TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @A1an_M
@A1an_M - Alan
During the coronapanic it was routine for those of us in the sceptic camp to be attacked online for being conspiracy theorists and for us to be pestered by the Big Pharma apologists to provide "references" to prove our points (as well as being censored and cancelled by people working for our own government). No reference was ever good enough for them of course, but during that time I built up a huge archive of impeccably sourced information pointing directly to the whole thing being a massive scam. Where possible I'd go back and analyse the source data, rather than rely on a newspaper article or some third-hand commentator. I thought I'd collect together the top few pieces of evidence and put them in a thread here for future reference in an attempt to make sure the whole thing doesn't get brushed under the carpet under the banner of "It was all Tony Fauci's fault for doing gain of function research". The scandal is so much bigger and wider than that. So here it is 🧵: 1/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 1 - Prof John Ioannidis estimates of the Infection Fatality Rate of COVID. John Ioannidis, world-leading epidemiologist from Stanford (or he was at that time, his name was soon dragged through the mud), used seroprevalence data (indicating how many people had been exposed to SARS-COV-2) from studies around the world (32 different locations) to estimate the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 (how many people will die on average in a group of people infected with the virus). He concluded that the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% and that for people under 70, the median was 0.05% (1 in 2,000), showing that the virus was overwhelmingly a risk only to the elderly and even then, little more of a risk than seasonal influenza. (As a comparison, the IFR of seasonal influenza is about 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) across all age groups). These rates (from the real world) were far lower than those used in Imperial College modelling and quoted in the media by politicians. An early indication that the whole thing was being overblown. And these estimates were produced very early on in the "pandemic" before the virus had mutated to become even less deadly. Ioannidis study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3 2/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 2 - the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship Further evidence that SARS-COV-2 was primarily a threat only to the very elderly was provided by the outcomes for passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. A passenger who had been on the ship and disembarked in Hong Kong subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 and, as a result, the ship was quarantined and passengers and crew stayed on board rather than disembarking in Japan. This gave an opportunity to study the behaviour of the virus in a real life "petri-dish" with thousands of people in close proximity being exposed to the virus. There were 3,711 passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess. Median age 58. Everyone on board had a PCR test (eventually) 619 out of 3,711 tested positive (17%), of whom 301 had symptoms and 318 had no symptoms. There were 7 deaths (6 in the 70-79 age group, 1 in the over 80 age group). So even in a very elderly cohort of people, whom we must assume were all exposed to the virus, only 0.18% of people died. We could also infer that there must have been existing immunity to the virus in this population, given how few tested positive, and how few of those developed symptoms. Link to study: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256 Link to Daily Sceptic analysis: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/03/27/the-diamond-princess-told-us-about-pre-existing-immunity-asymptomatic-infection-and-the-infection-fatality-rate-why-were-those-lessons-ignored/ 3/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 3 - ONS data from Freedom of Information requests ONS data gradually became more and more politicised during the coronapanic, and therefore less and less useful, but the data it gave in response to FOI requests in 2020 was actually quite useful. For example this analysis of the age breakdown of those who died following a positive COVID test in 2020 in England and Wales. It showed once again the extent to which this virus was primarily a threat to the very elderly, with 84% of victims over the age of 70 (and also, only 9 victims under the age of 15). Again, consistent with the earlier Ioannidis analysis. Other FOI requests revealed that the mean age of those who died with COVID was over 80, and that, of the 80,000+ deaths recorded "with COVID" in 2020, only 9,000 listed COVID as the sole cause of death on the death certificate - the overwhelming majority of deaths involved at least one other comorbidity. This data also made it possible to compare the age distribution of deaths with COVID in 2020, with deaths from all causes in 2019, and this analysis revealed that if you were under the age of 75, you were more likely to die of any cause, than with COVID. So these three analyses showed that, from an early date, it was clear that SARS-COV-2 was not the deadly threat to everyone it was portrayed to be. ONS FOI links: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19 https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19withnootherunderlyingcauses 4/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 4 - Mask Ineffectiveness In July 2020 there was a sudden turnaround in recommendations for mask wearing amongst the general population. Prior to this date, there had been a consensus that this was neither necessary nor desirable. But suddenly that all changed. The science hadn't changed, there was a randomly controlled trial conducted in Denmark in April/May 2020 which found no statistically significant difference in infections between mask-wearing and non-mask wearing groups. And subsequent studies reviewed by the Cochrane Library found the same. But what had changed was "political lobbying" with the WHO to change their guidance on masks, as the BBC revealed in a rare outbreak of COVID investigative journalism by them (youtube link below). Denmark masks study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 BBC Newsnight clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnRqUMxjvR4 5/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 5 - Vaccine ineffectiveness There were plenty of signs that the COVID vaccines were not effective in preventing infection, or transmission, or hospitalisation, or death with COVID, at a population level, just by comparing the rates before and after the introduction of the vaccines. The vaccine introduction in mid December 2020 coincided with an uptick in all of these variables. (What changed the trend was the appearance of the omicron variant which Bill Gates dolefully described as "a type of vaccine" which had done a better job of reaching the whole population than the vaccinators). But a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology gave evidence of something which we all observed anecdotally all around us: that vaccinated people were still becoming infected with the virus. The study found that after two doses of the Astra Zeneca vaccine or one dose of the Pfizer vaccine, that whatever immunity the vaccines delivered against the virus quickly waned and actually turned negative within 2-3 months (meaning recipients were more likely to be infected or hospitalised beyond that point). OurWorldInData link: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+population=true&country=~OWID_WRL International Journal of Epidemiology link https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/52/1/22/6770060?login=false 6/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 6 - Risk to Children As we know, in 2020 schools across the UK were closed as part of the national lockdowns, with disastrous impact on education, particularly of the very young and those due to sit exams, and disastrous impact on working parents who had to somehow balance work and home schooling. However it was clear from very early days that children were at vanishingly small risk from the virus and that the risks to them of losing education (and the resultant isolation from their peers) would be far higher. An article in The Times discussed a study conducted on 260 hospitals in Britain in the first half of 2020 and concluded that "no child who was not already profoundly ill has died of Covid-19 in Britain" "The study looked at 260 hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland. Out of the 69,500 patients admitted with proven Covid-19 in the first six months of the year, 651 — or 0.9 per cent — were under 19 years of age". "Six deaths of minors were recorded. Three were newborn babies with other severe health problems. The other three were aged 15 to 18 years old and also had “profound health issues”. Callum Semple, professor in child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool and Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the study, said: “The deaths that we did observe were children with what we would describe as profound co-morbidities — not a touch of asthma, not cystic fibrosis.” These children’s underlying illnesses would have been considered as “life-limiting”, he said. “We did not have any deaths in otherwise healthy school-aged children.” However the authorities, and some in the teaching profession, were happy to let the illusion that children were at some risk from the virus to persist in order to promote their own agendas. Times article: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/all-children-who-died-of-covid-19-were-already-seriously-ill-jlxr8mkxq 7/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 7 Vaccine adverse effects We were assured, repeatedly, from the moment the novel COVID injectables were released, that they were "safe and effective". However the evidence that they were not quickly mounted. As early as March 2020, the Astra Zeneca vaccine was suspended in Nordic countries following adverse effects in medical workers who received it. And the MHRA was forced to mention the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis particularly in young males from vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna products. And a number of coroners reports directly blamed the COVID injectables as the cause of death in several cases. But the insistence always remained that these were just extremely rare cases. The lie was given to all of this by the MHRA's Yellow Card data. Yellow Card had, up until December 2021 at least, always been used as an "early warning system" to identify problems with medicines. From the beginning of the tollout in December 2020 the MHRA received an absolute deluge of Yellow Card reports from recipients of the injectables who had suffered adverse effects immediately afterwards, as well as medical personnel reporting these symptoms on behalf of the injured and deceased. While not every reported injury may have been directly caused by the vaccine, we also know that Yellow Cards received by the MHRA only constitute a small fraction of the adverse effects actually experienced (they previously estimated that only 10% of serious effects were reported). By September 2023 it was clear from the data that there was an enormous issue with the safety of the vaccines. Serious adverse events were being reported to the MHRA at a rate of 1 for every 424 doses, and deaths running at 1 for every 60,000 doses (and bear in mind most people had at least 2 doses) but to this day there has been no acknowledgement or independent investigation. AZ injuries story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-norway-idUSKBN2B50GZ/ The MHRA data has been largely archived in obscure locations on the internet now so is hard to link to, but I have all of the receipts if anyone is interested. 8/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Item 8 - Exaggerating the numbers of people who were Vaccinated. We were led to believe by the media that we vaccine refuseniks were in a tiny minority - less than 10%. And this was used heavily as a tactic by the media and government to pressure everyone into being vaccinated. You'll remember all the pressure from the likes of Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan and Sajid Javed and Esther Rantzen and Anne McElvoy and Uncle Tom Cobley and all... But this 10% number was based on ONS data which relied on (old) estimates of the UK population. Meanwhile the Health Security Agency used data from NIMS, which has a record of everyone registered with the NHS, and it estimated that the proportion of the English population which had not received a vaccine, was 19.5%. And ICM ran an opinion poll for Scottish Television on a representative sample of the population which discovered that 32% of the sample (825 out of the 2570 participants) said they'd had no vaccines. But as identified by @profnfenton ICM were sufficiently astonished at this outcome that they decided to apply some "post-survey weighting" to their sample to bring the number down to the "correct" level of 8%. But it's clear that we unvaccinated are a sizeable minority - far more than 10%. And the government knew this too, which is why they eventually recoiled from making the vaccines mandatory in the NHS (and probably in other roles too). BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833 ICM poll, Prof Fenton analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWOMtmH65U 9/10
@A1an_M - Alan
That's just a subset of the huge library of evidence that exists whoing that the whole of the coronavirus response was at best unnecessary and, more realistically, a gigantic fraud. You no doubt have plenty of examples of your own. But in summary: There was no "pandemic", simply a simulation of one. A simulation which could be repeated again tomorrow. And it could be done whether a novel virus existed or not. All that's needed is a compliant media, a gullible, hypnotised population, and a few grainy videos of crisis actors "dying" on foreign streets, and off we'll go again. Unless... unless some proper journalists are willing to tell the WHOLE truth about what happened in 2020-22, rather than just focus on the limited hangout about the lab leak and the source of the virus. Any volunteers? 10/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Of course the biggest fraud of all, and the one which the entire simulation depended on, and on which any new simulation will also depend, was the use of a test protocol, PCR, which was unfit for the purpose for which it was used. A test protocol which, as per its creator, can find pretty much anything in anyone, if done well. A test capable of finding tiny fragments of virus which are far too small to cause symptomatic illness, and far too small to make transmission to others a possibility. A test incapable of determining if the host is carrying live virus. A test which could deliver significant numbers of false positives and negatives. (False positives being a particular problem if, as mentioned below, decisions on isolation and contact tracing are being made on their basis). But a test whose sensitivity could be dialled up or down to show a sudden spike or dip in "cases" to meet the political requirements of the day. But the whole "testdemic" aspect is so important, it probably deserves a thread all of its own. One for another day... 11/10
@A1an_M - Alan
Probably worth adding that this thread is a summary of seven much longer threads which I wrote in Sep '23 to counter BBC VeryIffy's charge that there was an online Conspiracy Movement in the UK spreading misinformation about COVID and the response. See here: https://t.co/J6eOwBPb7i
@A1an_M - Alan
I've got an engineering degree. It was quite a long time ago and I've not done any hands-on engineering for a while but it's a way of thinking which never leaves you. The thing about engineering systems and processes is that: 1. There are usually only a few correct solutions and many many wrong ones. 2. Wrong solutions are very obvious with unpleasant, embarrassing or dangerous real-world consequences. 3. There's no room for ideology or emotion. The solution either works or it doesn't. Even if your ideology says X should work, if it doesn't work, you have to throw away your ideology. If we look around the world we can see lots of examples of situations where engineering principles have clearly been ignored in favour of some political dogma or some emotion-led reaction. Electric vehicles are a good example. They were rolled out too quickly in response to political dogma and the hysteria over the need to "save the planet", with no thought about the availability of suitable electricity supply, recycling of spent batteries, the impact of much heavier cars on our roads and car parks, and as we've seen recently, the fire risks of car parks full of vehicles with large lithium batteries on board. Immigration policy and its impact on public services and housing demand is another example - political dogma - and emotion about the limitless number of people around the world in poorer circumstances than us - prevents us from addressing or even talking about the practical implications of large scale immigration on levels of demand for housing, hospitals and schools. And COVID. Don't even get me started about masks and lockdowns and vaccines. All driven by hysteria and political dogma. We are surrounded by the consequences of 3 or 4 decades of stupidity from politicians and big institutions. They make decisions with far-reaching consequences, often in relation to science and technology issues, driven by dogma or media hysteria rather than any sound logic, reason or even common sense. The decision-makers are often people with degrees in politics or economics, or diplomas in journalism. People with no grounding in technology, or engineering, or science, or common sense. In a world which is now dominated by science and technology. Something needs to change, really. A few more engineers and scientists with decision-making power in government would probably help. Kicking out career politicians with no real-life experience would probably help too.
@A1an_M - Alan
A thread 🧵 Last week I posted the tweet below and promised to post up some evidence to back up these statements 1/
@A1an_M - Alan
The first tweet with evidence, regarding the lack of deadliness of COVID for most people is here: 2/
@A1an_M - Alan
In this thread I'm going to talk about masks. "Masks aren't effective in preventing virus spread" This will be a long thread so here is the TL; DR version: ✴️At a population level, masks have not been shown to be an effective intervention for respiratory viruses; 3/
@A1an_M - Alan
✴️This was true before and during the COVID pandemic and will likely remain true afterwards ✴️Public health authorities began the pandemic giving the correct advice ✴️The advice changed in Jul 2020 - for POLITICAL reasons ✴️The media at best failed to provide a balanced view...4/
@A1an_M - Alan
✴️and at worst was an active participant in making universal mask-wearing happen. ✴️Mask wearing, aside from playing a role in politics also has important psychological effects at an individual and group level. OK, on with the detail 5/
@A1an_M - Alan
At the very beginning of the pandemic, the advice was either that they were not necessary, would have little impact if used, or that they should not be used. For example Anthony Fauci when asked in Feb 2020 if they were needed : "Absolutely not". 6/
@A1an_M - Alan
And in March 2020, UK Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.” 7/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-uk-news-professor-chris-whitty-no-masks-advice-a9374086.html
@A1an_M - Alan
And if we look at the WHO's pandemic guidelines published in autumn 2019, mask wearing is only recommended during pandemics and epidemics for the symptomatic (note also some of the "not recommended in any circumstances" items which we also ended up doing): 8/
@A1an_M - Alan
So during the period when the pandemic was at its first peak in April 2020, mask wearing was voluntary in shops and other indoor public spaces. I remember well visiting my local Tesco and Morrisons on a daily basis during this time, seeing the same unmasked staff, fit & well 9/
@A1an_M - Alan
week after week. However in June, the government made face covering mandatory on public transport and in healthcare settings and on July 24th, with COVID cases and deaths at very low levels, they extended this to shops and supermarkets 10/ https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/face-coverings-to-be-mandatory-in-shops-and-supermarkets-from-24-july
@A1an_M - Alan
In the government's announcement, the Health Secretary says that effectively this was being done for political and psychological reasons (arguably in an attempt to compensate for the government's fear campaign on the population a few months earlier) 11/
@A1an_M - Alan
Certainly the science about masks hadn't changed at this time. Indeed a study done in Denmark in Apr/May 2020 but whose publication was delayed for several months, found no statistical difference in COVID infection between masked & unmasked. 12/ https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817:
@A1an_M - Alan
And even the Health Secretary's July 24th statement about introducing masks to shops and supermarkets makes no promise about them being effective in reducing virus spread (not that a Matt Hancock promise would be worth much anyway) 13/:
@A1an_M - Alan
And finally, the BBC, the home of impartial journalism itself, broadcast on Newsnight that the WHO eventually backed mask mandates due to "political lobbying", not due any new science or change in its view of their effectiveness 14/ https://youtu.be/XnRqUMxjvR4
@A1an_M - Alan
While there is some evidence to suggest public health authorities were initially reluctant to recommend masks at population level due to concerns that this might result in shortages for health care workers, it seems clear that the senior leadership knew that while masks... 15/
@A1an_M - Alan
might help in the case of symptomatic individuals and reduce the risk of them spreading the virus, there was little evidence of any benefit of wider use at population level. So in summary, mask mandates were a political decision, not a public health one. 16/
@A1an_M - Alan
Mask mandates in England remained in force until January 2022 at which point they were withdrawn in most settings, although they remained in use in some situations, notably healthcare settings. The rules remained in Scotland and Wales for longer. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o163 17/
@A1an_M - Alan
As mentioned previously, the scientific literature pre COVID provided little support for mask wearing at a population level. During the COVID pandemic itself there were numerous new studies on the subject, for example this one 18/
@A1an_M - Alan
which found that mask madates at a large London hospital had no discernible effect on hospital-acquired Covid cases. There was also a lot of excitement about a study done in Bangladesh which supposedly found masks to be effective... 19/ https://poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf
@A1an_M - Alan
...but methodological criticisms suggested its findings were unreliable. 20/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/03/the-bangladesh-mask-study-is-a-missed-opportunity
@A1an_M - Alan
However then the widely-respected Cochrane Library published a review of all recent research into the effectiveness of mask wearing on respiratory virus control, including the large number of RCT studies done in the COVID era. 21/ https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
@A1an_M - Alan
This publication led to an explosion of "fact checking" stories supposedly debunking the idea that Cochrane had concluded that "masks don't work". Even Cochrane itself published a statement clarifying what had been found, much to the anger of the lead author. 23/
@A1an_M - Alan
And if you look more widely at media coverage of the mask issue, there is very clear ongoing support for mask wearing. For example stories supporting mask wearing were given prominence, like this one 24/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57636360
@A1an_M - Alan
And whenever "debunking" was done, it was always done on stories suggesting masks had no benefit or were harmful, like this one: 25/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53108405
@A1an_M - Alan
Or this one: 26/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/27/dont-believe-those-who-claim-science-proves-masks-dont-work
@A1an_M - Alan
And when conflict occurred between the masked, and the unmasked, the media often portrayed the unmasked as extremists even though, as we have seen, there is plenty of evidence the "anti-maskers" have a scientific point 27/: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53477121
@A1an_M - Alan
So we have a situation where the science provides little support for mask wearing, the scientists themselves changed their advice only for political reasons but the media provides little nuance about the debate and instead pushes the government position du jour relentlessly 28/
@A1an_M - Alan
I'm going to end this thread by talking a little about what, in my view, were the real reasons for the change in advice in mid 2020. Despite what Matt Hancock says, I don't think this was anything to do with trying to coax people back out to the shops 29/
@A1an_M - Alan
In fact the University of North Carolina Professor, occasional New York Times contributor and key figure in influencing the US CDC into changing its mask advice in April 2020, summed the real reason up rather well: 30/ https://t.co/iTiqjutECM
@A1an_M - Alan
Masks were introduced at a time when cases and deaths were at a low (in the UK) or were about to peak and decline (in the US) in order to 1) remind people there was still a pandemic 2) create a sense of community amongst the rule-followers and... 31/
@A1an_M - Alan
create a conducive environment for future control measures. You might innocently say "well what's wrong with that? We were in a pandemic! We needed people to feel fear". But from my previous thread, we know that this virus was only a deadly threat to a tiny percentage... 32/
@A1an_M - Alan
of people. So the continuation of masks was done for political reasons, yes, but not benign political reasons. In my view it was done to maintain fear, ensure the "pandemic" lasted far longer than it needed to, and provide the backdrop for the rollout of universal vaccines. 33/
@A1an_M - Alan
Masks also fulfilled a psychological need for many who had essentially been hypnotised as part of a "mass formation" by the pandemic propaganda spread by the mass media. As Prof Mattias Desmet describes here: 34/ https://t.co/kzQbkKXnI8
@A1an_M - Alan
I talk more about how the pandemic response looks very much like a classic "mass formation" in these threads 35/ https://t.co/jANcprDIEv
@A1an_M - Alan
Masks. In summary: ✴️Don't work at population level for respiratory epidemics. Science (not The Science) says so. ✴️Were introduced for political & psychological reasons ✴️Media didn't provide balanced coverage of the argument due to political pressure or their own activism.36/36
@A1an_M - Alan
When I'm out in the car and the radio news comes on, I generally turn it off. My kids asked me why the other day. I told then the news is generally full of bad things which are happening in the world which have little to do with us and we can do little about. 1/
@A1an_M - Alan
So the most likely result of listening to the news is becoming fearful about the world but not being in a position to do anything about your fears. I also told them that the "news" is just a story about the facts, told from the point of view of one person or group of people. 2/
@A1an_M - Alan
I told them the truth is always more complicated than this. And that the best way to find out the truth is to go out and seek it from as many different sources as possible, using your own eyes and your own brain. I am expecting a call from social services imminently. 3/3