky must have known that this was a cherry-picking of the data to drive an erroneous misleading message because hospitalizations had declined across all age-groups during the prior 6 to 8 weeks. She must have known this: “Allen says the latest data from May showed that hospitalization rates declined to 0.6 on May 29.” The real atrocity in this reporting by the CDC is that they did not include the data from May 2021. This was purely an effort to mislead the public because the same data used in the report showed a significant decline in the month following the slight increase. So, the CDC took data that showed an increase in April 2021 and then reported it in June as if the May data of the clear decline did not exist. Why is April data now being reported? How incredibly duplicitous. What arrogance to think the American people are that stupid that they cannot see the decline in May.
Dr. Walensky was actually mis-reporting (seemingly deliberately given the data was right there for her to see) CDC’s own data. Why? And is this the first time a CDC MMWR report was junk pseudo-science based on falsehoods? This MMWR report depended on a population-based surveillance system of laboratory-confirmed, COVID-19 associated hospitalizations in 99 counties across 14 states, covering approximately 10% of the U.S. population. Daniel Horowitz of The Blaze was beside himself as he discussed this duplicity by the CDC and rightly so.
Dr. Walensky stated she was ‘deeply concerned by the rise.’ Yet she knew she was being deceitful, in plain view, understanding that the media cartel would gobble up the erroneous tripe, and the public would be too lazy to do the reading just a bit further down in the MMWR to understand the mis-information. “It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points-an old trick they’ve used with mask studies,” Horowitz wrote. Or was it that Dr. Walensky cannot read the science or understand the data or graphs? Or those reporting to her? Dr. Walensky also made this type of deceitful error and omission when she reported and misled on the risk of outdoors transmission (< 1% but claiming it is more like 10%), among many others. There were similar issues with summer camp rules and spread after vaccination, with flips and flops between Walensky and Fauci. Someone was or is lying, but who? And importantly, why?
Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins stated that “the CDC did not report the key issues in that report. No child died, and the CDC should have said this. This is the great news! The hospitalization rate was lower for COVID than it was for influenza. This should have been CDC ‘s headline. One of the failures of the CDC is their ignoring of natural immunity and this insane rush to mass vaccinate people already immune…we are seeing another set of talking points on the Delta variant scare.”
CDC refusal to recognize natural immunity to COVID-19
Joel S. Hirschhorn writes eloquently about this refusal to recognize natural immunity as a major player in COVID. “The reason is simple,” he said. “The more that natural immunity is accepted, the more reason there is to reject getting one of the experimental COVID vaccines. Half the US population from kids to adults likely have natural immunity, even though most never suffered any serious ill effects from being infected.”
CDC knew the number was coming down for months but misled in their report when they knew it was 20 hospitalizations per day of about 25 million teens, so a rate of approximately 0.00008%. This was to drive panic about a troubling rise in teen hospitalizations, even when the very small number was going down, not up. The CDC knew the percentage was very low. They duplicitously picked only one piece of data, so as to exploit the fears of parents. This was to drive vaccinations, even after learning of myocarditis among teenagers who are vaccinated for COVID-19. The CDC’s very own VAERS database has nearly 6,000 deaths linked to the vaccine. The CDC pretends this does not exist, and yet the deaths thus far from COVID vaccines are more than all deaths from all vaccines across the last 30 years. Do you understand this? This is not our data, this is CDC’s data.
Then there’s the study in Israel that involved over 6 million participants and discovered natural immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection was equivalent to, or even better than, vaccination immunity in reducing risk of COVID infection. “Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals,” it concluded.
How about the results from the Cleveland Clinic study that looked at 52,238 employees of Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio? Here 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22,777 (41%) of 49,659 not previously infected. Any subject who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days earlier was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receipt of the second dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. The study revealed that “[n]ot one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study.” This led researchers to conclude that people who have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection would be unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. But CDC and the media medical cartel are pretending these studies and their great news do not exist.
Dr. Walensky apparently does not get these research reports and instead prefers to mislead the nation and parents with inaccurate and half-presented data. How low has the CDC fallen. How come they have no common sense? Why is there this incessant drive by the CDC day in, day out, to mislead the public, and how long has this been going on? Why are they working to undermine President Biden and his administration? For this can only damage his administration’s credibility.
What about the CDC’s HEROES-RECOVER study? Look at that duplicity by the CDC. They stated in their protocol that “one of the study’s primary objectives was to ‘Examine post-vaccine immunologic response in those previously infected’.” Yet, despite the fact that there were prior infected persons in the study, they were excluded from the study results. It states: “Among 5,077 participants, those with laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection before enrolment starting in July 2020 (608) or identified as part of longitudinal surveillance up until the first day of vaccine administration (240) were excluded.” Why would CDC do this when this was a group that was part of the study and a key group in terms of the primary purpose? Where did these people vanish to?
What about the misleading statements reported in the New York Post by the CDC and Walensky recently about outdoor transmission risk, grossly over-stating it and seeking to drive fear. They had to retract and clarify. What about the director trying to blame the journal the CDC took the data from? Do they at the CDC not read what they are publishing for accuracy or validity? This is shocking. Why must the CDC try each time to mislead the public? Why would the director do this given her prominent role?
This is how the last 16 months have been with the CDC’s actions and reporting: late and false, always a year behind the science. Always misleading. Politicized.
We will address the lie of ‘asymptomatic spread’ by using the exact words of Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID. Fauci previously stated the following as he advocated shutting down society: “historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all history of respiratory viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers”. Soon, and without scientific evidence, he and his fellow Task Force people reversed the narrative
We believe that he knew, yet sought to lie to the nation. In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low, and the infectious period is also short in duration. Asymptomatic virus-positive persons (assuming they really are positive and have not been diagnosed based on an incorrect test) may still exhale virus particles which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Vanishingly small. Exceedingly small. Thus, asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics.
Dr. Fauci and his staff, assisted by the media, repeatedly misled the nation, for they repeatedly told us that we would have to wear masks, socially distance, close schools, and shut everything down because of asymptomatic spread. Dr. Fauci’s recent emails, which exposed the issue of asymptomatic spread as being a non-issue, highlight the misinformation he broadcasted to the public. Recently uncovered emails show that Fauci stated that “most transmissions” of virus “occur from someone who is symptomatic” and “not asymptomatic.” His comments, repeated scores of times by national and international media, caused a loss of life, property, liberty and wealth to an entire generation.
Equally misleading was the premise that all infections equated to severe illness and potential death. This was not only an untruth but has led to scores of teenagers and people in their 20s fearful for their lives. They cower below their beds thinking they have the same risk as their 85-year-old grandmother with three grave medical conditions. This has not only devastated their outlook on the future, but driven them into a state of depression which has led to an increase in suicides in that cohort. We as a nation (and world) were fed mistruths, lies, and half-truths by what we can only describe as ‘fallen’ nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and specious medical experts on television, on the stage with their government bureaucratic leaders and academics.
Media and medical experts are trying to scare us into vaccination
We knew very early on that COVID-19 was amenable to risk stratification and that your chances of dying of the disease was determined principally by age and obesity, along with renal disease, diabetes and heart disease. We realized early on that a more focused ‘targeted’ approach was needed and not the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that would be devastating.
Similarly, we know that the FDA is misleading the public with its guidance about natural immunity. It claims: “If you have not been vaccinated, be aware that a positive result from an antibody test does not mean you have a specific amount of immunity or protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection.” What utter nonsense by the FDA and they know it is nonsense. They know there is empirical evidence to refute this fully. Dr Makary has stated “There’s ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health leaders should pay it heed.” A huge number of Americans have natural immunity because, although “[o]nly around 10% of Americans have had confirmed positive Covid tests …. four to six times as many have likely had the infection… [and] the effect of natural immunity is all around us. The plummeting case numbers in late April and May weren’t the result of vaccination alone, and they came amid a loosening of both restrictions and behavior.” Turner et al. published in the journal Nature recently that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells, a source of protective antibodies, in humans. The authors concluded that “prior Covid infection induces a ‘robust’ and ‘long-lived humoral immune response,’ leading some scientists to suggest that natural immunity is probably lifelong”.
Additional US research, published in Lancet, that tracked population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays, showed an encouraging timeline for the development and sustainability of antibodies up to ten months from natural infection. A similar study, published in Nature, showed that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune response in humans. Moreover, a pre-print paper shows that without vaccination, the antibodies in the infected person are roughly stable for 6 to 12 months. Combined with the Israeli data and the Cleveland data, the case for natural immunity has been built and is indeed compelling.
Similarly, we know that the job of the media cartel and the inept medical experts on television is now to scare us and the parents of children into vaccination. This led Makary to write: “Some health officials warn of possible variants resistant to natural immunity. But none of the hundreds of variants observed so far have evaded either natural or vaccinated immunity with the three vaccines authorized in the U.S.” They are trying through the media and incompetent medical experts to drive fear, claiming children can die of COVID-19. We say not so; show us the evidence. Stop the lies.
Makary weighed in on even this, stating: “In reviewing the medical literature and news reports, and in talking to pediatricians across the country, I am not aware of a single healthy child in the U.S. who has died of COVID-19 to date…We found that 100% of pediatric COVID-19 deaths were in children with a pre-existing condition.” Makary further stated that “CDC’s own data show that MIS-C overwhelmingly targets black and Latino children, ‘likely due to the disproportionate rates of childhood obesity and chronic conditions in these populations.’ While three dozen have died, the weekly rate of COVID-associated MIS-C is now at zero”.
It’s all a lie, we say, all part of the bogusness to drive needless fear in parents. This could lead them to harm their children with potentially dangerous vaccines. Children must never be vaccinated with these vaccines, these ‘untested to exclude harms’ vaccines. We are not saying a child could die from this, but we are arguing that such a child (tragically) would likely be very ill absent of COVID, and COVID would do what it has done and done well: it exploits risks.
There were so many falsehoods thrown at the American people by persons in authority and with many credentials behind their names, and these are the very people who have sucked at the teats of the tax-payers’ Treasury purse for decades. You would think at least our tax-payer research grant money would be well spent, and these lunatics could at least tell us the truth and not mislead us. Take the use of the issue of re-infections to frighten you into rushing to vaccinate. We have looked at the published evidence and can conclude, based on the existing body of evidence, that reinfections are very rare, if they occur at all. The evidence is based on typically one or two instances with questionable confirmation of an actual case of re-infection, e.g. often easily explained by flawed PCR testing etc. (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). A very recent study in Qatar, published in Lancet, found that “natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months”.
On this subject Makary wrote, “Reinfection is extremely rare and even when it does happen, the symptoms are very rare or [those individuals] are asymptomatic.” Importantly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently (May 10th 2021 Scientific brief, WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Natural_immunity/2021.1) alluded to what has been clear for a year: people are very rarely re-infected. The WHO was very late, but better late than never.
Similarly, it was evident that the RT-PCR tests had large numbers of false positive results when Thermal Cycle Thresholds of greater than 30 were used. This led to erroneous quarantines and closures when a positive test emerged. In fact, as Dimitri Mouliou states: “New technologies have loss of standardization as the countless PCR kits vary in methods and cutoff values, thus, test results are paralleled in unassociated weights, and a realistic comparison between cases is trammeled. Thus, by preserving the existence of misleading COVID-19 cases in such a way, [the] scientific community is being prevented from clear-sighted advances. Since PCR assay cannot distinguish between active and residual RNA, a better assay … needs to be designed.”
We knew that what mattered most was the number of hospitalizations, ICU bed use, and deaths, not the infections. An infection did not mean one was a disease ‘case’. It was also likely a false positive. We became aware early on that a cycle threshold (Ct) of 24 was the limit in RT-PCR testing, and everything above the limit was likely to be a false positive, picking up viral dust, fragments, old coronavirus, old recovered infection, etc. We knew the CDC had set the Ct at 40, and this contributed to the hundreds of thousands and millions of positive cases that were not positive, leading to wrongful policy mandates of school closures and unnecessary quarantine. We were aware and publicized that children were at near-zero risk of acquiring the infection, spreading it, or getting ill from it, but the experts and the media continued their narrative, frightening parents. The CDC, the teachers’ unions, and the television medical experts have spent the last 15 to 16 months scaring parents needlessly, lying openly about the risk to children.
Similarly, we know that the vaccines were approved for emergency use based on exceptionally and grossly inadequate studies evaluating safety and effectiveness. Similarly, we know that the vaccine rollout during a pandemic is driving the mutant variants. Similarly, we know that vaccinating now is fruitless given the original spike is no longer dominant, and that this will be a boon for the vaccine developers who will manufacture new versions routinely, with yearly booster shots, etc. We know all of this, and we know especially that, save for high-risk individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, we had all that we needed societally to handle COVID, and that a vaccine was not needed. It was definitely not needed for low-risk populations and children.
We have stated previously and continue to repeat that those individuals who have been infected with the SARSCoV2 need not be vaccinated since they have a durable and long-lasting immunity to the virus. We compare this to the vaccine that confers antibodies directed against the Spike Protein only. Perhaps such immunity against a selected and limited part of the virus is limited, and we believe it might also drive the viral variants due to selection pressure.
No prior immunity was a lie. We had also commented that T-cell immunity was out there and represented a large portion of people who were not candidates for vaccines and were already strongly immune to COVID, e.g., had prior infection with other coronaviruses and common cold coronaviruses that confer ‘cross-protection’ cellular immunity via T-cell immunity, etc. (Weiskopf , Grifoni, Le Bert, Mateus, Tavukcuoglu, Cassaniti, Dykema, Echeverría, Bonifacius, Nelde, Ansari, Ma, Lineburg, Borena; references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). The reader can draw their own conclusions.
We have also advocated that early outpatient treatment (references 1, 2, 3, 4) was very successful in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death (McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Tenenbaum, Kory, Smith, Bernstein, Fareed, Ladapo, etc.). Unfortunately, the scientific community rejected early treatment. More evidence continues to emerge from well-designed studies that are proving the previous narrative wrong. We have been advocating for thorough testing of the vaccines prior to mass vaccinations for fear of Serious Adverse Events that might accrue over time from such a policy mandate. It appears our fears are well-founded, as we are now seeing in CDC’s very own VAERS database. Given the risks and harm exposed on the CDC VAERS site, we have argued that children must not be vaccinated with mRNA vaccines for fear of short-term and longer-term harm. The short-term harms are being revealed in the media news daily while the longer-term harm may unfold over time. There must be no EUA for children, and only high-risk children should be considered for the vaccine. This assessment must be based only on free and informed consent of the parents, doctor, and child after the balance between the benefits of vaccine versus the harms is considered.
Certain political and scientific experts have maintained a ‘ZERO COVID’ view which is ill-thought-out and ludicrous because it is impossible to attain. There is no way we could eliminate every infection/case as COVID is now endemic and all around us. ZERO was never possible. As the Nature survey of scientists states, “It’s a beautiful dream, but most scientists think it’s improbable. In January, Nature journal asked more than 100 immunologists, infectious-disease researchers and virologists working on the coronavirus whether it could be eradicated. Almost 90% of respondents think that the coronavirus will become endemic — meaning that it will continue to circulate in pockets of the global population for years to come.” We knew this while they forced their absurd intention to destroy the society by enforcing lockdowns to attain ZERO. Enforcing lockdowns forces the pathogen to mutate more infectiously. Dr. Christopher Martin stated that “most experts believe the answer is no and predict that the virus will continue to circulate indefinitely, transitioning from the current pandemic to a steady, but much lower, endemic rate of infection.” We have always advocated that simple enhanced handwashing and isolation of only the symptomatic ill/sick persons are the best societal measures in controlling the viral infection. We have stated previously that the SARS-CoV-2 will eventually become endemic, less virulent, and circulate through the population mutating as it does, mostly to find harmony with its human hosts. Thus, any advocacy of “ZERO COVID” must be considered entertainment for those who have taken leave of all science and reason and wish to impose undue harm on the populace.
We have advocated against the masks previously, and current data shows that cloth face masks are ineffective and dangerous to children, with no clear benefit, impacting their health and well-being. It is also confirmed that the social distance rule of 6 feet was made up, not based on credible science.
In showing the gross efforts to mislead on asymptomatic spread, we also have had to examine issues around lockdowns, school closures, masking, and mask mandates. What did we know about lockdowns and school closures and masks? What evidence accumulated, very early? We recommend that you judge for yourself. We link here to the various catastrophic harms (consequences) and failures of lockdowns (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58) and school closures (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56). The basis for the societal lockdowns was that 40% to 50% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 could potentially spread it due to being asymptomatic. “But fears that the virus may be spread to a significant degree by asymptomatic carriers soon led government leaders to issue broad and lengthy stay-at-home orders and mask mandates out of concerns that anyone could be a silent spreader,” wrote Jeffery Tucker for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). However, the evidence in support of common asymptomatic spread remains largely non-existent and, we argue, was overstated and potentially made with no basis.
And of the ineffectiveness of masks (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) and the failure of mask mandates (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8).
During the past 16 months, the “experts” and their willing accomplices have amassed great fortunes while the lockdowns and school closures have placed an astronomical burden on the poorer in society. The COVID pandemic created billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry while small business operators languished or lost everything. The nation has lost productive and innovative citizens because of academic sloppiness and overt politicization of a pandemic.
We suggest a complete halt to testing asymptomatic individuals for the virus, both because of false positive results, which drive fear, and because it serves no purpose. Contact tracing to control a full-blown pandemic is worthless from any scientific point of view. We remain confident enough, based on the existing literature, to agree also that ‘it is a dangerous assumption to believe that there is persuasive, scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission’. We feel that only symptomatic individuals should be tested for the SARSCoV2 virus, period. “Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling”.
Further scientific evidence against asymptomatic spread
A high-quality review study by Madewell published in JAMA sought to estimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. In addition, researchers sought to estimate the proportion of households with index cases that had any secondary transmission, and compared the SARS-CoV-2 household secondary attack rate with that of other severe viruses and with that to close contacts for studies that reported the secondary attack rate for both close and household contacts. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons, and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment. “The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals”.
A study published in Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million people. AIER’s Zucker responded: “The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but does not drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.”
One study in May 2020 examined the 455 contacts of one asymptomatic person. Researchers found that “all CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test”.
The World Health Organization (WHO) also stated that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.
Additionally, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19 positive individuals. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year, and while one must tease out the concept of no asymptomatic spread, though we argue it is an easy argument to make, it clearly shows that children do not spread the virus.
Ludvigsson published in the New England Journal of Medicine a seminal paper on Covid-19 among children 1 to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million Swedish children who were followed in school, it was reported that, with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid, few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization. We include this study for it is seminal in showing that masks were never needed and children do not spread the virus or get sick or die from it. But importantly, if asymptomatic spread was so vast, and there were 2 million children, would there not be much more elevated numbers of infection reported?
A June 10, 2021 opinion piece sheds more confirmatory light that asymptomatic spread was more a myth than a reality. Abir Ballan and Helen Tindall wrote: “People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2… [S]erious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.” They explain further that the myth was driven by a single case report of an asymptomatic woman from China who had spread the virus to approximately 16 contacts in Germany. “Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission,” they wrote.
Ballan and Tindall further explain that “a person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen: i) the test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected), ii) the person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test), the person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms, and iv) the person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms”.
Dr Clare Craig, a pathologist, and her colleague Dr Jonathan Engler have examined the research evidence behind the claim that Covid-19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic individuals. They wrote that “harmful lockdown policies and mass testing have been justified on the assumption that asymptomatic transmission is a genuine risk.” Given the harmful collateral effects of such policies, the precautionary principle should result in a very high evidential bar for asymptomatic transmission being set. However, the only word which can be used to describe the quality of evidence for this is woeful. A handful of questionable instances of spread have been massively amplified in the medical literature by repeatedly including them in meta-analyses that continue to be published, recycling the same evidence base.
It is important to carefully distinguish the purely asymptomatic (individuals who never develop any symptoms) from pre-symptomatic transmission (where individuals do eventually develop symptoms). To the extent that the latter phenomenon, which has in fact happened only very rarely, is deemed worthy of public health action, appropriate strategies to manage it (in the absence of significant asymptomatic transmission) would be entirely different and much less disruptive than those currently adopted.
How the pandemic should have been handled from the start
We restate emphatically that the concept of ‘asymptomatic spread’ of the COVID-19 virus was devised to frighten the population into compliance and, contrary to what we were told, it was not central to this pandemic. Evidence to support its existence remains absent. We close by offering our opinion on how this pandemic should have been handled from the start.
We would have begun with a strong protection of the high-risk elderly populations. If this was not done first and properly, there would have been no success. We would have fostered improved hand-washing hygiene and isolation of only the ill/sick/symptomatic persons. No asymptomatic person would have been quarantined and there would have been testing of only symptomatic persons or when there was strong clinical suspicion an individual had the virus. We would have promoted education in improving support for the immune system, such as public service messages about vitamin D supplements (especially in societies with limited sunlight) and allow the rest of the low-risk society to live largely unfettered daily lives, taking sensible safety precautions. This would have allowed them to mingle and be exposed to each other harmlessly and naturally, and this would have driven population level immunity. At the same time, we would have offered early outpatient treatment to high-risk positive persons (in nursing homes or their private homes). This would have included the elderly, younger people with underlying medical conditions, and obese individuals.
We feel that had this approach been enacted from the very beginning, the devastating losses incurred by businesses and the economy overall, as well as the deaths of despair among business owners, employees, and our children would have been avoided. There were crushing harms to our societies and especially our children due to the lockdowns and school closures. This is unforgivable, for the data was always available and from March 2020 we have been loudly predicting tragedy if our governments followed the course they had set. The narrative and falsehood of ‘asymptomatic spread’ helped damage the pandemic response, for it caused devastating personal and economic losses to accrue needlessly. It was especially bad for our children and the poorer among us.
We conclude by asking CDC, NIH, FDA and all of these alphabet agencies that have been failing us for so long, to show us the evidence. We ask them to stop spewing nonsense and to stop lying to the nation about our immune systems. They are way more robust than you give them credit for. In fact, you are denying basic immunology and virology. “Natural immunity and vaccinated immunity are equally effective and “probably life-long,” says Dr. Makary.
Until you, the CDC and NIH, get your house in order, the nation must turn you off and tune you out. Focus now on rebuilding the credibility you have destroyed. Hopefully the FDA can unshackle itself from you and return to a non-political regulatory role it must hold, for the safety of the nation. You talk about “following the science”; well, show us. Begin by following it.
Shame on all of you so called experts.
An earlier version of this text appeared June 15 on TrialSiteNews.com.