Government and WHO CORONA Lies

Guest Post by Dr. Robert Malone

This is not subtle. Incompetence or Nefarious Evil Intent? Hard to tell the difference.

As the sitting POTUS and his entourage is about to head over to the UN and WHO for a little quality time and a vote on circumventing the constitution, this seems a good time to briefly review the current state of affairs.

Ask yourself, have these people earned our trust? Do they have any right to set and police global health policies? Apparently Joe Biden (or whoever is his current puppet master) and Tony Fauci think so.

A brief list of some of the COVID lies we have heard over the last couple of years (with thanks and acknowledgment to Dr. Scott Atlas):

1. SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has a far higher fatality rate than influenza virus by several orders of magnitude
2. Everyone has a significant risk of death from COVID-19.
3. No one has immunity, because this virus is new (“novel”) and so expedited vaccine development and deployment is essential.
4. Everyone is dangerous and spreads the infection
5. Asymptomatic people are major drivers of the spread of disease.
6. Locking down- closing schools and businesses, confining people to their homes, stopping non-COVID medical care, and eliminating travel will stop/eliminate the virus.
7. Masks will protect everyone and stop the spread.
8. Immune protection can only be obtained with a vaccine.
9. Natural immunity conferred by infection and recovery is short lived and inferior to vaccine-induced immunity.

Who was responsible for these lies?

1. Deborah Birx (who was trained by Anthony Fauci).She wrote virtually all official White House guidance to state Governors.This usurped constitutional authority of states to set public health policies.
2. Anthony Fauci
3. Francis Collins

What were their policy decisions?

1. “Flatten the Curve”… Then “Stop all cases”
2. No masks. All masked.
3. Lockdowns: School closures, business shutdowns, limits on medical care, a host of restrictions, mandates and quarantines.
4. Perverse financial incentives for hospitals to over diagnose COVID-19, over use Remdesivir and ventilation, and cause a massive wave of iatrogenic (drug/doctor caused) excess death.
5. Stop early treatment and block repurposed drug use.
6. “come back to the hospital when your lips are blue”

What was the effect of their policy decisions?

1. Virus? >1,000,000 American deaths attributed to the virus. One of this highest mortality rates per capita in the world.
2. Lockdowns? Caused massive deaths and severely harmed millions of families and children, especially working class and poor.

The better alternative was known by March, 2020, known as “targeted protection”

Ioannidis STAT March 17 2020.

Katz, NY Times March 20 2020

Atlas, Washington Times, March 26, 2020

Kulldorf, CNN em Espanol 20 Aug 2020 (he could not get it published in English..)

What were the alternative policies proposed?

1. Increase the protection of the high-risk groups with an unprecedented focus
2. Reopen society, including medical care, schools, businesses and hospitals
3. Carefully monitor hospital capacity and supplement when needed

This set of policy recommendations was codified on October 04, 2020 as the Great Barrington Declaration.

According to Wikipedia:

“The Great Barrington Declaration was an open letter published in October 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.[1][2] It claimed harmful COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of “focused protection”, by which those most at risk could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise continued functioning normally.[3] The envisaged result was herd immunity in three months as SARS-CoV-2 swept through.[1][2][3] Authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, it was drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, signed there on 4 October 2020, and published on 5 October.[2][4] The document presumes without evidence that the disease burden of mass infection can be tolerated, that any infection confers long term sterilizing immunity, and makes no mention of physical distancing, masks, contact tracing,[5] or long COVID, which has left patients suffering from debilitating symptoms months after the initial infection.”

Why did the public believe the Lockdowners”?

1. Culture of trust (of the credentialed class)
2. Fear (actively weaponized against the public by the government, WHO, and legacy media)
3. Demonization of opposing views (globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign)
4. Legacy media, social media, and political campaigns

Key messaging to support the lies.

1. If you are against lockdowns, you are selfish and choosing the economy over lives
2. If you are against lockdowns, you are for allowing the infection to spread without mitigation and therefore in favor of unnecessary and preventable deaths

Active Destruction and Denial of fundamental public health ethics.

“If a school is implementing a testing strategy, testing should be offered on a voluntary basis. It is unethical and illegal to test someone who does not want to be tested, including students whose parents or guardians do not want them to be tested”

CDC, October 13, 2020

Mandating vaccines for Children

“But we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes.”

Eric Rubin, MD. Editor in Chief, New England Journal of Medicine. October 26, 2021

FDA Advisory meeting on vaccine approval in children.

How to restore trust in Science?

1. Admit errors in public forums
2. Change Leadership
3. Strengthen conflict of interest rules and add term limits on government agency leadership positions
4. Clarify definition of “public health emergency” with strict time limits, adding legislative action requirement to extend
5. Restore appropriate roles of health agencies to advise, rather than set rules
6. Fact check the media
7. Decentralize research funding
8. Introduce new transparency and accountability
   1. De anonymize reviews of papers and grants
   2. Increase independent oversight to government agencies and committees
   3. Evaluate universities regarding ethics, free debate
   4. New training programs, including logic and ethics for journalists, doctors, and scientists