GIVING you the wonderful Ivor Cummins’s latest Viral Reality Update. You can find it here and it’s a must-watch.
He starts by knocking on the head the much-repeated trope that lockdown sceptics claimed there wouldn’t be a second Covid wave. Not so.
Taking us back to his September 8 update, he shows he predicted this – and how suppression and lockdown might cause more Covid mortality in the winter resurgence as an unintended consequence, as they indeed appear to have done.
He explains: Forced lockdown effects are not limited to collateral damage; they impact on excess winter Covid deaths too (which looks to be why they have not been seen so far in Sweden) and on the development of virus strains.
Strains, he tells us, evolve at home as the result of suppression – they are not flown in from abroad. Cummins reminds us of Dr John Lee’s attempt to raise this issue last May.
But perhaps the most remarkable and damning part of this particular episode starts at about 12 minutes in, when he explains something so simple yet a truth not expressed like this before. This is his observation of the abandonment of decades of Western science by our and other governments in favour of a distinctly unscientific (in Western terms) response to the Covid pandemic. For all the the Government’s protestations about ‘following the science’, this is exactly what they have not been doing. Cummins sets out the wealth of scientific evidence on pandemic management that should have been leveraged, graphically (actually and metaphorically speaking) presenting what he terms the ‘Scientific Crisis Management’ approach, based on years of Western science experience. This is the rational approach we should have taken rather than a Chinese Communist Party version of science adopted by the WHO in 2020 and then foisted on the Western world.
It’s the one Sweden essentially adopted and which, up until 2019, was the World Health Organisation’s recommendation.
Cummins details what the Western version would have acknowledged, like a 0.2 fatality rate over a longer period time and lower for under 70s, an acceptance that coronavirus was ‘within the envelope of severe flu’, and practical elements like promoting community immunity, protecting the susceptible but avoiding collateral damage. It would, he said, have taken unintended consequences into account; on the basis of 40 years research on masks it would not have put in draconian polices that undermined liberty and individual autonomy. Rapid antigen technology (not PCR tests) would take people out of the system who were infectious very fast. Building fever type, ICU hospital capacity and prioritising emergency ICU cross-training of medical staff as well introducing proven treatments and prioritising public health (Vit D etc) he identifies as key aspects to this approach. Yet we saw little to none of this. It was the quite different ‘Corporate Management’ approach that our government instead chose to adopt.
This ignored years of tried and tested Western science in favour of a Chinese Communist Party version of science that hinged on lockdown and which, inter alia, completely ignored the age differential of Covid’s impact. While its advocates ‘screeched’ against any comparisons with flu they failed to acknowledge the fact that covid simply was not significant risk to younger sections of the population.
Cummins’s expose of this denial of Western science is all the more shocking for its obvious truth, as he takes the viewer through the empirical evidence point by point so steadfastly ignored by our current health czars – from papers demonstrating collateral health and other damage, to the science on masks and the impact of suppression on strain development.
As the government and its advisors turned their backs on decades of cumulative knowledge, on possible treatments and tailored responses all sidelined in favour of one sledgehammer lockdown policy that removed our freedoms, exposed the vulnerable elderly was, as you will see, all on the basis of a single piece of data from China.
Watch Viral Reality Update and forward it to your MP in the hope it might wake him or her up to the abandonment of reason and rationality they have been party to.
