You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘flu’ tag.

On Monday, October 4, a reader of mine, The Underdoug, commented on my last coronavirus vaccine post, including a link to an essay by Julius Ruechel, ‘The Snake-Oil Salesmen and the COVID-Zero Con: A Classic Bait-And-Switch for a Lifetime of Booster Shots (Immunity as a Service)’.

Julius Ruechel appears to be a dairy farmer living in Canada.

Excerpts from his lengthy essay follow, emphases in purple mine.

Ruechel posits that coronavirus vaccines could become yet another subscription model, because there will always be a perceived need for boosters:

Exposing this story does not require incriminating emails or whistleblower testimony. The story tells itself by diving into the long-established science that every single virologist, immunologist, evolutionary biologist, vaccine developer, and public health official had access to long before COVID began. As is so often the case, the devil is hidden in the details. As this story unfolds it will become clear that the one-two punch of lockdowns and the promise of vaccines as an exit strategy began as a cynical marketing ploy to coerce us into a never-ending regimen of annual booster shots intentionally designed to replace the natural “antivirus security updates” against respiratory viruses that come from hugs and handshakes and from children laughing together at school. We are being played for fools.

This is not to say that there aren’t plenty of other opportunists taking advantage of this crisis to pursue other agendas and to tip society into a full-blown police state. One thing quickly morphs into another. But this essay demonstrates that never-ending boosters were the initial motive for this global social-engineering shell game ― the subscription-based business model, adapted for the pharmaceutical industry. “Immunity as a service”.

Vaccines cannot eradicate everything

Ruechel explains that vaccines cannot eradicate everything, because specific criteria must be met in order to do so.

A disease such as smallpox, which is specific to humans, can be eradicated, but a respiratory virus that jumps across species — animals and humans — cannot:

Eradication of a killer virus sounds like a noble goal. In some cases it is, such as in the case of the smallpox virus. By 1980 we stopped vaccinating against smallpox because, thanks to widespread immunization, we starved the virus of available hosts for so long that it died out. No-one will need to risk their life on the side effects of a smallpox vaccination ever again because the virus is gone. It is a public health success story. Polio will hopefully be next ― we’re getting close

But smallpox is one of only two viruses (along with rinderpest) that have been eradicated thanks to vaccination. Very few diseases meet the necessary criteria. Eradication is hard and only appropriate for very specific families of viruses.

Smallpox made sense for eradication because it was a uniquely human virus ― there was no animal reservoir. By contrast, most respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 (a.k.a. COVID) come from animal reservoirs: swine, birds, bats, etc. As long as there are bats in caves, birds in ponds, pigs in mud baths, and deer living in forests, respiratory viruses are only controllable through individual immunity, but it is not possible to eradicate them. There will always be a near-identical cousin brewing in the wings.

Even the current strain of COVID is already cheerfully jumping onwards across species boundaries

SARS was an exception, he says, because it was poorly adapted to humans:

When it made the species jump to humans, it was so poorly adapted to its new human hosts that it had terrible difficulty spreading. This very poor level of adaptation gave SARS a rather unique combination of properties:

    1. SARS was extremely difficult to catch (it was never very contagious)
    2. SARS made people extremely sick.
    3. SARS did not have pre-symptomatic spread.

These three conditions made the SARS outbreak easy to control through contact tracing and through the quarantine of symptomatic individuals. SARS therefore never reached the point where it circulated widely among asymptomatic community members. 

COVID-19 was different:

COVID was quite contagious (its rapid spread showed that COVID was already well adapted to spreading easily among its new human hosts), most people would have mild or no symptoms from COVID (making containment impossible), and that it was spreading by aerosols produced by both symptomatic and pre-symptomatic people (making contact tracing a joke).

In other words, it was clear by January/February 2020 that this pandemic would follow the normal rules of a readily transmissible respiratory epidemic, which cannot be reined in the way SARS was. Thus, by January/February of 2020, giving the public the impression that the SARS experience could be replicated for COVID was a deliberate lie – this genie was never going back inside the bottle.

Viruses such as these mutate quickly, unlike polio or smallpox:

Once a reasonably contagious respiratory virus begins circulating widely in a community, herd immunity can never be maintained for very long. RNA respiratory viruses (such as influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), rhinoviruses, and coronaviruses) all mutate extremely fast compared to viruses like smallpox, measles, or polio. Understanding the difference between something like measles and a virus like COVID is key to understanding the con that is being perpetrated by our health institutions. Bear with me here, I promise not to get too technical.

All viruses survive by creating copies of themselves. And there are always a lot of “imperfect copies” — mutations — produced by the copying process itself. Among RNA respiratory viruses these mutations stack up so quickly that there is rapid genetic drift, which continually produces new strains. Variants are normal. Variants are expected. Variants make it virtually impossible to build the impenetrable wall of long-lasting herd immunity required to starve these respiratory viruses out of existence. That’s one of several reasons why flu vaccines don’t provide long-lasting immunity and have to be repeated annually ― our immune system constantly needs to be updated to keep pace with the inevitable evolution of countless unnamed “variants.” 

Hence the need for constant booster shots, as with influenza:

This never-ending conveyor belt of mutations means that everyone’s immunity to COVID was always only going to be temporary and only offer partial cross-reactive protection against future re-infections. Thus, from day one, COVID vaccination was always doomed to the same fate as the flu vaccinea lifelong regimen of annual booster shots to try to keep pace with “variants” for those unwilling to expose themselves to the risk of a natural infection. And the hope that by the time the vaccines (and their booster shots) roll off the production line, they won’t already be out of date when confronted by the current generation of virus mutations.

He criticises public health officials and Big Pharma for causing alarm over variants:

The alarm raised by our public health authorities about “variants” and the feigned compassion of pharmaceutical companies as they rush to develop fresh boosters capable of fighting variants is a charade, much like expressing surprise about the sun rising in the East.

Vaccines for these types of viruses will only ever offer temporary, short-lived protection. The same goes for our own antibodies:

… for fast-mutating respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses, within a few months they are sufficiently different that your previously acquired immunity will only ever offer partial protection against your next exposure. The fast rate of mutation ensures that you never catch the exact same cold or flu twice, just their closely related constantly evolving cousins. What keeps you from feeling the full brunt of each new infection is cross-reactive immunity, which is another part of the story of how you are being conned, which I will come back to shortly. 

But let’s pretend for a moment that a miraculous vaccine could be developed that could give us all 100% sterilizing immunity today. The length of time it takes to manufacture and ship 8 billion doses (and then make vaccination appointments for 8 billion people) ensures that by the time the last person gets their last dose, the never-ending conveyor belt of mutations will have already rendered the vaccine partially ineffective. True sterilizing immunity simply won’t ever happen with coronaviruses. The logistics of rolling out vaccines to 8 billion people meant that none of our vaccine makers or public health authorities ever could have genuinely believed that vaccines would create lasting herd immunity against COVID.

So, for a multitude of reasons, it was a deliberate lie to give the public the impression that if enough people take the vaccine, it would create lasting herd immunity. It was 100% certain, from day one, that by the time the last dose is administered, the rapid evolution of the virus would ensure that it would already be time to start thinking about booster shots. Exactly like the flu shot. Exactly the opposite of a measles vaccine. Vaccines against respiratory viruses can never provide anything more than a temporary cross-reactive immunity “update” ― they are merely a synthetic replacement for your annual natural exposure to the smorgasbord of cold and flu viruses. Immunity as a service, imposed on society by trickery. The only question was always, how long between booster shots? Weeks, months, years? 

Feeling conned yet?

Mass vaccination and vaccine passports are a ‘con’

Ruechel posits that mass vaccination should not have been done. Only the vulnerable should have had the vaccine:

these vaccines can neither stop you from catching an infection nor stop you from transmitting the infection to someone else. They were never capable of creating herd immunity. They were designed to protect individuals against severe outcomes if they choose to take them – a tool to provide temporary focused protection for the vulnerable, just like the flu vaccine. Pushing for mass vaccination was a con from day one. And the idea of using vaccine passports to separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated was also a con from day one. The only impact these vaccine passports have on the pandemic is as a coercive tool to get you to roll up your sleeve. Nothing more.

I am going to interject here to offer support for the argument that vaccine passports drive up vaccination rates. In Scotland, vaccine passports will be mandatory from October 18, 2021, provided the bugs with the app, which rolled out on October 1, can be ironed out.

A July 21 article in The National on this subject has a quote from Dr Nicola Steedman, Scotland’s deputy chief medical officer:

According to the Times, less than half of men under 30 in Scotland’s cities have received their first dose of a vaccine. Asked if a passport scheme could increase vaccine uptake, Steedman said: “In theory it might, and clearly that’s something other nations have used to increase the uptake in their vaccination programmes, but we have to balance that very carefully against people feeling as though they’ve been forced into something or coerced …”

The need for a vaccine passport, the use of which in Scotland will be limited, increases Big Pharma’s profits, especially if people have to update it every few months to prove they have had the latest booster shot.

Ruechel says:

vaccines will, at best, only last as long as immunity acquired through natural infection and will often fade much faster because the vaccine is often only able to trigger a partial immune response compared to the actual infection. So, if the disease itself doesn’t produce a broad-based immune response leading to long-lasting immunity, neither will the vaccine. And in most cases, immunity acquired through vaccination will begin to fade much sooner than immunity acquired through a natural infection. Every vaccine maker and public health official knows this despite bizarrely claiming that the COVID vaccines (based on re-creating the S-protein spike instead of using a whole virus) would somehow become the exception to the rule. That was a lie, and they knew it from day one. That should set your alarm bells ringing at full throttle

Thus, to pretend that there was any chance that herd immunity to COVID would be anything but short-lived was dishonest at best. For most people, immunity was always going to fade quickly. Just like what happens after most other respiratory virus infections. By February 2020, the epidemiological data showed clearly that for most people COVID was a mild coronavirus (nowhere near as severe than SARS or MERS), so it was virtually a certainty that even the immunity from a natural infection would fade within months, not years. It was also a certainty that vaccination was therefore, at best, only ever going to provide partial protection and that this protection would be temporary, lasting on the order of months. This is a case of false and misleading advertising if there ever was one.

He explains that coronavirus vaccines for animals work in the same way:

If I can allow my farming roots to shine through for a moment, I’d like to explain the implications of what was known about animal coronaviruses vaccines. Baby calves are often vaccinated against bovine coronaviral diarrhea shortly after birth if they are born in the spring mud and slush season, but not if they are born in midsummer on lush pastures where the risk of infection is lower. Likewise, bovine coronavirus vaccines are used to protect cattle before they face stressful conditions during shipping, in a feedlot, or in winter feed pens. Animal coronavirus vaccines are thus used as tools to provide a temporary boost in immunity, in very specific conditions, and only for very specific vulnerable categories of animals. After everything I’ve laid out so far in this text, the targeted use of bovine coronavirus vaccines should surprise no-one. Pretending that our human coronavirus vaccines would be different was nonsense

The only rational reason why the WHO and public health officials would withhold all that contextual information from the public as they rolled out lockdowns and held forth vaccines as an exit strategy was to whip the public into irrational fear in order to be able to make a dishonest case for mass vaccination when they should have, at most, been focused on providing focused vaccination of the most vulnerable only. That deception was the Trojan Horse to introduce endless mass booster shots as immunity inevitably fades and as new variants replace old ones.

How natural immunity works

Ruechel explains how the body fights off infection.

Not all forms of our natural defences are needed whenever we get sick. It depends on the illness:

a mild infection doesn’t trigger as many layers whereas a severe infection enlists the help of deeper layers, which are slower to respond but are much more specialized in their attack capabilities. And if those deeper adaptive layers get involved, they are capable of retaining a memory of the threat in order to be able to mount a quicker attack if a repeat attack is recognized in the future. That’s why someone who was infected by the dangerous Spanish Flu in 1918 might still have measurable T-cell immunity a century later but the mild bout of winter flu you had a couple of years ago might not have triggered T-cell immunity, even though both may have been caused by versions of the same H1N1 influenza virus.

As a rule of thumb, the broader the immune response, the longer immunological memory will last. Antibodies fade in a matter of months, whereas B-cell and T-cell immunity can last a lifetime.

Another rule of thumb is that a higher viral load puts more strain on your immune defenses, thus overwhelming the rapid response layers and forcing the immune system to enlist the deeper adaptive layers. That’s why nursing homes and hospitals are more dangerous places for vulnerable people than backyard barbeques. That’s why feedlot cattle are more vulnerable to viral diseases than cattle on pasture. Viral load matters a lot to how easily the generalist layers are overwhelmed and how much effort your immune system has to make to neutralize a threat.

Where the infection happens in the body also matters. For example, an infection in the upper respiratory tract triggers much less involvement from your adaptive immune system than when it reaches your lungs. Part of this is because your upper respiratory tract is already heavily preloaded with large numbers of generalist immunological cells that are designed to attack germs as they enter, which is why most colds and flus never make it deeper into the lungs. The guys with the clubs are capable of handling most of the threats that try to make through the gate. Most of the specialized troops hold back unless they are needed.

Catching a dangerous disease like measles produces lifetime immunity because an infection triggers all the deep layers that will retain a memory of how to fight off future encounters with the virus. So does the measles vaccine. Catching a cold or mild flu generally does not.

Constant booster shots could harm natural immune systems

Ruechel says that a continual regimen of booster shots could harm our natural immune systems:

At this point you may be wondering, if there is no lasting immunity from infection or vaccination, then are public health officials right to roll out booster shots to protect us from severe outcomes even if their dishonest methods to get us to accept them were unethical? Do we need a lifetime regimen of booster shots to keep us safe from a beast to which we cannot develop durable long-term immunity?

The short answer is no. 

Contrary to what you might think, the rapid evolution of RNA respiratory viruses actually has several important benefits for us as their involuntary hosts, which protects us without the benefit of broad lifelong immunity. One of those benefits has to do with the natural evolution of the virus towards less dangerous variants. The other is the cross-reactive immunity that comes from frequent re-exposure to closely related “cousins”. I’m going to peel apart both of these topics in order to show you the remarkable system that nature designed to keep us safe… and to show you how the policies being forced on us by our public health authorities are knowingly interfering with this system. They are creating a dangerous situation that increases our risk to other respiratory viruses (not just to COVID) and may even push the COVID virus to evolve to become more dangerous to both the unvaccinated and the vaccinatedThere are growing signs that this nightmare scenario has already begun

The panic generated by our notional experts over the Delta variant is unwarranted and unethical. That variant is a logical progression of coronavirus.

Ruechel says:

fear mongering about the Delta variant being even more contagious leaves out the fact that this is exactly what you would expect as a respiratory virus adapts to its new host species. We would expect new variants to be more contagious but less deadly as the virus fades to become just like the other 200+ respiratory viruses that cause common colds and flus

How lockdown damages healthy immune systems

Lockdowns and restricted circulation among humans also adversely affect healthy immune systems:

the decision to lock down the healthy population is so sinister. Lockdowns, border closures, and social distancing rules reduced spread among the healthy population, thus creating a situation where mutations produced among the healthy would become sufficiently rare that they might be outnumbered by mutations circulating among the bedridden. Mutations circulating among the healthy are, by definition, going to be the least dangerous mutations since they did not make their hosts sick enough to confine them to bedrest. That’s precisely the variants you want to spread in order to drown out competition from more dangerous mutations.

A host stuck in bed with a fever and not out dining with friends is limited in his ability to infect others compared to a host infected with a variety that only gives its host a sniffle. Not all bedridden hosts have caught a more dangerous mutation, but all dangerous mutations will be found among the bedridden. Thus as time goes by, dangerous mutations can only compete with less dangerous mutations if the entire population is limited in its ability to mix and mingle.

As long as the majority of infections are among the healthy, the more dangerous variants circulating among some of the bedridden will be outnumbered and will become evolutionary dead ends. But when public health officials intentionally restricted spread among the young, strong, and healthy members of society by imposing lockdowns, they created a set of evolutionary conditions that risked shifting the competitive evolutionary advantage from the least dangerous variants to more dangerous variants. By locking us all up, they risked making the virus more dangerous over time. Evolution doesn’t sit around to wait for you while you develop a vaccine.

Spanish Flu 1918

Ruechel explores the Spanish Flu pandemic, which took place in the last year of the Great War. A lot of soldiers were in trenches:

Let me give you a historical example to demonstrate that this rapid evolution of a virus towards either more or less dangerous variants isn’t mere theory. Small changes to the environment can lead to very rapid changes in the virus’ evolution. The first wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu was not particularly deadly, with mortality rates similar to regular seasonal flu. However, the second wave was not only much deadlier but, rather unusually, was particularly deadly to young people rather than just the old and the weak. Why would the second wave be the deadly one? And what would cause the virus to evolve so quickly to become both more deadly and better adapted to preying on young people? At first glance it would seem to defy all evolutionary logic.

The answer demonstrates just how sensitive a virus is to small changes in evolutionary pressure. The Spanish Flu spread in the midst of the lockdown-mimicking conditions of World War One. During the first wave, the virus found a huge population of soldiers trapped in the cold damp conditions of the trenches and a near endless supply of captive bedridden hosts in overflowing field hospitals. By the Spring of 1918, up to three-quarters of the entire French military and half of British troops had been infected. These conditions created two unique evolutionary pressures. On the one hand, it allowed variants that were well adapted to young people to emerge. But on the other hand, unlike normal times, the cramped conditions of trench warfare and field hospitals allowed dangerous variants that immobilize their hosts to spread freely with little competition from less dangerous variants that spread through lively hosts. The trenches and field hospitals became the virus incubators driving the evolution of variants

Normally young people are predominantly exposed to less dangerous mutations because the healthiest do all the mingling while the bedridden stay home. But the lockdown conditions of war created conditions that erased the competitive advantage of less dangerous mutations that don’t immobilize their hosts, leading to the rise of more dangerous mutations

Thanks to the end of the war, the lockdown-mimicking conditions also ended, thereby shifting the competitive advantage back to less dangerous mutations that could spread freely among the mobile healthy members of the population. The deadliness of the second wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu is inextricably linked to the First World War, and the end of the war is linked to the virus fading into the background of regular cold and flu season.

This brings him back to our 2020 lockdowns around the world:

It is therefore highly likely that the 1918 Spanish Flu would never have been more than a really bad flu season had it not been for the amplifying effect of lockdown conditions created by a world at war.

It also raises the question, for which I don’t have an answer, whether the lockdown strategy during COVID was intentionally used to reduce spread among the healthy in order to keep the virus from fading into harmless irrelevancy. I use the word “intentionally” ― and it’s a strong word ― because the deadly second wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu and its causes are hardly secrets in the medical community. You’d have to be a completely reckless and utterly incompetent idiot, or a cynical bastard with an agenda, to impose any strategy that mimics those virus-amplifying conditions. Yet that’s what our health authorities did. And what they continue to do, while shamelessly hyperventilating about the risk of “variants” to force us to submit to medical tyranny based on mandatory vaccines, never-ending booster shots, and vaccine passports that can turn off access to our normal lives. This is cynicism at its finest.

‘Leaky’ vaccines: how vaccinated people can pose a danger

As we know, coronavirus vaccines do not provide what is known as sterilising immunity because they cannot.

The vaccinated can still spread the virus, making the vaccines ‘leaky’, something which happened in chickens vaccinated against a herpes virus in the 1950s. This is what is known as the Marek effect, as he was the one who discovered it in 1968.

Ruechel says:

Vaccinated chickens were protected from severe outcomes but nevertheless continued to catch and spread the virus, so evolutionary pressure led to the emergence of a dual-track variant that become the dominant strain of this herpes virus. It continues to spread among the vaccinated chickens without killing them but kills up to 80% or more of unvaccinated birds if they get infected. Thus, a never-ending stream of vaccinations is now required just to maintain the status quo. I bet the pharmaceutical industry is smiling at all those drug-dependent chickens though — talk about having a captive audience!

Ruechel explains that this same effect is happening with COVID-19 vaccinations:

A vaccine that provides sterilizing immunity prevents the vaccinated from being able to catch or transmit the virus. They become a dead end for the virus. However, as I’ve already mentioned, the current crop of COVID vaccines, which are meant to train the immune system to recognize the S-spike proteins, were not designed to create sterilizing immunity. By their design, they merely help reduce the risk of severe outcomes by priming the immune system. The vaccinated can still catch and spread the virus ― the definition of a leaky vaccine ― and epidemiological data makes it very clear that this is now happening all around the world. Thus, both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are equally capable of producing new variants. The idea that the unvaccinated are producing variants while the vaccinated are not is a boldfaced lie.

This is dangerous:

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a potentially dangerous scenario. What has been done by temporarily blunting the risk of hospitalization or death, but without stopping infection among the vaccinated, is to create a set of evolutionary conditions where a variant that is dangerous to the unvaccinated can spread easily among the vaccinated without making the vaccinated very sick. For lack of a better term, let’s call this a dual-track variant. Thus, because the vaccinated are not getting bedridden from this dual-track variant, they can continue to spread it easily, giving it a competitive advantage, even if it is highly dangerous to the unvaccinated.

Furthermore, since COVID vaccination only offers temporary short-term protection, as soon as immunity fades, the vaccinated themselves are also equally at risk of more severe outcomes. Thus, this creates the evolutionary pressure for the virus to behave as an increasingly contagious but relatively mild virus as long as everyone is vaccinated but as a dangerous but also very contagious virus as soon as temporary immunity wears off. The call for boosters every 6 months is already here. (Update: now it’s being revised down to 5 months.)

Here’s where Big Pharma steps in, aided and abetted by our respective leaders:

So, the pandemic really does have the potential to become the Pandemic of the Unvaccinated (the shameless term coined by public health officials to terrify the vaccinated into bullying their unvaccinated peers), but reality comes with a twist because if a dual-track variant does evolve it would be the unvaccinated (and those whose boosters have expired) who would have reason to fear the vaccinated, not the other way around as so many frightened citizens seem to believe. And the end result would be that we all become permanently dependent on boosters every 6 months, forever.

He says that the reason this hasn’t happened with the flu vaccine is because not enough people are advised to take it, thereby avoiding a dangerous dual-track variant scenario:

It is mostly the vulnerable and those who work around them that get it while children, young adults and other healthy members of society don’t get it. So, even if more deadly variants were to arise in nursing homes or hospital settings, the high number of healthy unvaccinated visitors to those facilities would constantly bring less deadly more contagious variants with them, thereby preventing more dangerous variants from gaining a competitive edge in nursing home or hospital settings. But if the leaky flu vaccinations were to be extended to everyone, or if nursing home populations continue to be kept isolated from the rest of society during COVID lockdowns, things might begin to look a little different.

We do not need constant booster shots

Ruechel gives various scientific reasons why we do not need constant booster shots for coronavirus if we are healthy:

This year’s runny nose is your protection against COVID-23. Your cross-reactive immunity to last years annoying flu might just save your life if something truly dangerous arrives, as long as it is at least somewhat related to what your immune system has seen before. COVID could easily have turned out to be as dangerous to us as the Spanish Flu if it hadn’t been for the saving grace of cross-reactive immunity. As this study shows, up to 90-99% of us already had some level of protection to COVID thanks to partial cross-reactive immunity gained from exposure to other coronaviruses. The high percentage of infections that turn out to be asymptomatic bears that out.

Someone needs to remind Bill Gates, his fawning public health bootlickers, and the pharmaceutical companies that whisper sweet-nothings in his ear that in the natural world of respiratory viruses, most of us don’t need a regimen of never-ending booster shots to keep us safe from COVID variants ― we already have a perfectly functioning system to keep bringing us new updates. Respiratory viruses are a completely different beast than smallpox, polio, or measles; and pretending otherwise is not just silly, it’s criminal because anyone with a background in immunology knows better. But it’s a fantastic and very profitably way to scare a wide-eyed population into accepting never-ending booster shots as a replacement for the natural antivirus updates that we normally get from hugs and handshakes. Protect the vulnerable. Stop preying on the rest of us.

He also delves into the Diamond Princess cruise case, which was made public in February 2020, early on in the pandemic. Not many people displayed symptoms, and only a few died.

Yet, world leaders were getting the jitters:

The important thing to remember is that the Diamond Princess data was already publicly available since the end of February of 2020. Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine development initiative approved by President Trump, was nevertheless announced on April 29th, 2020. Thus, our health authorities knowingly and opportunistically recommended lockdowns and promoted vaccines as an exit strategy after it was already clear that the majority of us had some kind of protection through cross-reactive immunity. The Diamond Princess example provided the unequivocal proof that the only people who might benefit from a vaccine, even if it worked as advertised, were the small number of extremely vulnerable members of society with weak immune systems. Likewise, lockdowns should have been recommended only for nursing home residents (on a strictly voluntary basis to protect their human rights) while the pandemic surged through the rest of us.

Conclusion — vaccine by subscription

There is much more that Ruechel discusses, so it is worth reading his essay in full.

I’m going to skip to the conclusion, which is about making us permanently dependent on Big Pharma’s vaccines:

What if, by depriving us of normal life, those who stand to gain from vaccines can forever cement themselves at the center of society by providing an artificial replacement for what our immune systems used to do to protect us against common respiratory viruses back when we were still allowed to live normal lives? …

What if the fast mutation of RNA viruses ensures that no vaccine will ever be fully effective at providing lasting immunity, thus creating the illusion that we are permanently in need of vaccine boosters? 

What if politicians could be convinced to make vaccination mandatory in order to prevent potential customers from opting out? 

What if, by relying on lockdowns during the winter season, our vulnerability to other viruses increased, which could then be used to rationalize expanding the jab, via mission creep, to simultaneously vaccinate us against RSV, influenza, other coronaviruses, the common cold, and so on, despite knowing full well that the protection that these vaccines offer against respiratory viruses is only temporary?

And what other social engineering goals can be rolled into your annual booster shot in the future once you are permanently bound to these annual jabs and vaccine passports? In an atmosphere of hysteria, it’s a system ripe for abuse by opportunists, ideologues, power hungry totalitarians, and Malthusian social engineers. The snowball doesn’t have to grow by design. Mission creep happens all on its own once Pandora’s Box is opened to coerced vaccinations and conditional rights. The road to Hell is frequently paved by good intentions… and hysteria. 

So, what if COVID-Zero and the vaccine exit strategy is merely the global state-sanctioned equivalent of a drug dealer creating dependency among its customers to keep pushing more drugs? 

What if it was all just a way of convincing society of the need for subscription-based “immunity as a service”? The subscription-based business model (or some version of it) is all the rage these days in the corporate world to create loyal captive audiences that generate reliable money streams, forever. Subscriptions are not just for your cable TV and gym membership anymore. Everything has been redesignated as a “consumable”. 

Netflix did it with movies.

Spotify did it with music.

Microsoft did it with its Office suite.

Adobe did it with Photoshop editing suite.

The smartphone industry did it with phones that need to be replaced every 3 to 5 years.

The gaming industry did it with video games.

Amazon is doing it with books (i.e. Kindle Unlimited).

The food industry is doing it with meal delivery services (i.e. Hello Fresh).

Uber is doing it with subscription-based ride sharing …

Monsanto and its peers did it to farmers with patented seed technology, which cannot legally be replanted, and is lobbying to try to legalize the use of terminator seed technology (GMO seeds that are sterile in the second generation to prevent replanting).

The healthcare industry is doing it with concierge medical services, fitness tracking apps (Fitbit), sleep-tracking apps, and meditation apps.

The investment industry is doing it with farmland, with investors owning the land and leasing it back to farmers in a kind of modern revival of the sharecropping system. (Bill Gates is the largest farmland owner in the USA – are you surprised?)

Blackrock and other investment firms are currently trying to do it with homes to create a permanent class of renters.

And public health authorities and vaccine makers have been trying to do it with flu vaccines for years, but we’ve been stubbornly uncooperative. Not anymore.

Remember when the World Economic Forum predicted in 2016 that by 2030 all products would become services? And remember their infamous video in which they predicted that “You will own nothing. And you will be happy.”? Well, the future is here. This is what it looks like. The subscription-based economy. And apparently it now also includes your immune system in a trade-off for access to your life.


The con is clear. It’s time to focus all our might on stopping this runaway train before it takes us over the cliff into a police state of no return. Stand up. Speak out. Refuse to play along. Stopping this requires millions of voices with the courage to say NO — at work, at home, at school, at church, and out on the street

It’s time to be bold. It’s time to call out the fraudsters. And it’s time to reclaim the habits, values, and principles that are required to fix our democratic and scientific institutions to prevent this from ever happening again.

Feudalism was one giant stinking cesspool of self-serving corruption. Individual rights, free markets, the democratic process, and limited government were the antidotes that freed humanity from that hierarchical servitude. It seems we have come full circle. The COVID con is a symptom, not the cause, of a broken system …

Freedom of speech, individual rights, private property, individual ownership, competition, good faith debate, small government, minimal taxes, limited regulation, and free markets (the opposite of the crony capitalism we now suffer under), these are the checks and balances that bullet-proof a society against the soulless charlatans that fail upwards into positions of power in bloated government institutions and against the parasitic fraudsters that seek to attach themselves to the government’s teat.

Yes, we need a Great Reset. Just not the subscription-based version that the World Economic Forum imagined.

I learned a lot about vaccines and immunity from Ruechel’s essay, even though reading it and writing this post has taken me well over five hours.

Thanks again to The Underdoug for sharing it.

Public Health England is being reorganised, but not before they have a go at coronavirus statistics.

As of October 9, 2020, coronavirus and flu stats COULD appear combined in ONE statistic:

Here we go (note the yellow highlight below). This went into effect on Thursday, October 8, 2020:

Let this news sink in and click on the text image (see 11:12 below) for more information:

Good grief.

Where could this lead?

Those who have listened carefully to Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, have made the following observation, probably concerning the absolute necessity (not) of getting a flu jab (shot, vaccine):

Even lockdown advocates should be concerned:

Standing back for just a moment, will this be a report that clearly separates the two maladies?

Which takes precedence — COVID-19 or the flu?

Whatever the case, this has a huge bearing on how the English lead their lives during the foreseeable future. Sadly, we have no answer and no influence:

We can but see.

However, has this tactic from public sector organisations and the Government come too late in the game?

For those who doubt the reason behind this move, think about looking at a blurry photograph or video of your loved ones, impossible to identify, and being asked if you wanted to keep it. Most people would say, ‘No, thanks, I have better ones already’. This is the same type of situation.

When it comes to health, we need to see specifics, not blended statistics that leave us in the dark.

Meanwhile, Matt Hancock continues to fearmonger, claiming that a vaccine is the only way out:

Thankfully, some replied:

Please, Lord, how long can this go on?

What are the unknown stories and statistics behind the dangers of lockdown?

One day, we will find out. We will not be happy.

There were so many insights on coronavirus last week that I couldn’t fit them all in.

On Friday, I summarised Michael P Senger’s article about China’s role in the coronavirus crisis.

More information follows:

Rather sagely, a lady replied:

As did another:

The day before, there was the confession from a Facebook whistleblower about online political persuasion:

The article, dated September 14, features quotes from former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang.

The article states (emphases mine):

The 6,600-word memo, written by former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang, is filled with concrete examples of heads of government and political parties in Azerbaijan and Honduras using fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves to sway public opinion. In countries including India, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador, she found evidence of coordinated campaigns of varying sizes to boost or hinder political candidates or outcomes, though she did not always conclude who was behind them.

“In the three years I’ve spent at Facebook, I’ve found multiple blatant attempts by foreign national governments to abuse our platform on vast scales to mislead their own citizenry, and caused international news on multiple occasions,” wrote Zhang, who declined to talk to BuzzFeed News. Her LinkedIn profile said she “worked as the data scientist for the Facebook Site Integrity fake engagement team” and dealt with “bots influencing elections and the like.”

She added:

I have personally made decisions that affected national presidents without oversight, and taken action to enforce against so many prominent politicians globally that I’ve lost count.

The BuzzFeed article continues:

The memo is a damning account of Facebook’s failures. It’s the story of Facebook abdicating responsibility for malign activities on its platform that could affect the political fate of nations outside the United States or Western Europe. It’s also the story of a junior employee wielding extraordinary moderation powers that affected millions of people without any real institutional support, and the personal torment that followed.

“I know that I have blood on my hands by now,” Zhang wrote.

According to the article, Facebook allegedly delayed taking action on the following:

  • It took Facebook’s leaders nine months to act on a coordinated campaign “that used thousands of inauthentic assets to boost President Juan Orlando Hernandez of Honduras on a massive scale to mislead the Honduran people.” Two weeks after Facebook took action against the perpetrators in July, they returned, leading to a game of “whack-a-mole” between Zhang and the operatives behind the fake accounts, which are still active.
  • In Azerbaijan, Zhang discovered the ruling political party “utilized thousands of inauthentic assets… to harass the opposition en masse.” Facebook began looking into the issue a year after Zhang reported it. The investigation is ongoing.
  • Zhang and her colleagues removed “10.5 million fake reactions and fans from high-profile politicians in Brazil and the US in the 2018 elections.”
  • In February 2019, a NATO researcher informed Facebook that “he’d obtained Russian inauthentic activity on a high-profile U.S. political figure that we didn’t catch.” Zhang removed the activity, “dousing the immediate fire,” she wrote.
  • In Ukraine, Zhang “found inauthentic scripted activity” supporting both former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a pro–European Union politician and former presidential candidate, as well as Volodymyr Groysman, a former prime minister and ally of former president Petro Poroshenko. “Volodymyr Zelensky and his faction was the only major group not affected,” Zhang said of the current Ukrainian president.
  • Zhang discovered inauthentic activity — a Facebook term for engagement from bot accounts and coordinated manual accounts— in Bolivia and Ecuador but chose “not to prioritize it,” due to her workload. The amount of power she had as a mid-level employee to make decisions about a country’s political outcomes took a toll on her health.
  • After becoming aware of coordinated manipulation on the Spanish Health Ministry’s Facebook page during the COVID-19 pandemic, Zhang helped find and remove 672,000 fake accounts “acting on similar targets globally” including in the US.
  • In India, she worked to remove “a politically-sophisticated network of more than a thousand actors working to influence” the local elections taking place in Delhi in February. Facebook never publicly disclosed this network or that it had taken it down.

The BuzzFeed article reports that Facebook’s spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said:

It’s highly involved work that these teams do as their full-time remit. Working against coordinated inauthentic behavior is our priority, but we’re also addressing the problems of spam and fake engagement. We investigate each issue carefully, including those that Ms. Zhang raises, before we take action or go out and make claims publicly as a company.

BuzzFeed says that it did not reproduce Ms Zhang’s full text because it contains personal information.

The article added:

In her post, Zhang said she did not want it to go public for fear of disrupting Facebook’s efforts to prevent problems around the upcoming 2020 US presidential election, and due to concerns about her own safety. BuzzFeed News is publishing parts of her memo that are clearly in the public interest.

“I consider myself to have been put in an impossible spot – caught between my loyalties to the company and my loyalties to the world as a whole,” she said. “The last thing I want to do is distract from our efforts for the upcoming U.S. elections, yet I know this post will likely do so internally.”

Zhang said she turned down a $64,000 severance package from the company to avoid signing a nondisparagement agreement. Doing so allowed her to speak out internally, and she used that freedom to reckon with the power that she had to police political speech.

“There was so much violating behavior worldwide that it was left to my personal assessment of which cases to further investigate, to file tasks, and escalate for prioritization afterwards,” she wrote.

That power contrasted with what she said seemed to be a lack of desire from senior leadership to protect democratic processes in smaller countries. Facebook, Zhang said, prioritized regions including the US and Western Europe, and often only acted when she repeatedly pressed the issue publicly in comments on Workplace, the company’s internal, employee-only message board.

“With no oversight whatsoever, I was left in a situation where I was trusted with immense influence in my spare time,” she wrote. “A manager on Strategic Response mused to myself that most of the world outside the West was effectively the Wild West with myself as the part-time dictator – he meant the statement as a compliment, but it illustrated the immense pressures upon me.”

A former Facebook engineer who knew her told BuzzFeed News that Zhang was skilled at discovering fake account networks on the platform.

The second half of the article is also worth reading — and circulating.

Michael P Senger, the author of the article I cited on Friday, tweeted coronavirus-related news about Pennsylvania’s continued lockdown:

Note that China was mentioned.

The title of Stacy Rudin’s article for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is ‘Federal Court Holds “Stay at Home” Orders and Mandatory Business Closures Unconstitutional’.

Excerpts follow, emphases mine:

For six months, Americans in 43 states have lived under unprecedented executive orders restricting freedoms as basic as whether they can work, leave their homes, and expose their faces in public. These mandates are not duly enacted laws — they are orders issued by one of the three branches of government. They constitute a system of one-person rulesomething none of us expected could ever happen in the United Statesand no one, apart from the 43 newfound state dictators, is sure when it will expire.

Today, after six months of this, a Pennsylvania Federal Court in Butler County v. Wolf reviewed the indefinite “emergency” restrictions imposed by the executive branch of Pennsylvania government, declaring limitations on gathering size, “stay-at-home orders,” and mandatory business closures unconstitutional. Refusing to accept the alleged need for a “new normal,” the Court stated that an “independent judiciary [is needed] to serve as a check on the exercise of emergency government power.”

About time. The Judicial Branch is coming to save us.

The article is worth circulating. It goes into American history, beginning with the Constitution in the 18th century and citing President Lincoln in the 19th.

The Pennslyvania Federal Court stated:

There is no question that our founders abhorred the concept of one-person rule. They decried government by fiat. Absent a robust system of checks and balances, the guarantees of liberty set forth in the Constitution are just ink on parchment.


In times of crisis, even a vigilant public may let down its guard over its constitutional liberties only to find that liberties, once relinquished, are hard to recoup and that restrictions — while expedient in the face of an emergency situation — may persist long after immediate danger has passed.

The AIER article went on to say:

We cannot allow our freedom to become “ink on parchment.” Many of our governors seek to do just that — they won’t even designate an endpoint to their “emergency” powers. When does the “emergency” end? This should be easy to say — X number of deaths per million, X number of deaths over X number of weeks — yet they will not say it. They want us to live under the constant threat of house arrest and livelihood deprivation, even though all we ever agreed to was a two-week effort to “flatten the curve.” We never agreed to an indefinite or permanent “new normal,” or to do whatever our wise governor dreams up and declares necessary to “eliminate infections.”

The article thanked Judge Stickman, speaking for the Pennsylvania Federal Court:

Thank you, Judge Stickman, for recognizing our predicament, and for taking the first step towards restoring our freedom today by reminding those with authoritarian leanings that “governors cannot be given carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.” The response to an emergency cannot undermine our system of constitutional liberties, or the system of checks and balances protecting those liberties. Liberty before “governor-guaranteed safety” — this is the American way, famously stated by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Pennsylvania’s Governor Wolf appeared to back down (italics in the original):

Incredibly, Governor Wolf responded that his stay-at-home orders are “not actually orders at all, but merely recommendations,” and that they are constitutional because they do not “shock the conscience.”

Yet, the article’s author says:

I’m willing to bet that Pennsylvania citizens would beg to differ.

The Court’s decision stated that large populations were never quarantined (some local populations, e.g. St Louis, were during the Spanish Flu).

Not only that, the judges traced the origin of the virus to China:

In analyzing the constitutionality of “lockdowns,” the Court first traced the origin of the concept to its source — Wuhan, China — and recognized that population-wide lockdowns are “unprecedented in American law.” Even during the Spanish Flu, the deadliest pandemic in history by far, “nothing remotely approximating lockdowns were imposed.” Although the United States has faced many epidemics and pandemics, “there have never previously been lockdowns of entire populations — much less for lengthy and indefinite periods of time.” Quarantines are legally recognized, but refer to the isolation of sick people and those known to have been directly exposed to sick people. They are statutorily limited to the duration of the incubation period of the disease — a period which Governor Wolf’s “lockdown” plainly exceeded.

Not only have lockdowns never been imposed in American history, but they are not even mentioned in recent pandemic management guidance offered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). In its 2017 guidelines for managing pandemics, the CDC recommends numerous protective measures such as hand washing, limited-duration school closures, and cancellations of mass gatherings, but nothing “even approximating the imposition of statewide (or even community-wide) stay at home orders or the closure of all [‘non-essential’] businesses.” Even for pandemics of “Very High Severity,” the CDC recommends only voluntary isolation of sick persons and their household members. “This is a far, far cry from a statewide lockdown such as the one imposed by [Governor Wolf’s] stay-at-home order.”

The article goes on to discuss small and medium business issues, which are of primary importance today. The court decided, in their own words (emphasis here in the original):

The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional.

In related news Daniel Levitt, who works for tech firms in Silicon Valley, tweeted:

Ah, but increased testing is taking care of that issue. Hmm.

A podcast host from Ohio found that the WHO never stated that quarantine stopped influenza. Coronavirus is not influenza, yet it seems to share some of the same characteristics. Even more interesting is that, with the presence of COVID-19, influenza — the big worry of the cold weather season — seems to have disappeared south of the Equator.


It’s all a bit of a mystery, but Kyle Lamb goes on to answer questions:

Does Kyle Lamb know more than our respective chief scientific officers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any event, he has gone further by probing the subject, which is more than our chief scientific officers have done.

Meanwhile, in the UK, an NHS GP pleads with Prime Minister Boris Johnson to change course on lockdowns. Here’s yet another newspaper article mentioning a time period of a fortnight (yawn).

I pity the remaining vulnerable, especially the elderly. Click the image to see the article in full:

I could not agree more.

Message to the NHS: get on with it! You’ve had since May.

Since the summer, England’s Nightingale Hospitals have been stood down for lack of use:

What will happen? A repeat of March and April?

My head is spinning at the prospect.

Once again, private care will turn out to be no better:

Good grief.

Then there is the matter of testing.

This thread is about the North East of England. The author is Professor of Industrial Economics Nottingham University Business School and states clearly that he is expressing his own views:

Sunderland is in the latest coronavirus hotspot area.

Understandably, residents are anxious to get PCR tests.

Yet, the queue was two miles long at the local testing centre:

The queues are for people who have booked a test:

It’s the same in London, as per Tom Copley, the Deputy Mayor of London for Housing. Again, you need a code (obtained online) in order to get a test:

After all these months, this is unbelievable, especially from a notionally Conservative government.

As Tim Worstall said on September 17:

You’ve had 6 months to get testing sorted out. It’s possible to do basic tests – basic note – for £1 a piece with reagent dosed paper hankies.


seriously, why do we give, or have taken from us, 35% of everything to a structure that can’t even manage this?

I could not agree more.

In closing, Dr Li-Meng Yan, a physician and virologist who also holds a PhD, is a Chinese whistleblower who worked at a WHO lab in Hong Kong. She is now out of the country in a secret location but has given at least two interviews in the past week.

The first was on Friday, September 11, on ITV’s Loose Women, a lunchtime chat show in Britain:

She explained that she had access to a lot of secret information about COVID-19 and could no longer keep quiet, even if it meant losing her social credit score, which she did. She said she had been warned at the outset ‘not to cross the line’ because ‘she could be disappeared’. She said that the Chinese government deleted everything about her that had appeared online. One wonders if her bank account was also frozen. It happens.

She told the show’s panel that the virus was engineered in a lab and that it is not a natural virus.

She said that the Chinese government has downplayed her role in Hong Kong and is discrediting her.

The panel asked her why China would do such a thing and she replied that she had no insight into the government’s ‘evil thinking’, then added that whatever they did ‘worked’: meaning — although she left this unstated — illness, death, panic, lockdown and economic damage.

I am glad that Loose Women interviewed her, because the show gets good ratings. Consequently, a lot of women in Britain will have found out more about the Chi-vi, as I call it.

On Tuesday, September 15, she appeared on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, to present the same details:

Tucker wasn’t quite sure what to think. He acknowledged he does not have the scientific background to probe further.

A tip of the hat to my cyberfriend Wolf for the next part of this story.

Dr Yan, along with three other researchers, published a scientific paper on Monday, September 14: ‘Unusual Features of the SARS-Cov-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route’.

This is the introduction (emphases mine):

Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.

ZeroHedge posted excerpts from the paper, which is way above my pay grade. The article ends with a reminder from ZeroHedge that they were suspended from Twitter months ago for alleging the same theory:

As a reminder, Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter on Jan 31 for making just this allegation, following a hit-piece written by an alleged pedophile (who was later fired for plagiarism) and countless so-called “scientists” screaming that our take was fake news and nothing but propaganda. Five months later Twitter admitted it had made a mistake, stating “we made an error in our enforcement action in this case.”

Speaking of Twitter, on September 15, ZeroHedge also reported that Dr Yan’s Twitter account was quickly suspended, days after she created it this month (emphases in the original):

On Sunday afternoon we asked how long before the twitter account of the “rogue” Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who yesterday “shocked” the world of establishment scientists and other China sycophants, by publishing a “smoking gun” scientific paper demonstrating that the Covid-19 virus was manmade, is “silenced.”

We now have the answer: less than two days. A cursory check of Dr Yan’s twitter page reveals that the account has been suspended as of this moment …

If Yan was wrong, why not just let other scientists respond in the open to the all too valid arguments presented in Dr. Yan’s paper? Isn’t that what “science” is all about? Why just shut her up?

Because if we have already crossed the tipping point when anyone who proposes an “inconvenient” explanation for an established “truth” has to be immediately censored, then there is little that can be done to salvage the disintegration of a society that once held freedom of speech as paramount …

We hope Twitter will provide a very reasonable and sensible explanation for this unprecedented censorship.


Back now to the contents of the paper that Dr Yan co-authored.

US Army Colonel Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) explained it in layman’s terms for the Gateway Pundit: ‘Dr. Lawrence Sellin: The Unequivocal Evidence Chinese Scientist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Provides Proof COVID-19 was Created by China’s Military’.

Dr Sellin gives us the overview, which is still scientific (emphases in the original):

China has claimed that a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is the closest relative to the COVID-19 virus, but RaTG13 is not actually a virus because no biological samples exist. It is only a genomic sequence of a virus for which there are now serious questions about its accuracy.

Dr. Yan suggests that RaTG13 may have been used to divert the world’s attention away from the true source of the COVID-19 pandemic.

She claims that the COVID-19 virus originated in laboratories overseen by China’s People’s Liberation Army, using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 collected from Zhoushan, China and used as the viral “backbone” for genetic engineering.

Those bat coronaviruses were originally isolated and characterized between July 2015 and February 2017 under the supervision of the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

The article goes on to explain how the receptor binding motif (RBM), which defines the coronavirus’ ability to bind to the specific human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2) underwent genetic manipulation.

That critical segment of the COVID-19 virus is bounded by two “restriction sites” not found in any related bat coronaviruses, which allow researchers to easily splice, that is, cut and paste components of other viruses into the viral backbone.

The presence of those restriction sites is a known marker for genetic manipulation.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 virus contains a furin polybasic cleavage site with an amino acid sequence of proline-arginine-arginine-alanine or PRRA that facilitates membrane fusion between the virus and the human cell and widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility.

Such a sequence is not found in any other related bat coronavirus and, so far, there is no natural evolutionary pathway identified that could explain the appearance of that PRRA segment.

In contrast, techniques for the artificial insertion of such a furin polybasic cleavage site by genetic engineering have been used for over ten years.

Dr. Yan and her colleagues note that the two arginine amino acids in that PRRA segment are coded by the nucleotide sequence CGG-CGG, which rarely appears in tandem and strongly suggests that this furin cleavage site is the result of genetic engineering.

In addition, the presence of a “FauI” restriction site at the furin polybasic cleavage site is also an indication of genetic manipulation.

Goodness me. We have these scientific allegations and all the UK government is thinking of is a second lockdown.

It is sad that we will not be reading or hearing about this paper in the media. Once again, please circulate the links with family and friends. Thank you.

There is a possibility that we will not have a vaccine for COVID-19.

It’s disappearing too quickly:

For those who have co-morbidities, a case of COVID-19 may prove fatal or leave lasting physical damage, especially to the lungs.

While coronavirus cannot be dismissed outright as not being serious, Texas statistics show that there have been far fewer COVID-19 deaths in the state than there have been from influenza. A physician, Dr Andrew Bostom, put together death figures for the two:

COVID-19 also does not affect children as much as flu or pneumonia:

This is why the Trump administration — as is the UK government — is encouraging the reopening of schools this autumn:

I understand the fear about the possibility of children carrying coronavirus home with them from public transport or an adult in the school.

In England, we had only one school closure since lockdown began. The children of essential workers and those who were under supervision by social workers were allowed to continue going to school. On June 1, all English children were strongly encouraged to return to school to finish term, which ended in July.

Here is the school near Bristol that closed in the middle of May:

The BBC reported that the school, for pupils with special needs, did not have measures in place making it COVID-19 safe. As a result, two teachers contracted the virus.

The closure was temporary, and everyone was tested for the virus.

Therefore, it is better to reopen schools than to keep them closed. The damage done in terms of falling behind academically can be hard to reverse. Children are also much safer in school than at home, especially when home is a dysfunctional environment.


Since the beginning of the coronavirus lockdown charade, I have wondered about the timing of this worldwide pandemic that hit just when the American and British economies were doing so well. Britain had also made a preliminary exit from the European Union at the end of January.

Forget Pelosi, look at the second tweet:

No doubt it was just coincidental. My fellow Britons will remind me that it’s cock up before conspiracy.

That may be true. The pandemic has affected the whole world. Our respective economies are tanking quickly.

This is what it’s been like for many countries on lockdown (click on link to open in a separate tab):

Does this make sense?

Bear in mind, Western nations have higher rates of death during the annual flu season. I realise this video is supposed to encourage Americans to get a flu jab but look at the difference in numbers between the coronavirus and flu:

I am happy to see that the European nations that implemented lockdown earlier than the UK are now gradually reopening. I wish them well.

The other day, I entered into an exchange with a WP blogger, prognosticatasaurusrex, or Prex, for short.

He writes at politicalprognosticator.

This is what he had to say about much of the worldwide reaction to coronavirus, which a talk radio show in France has called ‘draconian in restricting people’s freedom of movement’.

Why is this? I have also had several conversations offline about this. My friends and I do not understand the general panic.

What Prex has to say sums it up perfectly.

We exchanged comments on an excellent coronavirus thread, ‘Of Exponents and Viruses’ at the Q Tree.

I said, in part:

Some might also say this is groundwork for controlling populations worldwide and how various countries react …

This is the text of his first comment, which he has kindly allowed me to post in full:

Church, IF they succeed in doing this just ONCE, we will see it over and over again. I call it the sky is falling narrative or the boy that cried wolf. As we know, it did NOT end well for the boy, as eventually the woodsman (We the people) IGNORED the boy’s cries (the MSM) and the wolf (Trump?) came and ATE the boy.

My GREATEST fear is that this will, as I predict, turn out to be NOWHERE near as bad as the MSM and Cabal are hyping it to be, and then, sometime in the future, after a man like Trump, we WILL get hit by a REAL killer, and the people, using the old axiom fool me once, will IGNORE it, and they we will have a TRUE, and not manufactured crisis.

There was simply Z E R O reasons to jump the shark like we are and continue to do so, calm, common sense, and CAUTION would have worked, probably even BETTER.

Instead we have a 100% MSM induced spate of market fluctuations, panic buying, hoarding, price gouging, and unnecessary closures.

IF I am right, we have all been exposed to this for weeks if not MONTHS. The facts that they CONTINUE to skew the numbers, and HYPE the panic, over the one facility, in WA state, was red flag #1 for me.

Then, they NEVER talk about the % of ALREADY RECOVERED, red flag #2. Red flag #3, is they ALWAYS talk about the WORST possible case “exponential” projections, or the “curve”. They NEVER take into account EARLIER first introduction, the preventative measures ALREADY taken, and the basic differences between a country like the US and the other hotbeds like China, Italy, and Iran.

Let’s highlight those, just a few. What is the BASIC quality and condition differences between here and the other spots? Do we have JAM packed population centers with little sanitary or BASIC hygiene? NO, although some areas in some of the dem controlled cities are getting there, they are still like the Starship Enterprise vs the Minnow from Gilligan’s Island in terms of conditions, facilities, infrastructure, etc. Think ZERO sewers as a START, then think communal water supplies, UNTREATED, used for more than just drinking.

Then, let’s talk healthcare. Try as they might, the left have STILL not been able to destroy the American healthcare system, the BEST in the world. Even places like South Korea, and Taiwan, despite what the MSM will tell you, cannot TOUCH our facilities, personnel, or levels of care. Want PROOF? Do the South Koreans, Chinese, and Iranians keep their students in house in their countries? NO, why do you think that is, if they were so advanced and good and better than us? No, my friend, they send their BEST and BRIGHTEST right here in the good old USA. Our ONLY failing here, thanks to dems like Clinton and Obama, is outsourcing our medical equipment, supplies, and pharmaceutical production to China, and THAT, is about to change, change big, and change QUICKLY.

Then let’s look at response and government actions. The Chinese, and the South Koreans, as well as the Italians, did not ACT until there was ALREADY a serious condition, they ALLOWED the virus to spread like wildfire BEFORE taking drastic action.

In the US, despite the impeachment distraction, despite MSM and dem protestation of “racism”, and despite dem obfuscation, indifference, and interference, Trump took bold decisive action in stopping ALL travel to China in January, once the world found out the lie China had been spewing.

I submit we were all already exposed at that time, but, Trump’s actions stemmed NEW influxes, maybe new mutated strains, from entering, and that gave us VALUABLE time to get ahead, and we, I believe are WAY ahead, despite the hype.

ALL these things and MORE, like the fact that Italy and China have some of the OLDEST populations in the WORLD, and this virus is VASTLY disproportionate in its effects on the elderly, a STRANGE curiosity. This virus basically discriminants AGAINST the young, and hones in on the elderly, red flag #4. Normally it is the very old, and the VERY young that are affected by viruses, NOT in this case. The instances of INFECTION, not mortality, are 1% or less in teens through infant, a BIG outlier from norm.

So, in closing, thanks for the reply, I am trying to EASE the fears with calm, reasoned FACTS, not projections. IMHO, we jumped the shark on the closings and cancellations, BIGLY. We should have STARTED, if we were going that route, to have the elderly and infirm curtail their exposures, not the young and middle aged, of which 80% show little or NO symptoms. there was simply NO reason to go full “outbreak” level panic here, yet.

The hype leads to disinfo. The disinfo leads to fear, the fear leads to PANIC, hoarding, and panic buying. The panic COULD lead to civil discord, looting, and worse. It was STUPID, and not on Trump’s end, on the people that supposedly work for him like RR’s sister [Rod Rosenstein’s sister Dr Nancy Messonnier of the Center for Disease Control, CDC], and some of the other health “officials” He rightly, finally, got CONTROL of the message, at least at the federal level thanks to the task force. Now it is local and state health “officials” like the twit in Ohio, spreading hysteria by GUESSTIMATING. WTF. She SHOULD, rightly, be fired, and SHOULD lose her medical license.

The FIRST rule of a crisis situation is to REMAIN CALM, and NOT panic. In an active shooter situation, usually, those that keep their cool, SURVIVE, those that PANIC, sadly, die.

Calm, and reasoned allows people to THINK, and not react, or OVERREACT. Hopefully, in a few days if not weeks, we WILL turn the corner, I think it will be shorter rather than longer.

One last thing. The MSM hype, AGAIN they ALWAYS over reach. They CANNOT continue the stoking to defcon 5 of 24/7 hysteria, breathlessly reporting NOTHING but covid 19. People are ALREADY saturated with it, they are growing TIRED of it, especially with no sports, and little movies to go see. Soon, they will simply TURN IT OFF. Do you know what happens then? I will bet my gopher suit that this “crisis” will suddenly, miraculously, END. If you cut off either the oxygen or the source of a fire it DIES.

Prex gave me permission to publish his comment (emphases in purple mine):

Feel free, I WANT people to NOT panic (what the Cabal want); this is getting ridiculous, when they start closing restaurants and bars, the next thing is a curfew. There simply is NO need for this, at least not at this time. This is their dry run, after Trump something like this will be MUCH worse. We the people need to get and STAY informed, and start MAJOR pushback on the insanity. Caution is one thing, sequestration is QUITE another. Remember we have FEWER than 70 deaths, and 30 of those were in ONE spot, not one state, not one city, one BUILDING.

This is akin to shutting down the country of Legionnaires disease…think on that.

Again, feel free to post ANY of my comments here, or my blog, just link me as proper credit…you know the deal. I would suggest sharing mine and Steve in CO’s running thread, it is quite informative if I do say so myself! Thanks, Prex

He then added this:

I would suggest taking in a post by Jim Hoft on the Gateway Pundit, he is BASICALLY, proving my point. It is about the MSM openly LYING to us all about the ACTUAL death rate of covid 19 vs the seasonal flu. He has an interesting take that dovetails with my theory. Basically, the REAL numbers of flu deaths here NOW are 10 % of the REAL documented cases. 22000 of 220000 documented cases. For Covid 19 it is 3.4 % for the REAL documented cases, including the OUTLIER of the one facility.

The reason the CDC can state that the Flu mortality rate is .1% is that they are ESTIMATING that there are 36 million infected here in the US with the flu, and THEN extrapolating the REAL deaths out of THAT number 22000 of 36000000. That my friends is what we call GIGO.

Why this is IMPORTANT. IF they can estimate the flu numbers, because they KNOW the spread, they KNOW the gestation, why can’t they do the SAME with covid 19?

They have NEARLY the same sample size WW 178000 vs 222000 for the FLU here. They KNOW the mortality rate WW is 3.8%, 5786 of 178000. So why didn’t they ESTIMATE the numbers of infected and compare and extrapolate like they did the flu? Answer: because it would show that covid 19 is NOT more virulent than the common flu, and there are a LOT more cases than we are being told (#’s of infected withheld?) They KNOW the #’s from China, to the size of the city to the reported dates (gestation), and they KNOW the amount decesased AND infected. If you do not trust China, how about South Korea? They have ACCURATE info, and it is MUCH less than reported.

In short my friend, we are being BAIT AND SWITCHED on the numbers to create PANIC.

EX a: estimated # of flu infected vs ACTUAL mortality to get .1% mortality

Ex b: Actual #of known infected vs ACTUAL mortality to get 3.4- 3.8%.

These two are NOT like comparisons, not even CLOSE, and it is IMPORTANT to see that they are using actuals vs ESTIMATED to get the higher numbers. IE comparing apples to apples in covid 19, and apples to ORANGES in the flu.

The question is WHY can they not extrapolate the numbers in covid 19 like they do with the flu?

Answer, they do not want a panic over the flu, it is something people are USED to, has been around, and therefore even with the TRUE number, would not panic.

Covid 19 is NEW, and “unknown” and can be used to spread the panic desired. When one factors in the avg age of infections, serious infections for BOTH, and the factors in that 8 of 10 in covid show mild to NO symptoms, you start to REALLY see the agenda.

We are being MANIPULATED, folks.

Then he rightly pointed the finger at leftist mayors and governors in the United States:

We are being manipulated, and leftist mayors and Governors are doing what they ALWAYS do, overreach. They are closing restaurants and bars, and now daycares..WHY? children are basically NOT affected. Answer because this is a TEST, a TEST of just what they can get away with before we the people say ENOUGH.

Time for some lawsuits, testing the Constitutionality of this. Then, the states and cities would have to PROVE actual danger, NOT projections. I hope you see now why I so vehemently went against the exponential projections, I KNEW they would be used against us for an AGENDA, damned if I wasn’t right.

The left will CONTINUE to infringe, and spread panic, till something pops, it will not take long, I give it 3 weeks TOPS. Hopefully, there will be enough SANE people, and Trump, to put a STOP to this through pushback. Plus, I believe they CANNOT keep up the hoax, and, yes, folks, it is a HOAX because of its PURPOSE, for much longer, they will NOT be able to fool the people much longer and fuel the hysteria. People will soon see, that they nor NO ONE they know is infected, and THEN the pushback starts.

The virus is real, but it is being made into the Spanish flu, and it is NOWHERE near that. May God have mercy on us all if a REAL killer comes a calling after this FIASCO by the MSM.

I IMPLORE President Trump, please for the love of the country, RESCIND the Obama EO that permits propaganda to be spewed. FORCE these people to report the TRUTH and NOTHING but the truth, and that includes lying by omission.

Many people are just now coming to where I have been for over 2 weeks, pissed off, and it will get MUCH worse if they do not quit openly LYING and spreading hysteria, let alone infringement of life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. All in the name of a crisis, and “public health”. My considerable rear end. The numbers do NOT bear out the reaction.

EX A. 69 deaths of 330000000 =.000000020990 %
EX B 3300 cases of 3300000000= .00001%

Now tell me again why we are in lockdown and PANIC?

Projections and exponential projections coupled with HYPE. Nothing more. These are FACTS, not projections.

I fully agree more with those sentiments. I hope that you do, too.

Prex has more on his site in ‘Corona-steria’.

We have never seen anything like this in living memory.

Based on what Prex and SteveInCO say, governmental response has been over the top.

When all is said and done, outside of China, Iran and Italy, it is likely that less than 1% of various nations’ populations will have died.

Meanwhile, every year, there are tens of thousands of deaths from influenza and respiratory illnesses in each Western country every year. On average, 1%-10% of populations die in each of those countries from those ailments. The percentage varies among countries. In England, it is around 1%.

Then, let’s talk about the much higher percentage rates of death from heart disease, diabetes, obesity and the like.

Yet, our leaders are obsessing over coronavirus?

I do not know how much people can push back on this at the moment. However, if you are healthy and your government allows it, keep patronising local shops and restaurants. Otherwise, they will go under. That would be very bad for the owners, their employees — and the economy.

Just keep in mind what is happening right now, because this is not the last pandemic we will ever see. Far from it. And, what sort of restrictions on freedom of movement will we see then?

Holy Communion stained glass home2romeFollowing up on a post from August regarding intinction and another with regard to the 1547 Sacrament Act, I have found more information on how other Anglican priests are distributing Holy Communion to their congregants during the swine flu scare.

The following are excerpts with my explantatory notes and highlights taken from a short but fine post on Fr Hunwicke’s Liturgical Notes entitled, simply, ‘Swine Flu’:

Fr Hunwicke: ‘I have implemented: Communion in the hand; Communion in one kind; discontinuance of the use of the Holy Water stoups [fonts]; and during the Sanctus at Sunday Mass I surreptitiously rub the thumb and forefinger of my right hand with an alcoholic gel.’ 

Fr Steve: ‘If you use wine, wine is an alcohol. Intinction might be best, and if you have a problem with consuming what’s left, dig a hole in your cemetery and dispose of it.’

The Right Revd Peter D Robinson: ‘Communion in one kind into the hand is acceptable for the time being. However, Communion should continue to be offered in both kinds but communicants should drink from the chalice, not intinct. The chalice is wiped and turned slightly after each communicant. The high ABV (15%-18%) of most communion wines should take care of any virus present. Any communicant who wishes not to receive the Cup should cross his/her arms over the chest after receiving the host.

‘Communion by Intinction should be discontinued for the time being. This is the second least sanitary way of administering communion. Only leavened bread, “wee cuppies” and grape juice are worse.

‘Keep the number of people handling the elements down to a minimum. For the time being the celebrant should prepare the vessels and elements for the Eucharist, and/or the altar guild make generous use of hand sanitizer or soap and hot water.’

Fr Richard Evans: Public health specialists in Birmingham and Coventry [England] have advised that the use, or non-use, of the common chalice would have no affect on the spread of swine flu. This is based upon the level of spread of the disease in the general population and the fact that the risk of exposure is through normal contact (ie, a person sitting in a church with an infected person during a service would spread the disease, regardless of whether Communion was taken).

I believe Fr Evans’s is the best comment, as it is supported by the NHS in Birmingham and Coventry: there is no need to dispense with the Cup — continue to use it.  The reaction of Fr Hunwicke, a learned man, surprises me, particularly as he adds in his introduction: ‘I am too young to die.’  As a layperson, I have never been afraid of receiving this holiest of Sacraments, regardless of what bugs are in the air or on my neighbour.  Why would a priest?

My view is supported by two commenters, one on Fr Hunwicke’s blog, johnf, who says:

I don’t know how the Catholic Church survived the flu pandemics of 1918, 1957, 1968 not to speak of the minor one of 1947, when receiving of Our Blessed Lord by mouth was then the only means available.

I don’t think it even occured to people that Holy Communion by mouth could be a cause of transmission.

And I dont think people were ignorant of modes of transmission of diseases in those days.

So I believe we are overreacting – the spirit of the age I suppose.

and an excellent comment on my post about the Sacrament Act from Gabriella:

Do we really believe that Holy Water is a divine reminder of our baptism and a sacramental that can heal the spiritually and physically sick, and do we believe that the ‘wine in the chalice’ is the Precious Blood of Christ? And, do we decline these gifts out of fear or indifference?

Our saintly missionaries were not afraid to catch leprosy when they set out to help and cure these people.

Should we really deny ourselves the Blood of Christ and Holy Water because we are afraid of what we might catch … ?

Yes, we are overreacting.  We — whether priests or laypeople — need to remind ourselves of the Divine Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And to think that churches are emptying their stoups — it’s absurd. So, many people today would run a mile because of a hyped-up scare over flu. Which would mean that flu trumps Holy Communion? What a bunch of ‘believers’!

Holy Communion stained glassRecently, I wrote about some Anglican dioceses in England invoking the 1547 Sacrament Act as a precaution against the spread of swine flu. 

Before the early Communion service at my parish started on August 2, our vicar announced that he was experimenting with different ways of distributing Communion.  The previous week he said that he had distributed the Sacrament by means of intinction — dipping the Host in the wine — then placing it directly on the communicants’ tongues.   ‘Today, we’re going to try another way, which is for me to dip the bread in the wine and give it to you to place on your tongue.  We haven’t yet decided on how we will approach this going forward, so let me know your thoughts’.  (Please keep that last sentence in mind.) 

There I was sitting in the pew thinking, ‘Will I be able to do this?’  Then, once the Youth Minister started giving the guest sermon, I was quite taken with what he had to say and forgot about it.  He spoke of church leadership and the different roles: priests, bishops and other leaders, such as himself.  It was based on Paul’s Epistle for that day and well-delivered.

Later, once at the Communion rail, I knew this wasn’t right.  It was the first time in my life I’d ever felt awful about receiving Communion.  I’d received it thousands of times.  But, I didn’t remember ever having to place an ‘intincted’ Host on my tongue.  The local Catholic priest won’t use intinction because he says there is too much danger of the consecrated wine dripping where it should not.  So, I prayed that I would be able to take the Host in my fingertips and place it on my tongue without mishap. 

I also prayed that Our Lord would forgive me for what I was about to do.   

So, I took the intinction from the vicar. No, it was not an easy moment. But, to have been forced to handle the Host like that, especially with the consecrated on it, made me feel like a heretic.  I felt ashamed.  I also felt uncomfortable at having been forced to receive Communion in this manner.  So, when I rose from the Communion rail to return to my pew, I prayed again for forgiveness. 

Most of the people at the service were older.  As they are English, it’s hard to tell what they were thinking.  Yet, before we approached the altar, the man behind me said to his wife somewhat audibly, ‘It’s not right to be handling the Host like that.  We shouldn’t be doing it.’  (As I mentioned in the post about the ‘early Church’, Anglicans normally receive the Host in a cupped palm, followed by wine.)

I watched to see how the remaining communicants were coming along with this new ‘approach’.  I couldn’t see if one man was extending his tongue, but the vicar addressed him by name and said, ‘No, no — just take the Host from me.  That’s it, just take it in your fingertips.’ 

By the time we left, I wasn’t feeling any better.  I was one of the first people out, so I said to the vicar, ‘Maybe we should just receive the Host in our palms. We could suspend the wine.’

His eyes narrowed. ‘No, I can’t give you an intinction in the palm of your hand.  That’s the Blood of Our Lord, you realise.’  Good listening skills!

‘I wasn’t asking for an intinction.  Just the Host.  Alone.  No wine.  That way, we can continue to receive it in our hands and don’t have to touch it with our fingers.’ 

This would be in accordance with the Church of England’s Swine Flu guidelines modelled on the 1547 Sacrament Act:

The preferred alternative to the Chalice is to take Holy Communion in one kind only, without wine. Clergy should emphasize that while communion in both kinds is the norm in the Church of England, in faithfulness to Christ’s institution, when it is received only in one kind the fullness of the Sacrament is received none the less.

The vicar said, ‘We see no reason to suspend wine at this time.  We have decided to give both bread and wine.’

I said, ‘It doesn’t seem right to take the Sacrament in the fingertips like that.’  I didn’t want to go hammer and tongs over it.  This isn’t the first time he and I have had a disagreement.  And, like most postmoderns, he has a thin skin and dislikes opposition.

He said, ‘We have decided not to suspend the wine.’ 

(I love that: ‘We have decided …’  Why ask for our opinion, then?) 

By then, a number of people heard me. The Youth Minister was there the whole time. I introduced myself to him, complimented him on his sermon about church leadership and left. So, I don’t know if anyone else said anything.  After that exchange, it’s unlikely. The Youth Minister probably wondered what my problem was.  Well, give him another 25 years and he’ll be thinking differently about receiving Communion, too.

Anyway, I have again researched the Anglican guidelines for receiving Communion in a time of Swine Flu, and, in addition to the above, they are as follows with regard to intinction:

Intinction by communicants is not recommended. It runs the risk that droplets, the means of transmission of Swine ’Flu, on the ends of fingers could come into contact with the wine. Likewise, any practice where a common cup containing bread or wafers is passed between communicants runs the same risk. This practice should not be followed.

Yet, it seems that the Church of England prohibits only the communicant dipping the bread in the wine. It doesn’t say anything about the priest doing it for them, although receiving it in the fingertips cannot be correct. This is why some parishes have been receiving only the Host lately. 

This is also why we sometimes enter into unavoidable and uncomfortable ways of participating in worship and reception of the Sacraments.  We have so little choice in the matter

Sorry, there’s no conclusion on this, just a call to action: Is there anyone from the Church of England out in cyberspace who could provide additional guidance?  I would be most grateful.

Holy Communion elements ctrcccomWith the rise of swine flu, Anglican churches in the UK are able to withdraw the chalice at Communion and distribute both elements — bread and wine — by means of intinction, whereby the host is dipped in the wine before giving it to the communicant. 

The Telegraph [UK] reported on July 22:

The changes are allowed under the 1547 Sacrament Act, which requires both bread and wine to be given ‘except necessity otherwise require’, according to the Financial Times.

The Church of England devised the Sacrament Act following the Bubonic Plague.

The Bishop of Plymouth recommends eliminating the distribution of wine altogether.  The Rt Revd Christopher Budd advises:

In the light of the decision to designate the swine flu outbreak a pandemic, I now recommend suspending the chalice and giving the Sacred Host in the hand only.

Meanwhile, in sign of peace news, the lefty Anglican Diocese of Southwark recommends replacing handshakes with hugs.  Yuck.  Talk about wrapping oneself in possible contagion!

And, finally, in Essex, clergy are discouraging Anglicans in Chelmsford from using holy water stoops (fonts).

Flu masks (1918)

Flu masks (1918)

ITN says that swine flu from Mexico could be hitting the UK:

Health Protection Agency chiefs said it was ‘sensible’ to plan for cases in the UK.

The Government said it has enough medicine to treat half the population.

Two people are still undergoing tests in Lanarkshire [Scotland] after returning from Mexico with mild flu-like symptoms.

Update: The Lanarkshire cases have now been confirmed.

EarthLink, among other news outlets, reports that in Mexico City cancelled church services at the weekend:

About a dozen federal police in blue surgical masks stood in front of Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral, which was nearly empty after a measure canceling services to avoid large concentrations of people.

Johana Chavez, 22, said she showed up for her confirmation only to find a sign advising that all Masses, baptisms and confirmations were canceled until further notice.

‘We are all Catholic so this is a big step, closing the cathedral,’ she said, cradling a squirming infant in her arms. ‘I guess I’ll have to come back later.’

Whatever is happening, it is important not to panic.  On Sunday, President Obama went golfing for five hours at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland whilst waiting for updates on the flu situation. He later said there was no ’cause for alarm’.

Update: CDC confirms that eight Queens high school students have swine flu.

If you like drama, note the flu posts on this site, such as this one.

We can wash our hands often, keep surfaces clean (e.g. tabletops, desks), eat proper meals, drink plenty of water and, if necessary, call a doctor if symptoms strike.  You can find out more here and here.

cigarette-vendor-8da258a067d123faSmokers may have an advantage.  Mat Coward explains:

Smoking was long thought a preventive against plague; schoolboys at Eton were at one time required to smoke, for this reason, it is said, and those who refused were beaten. Well into the twentieth century, smoking was known to give protection against many infectious illnesses, as well as respiratory disorders, and was routinely recommended for these purposes by GPs. Of course, as we know, everything in the past was wrong, everything in the present is correct, and everything in the future will be exactly as it is now. Yes? That was true a hundred years ago, and it’s still true today.

Will smokers survive the next flu pandemic in greater numbers than non-smokers and ex-smokers? During the terrible 1918 outbreak, workplaces where smoking had previously been banned reintroduced it (Times, 23 Oct 18), because some (though not all) medical authorities believed that fumigating the respiratory system with smoke might, logically enough, provide some protection against infection.

I’ll leave the last word to a commenter at Pajamas Media, who says:

As a 74 year old woman I have listend to many health scares along the way. I believe this is another scare tactics to panic the American people. It states in the bible ‘if God is for you, who can be against you’! We should concentrate on preventatives more so than panic. Basics: i.e good hygiene, diet, rest, less stress and more spiritual love. The end result is not how long we live but how well we accept and respect God’s world. Take precaution in all that we do and say.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,537 other followers


Calendar of posts

January 2022
3031 - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,668,814 hits