Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dr Mike Yeadon's avatar

Dear reader, please note that we are told that the viruses that cause acute respiratory illnesses like the common cold & a group called “influenza-like illnesses” (ILI) are supposedly extraordinarily easy to transmit.

Remember the two metre separation rule? Though this has officially been admitted that there is no scientific or empirical basis for it. We were made to queue up outside shops in all weathers.

Recall the installation of Perspex screens in many shops? Surely almost everyone looked at these and thought “How in the world could this prevent an airborne infection?”. Of course it wouldn’t, though this isn’t how these illnesses develop in the first place. They’re not infectious in nature nor are they contagious.

Remember the masking obligation? You do realise that they could even theoretically only have been effective if they filtered the air you breathe in as well as which you exhale? And either the mesh size is huge, so it won’t filter supposedly tiny particles, or the mesh size is very small indeed, so it simply offers an extreme resistance to airflow and you’d suffocate. The air you breathe in & out while wearing such a mask entirely bypasses the mask fabric itself.

Remember “If the masks are good enough for surgeons….”? Did you talk to any surgeons? They don’t wear masks, but splashguards. These prevent them dropping anything into the surgical field. More importantly, they prevent anything from the patient directly squirting into the surgeon’s mouth, nose and eyes, things like blood, pus & bone fragments.

I added these reminders because none of them work or were even intended to work. Their intention was to maintain fear and to force compliance with absurd charades, to teach you that resistance is useless. The authorities didn’t much need to enforce these “guidelines” because the public did it for them.

Yet again, we were given to understand that acute respiratory illnesses & especially “covid19” was extremely contagious. This means, very easy to become infected.

With that backdrop, it ought immediately to strike the critical reader that investigators have tried scores of times to demonstrate, thereafter to characterise, transmission or contagion of symptoms. They’ve tried and failed. Not once, but scores of times. This is extraordinary. If the narrative is true, the hardest thing would be to prevent almost everyone from acquiring the infection.

There are some studies where the investigators claim to have succeeded in demonstrating transmission. In all cases I’ve looked at, they’ve often used a PCR-based diagnostic, which isn’t a valid way to go about it & why would they even need to adopt complicated endpoints? Simply observe whether or not the “recipients” developed symptoms of a cold or the ILI.

The commonplace weakness I’ve seen involves leaving out controls. Controls replicate every part of the study, except they’re not inoculated/challenged with potentially infected material. How any study got past peer review while lacking controls is beyond me. Best practice involves not only incorporating controls, but having a neutral third party to prepare the innoculum and blank controls for that, and code the challenge material employed. That way, both the subjects and the investigators are “blind” to which subject got what challenge. If you know you’ve extensibly been infected, or the converse, the likelihood of distortion of the entire study is both high and unevaluable.

Expand full comment
Dr Mike Yeadon's avatar

Thank you, Tim, for bringing this together.

To all the individual contributors who painstakingly compiled numerous publications, thank you also.

Expand full comment
102 more comments...

No posts