Covid : la véritable histoire

The Covid Physician’s true coronavirus timeline

“My experience is no one but the government and mainstream media are sharing apocalyptic Covid-19 death experiences with me” Artillery Row

ByThe Covid Physician 2 November, 2020

Valentine’s Friday, 2020. A quarter century practising medicine. Half in hospitals, half in general practice. I’d been treating unseasonal, politely-coughing, relatively-well patients for the previous two and a half weeks.

Extraordinarily, on Saturday at 4am I was abruptly awoken by uncontrollable, whole body, flailing movements. They continued without relent for 5 hours. I’d hypothesised I was having a grand mal seizure, but as I lay violently shaking and goose-pimpled I coldly concluded I was conscious, so these were rigors. I’d witnessed two in my career one as a naïve house officer on a medical ward, and now the second in the comfort of my own bed. It wasn’t my last hurrah.

Two Paracetamol, two duvets, two days of bad diarrhoea and I returned to work Monday, a few pounds lighter and clinically puzzled. This was no ordinary fever. As it happens, two other GPs in my vicinity later described similar contemporaneous symptoms, and we all tested negative for Roche’s Covid-19 antibody assay 4 months later. That, however, is not so meaningful since most people are thought to clear the virus without the need for specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. On top of this, in PHE’s own studies, Roche’s test demonstrated only 83.9 per cent – 86.7 per cent sensitivity, so it was missing 13-17 per cent of true positives.

How many are still dying of perfectly treatable illness?

There are two arms of the cellular immune response. The immediate, innate system (no specific antibodies required), and the delayed, adaptive immune system (B and T-cells, and specific antibodies required which may or may not persist after the infection). So, no antibodies does not necessarily equate to future risk. 10 per cent of us may raise antibodies in response to the acute infection. We could die in the attempt. 90 per cent of us might deal with the infection innately, yet have nothing but our healthy, vigorous lives to show for it. A vaccine may not work, it may not be safe to some, it may raise antibodies but still not work. It may raise antibodies and make matters worse by ‘pathogenic priming’ and enhancing any future infection. These are all normally valid medical points, but I do not feel our governmentlikes doctors and scientists making these anymore. The normal medical and scientific truths of our time feel radically heretical to modern day Dr. Galileos.

Something very odd was going around. I don’t usually get ill on the job, and I have never had the influenza vaccine. As many doctors might agree, to our families’ inconvenience we become ill as soon as we switch off, relax, and take a holiday.

What was even odder to witness was the surreal lock-stepped, global lockdown that began around March 2020. Same language, same procedure, same time, no independent engagement of resource nor intelligence, no bespoke solutions. All but Sweden appeared to fall into a blind panic. The theatrics of lockdown on 26th of March did affect me, I was ejected from my accommodation and struggled to find anyone willing to take on a walking NHS repository of certain viral death. I returned to work in a single-handed practice with a deep dread of the cataclysm that would befall me and my community. No such thing happened.

I recall the fear of the clerical staff. They furtively asked why I wasn’t wearing a mask – remember this was the early days of PPE shortage, with no government mandate of general mask-wearing. My attitude was flimsy clinical masks were of no real effect, and besides risk of infection is part of the job description. However, I quickly succumbed to their unease to avoid the inevitable escalating inquisition and workplace disciplinary. I learned quickly, knowledge and experience were now nullities.

I had the easiest 3 months of NHS practice in my life from March to June 2020

Frankly, if it had not been for mainstream media and the government, I would not have even noticed there were a pandemic. I experienced no excessive dying, and no excessive becoming seriously ill. Since January, I have worked in three different general practices across England, in two regions. Accumulatively, they contained over 16,000 patients. Up to my last time of asking in September 2020 there had been many well Covid-19 “swab positives”, and only 5 deaths “with” a Covid-19 “swab positive”. Those 5 deaths were all white, over 60 years, with other co-morbidities.

In the BAME-dominated practice of nearly 6000 where I work with the most deprived, the poor, the homeless, addicts, and migrants, no one was known to have died in association “with” a Covid-19 swab-positive test.

In the practice of 1800 where I worked through the inception and peak of the pandemic, only two people died of anything between January and July. These two were expected deaths of metastatic terminal cancer.

Enough has been said on statistics and science to convince the current government response is disproportionate. Yet most governments dismiss it all with incredible contempt. Clinical experience is as equally relevant as the statistical manipulation and science. My experience is no one but the government and mainstream media are sharing apocalyptic Covid-19 death experiences with me. I don’t see it in my clinical practice as a simple GP.

My attitude to the government pandemic advice hardened significantly when I received the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) advice on pyrexical over-70-year olds in the community: do not admit them. If they get very ill, call the Macmillan nurse and palliative care team. This was my first sniff of the new-normal clinical lunacy. It was redolent of the swine flu panic where in 2009 we were negligently told to prescribe novel anti-viral medication to anyone on the basis of the slightest raised temperature, regardless of better alternative diagnoses. A reasonable body of doctors would never do this under sane conditions.

I did research. Given my older patients were to be left at home to sink or swim, I concluded that the very safe hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin combination was worth trying in the best interests of those marooned patients. I was blessed to have my own NHS dispensary and quickly ordered the medications. That was when the second whiff of madness was caught: the gas-lighting mainstream media was repeatedly telling me it was very dangerous, they were lambasting my brave and learned international medical colleagues for daring to say anything but a vaccine was effective in mitigating Covid-19. Our CCG pharmacist emailed all GPs to ask us to not prescribe hydroxychloroquine in suspected Covid-19 cases as this would diminish stock for the usual rheumatoid and lupus users.

My older patients were to be left at home to sink or swim

As it happens, such was the lack of community cases of clinically unwell Covid-19, I never had to use the triple therapy. The closest I got was when a very feverish lady in her 80s was being left to probably die of a severe sepsis. She was refused hospital admission. At that time, I was not allowed to see her, as we had a dedicated coronavirus “red hub” to remotely triage queried coronavirus cases to. Its guidelines had concluded temperature equated to coronavirus, which in turn equated to no hospital access allowed for over-70s. This was my third experience of what was now a reeking stench. Fortunately, her home-help called me to notify me of the ensuing danger. I assessed the situation remotely and concluded that the clinical logic of the red hub was wrong. The most likely cause was line sepsis (she had an in-dwelling feeding line in a major blood vessel). I spoke to the red hub and the hospital to explain that the guidelines were fatally negligent. They took her in, and line sepsis it was. This simply required a new line and intravenous antibiotics. She survived to re-join her husband, but how many are still dying of perfectly treatable, potentially fatal illness?

The fourth time, I was called by a Macmillan nurse. She had been delegated the responsibility of persuading me to prescribe a cancer drug without due normal clinical process by the Consultant breast surgeon, who presumably was instructed to avoid doing his job at all costs. The nurse explained to me the lady who had a very large breast lump diagnosed in hospital just before lockdown was somehow neglected to be assessed for 5 weeks, presumably because of lockdown. Here’s where it got more distressing. She said the consultant would not be able to see her for at least 3 months. Would I see her and confirm there really was a lump and prescribe a speculative breast cancer treatment? Normal protocol would be a two-week maximum wait for a cancer specialist and biopsy. Then a treatment plan, usually some combination of a biopsy-determined hormonal medication, radiotherapy, surgery and chemotherapy.

In her case, they wanted me to provide speculative hormonal medication without any real prospect of review, confirmatory biopsy nor other intervention for at least 3 months.

Moreover, I was told by the nurse that the poor dear did not even sound all there over the phone. Inference: doesn’t really matter what she thinks, she’s old and it’s a hopeless case.

We all are being policed into wearing any old ineffective rags over our muzzles

I did see her. The old dear was compos mentis, and she agreed that she did not want a speculative treatment for which I had no qualification nor experience of initiating. I informed the palliative care nurse I would not do her delegated task. Eventually, without confirming they had back tracked the cancer team saw her for themselves a few weeks later; but both I, the patient, and her daughter had to dig our heels in deeply. How many patients are still languishing with advancing cancer due to a litany of permissive state diktats? Look at section 11 of the unbelievably quickly drafted Coronavirus Act 2020 on medical indemnity during coronavirus. Does it mean extra indemnity or extra protection for medics, the NHS and the government against the most unforgivable clinical gross negligence during the state-determined pandemic measures?

At this time the shock and awe of the terror and OCD-inducing state mind-programming triad, of don’t touch your face, wash your hands and stay away from other humans was wearing off. I’d had my fill of hospital NHS TikTok videos and being needlessly back- slapped and clapped for.

In fact, for once in my career I had nothing to do, except keep patients away from the practice, fob them off on the phone, and see the odd one at my own choosing. They were all very understanding, and even thanked me for it. Everything was, in a sense, either coronavirus or not an absolute NHS problem. I now reach into my bag first for a headset, and rarely touch my stethoscope. I am losing my hands-on clinical skills.

Our mission: save the NHS by neglecting ourselves and the NHS. I received numerous CCG advice and flow-charts on the coronavirus-centric mass processing of patients. Most of it was about whom not to see, and who could pass the pearly gates of the hospitals. Then there was the advice on the parallel IT and video-consultation medical industrial revolution: our new NHS normal.

Then there was the circular from the British Medical Association (BMA) received on 22 April 2020 reminding us that we did not have to be that sure to write Covid-19 on a death certificate, simply to the standard of the best of our knowledge and belief. The BMA went on to advise:

In those cases where the doctor is confident on medical grounds that a particular cause of death is likely then that should be entered on the MCCD (Medical Certificates of Cause of Death). Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the MCCD, even without the results of a positive test, and it is important that likely Covid-19 deaths are reported as such via the registrar.

That was highly irregular, what’s to say without testing it wasn’t equally likely to be ‘flu, or pneumonia like most winters? We now know even a positive test doesn’t help diagnose with any confidence.

My trust started to erode in March 2020

Unless you are one of my maximum, lucky two given the golden ticket each morning or afternoon, if you wish to actually be seen and be examined by me these days, go private. For the right price they’ll see all of us and pass us on the extra coronavirus-related costs, while we all protect the NHS. To see Sir Simon Stevens CEO of NHSE be tweeted saying, to paraphrase – “you thought Covid-19 was bad but wait until we ram climate change down your throat” simply beggars belief. Isn’t this over-ambitious and a slight over-reach of his remit? Surely, he should concentrate on concluding his five-year NHS plan: stealthily privatising the NHS under the helpful cover of the pandemic, before joining Greta Thunberg fear-pushing the global green agenda?

I had the easiest 3 months of NHS practice in my life from March to June 2020, no wonder all those apart from in ICU were smiling, laughing, and apotheosising the NHS on social media. This was their first real break in 70 years. They genuinely felt they deserved it. Then, a strange thing happened in an already strange time in June 2020. Bad stink five. I received an email from the CCG. Cascaded presumably by the BMA to every CCG and GP in the country, simultaneously. I was fed their pro-BLM message, and invited to click on a link where I could donate to the neo-Marxist trained BLM leaders via a US Democrat party central-funding company, ActBlue.

How very odd. I had not yet received one email on the pathophysiology of Covid-19, not one email on life-saving potential early community interventions and treatments (maybe more on these another time). Nothing. Yet here was priority number one in the pandemic apart from systematically neglecting my patients: dip into your pockets, doctor. Donate to the statue-toppling, English heritage-bashing, and lockdown-breaking SARS-CoV-2 spreaders-in-chief.

While I was twiddling my thumbs, feet on my desk, and frankly disturbed by the BMA’s endorsement of BLM’s critical race theory. I began to ponder, to review what had actually happened. Everyone had been in shock, on autopilot.

My senses and faculty of independent, critical thinking had begun to return. I began to think deeply about basic medical sciences, cause and effect, Koch’s postulates and normal clinical diagnosis and practice.

What was actually going on here? Ostensibly and hitherto, the government, moreover the WHO, was asking me to suspend my medical training, my clinical disbelief and trust them.

I started to look at the clinical timeline. There were many decisions made that did not sit comfortably with my medical sensibilities.


My trust started to erode in March 2020. Public Health England (PHE) had wisely classified the SARS-CoV-2 entity as a “highly contagious infectious disease” (HCID). This brought it in to the infamous company of long-gone worries such as SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, bird flu and Ebola virus.

However, the PHE had strangely declassified SARS-CoV-2 from being a highly contagious infectious disease to a non-HCID on 19 March 2020. It seemed to them to no longer merit the company of SARS et al. This was few days before the UK lockdown regulations of 26 March 2020 when the whole world was implementing the most draconian pandemic measures ever. That’s an odd timeline. I asked PHE, why? It replied that it was because by 19 March 2020 they knew it was not as fatal as it was first thought. Wasn’t that a bit rich? Surely, declassification did not make government sense on 19 March?

My own view is that there was perhaps a different agenda. There was a PPE (I must here confess, like most, I had not come across this term, before) shortage in March, it was a massive political problem. The government was just resiling from a herd immunity approach (more’s the pity, in my opinion). Was PHE in more control of advising on the pandemic and matters such as PPE while the bug remained classified a HCID? The government was in a panic trying to requisition all available PPE to the clamouring NHS. Perhaps not recommending masks to the public and nursing homes whilst recommending them for hospitals for an as yet unquantified, airborne, respiratory HCID was a cognitive and scientific dissonance too far for someone at PHE?

Was the quickest way for the government to take control of the coronavirus narrative to have PHE declassify SARS-CoV-2 from its HCID category? Perhaps this explains why after the event we all are being policed into wearing any old ineffective rags over our muzzles. Most of the public still falls for it. I await the day the government edict to not wear masks comes (if it ever does). Most obedient citizens will stop without question, suddenly and miraculously feeling safe. The mask totalitarians – those who use incorrect mask etiquette as a proxy for some other odious social prejudice – will have to hide again. Some poor souls will never stop wearing them. Some may never re-emerge from their homes.

In the 1980s we were terrified, mostly via innuendo, by the Thatcher government’s “Don’t die of ignorance” AIDS campaign. I worked through BSE (1995-97), SARS (2003), swine flu (2009) and MERS (2012). That was all pre-2013, and pre-PHE. Before PHE, we had the more independent and expert Health Protection Agency (HPA) to help us. It ran the public health labs and the civilian arm of the biological warfare centre, Porton Down. The HPA was deconstructed by the Cameron-Clegg coalition (as was much else of the NHS) by the Health & Social Care Act 2012. HPA’s health protection duties fell to the hands of the new quango, PHE with the added distraction of general population “health improvement”.

It appeared to me that we had blind trust in China and the WHO

It has been well-documented by Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health and Primary Care, Steve Brine MP in a letter of 22 March 2019 to PHE CEO, Duncan Selbie, that his government priorities for PHE for 2019/20 were not at all about protecting England against emerging pandemics. During the pandemic there was frustration expressed by the government at the PHE, and the decentralisation of NHS command and control to NHSE. Recall, these were all acts of deliberate NHS deconstruction, decentralisation and quasi-privatisation by the previous Cameron-Clegg coalition government. Matt Hancock’s response? Disband much of Public Health England (PHE) and merge it with NHS Test and Trace to create a new quango, the National Institute of Health Protection led by a Tory peer Dido Harding, a business expert with no healthcare credentials. She already led the controversial, dysfunctional SERCO-outsourced test and trace “system”. Her husband just happens to be a Tory MP and our UK anti-corruption champion. You couldn’t write it. My suggestion is, why not simply bring back the more-expert and independent-of-business interests HPA? It did far better with far more fatal viruses. Why not scrap NHSE, and make the health secretary accountable for our health again? Maybe better still, repeal the Health & Social Care Act.

What would have befallen us if the NHS had already been fully privatised? Probably something akin to America: line the pockets of the private hospitals in a further blind panic. Stop them treating anything but coronavirus. Therefore, inducing the hospitals to fit everything into a coronavirus-shaped hole. Then, just add fatal ventilation to maximise profit. If we are to learn and improve, an uncomfortable truth that must be acknowledged is the revolving door between government and corporations in public private partnerships causes collusion and corruption. It is failing our nation’s health.

Back to the timeline. The alleged first official Chinese case was 17 November 2019. China announced the problem to the WHO on 31 December 2019 as a “atypical pneumonia”. On 3 January 2020 Chinese officials provided information to the WHO on the cluster of cases of “viral pneumonia of unknown cause” identified in Wuhan. On 9 January 2020 the WHO reported that Chinese authorities had determined that the outbreak was a distinct disease caused by a novel coronavirus. Remarkably, it seemed we in the West had an indirectly-deduced, best-guess PCR test ready-to-go in mid-January 2020 before we even had time to isolate and confirm the suspected in vivo causative agent, SAR-CoV-2 for ourselves.

The first two confirmed cases in the UK were 29 January 2020. Had the virus actually been caught in the act, on an electron microscope, isolated and purified from a human Covid-19 victim, yet? The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) announced “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)” as the name of the presumed novel coronavirus (nCoV-2019) on 11 February 2020.

It also appeared to me that we had blind trust in China and the WHO, which in a knee jerk, prematurely decided that Covid-19 was a disease (i.e. a condition with a definite aetiology) and not a syndrome (i.e. a collection of symptoms and signs without a definite sole cause – just like the elusive irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS).

For clarity, the “D” in coronavirus means “disease”, the second “S” in SARS-CoV-2 means “syndrome”. In a sense, the WHO had already decided Covid-19 was a distinct disease entity caused by a novel coronavirus before characterising it as a syndrome called SARS-2, and before the naming of the virus as SARS-CoV-2. The importance of scientific syntax and semantics cannot be overemphasised. Such cognitive slip-ups trickle unnoticed into general parlance and may have fatal consequences for us as a species.

Without a definite cause, one cannot definitively conclude to treat anything in particular. Is Covid-19 a syndrome, a mixed bag of symptoms and signs that has been negligently and politically globally fast-tracked to a scientifically wrong conclusion? Is it, in practice, a conflation of different, distinct disease entities including influenzae, rhinoviruses, pneumoniae and other coronaviruses, not to mention other non-infectious phenomena?

We may now never know, due largely to a fast-thinking panic, and incompetent local and global health systems biased by commercial and political interest.

We destroy jobs, industry and life as we knew it while we wait for a vaccine

Allow me to illustrate what a convincing, normal scientific timeline looks like, with a historical example. The AIDS epidemic (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) officially began in 1981. Before it was called AIDS, the syndrome was first termed “GRIDS”, or gay- related immune deficiency syndrome. The aetiological agent, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was confirmed two years later in 1983. The first ever recognised case of AIDS, in retrospect, may have been in the 1960s. The scientists who discovered the causative HIV were awarded the Nobel prize in 2008, 25 years later. That is the normal order and speed of how good, reliable science used to operate. What we have with the Covid-19 narrative is extraordinary, regardless of intervening new scientific advances; so much so that it is arguably a new pseudo-medical paradigm.

Forget finding a virus first, forget antibody and antigen serology, blood PCR and routine chest X-rays, forget electron microscopy, culture and blood markers of inflammation. Forget even looking for other probable causes and taking a temperature or a pulse; just speculatively swab asymptomatic or vaguely symptomatic scared members of the public’s contaminated oral and nasal cavities for bits of RNA, with a poor test, and over-amplify the apparatus. As the WHO’s Dr. Tedros said very emphatically at the very outset: “Test, test, test”. As a physician, I wish he’d said, “Think, think, think”; or as carpenters say, “Measure twice and cut once”.

In March and April 2020, without the proper science, if it felt like coronavirus, it was coronavirus, it was buried as coronavirus. To this day, this irrational, pharma-political new world order narrative persists bullet-proofed, immune as if pre-vaccinated against all the countless eminent medics and scientist amongst the global intelligentsia.

In early May 2020 I was initially amused, but then concerned to read the Reuters report about the Tanzanian government’s official samples submitted for PCR testing. It reported that pawpaw and tortoise swabs tested positive for Covid-19.


The 2020 new infectious disease pseudoscientific paradigm goes something like this: anyone and everyone is a potential coronavirus super-spreader, all the time, regardless of fever, other symptoms, or no symptoms. Whether you have already had it or not, whether one wears a mask or not, the risk is always there. You may even contract it again, and again.

Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive coronavirus test is a coronavirus death. The nominated standard community test for Covid-19 is an unprecedentedly bad one, far from any gold standard test. Potentially up to 93 percent may be false positive. This will create a synthetic “case-demic” spike because the health secretary pushes poor mass-testing hard and fast. This will be used to frighten those of the public who do not understand statistics, and who understandably instinctively trust their government. Testing simultaneously for more probable causes such as colds, flu and pneumonia will not be done. Everyone else with any other disease can go rot or go private. Children who are almost never at fatal risk (unlike with influenza) will be denied proper social care, an education and freedom of association.

This is not normal clinical medicine, nor public health medicine Where was this year’s flu, respiratory viruses and pneumonia mortality spikes? Perhaps they were parasitically conflated with that will-o-the-wisp SARS-CoV-2?

It is an irrational doomsday reading of the situation by our government, which is nothing of the sort in reality. It is a wilful governmental catastrophizing of a situation I have not actually encountered in my professional nor my personal reality this year. Certainly, the emergent case-fatality data is not reflective of the government’s persistent narrative of fear. I find myself asking is this melodrama, or medicine I am being asked by the government to practise?

We may all be suffering the consequences of the many mistakes by Matt Hancock’s department such as his face-saving personal target and vanity-project of more than 100,000 community tests per day for which perfectly decent, independent scientific laboratories such as Sir Paul Nurse’s were dismissed or ignored and contracts awarded to favoured, corporate, inner circle cronies. Presumably they are also more apt to adhere to the official narrative. (Do not forget the other reactive decisions such as his white elephant Nightingale hospitals and the costly and harmful ventilator crusade.)

My fear is the government wants to sustain this disproportionate narrative of fear, and a lockdown until we either find a vaccine or die of loneliness, other disease and a broken heart. Is this incompetence, political face-saving, health and safety-gone-mad or something else?

The state narrative is in contradiction to the statistical facts

What we might realise when we recover from our national PTSD is the new normal might be perpetual social isolation if Parliament continues to have its way. Maybe the government should take a moment of collective maturity and wisdom to acknowledge the real risk: the average age of death dying of Covid-19 is around 82 years, similar to the average age of general death in the UK. Any hospital junior doctor who has worked with the elderly knows an attachment in the UK winter is like working in killing season. Most of us don’t suffer from Covid-19, and when we do get it, we are fine, or have mild upper respiratory symptoms. The fact is, when (or if) we are eventually released back to our lives, our risk of death from trauma and accidents will increase simply by being allowed outside to play, again. Will the government frighten the life out of us by over-emphasising these, and swabbing it for Covid-19, too? Has anyone asked the question what would be the Covid-19 swab positive rate had we sent out the army to do it two years ago in winter 2018? I suspect it would not be zero.

The state narrative is in contradiction to the statistical facts, the science, and clinical experience of many doctors and scientists, many of whom are eminent, but easily brushed off with scathing, fearful rhetoric by the health secretary, as in his recent parliamentary performance disparaging the sensible, scientific, but censored Great Barrington Declaration authors and its 580,000+ signatories. We forget Sweden never locked down or masked up, and yet it continues to cope well, as we used to for any other seasonal viral epidemic.

My greater fear is that, for the government it is a simple waiting game; wait for the normal winter spike of deaths, unscientifically read it up to the worst possible case scenario, and class it all as Covid-19 again, contrary to the old, normal medical paradigm. Then, extend the lockdown measures for another six months to September 2021. Presumably, the government will repeat the “no vaccine, no freedom” mantra, and continue to ignore the cheap, effective community treatments being propounded by my global colleagues, who are being censored, and no-platformed by government and social media.

The promulgators of the official global narrative anticipated dissent and prepared for a global infowars. On 18 October 2019, Event 201 sensed a coronavirus pandemic was imminent and advised in its headline: “The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.”

Except, it wasn’t the pandemic the triggering the “major cascading economic and societal consequences”. It was the extraordinary, co-ordinated global government and media over- reaction that did the triggering all by itself. Its entire recommendations are predicated on this flawed first heading andsentence:

Event 201’s luminaries went on in recommendation 7: “Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response.”

One only has to look at the echoes of this in Ofcom’s radical, very prescient, and human rights-violating bulletin guidelines released on 23 March 2020 to be even more concerned:

Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the imposition of a statutory sanction.

It reads like an edict from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. But it could equally apply to the government department of health’s own Covid-19 narrative. A senior UK doctor, Mr Mohammed Adil, prominent in the fight for medical sense has been suspended by the GMC for simply exercising his right to freedom of speech and dissent within the law, having been no-platformed from YouTube. His European and 1st Amendment-protected American colleagues continue to be allowed to practice.

How are we to operate as a democracy, involving our medical professionals and our royal colleges in constructive, reasoned debate to reach a scientific, reasonable consensus of opinion when the GMC stifles doctors on the front line, and when the government regulators crush, manipulate and censor their way through the usual democratic and scientific discourse? It seems even reasonable inferences, debate, and the right to speculate out aloud to progress our collective knowledge (particularly when we are not even allowed freedom to associate) is not official government policy. Not journalistically, professionally nor socially. It is tantamount to thought policing. Certainly, professional safety in my medical workspace involves suspending one’s disbelief and zipping one’s mouth in order to stay in a job. What is striking is that my colleagues avoid talking to each with scrutiny about Covid-19, to do so truthfully would be to dissent and risk unemployment. How as a society are we meant to join the dots, physically isolated, mentally compartmentalised and electronically censored? How can we progress unified and intelligently in this Parliament- created police-state?

The Coronavirus Act legislates for one doctor-approved cremations and mental health act sectioning. Before these required two. Medical abortions can now be done at home by tele- consultation under 10 weeks’ gestation via “pills-by-post”, without the gestation being confirmed by the usual scan.

The NHS feels like it has been weaponised by the state

I have heard of medical colleagues who have been informed that if they wanted a relative’s body quickly released for Muslim burial, it could be done within 24 hours if Covid-19 was accepted as the cause of death, but 2 weeks if the cause of death was the more logical stroke. In London, there seems to be in at least one hospital where a confidentiality clause or non-disclosure agreement must be signed before being allowed to work on coronavirus units. It appears the so-called whistle-blower protections for doctors continue to be trounced. What is there worth hiding that we all cannot be privy to? After all, isn’t this a public health matter concerning us all?

Is this coercive, controlling pharma-political alliance of fear-mongering the government’s new democratic normal? Is it a disproportionate response, deluded self-deception, spurious pseudoscience, fraud or a hoax? Is Sweden wrong? I don’t know, but how can we ever decide if the GMC forces doctors into the corners of anonymity and joblessness, and the government shuts its ears to us? It feels intellectually embarrassing to be anything other than Swedish.

Even the WHO is turning about-face on lockdown with Tedros Ghebreyesus’ former WHO nemesis and new Covid-19 envoy, Dr. David Nabarro leading a change of narrative.

Nabarro vigorously fought Tedros for the director-generalship of the WHO. Nabarro’s campaign team member suggested Tedros was implicated in covering up three cholera epidemics in his own country whilst health minister for Ethiopia. Whom can you trust?

In the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968 and 1969 where in total an estimated 80,000 people died in the UK, and an estimated 1-4 million worldwide, there was no lockdown, no draconian loss of liberty, and no destruction of the economy. No one scared the life out of us, shutdown the economy and closed down the NHS then. So why now?

From PHE reports, in England alone, the number of deaths associated with influenza observed through the FluMOMO algorithm was 28,330 in the 2014-15 season, and 26,408 in the 2017-18 season. I really didn’t notice these, did you? They are certainly not scarred on my psyche by the government in the same manner as Covid-19. We also seem to be in the exceptional situation of having conveniently avoided an annual influenza-associated mortality spike in the 2019-20 season. Could it be that a significant proportion were subsumed into Covid-19 associated deaths?

What of vaccines? We still don’t have one for HIV. We’ve never had one for a human coronavirus. Vaccines for flu can be ineffective and damaging. We may never have a viable candidate for Covid-19. Yes, medical technology has moved on, but not enough to compress the natural academic and clinical medical science response to this novel coronavirus into this timeline: the official narrative of less than one year.

What of mortality: a fraction of a percent, and 10 times less than predicted

by the inadequate and presumptive Imperial College models? What about the age-specific mortalities: the younger, the more fractional the risk? Yet, some mask children and we destroy the lives of the least at risk (that’s most of the workforce under 60 years). We destroy jobs, industry and life as we knew it while we wait for a vaccine. The NHS feels like it has been weaponised by the state and used paradoxically to damage our health. Isn’t that a hell of a timeline?

The Covid Physician is an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr

Harvey contre Descartes

Cher ami,

Pour ce qui est du débat Harvey-Descartes, on en trouve une trace très accessible dans le Discours de la Méthode lui-même, partie cinq, où Descartes donne sa description de la circulation sanguine comme exemple de sa méthode. Je viens de regarder ce passage à nouveau, après cinquante ans de jachère, et je trouve que j’ai été un peu injuste envers Descartes. Il est beaucoup moins dogmatique que Ian Ferguson. Sa description anatomique est précise et montre qu’il n’hésitait pas à se salir les mains au contact du réel. Tu me diras si elle est juste car mes souvenirs d’anatomie sont lointains. Il se met à divaguer en raison d’une hypothèse qu’il ne justifie pas selon laquelle l’effecteur des mouvements du sang consiste en un gradient de chaleur entre le coeur et la périphérie du corps. Il n’a pas compris que le coeur était une pompe, et devait répugner à ce genre d’explication parce qu’elle rappelait trop celle de la scolastique qui parlait d’une ‘vertu pulsifique’, quoique sans plus de détail. Il a observé correctement aussi que le sang changeait d’aspect au cours de sa circulation, mais prend la chose comme une cause du mouvement, et n’a pas compris -mais cela on ne peut pas vraiment le lui reprocher- que c’était au contraire un effet et que des phénomènes chimiques étaient en cause. Concernant Harvey, il le connaît et le mentionne, mais sans même discuter sa théorie sur les points où elle diffère de la sienne. Ce qui me semble le plus typique de la manie calculante par laquelle Descartes remplace le verbalisme médiéval n’est pas son erreur de départ  – il est normal de faire des hypothèses et les plus improbables sont licites – mais le fait qu’il en développe les conséquences en une longue suite de déductions dont chacune ne s’appuie que sur la précédente par référence et imitation des démonstrations mathématiques, mais sans avoir idée de ménager des étapes intermédiaires de vérification par l’observation de la concordance avec le réel des résultats prédits par le modèle.

Sur Kant, encore

Après lecture de l’article contre Kant, et surtout de l’abjecte et comique rétractation du malheureux qui l’avait invoqué comme autorité, je m’aperçois que ma propre critique n’a rien à voir avec tout cela, qui relève de l’hystérie anti-antiraciste contemporaine : en réalité une coalition de tous les racismes particuliers. Pour nos chercheurs mondialisés multiculturels, il est inconditionnellement interdit d’invoquer un auteur qui a pu émettre un propos raciste, même si cela est sans pertinence pour le sujet traité. Cela me rappelle le ‘Corne d’Auroch’ de Georges Brassens, patriote intransigeant qui se laisse mourir d’une maladie curable ‘parce que c’était à un Allemand qu’on devait le médicament’.

Pour nos chercheurs mondialisés, dits multiculturels mais en fait plutôt multi-incultes, Kant est exclu de considération en matière de logique, de métaphysique et d’épistémologie parce qu’il croyait à l’infériorité des femmes et des noirs. Mais comme les préjugés racistes et sexistes sont omniprésents, y compris chez ceux qui les dénoncent, cela exclut beaucoup de monde de considération dans tous les domaines. Je suppose que ceux-là vérifient que le tôlier n’est pas antisémite quand ils vont manger un couscous. Mais que savent-ils des opinions privées du petit bengali qui a cousu leur pantalon et de la thaïlandaise aux doigts de fée qui a monté leur téléphone ? Parce que nous voulons que tout le monde soit égal, mais nous trouvons commode d’avoir des esclaves. A mon avis, pour ne pas se commettre avec le racisme réel, nos belles âmes de Paris intra-muros et de downtown New-York devraient plutôt aller cul-nu et dormir dans une caverne après un repas de glands et de limaces. En réalité, avec le mouvement politiquement correct , dernièrement métamorphosé en WOKE, nous avons affaire à des gens qui tendent irrésistiblement à l’érémitisme culturel tout en vivant d’interconnection généralisée.

Tu as remarqué que ma critique de Kant est d’un tout autre ordre. Ce qui m’intéresse dans son racisme, c’est l’argumentation pseudo-scientifique qui le fonde, parce qu’elle est un exemple d’un dévoiement de la pensée, et le même que je trouve dans les écrits de Descartes contre Harvey. Pas le fait brut qu’il déclare les noirs inférieurs, auquel les imbéciles s’arrêtent. Je regrette de ne pas avoir ce texte sous la main. Tu y aurais reconnu la démarche de nos modélisateurs au doigt mouillé.

En réalité, les préjugés, il faut vivre avec, alors que les sophismes, on peut en mourir. Dans la lecture, il faut faire la part du diable et voir ce qu’il y a de bon à prendre dans n’importe quelle boutique. Tu n’imagines pas le nombre de remarques révélatrices que j’ai puisées au long de mes études historiques dans les écrits des grands collabos, des staliniens, des nazis et même des radicaux-socialistes. Je n’hésite personnellement pas à les citer, ce qui m’épargnerait au moins, si j’étais publié, d’être lu par ces imbéciles.

Lettre sur Kant

Cher ami,

Merci pour ton envoi. Pour le racisme de Kant, je savais. Certains passages sur lesquels je suis tombé dans le passé m’avaient fait hurler de rire à l’époque. On y trouve ce mélange de préjugé fondé sur l’absence de contact avec le réel et de raisonnements abstraits donnant l’apparence de la scientificité qui caractérise ce que j’appelle le délire calculant, que je fais remonter à Descartes et que nous voyons se déchaîner à nouveau à propos de l’épidémie à coronavirus. Ian Ferguson est un fils bâtard de Kant et de Descartes.

Mais il faut savoir que le kantisme reste la philosophie de base dans le milieu philosophique, ou au moins dans celui des professeurs de philosophie français. Je pense donc que l’on ne peut pas faire l’impasse sur ses théories et je me reproche de ne pas les connaître aussi bien qu’il faudrait. Je t’en dirai plus après consultation des références que tu m’as transmises.

D’ores et déjà, je peux dire que ma distance par rapport à Kant tient à mon rejet de la morale kantienne et ne découle pas de ses divagations sur le sujet de la race, dont on pourrait trouver l’équivalent chez beaucoup d’auteurs de son époque. La question était mineure à l’époque et probablement susceptible d’être traitée superficiellement par quelqu’un comme Kant qui tenait à couvrir tout le champ de la philosophie.

Il faut savoir que Kant était célèbre pour ne jamais être sorti de son village, et il est probable qu’il n’avait jamais vu un africain, si ce n’est peut-être dans un cirque itinérant.

L’inacceptable pour moi chez Kant est sa condamnation absolue du mensonge. Problème traité aussi, et résolu en sens inverse, dans un passage des ‘Misérables’ de Victor Hugo, avec le mensonge de la nonne violant son voeu de véridicité pour protéger un fugitif. Le mensonge est l’arme du faible face à la violence des puissants, et en le condamnant Kant se fait le penseur organique de toutes les machines sociales autoritaires, grandes exigeuses de serments, et en particulier de l’État prussien, et y compris de sa forme radicale qui est l’état nazi. Kant aurait condamné von Stauffenberg pour avoir trahi son serment de fidélité à Hitler.

Paradoxalement, et il me semble que cela désigne une contradiction chez lui, la partie de sa théorie que je tendrais à accepter est celle qu’il a reprise, quoiqu’en la formalisant de façon très abstraite, de Rousseau, qui fait du sentiment moral un instinct inné. Selon lui, la dignité humaine repose sur le fait d’obéir à une loi morale à la fois personnelle et universelle, que l’on peut presque considérer comme une réalité de l’ordre de la constitution psycho-biologique de l’homme en tant qu’espèce naturelle, et un produit de l’évolution. Tout acte motivé par des influences extérieures est dénué de valeur morale. Dans ces conditions, il n’y a pas plus immoral que l’obéissance. J’y vois une grande contradiction dans la théorie kantienne, par ailleurs marquée par le conformisme social.

Corruption dans la junte sanitaire

(Article publié par le journal en ligne Francesoir)

La crise récente a fait ressortir les polarités ainsi les décisions parfois surprenantes de médecins qui tiennent aussi des rôles consultatifs ou exécutifs dans les hautes instances (Conseil Scientifique, Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique)

Le Professeur Perronne a rappelé avoir mis en place un système de déclaration des conflits d’intérêts avant toute prise de décisions, allant jusqu’à exclure les personnes des décisions ou débats si besoin est.

Début 2020, le collectif Data+Local recoupait les données de la base Transparence Santé, mise en place après le scandale du Médiator. Les 30 000 praticiens répartis en 32 CHU du territoire se sont partagés plus de 92 millions, auxquels s’ajoutent quelque 78 millions d’euros versés au titre notamment de conventions passées entre les CHU et les laboratoires. Tout cela ne prend bien sûr pas en compte les aides versées aux associations de victimes et ou patients.

Voici le Top 13 du classement des revenus récents versés par l’industrie pharmaceutique

N°1. La Palme d’Or revient au Pr François Raffi de Nantes. 541.729 €, dont 52.812 € de Gilead. Est-ce un hasard si on nous apprend que le coup de téléphone anonyme pour menacer Didier Raoult, s’il persistait avec l’hydroxychloroquine, est parti du téléphone portable du service d’infectiologie du CHU de Nantes, dont François Raffi est chef de service ? Sûrement une pure coïncidence.

N°2. Le Pr Jacques Reynes de Montpellier. 291.741 €, dont 48.006 € de Gilead et 64.493 € d’Abbvie. Or Jacques Reynes a été sollicité par Olivier Véran pour piloter l’essai clinique du protocole Raoult à Montpellier alors qu’il est en même temps le coordinateur national de deux études sur le remdesivir pour le compte de Gilead. Il n’avait sûrement pas eu le temps d’envoyer au Ministre sa Déclaration publique d’intérêts (DPI).

N°3. La Pr Karine Lacombe de Paris – Saint Antoine. 212.209 €, dont 28.412 € de Gilead. Elle est sur la dernière marche du podium, mais l’essentiel est d’y être. Il n’y a pas que le podium avec les Ministres à Matignon.

N°4. Le Pr Jean Michel Molina de Paris – Saint Louis. 184.034 €, dont 26.950 € de Gilead et 22.864 € d’Abbvie. Or Jean-Michel Molina est co-auteur d’un article publié dans Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses sur quelques cas, pour dire que l’hydroxychloroquine ne marche pas. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses est le journal officiel de la SPILF (Société de Pathologie infectieuse de Langue Française).

N°5. Le Pr Gilbert Deray de Paris. 160.649€. Une belle somme pour un néphrologue qui très présent sur les plateaux télés. Attention le remdesivir peut être très toxique pour les reins.

N°6. Le Pr Jean-Paul Stahl de Grenoble. 100.358 €, dont 4.552 € d’Abbvie. A noter que cette somme n’a pas été déclarée sur sa DPI. Or Jean-Paul Stahl est rédacteur en chef du journal Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses. C’est lui qui a comparé le Plaquénil* au papier toilette.

N°7. Le Pr Christian Chidiac de Lyon. 90.741 €, dont 16.563 € de Gilead. Or Christian Chidiac est président de la Commission Maladies transmissibles du Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique qui a rendu le fameux Avis interdisant l’hydroxychloroquine, sauf aux mourants et demandant d’inclure les malades dans les essais officiels (donc Discovery). Son adjointe, la Pr Florence Ader, citée ci-dessous, est l’investigatrice principale de Discovery. Pure coïncidence.

N°8. Le Pr Bruno Hoen de l’Institut Pasteur. 82.610 €, dont 52.012 € de Gilead. A noter que sur sa DPI, il a noté n’avoir reçu que 1000 € de Gilead ! Or Bruno Hoen a attaqué l’équipe de Marseille dans un courriel du 18 mars 2020, partagé avec tous les infectiologues.

N°9. Le Pr Pierre Tattevin de Rennes. 79.956 €, dont 15.028 € de Gilead. A noter que sur sa DPI, comme son prédécesseur, il a noté n’avoir reçu que 1000 € de Gilead ! Ca doit être le surmenage. Or Pierre Tattevin est président de la SPILF. Cette Société savante a attaqué l’hydroxychloroquine pour encourager les inclusions dans Discovery, ainsi que dans les autres études par tirage au sort avec des groupes de patients non traités (études randomisées).

N°10. Le Pr Vincent Le Moing de Montpellier. 68.435 €, dont 4.776 € de Gilead et 9.642 € d’Abbvie. Or Vincent Le Moing pilote, avec son patron Jacques Reynes cité ci-dessus, l’essai clinique de Montpellier.

N°11. Le Dr Alain Makinson de Montpellier. 63.873 €, dont 15.054 € de Gilead. Or Alain Makinson participe à l’étude de Montpellier avec Jacques Reynes et Vincent Le Moing. Un beau trio. Montpellier est très bien représentée.

N°12. François-Xavier Lescure de Paris – Bichat. 28.929 €, dont 8.621 € de Gilead. Or François-Xavier Lescure est l’adjoint de notre célèbre Yazdan Yazdanpanah qui est dans le Conseil scientifique Covid-19. Il a publiquement critiqué l’équipe de Marseille pour discréditer l’hydroxychloroquine. Il est co-auteur de l’étude très contestable sur le remdésivir de Gilead, publiée dans le New England Journal of Medicine. Or cette étude n’a aucune méthodologie.

N°13. La Pr Florence Ader de Lyon. 11.842 € , dont 3.750 € de Gilead. Or Florence Ader est l’investigatrice principale de Discovery.

Des nouvelles de Tchernobyl

(Un ami me fait part d’un article : où est passé l’uranium que l’on supposait présent dans le réacteur n°5 de Tchernobyl, mais qui n’y est pas, ainsi que vient de le révéler une visite par drone)

Il est assez stupéfiant en effet que de l’uranium ait pu se balader sans que personne ne sache à tout moment où il se trouvait : dans un dépôt ? dans le camion ? dans la cour de la centrale ? en place dans le réacteur ? et au fait, qui s’en occupe ? mais il commence à se savoir que nous sommes gouvernés, et pas seulement à l’est, par des médiocres irresponsables et corrompus. Et même, plus récemment, par des pervers. Nous en avons des exemples plus récents et plus proches que Tchernobyl. Je te renvoie à n’importe quelle vidéo de Jacques Attali ou de Philippe Alexandre parlant des questions globales de ressources et de ‘management’ des peuples pour confirmation de  ce que Macron a en tête comme référence et comme projet implicite lorsqu’il dit qu’il y a des ‘gens de rien’ et des activités ‘non indispensables’. Cela éclaire la façon dont on a traité l’épidémie à coronavirus dans les maisons de retraite.

Pour la ‘catastrophe’ de Tchernobyl, et toutes ses répétitions possibles et même probables, je dois dire que cela a cessé de me soucier. L’expérience semble prouver qu’au niveau des systèmes écologiques globaux, sinon de tel ou tel individu ou telle ou telle espèce, la vie est compatible avec la radio-activité. Les environs de Tchernobyl, la ‘zone’, interdite à l’homme par décision administrative davantage que par impératif sanitaire absolu, est paraît-il devenue une réserve naturelle pour les espèces ailleurs menacées par la présence oppressante et excluante de l’homme. Dans un contexte où l’exponentielle de la croissance démographique humaine a carrément l’allure qui précède immédiatement une redescente vertigineuse, l’essentiel de la biomasse planétaire étant désormais composée de la viande humaine et de celle de nos animaux domestiques, nous n’aurons bientôt plus pour ressource que de nous entre-dévorer. Dans ce contexte, ni les radiations échappées de nos centrales ni la covid ne sont de taille à participer significativement au maelstrom de morts violentes qui s’annonce. Que des accidents comme Tchernobyl ménagent un peu d’espace résiduel pour les rats, les loups et les corbeaux ne peut pas être décrit comme une catastrophe majeure. Attends un peu de voir ce que cela va donner lorsque des gens comme Macron et Erdogan vont se sentir totalement en capacité de céder à leurs instincts primitifs !

Idiots pointus

Commentaire sur un débat entre le professeur Raoult et un interlocuteur tombé de la lune.

Il me semble que Raoult y est convaincant et que l’allemand en face est complètement vaseux, et même en totale perdition, puisque venu pour exposer le problème de l’antibiorésistance il finit par argumenter que le vrai problème c’est l’accès à l’eau potable et aux antibiotiques ! Il n’a évidemment aucune réponse disponible, lui qui vient dire que les gens meurent à cause de l’antibiorésistance, face au médecin qui lui dit que le nombre des malades qu’il a vu mourir d’antibiorésistance est voisin de zéro, et qu’ayant enquêté sur le sujet auprès de ses confrères praticiens, il a trouvé que leurs observations recoupaient les siennes. Le plus étonnant est la politesse de Raoult qui ne relève pas l’absurdité de son interlocuteur. moins étonnante est la sottise de la journaliste qui ne la perçoit pas. Mais elle doit se dire comme presque tout le monde qu’un Français a forcément tort face à la science allemande !

Ce débat permet de comprendre ce que nous avons vu depuis avec la propagande gouvernementale sur les morts du covid : au mépris des faits, une plongée délibérée dans la vérité alternative des statistiques truquées et des calculs prédictifs aléatoires. C’est le fond de la querelle actuelle à propos du coronavirus : l’incommunicabilité entre des praticiens qui soignent des malades et des théoriciens qui observent le paysage terrestre à partir d’un satellite orbitant à trente kilomètres et à travers des lentilles sales. Avec le covid, nous avons, depuis cet été, puisqu’il faut tenir à bout de bras l’épidémie morte jusqu’à la mise sur le marché du vaccin, la grimpée fantastique des ‘cas’, et celle moins fantastique des décès, parce que quand ça veut pas, ça veut pas. Pour les ‘cas’, on a tourné à fond le bouton de la machine à PCR. Pour les décès, comme il n’y en a pas assez, on s’est occupé d’en inventer en falsifiant les certificats d’inhumation. En temps normal la case ‘cause du décès’ est remplie sans beaucoup d’investigations. Dans les cas que je connais, le médecin a demandé à la famille et on s’est entendu sur ‘arrêt cardiaque’. Mais c’était avant. Désormais, en cas de doute, on met ‘covid’ : et cela n’empêchera pas un binoclard en costume cravate de calculer au poil près sur ce genre de rapports combien de morts par covid pourrait coûter l’autorisation de vendre des sapins de noël, si on se contamine plus dans le métro qu’en ramassant des champignons en forêt, si papy doit manger sa bûche de noël à la cuisine, et ainsi de suite.

Mais les calculs aboutiraient à des conclusions fausses même s’ils étaient fondés sur des observations précises et des chiffres non falsifiés.

J’ai émis il y a quelque temps un commentaire que j’ai fait sur le site ‘Les Crises’ à propos d’un article intitulé quelque chose comme : ‘L’hydroxychloroquine ne peut pas être efficace contre le coronavirus’ ( visible dans le texte ‘mon covid’ sur ce site). Suit une démonstration relative à la concentration efficace au niveau intracellulaire, qui n’est certes pas plus sotte qu’autre chose. Mais je me suis arrêté sur la formulation ‘ne peut pas’, qui à mon avis fait sortir de la pratique scientifique. J’explique pourquoi, à mon avis. En gros : énormément d’effets se produisent dans la nature qui ne devraient pas se produire selon les lois de la science ! Et c’est même pour cela que la science est la science : c’est à dire qu’elle progresse sans jamais être achevée ni certaine. Si l’observation contredit la prédiction calculée, c’est évidemment le calcul qui est à revoir. Sur le proverbe qui veut que tous les modèles soient faux, quoique certains soient utiles, je dirais donc que la grande question est : utiles à quoi ? Utiles à qui ? Il me semble que tous les Ian Ferguson qui grouillent dans la biologie mathématisée sont tout simplement de dangereux dogmatiques, et s’il y a lieu de les rapprocher d’autres spéculations intellectuelles en matière de fiabilité et de rapport au réel, il faut voir du côté de l’économie ou de la théologie byzantine, que je mets personnellement sur le même plan. C’est ce dogmatisme qui leur vaut la reconnaissance enthousiaste de nos despotes pseudo-sanitaires. Des idiots instruits, mais des idiots utiles.

Un article majeur sur la corruption de la science par les industries de santé


Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

BMJ 2020; 371 doi: (Published 13 November 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4425 Read our latest coverage of the coronavirus outbreak

  1. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor

When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency.

The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report. Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”

Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19.8 The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests. It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.

The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers. Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office. Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public. But even that approach retains public and professional trust only if science is available for scrutiny and free of political interference, and if the system is transparent and not compromised by conflicts of interest.

Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump’s government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.15 Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas.

The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines.17 Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.

Once transparency and accountability are established as norms, individuals employed by government should ideally only work in areas unrelated to their competing interests. Expertise is possible without competing interests. If such a strict rule becomes impractical, minimum good practice is that people with competing interests must not be involved in decisions on products and policies in which they have a financial interest.

Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement.19

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

Politicisation of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies.20 The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.

Covid et corruption politique

(lettre à un ami sur la privatisation de l’enseignement vétérinaire)

Cher ami,

Tu écris “il y a un marché et la nature a horreur du vide”. Il faut rapporter cette affaire qui touche aux ENVT à de multiples autres, et la multiplicité des cas dessine un tableau d’ensemble. Tu as identifié la franc-maçonnerie comme la force principale derrière cette entreprise, et ce n’est pas moi qui vais te contredire sur ce point. La dérive mafieuse de cette société secrète est bien connue, même si je n’avais pas de noms en tête concernant son emprise sur les écoles vétérinaires. Je me souviens en effet des cours minables de Godfrain à Toulouse, dont la nullité pédagogique l’aurait fait sortir sous les huées de n’importe laquelle des classes de collège ou de lycée auxquelles j’ai eu affaire dans ma carrière de prof. Ceci dit, je ne crois pas que se débarrasser des francs-maçons suffirait à nous tirer d’affaire. C’est une formation française alors que le problème est international, et le patron de Gilead n’est probablement pas franc-maçon. La promotion des médiocres et leur assaut contre la liberté de la recherche en défense des intérêts matériels d’une industrie sans scrupules est devenue spectaculaire avec la venue au premier plan de personnages comme Agnès Buzyn et Olivier Véran : mais il n’est pas certain qu’ils soient tous à rassembler dans la même chapelle. Il y a un phénomène à analyser de façon systémique, et qui produit les mêmes effets dans de nombreux pays. Je pense qu’il y aurait une étude statistique à mener sur la corrélation entre les mesures sanitaires des différents pays et le niveau de la corruption qui y règne. Mais les réseaux d’influence diffèrent d’un pays à l’autre et d’une époque à l’autre. Pour une dernière remarque : le régime de Vichy avait cassé la franc-maçonnerie, mais cela n’avait fait que donner libre cours à sa propre classe corrompue, lancée dans la spoliation et la revente à grande échelle des biens juifs. Un sujet rarement évoqué, et qui était pourtant un fait économique majeur de l’époque. Rien ne champignonne aussi vite qu’une classe politico-mafieuse.

Dénationalisation des écoles vétérinaires

(Un ami vétérinaire me répercute un courriel sur l’autorisation des écoles vétérinaires privées, texte présenté par un député intéressé à placer de l’argent dans ce secteur)

Cher ami,

Je ne suis pas étonné de ce que fait ce gouvernement. Si tu lis mes écrits sur les années trente, tu connais ma philosophie politique : en France les élites ont toujours trahi, et en général pour des raisons sordides, et au bénéfice de puissances étrangères. C’est le cas de figure à nouveau, et de façon caricaturale lorsque l’Union européenne pourrie jusqu’à la moelle achète pour des millions des doses inutiles de Remdesivir l’avant-veille de la publication des études scientifiques qui en établissent l’inutilité et même la nocivité. Et ce n’est qu’un exemple entre mille. Depuis 1983 et le tournant européiste-atlantiste de Mitterrand, élu avec les voix communistes mais pour se jeter dans les bras de Reagan et Thatcher, la technocratie parisienne, vendue aux grands monopoles internationaux, casse tout ce qui fait nation : tout simplement parce que cela rapporte. Or il y a longtemps que je sais à quel point le secteur éducatif est une cible pour le capital, comme d’ailleurs la santé : des secteurs mis hors marché d’une façon à leurs yeux scandaleuse par l’existence d’une école publique et d’un système de santé public. Les écoles vétérinaires sont au croisement de ces deux secteurs. Cela ne leur laisse aucune chance. Les détenteurs de capitaux libres et flottants sont de plus en plus riches et les Français de plus en plus pauvres. C’est un cas de vases communicants. Et ils ne seront jamais rassasiés, car le seul objectif concevable dans la compétition échevelée où ils se situent c’est tout pour eux et rien à côté. Maintenant, un peuple qui acclame ses ennemis et les met au pouvoir mérite de disparaître. C’est exactement ce qui se passe. Tous les crétins masqués manipulés par la peur que l’on voit circuler en ce moment méritent un peu de tomber sur des médecins en carton qui les soignent au paracétamol en attendant de les intuber à mort…. L’Histoire est tragique mais on peut aussi faire le choix d’en rire !