As most of you know, I have been saying since March of 2020 that the lockdowns are a huge mistake. The novel coronavirus was not very deadly, as was obvious from the comparatively low death toll on the Diamond Princess. Unfortunately, society responded with complete panic. People were placed on incubators and sick patients were discharged from hospitals to be sent to nursing homes, in anticipation of a wave of sick young people that never ocurred.
When you allow viruses like this to run their natural course, they tend to suffer mutations that reduce their fitness because they’re not under strong selective pressure, they entered the land of milk and honey where a virus can grow lazy and feeble. A mutation that reduces its fitness won’t stop the virus from infecting new people, because there is so little pre-existing immunity and so many opportunities to jump into a new host. You can find multiple studies about this, where they found mutated versions of the virus that were far less dangerous.
On the other hand, when we make it very difficult for this virus to jump from one person into another person, we change the evolutionary pressures on this virus: Besides receiving much more time and opportunities to develop new mutated variants, for this virus to spread from one person to another person will now necessitate it becoming more infectious. One effective way to become more infectious is when the body simply produces more copies of the virus, for a longer period of time. That of course also leads to a greater toll on your health.
What we have done with the lockdowns, is basically an unprecedented medical experiment: What happens to a new virus, when we decide to prohibit healthy people from interacting with each other? We can apply various theoretical models in an effort to find out what happens, but the reality is that nobody truly knows. What we do know is that large pandemics have mostly disappeared since the world became globalized: The last big flu pandemic was in the late 1960’s. After that episode we entered the era of globalism and there have been no big pandemics.
Simultaneously, we have also embarked on another very strange massive experiment: We decided that we are going to vaccinate everyone with an experimental vaccine that does not deliver sterilizing immunity, in the middle of an ongoing pandemic. According to Geert van den Bossche, this is almost guaranteed to lead to the development of all sorts of new variants. The people who have been vaccinated and have never been naturally exposed to COVID-19, are expected by van den Bosssche to carry the highest risk when the new vaccine resistant variants begin to spread.
Of course the really unfortunate part is that for coronaviruses, we know that poor antibodies can be worse than having no antibodies, because of a phenomenon known as antibody dependent enhancement. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it:
ADE was a concern during late clinical stages of vaccine development against COVID-19.
ADE was observed in animal studies during the development of coronavirus vaccines, but as of 14 December 2020 no incidents had been observed in human trials. “Overall, while ADE is a theoretical possibility with a COVID-19 vaccine, clinical trials in people so far have not shown that participants who received the vaccine have a higher rate of severe illness compared to participants who did not receive the vaccine.”
That’s not very reassuring, is it? “Although we know it’s a theoretical concern, we haven’t seen anything bad happen yet.” Is not a very reassuring statement, when you consider that the whole problem is that people worry these vaccines could make the virus more deadly for vaccinated people, after mutated versions of this virus will start showing up everywhere this fall.
Finally, there’s another issue I have encountered. Broadly speaking, there are two types of vaccines against COVID-19. On the one hand, there are the vaccines that generate immunity against the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to the ACE2 receptor and generally mutates the most. On the other hand, there are the vaccines that are traditional, in the sense that they just expose you to an inactivated version of the whole virus. With these traditional vaccines, if your immunity against the spike protein is useless because of mutations, you should still have immunity against other structural proteins of this virus.
So guess what sort of vaccine the Chinese are mostly producing and guess what sort of vaccine we are giving to people in the Western world? The Chinese government is mainly giving its people traditional inactivated vaccines composed of the whole virus, with an exception for a handful of people in the military apparently who are receiving Western style Spike protein targeted vaccines. That has me wondering whether their military personnel is being used as a control group, guinea pigs that allow the government to see what happens.
Overall, I’m of the opinion that the Chinese government, which leads the only economy that saw any GDP growth in 2020, knows a couple of things about corona viruses that we in the West don’t know. After all, the Chinese government, as we now know from leaked documents, has spent a lot of effort manipulating corona viruses and looking into the potential for weaponizing these viruses. They also seem quite eager to help us enforce our lockdowns, just look for example at how they help us out by giving free drones to the police to spy on the public.
I think that the Chinese government is mainly filled with people who are much smarter than government officials in Europe and America. After all, in a democratic nation, it’s more important that you’re socially competent as a government official, as you are ultimately accountable to the public. In a dictatorship, government officials are not accountable to the public, so government officials will be more inclined to select each other based on competence.
I don’t claim to know exactly what is going to happen, it is difficult to predict what will happen in an unprecedented situation. However, I have a question for you: How much faith do you have in your health authorities? In februari of 2020, they were telling you that you’re a racist if you don’t visit Chinese restaurants. They told you not to wear a mask, then one, then two and now back to one. And most importantly, they told you you’re a conspiracy theorist if you think the virus came from a lab, only to backpedal later on.
How well have these lockdowns that they recommended to you worked so far? The last time I checked, most people ended up infected after all and now we’re just left with a massive backlog of people who need hospital care for diseases like cancer but couldn’t visit the hospitals because the nurses were making videos to kill time as they waited for COVID patients to show up.
And here’s the biggest question I’m left with: How come they refuse to recommend vulnerable people to take vitamin D supplements? Apparently, there is “insufficient evidence” so far that vitamin D supplementation protects people. That’s cool. So how much evidence is there that shutting down Western civilization is going to protect people?
How much evidence do we need to recommend a vitamin to people that most people are already deficient in, a vitamin that reduces your risk of cancer, depression and bone fractures when you take high doses? Why is the government so eager to put up signs everywhere telling me to stay home, but very uneager to put up signs everywhere, reminding people that they evolved as bipedal apes on the plains of Africa, constantly exposed to sunlight?
I’m asking you a simple question: What have these people accomplished exactly so far, that should earn them our trust? They sent sick people into nursing homes, they placed talking people on ventilators, they told you to stay inside and watch Netflix rather than going to the beach and getting sun on your skin.
The last really big pandemic was in 1918, people back then wore masks. Why can’t they give you a straight consistent answer 100 years later, to answer whether masks works or not? Isn’t that the kind of basic question Dr. Fauci should be able to give you a consistent straightforward answer to?
It seems to me like these are the sorts of questions I would rather have a clear answer to than “what happens if I swap the receptor binding domain on the spike protein of this bat coronavirus with the receptor binding domain of some other bat coronavirus and insert an artificial furin cleavage site?”. To me that seems like a pretty easy priority: Let’s first figure out once and for all whether vitamin D and masks work well against coronaviruses, before we start spending millions of dollars, building all sorts of new coronaviruses in a lab in Wuhan.
This is the issue I’m running into: Given their track record so far, when every “expert” is simultaneously telling me I need to have an experimental vaccine injected into my arm and trying to bribe me with a free donut, the only thing I genuinely want to be doing is running for the hills.
Given the circumstances we currently live under, I have a lot more trust in someone like Geert van den Bossche, who is willing to end his prestigious career because he expects we are going to be generating more deadly variants when we vaccinate everyone. It’s impossible for me to determine whether he is right or wrong, but he demonstrates a degree of integrity that is clearly absent among the Cuomo’s and Fauci’s of this world.
My personal belief is that this pandemic could have been a non-event, if we had rejected the lockdowns and focused on giving vulnerable people prophylactic treatments. That’s how we handled the big pandemics of the 1950’s and 1960’s: When hospitals were overloaded we treated people at home. It was ugly for a few months in some places, but people didn’t panic and simply moved on with their lives after a while.
We had a pretty clear image early on, when it comes to what sort of things seem to work against this virus: Give people vitamin D, vitamin K2, vitamin B12, zinc and magnesium and your chances of getting ill are dramatically reduced. Regularly rinse your nose with salt water, to reduce the viral load your body has to deal with. These are very basic principles you can teach to people and now we have knowledge of new treatments like Ivermectin that work well when you treat people as soon as they notice they’re infected.
But for whatever reason, that’s just not what we’re doing. We decided we were going to try to stop people from getting infected, when it’s abundantly clear that this doesn’t work and merely gives the virus more time to try out all sorts of new mutations as it seeks to infect everyone. We then give everyone an experimental vaccine, against the particular fragment of the virus that mutates most rapidly. We do this even though we know that the outcome can actually become worse, when the body generates imperfect antibodies that come in contact with a mutated strain of the virus.
My personal belief is that van den Bossche is probably right: This giant experiment is going to blow up in our faces and during this winter we will see an explosion of all sorts of new variants, with such diversity that it simply won’t be possible to make effective vaccines against them. Many people will die, those at highest risk will be the people who have never been naturally exposed to the virus and subsequently received the vaccine.
We’re already noticing in the United Kingdom that “vaccinate everyone and it goes away” is not really an effective solution. The vaccines don’t create sterilizing immunity, it can still show up in your body and you will still spread it around. For now there is no surge in deaths in the UK, but that can change if the virus sufficiently changes during the next few months to the degree where artificially induced immunity doesn’t work anymore.
Of course it’s also possible that this is overly pessimistic, I certainly hope so. However, the simple fact that the Chinese government that caused the spread of this virus is not planning to administer these vaccines to their own population and sticking to a traditional vaccine based on a whole inactivated virus is ultimately enough reason for me to decide that I’m going to rely on the immune system I inherited from nature: I’ll take vitamin D, I’ll eat raw oysters for the zinc and vitamin B12, I will drink coconut water for the magnesium, I’ll exercise and I will rinse my nose with salt water.
What confuses me still is why some jurisdictions took different measures, some quite drastically. Sometimes it was even subnational jurisdictions taking a different road then the central government. That second part is especially odd, hoping to get some real answers some day.
I do want to get vaccinated to help the world fight this terrible pandemic.
Pandemic of mass hysteria, that is.
But before I get vaccinated I will be waiting for one of these three events to happen:
a) Current vaccines are approved in 2023, shown to work against all variants and relatively safe for me, especially in the long term;
b) A viral vector or inactivated virus vaccine becomes available in Europe, or
c) They make my life impossible with all sorts of things that I am not allowed to do because I did not get a jab.
For the rest:
– This is a relatively harmless illness for the largest majority of the population;
– Shutting down the world takes crimes against humanity to a whole new level;
– Doctors should at least try to treat it before they force everybody to take untested vaccines;
– And yes, I have been wondering about the evolutionary pressures on the virus since the first lockdown, and after it became evident that the vaccination campaign would proceed too slowly.
TL;DR you’re racist. Got it.
This is just too pathetic for me to even laugh at.
You ever hear anything legitimate on treating flu/infection like symptoms from the vaccine in the elderly? Grandma is not doing so good.
“We decided we were going to try to stop people from getting infected, when it’s abundantly clear that this doesn’t work and merely gives the virus more time to try out all sorts of new mutations as it seeks to infect everyone.”
I would think the number of mutations that occur is a function of the number of times the virus copies itself, not simply of time. Therefore, those mutations would have the same probability of occurring when everyone is infected in a shorter time frame.
Your statement might be true if circumventing the immune system can only be achieved with a series of mutations, each of which requires a non-immune hosts to be infected, but that is not what I would call “abundantly clear”.
Also, while coming from a mainstream media source, I think you might find the following article to be an interesting read: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2021/03/24/check-het-is-zeer-onwaarschijnlijk-dat-immune-escape-door-coron/
My explanation for the inanity of the coronavirus policy is currently as follows:
– Covid-19 is quite deadly for old and sick people.
– Initial ignorance in March 2020 and continued media exaggeration spark fear in population.
– Politicians defer to virologist and immunologists.
– These experts, while reasonably knowledgeable in their domain, focus too narrowly on Covid and loose sight of the ramifications of their measures. This makes the “cure” worse than the disease for the average person.
– Continued fear of the general populace induces docility, acceptance of erosion of civil rights. Negative effects of corona measures (social isolation, anxiety, sedentary lifestyle) lead to vicious circle.
Something I don’t understand: I would have expected that once the old and sick had been vaccinated, normal life would once again be possible, but this has not happened. My gut says modern western society is so risk-averse that anything will be tried to prevent negative medical outcomes, all while ignoring the huge number of other bad consequences. It reminds me of a terminal cancer patient being treated to increase his life span by half a year, while his quality of life is close to zero.
Thanks, I think you’re pretty spot on overall.
“It reminds me of a terminal cancer patient being treated to increase his life span by half a year, while his quality of life is close to zero.”
Yes, and it costs a lot too, so for example no food or clothes or basic stuff can be bought for the terminal cancer patient’s friends.
But the terminal cancer patient lives a little bit longer.
“I would think the number of mutations that occur is a function of the number of times the virus copies itself, not simply of time. Therefore, those mutations would have the same probability of occurring when everyone is infected in a shorter time frame.”
I think it’s right that the number of mutations is linearly related to the number of times the virus is copied, but that’s just total number of mutations, how they are distributed matters.
With faster transmission, it’s a wider “family tree”, there are fewer generations, and there are more in each generation. Because transmission is more parallel, the average number of “ancestors” each virion has is lower.
With slower transmission, it’s a narrower “family tree”, there are more generations, and this more serial transmission means that mutations *accumulate* more. The average number of “ancestors” each virion has is higher, so the mutations occur along a longer chain of replication, each one passing down the mutations they’ve accumulated. This concentrates the mutations, allowing a higher chance of multiple mutations interacting in the same genome, giving a wider possible range of phenotypes.
In the extreme cases:
infinite r-naught: the first person infected infects everyone else directly. That’s one chance to mutate.
r-naught = 1: each person infects only one other person. Each mutation gets added, cumulatively, each time.
(That’s a simplification–there are multiple generations of a virus in a single infection with a chance to mutate each time)
>With slower transmission, it’s a narrower “family tree”, there are more generations, and this more serial transmission means that mutations *accumulate* more. The average number of “ancestors” each virion has is higher, so the mutations occur along a longer chain of replication, each one passing down the mutations they’ve accumulated. This concentrates the mutations, allowing a higher chance of multiple mutations interacting in the same genome, giving a wider possible range of phenotypes.
Yes, this is what I have been getting at. I was too lazy to explain it myself though.