Prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic, World Health Organization (WHO) experts analyzed the scientific literature and drafted recommendations for pandemic management.  

Please see under supporting evidence below 'The WHO Review And Why It Matters To You', for a detailed analysis of whether the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) deployed during the Covid-19 pandemic, were in line with the 2019 WHO pandemic management recommendations. On page 6 of this document, you will find the following summary of the recommendations made by the WHO in 2019.

These same recommendations were included in the 'Pandemic Plans' of many countries at the time of the Covid outbreak, and these recommendations were accepted in late 2019 as the best science available.

When you compare the list of policies adopted by most countries around the world throughout the Covid pandemic, you may be surprised to see that none of the recommendations that were accepted as best practice, science-based responses, were followed.  In fact, in most cases the exact opposite approach was enforced.

Please read the full analysis for yourself in this well researched and easy to read paper.  You can then decide for yourself how many of the government policies and measures to address Covid were based on 'the science' and whether they really were in the best interests of our health, and the best way to deal with the pandemic.

Please also see the short video 'Jordon Peterson on The Pandemic' in the link below, where he states:

"I have had conversations with people advising at the highest levels of government, particularly in Canada, who have told me flat out, and they are very reliable sources, that NONE of the Covid policy for the last year was driven by reliance on science, its ALL opinion poll..."

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. The WHO Review And Why It Matters To You
2. Non Pharmaceutical Public Health Measures for Mitigating the Risk and Impact of Epidemic and Pandemic Influenza (WHO 2019)
3. Jordon Peterson on The Pandemic
4. Covid-19: A Second Opinion - Enquiry Held by US Senator Ron Johnson Feb 2022

As already mentioned elsewhere on this site, the inventor of the PCR test is on record as saying that the PCR test cannot and should not be used to diagnose disease as it will give a very high number of ‘false’ positive results (see more details under question one above).  Even the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) removed the PCR test in July 2021, because they finally admitted that it is not an accurate test for Covid-19.   

PCR tests were not an effective response to the ‘pandemic’, and this was already agreed in most countries’ approved pandemic plans that were in existence before the Covid-19 pandemic was announced by the WHO.

Not only was the PCR test NOT an effective response, but the use of the PCR tests invoked fear in the population, by convincing healthy people that they were sick when they were not; and allowing governments to report deaths 'with' Covid, instead of accurately reporting the lesser number of people who died 'from' Covid.

If you think about it logically, when in history have we ever tested healthy people of all ages on mass, for a disease or illness for which they had no symptoms?  Would you have even known that there was a pandemic, if the health officials hadn't told people to go and get tested for a disease for which they had no symptoms, and then reported these huge false number of positive test results in the news every day for months on end?

And why were governments reporting people who died of anything from gun shots, to car accidents, to cancer, or any other cause, as a 'Covid death', simply because they tested positive for Covid using an inaccurate PCR test on arrival at hospital?

But the fear that this inaccurate reporting of both Covid cases and Covid deaths induced in the majority of the population worldwide, enabled governments around the world to justify the introduction of all of the other pandemic response measures, most of which were explicitly in contravention of numerous human rights laws around the world.  These measures destroyed families, communities, economies and hundreds of millions of people's lives, based on convincing healthy people they were sick.

Now you may be thinking 'well they had to do something, and they did the best they could'.  But the truth is there had always been a better way to respond, based on decades of research and expertise of epidemiologists, doctors, scientists and other professionals.  But as you will see in the next fact (re: The Great Barrington Declaration) and throughout this website, the real experts were not only ignored, but they were targeted, silenced, shutdown and in many cases their careers were destroyed, by government officials working in collusion with big tech platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn and others. 

If you don't believe this fact, please go onto Twitter and read the "Twitter files" that expose the communications between these big tech platforms and various US government agencies.

More and more evidence is being exposed every week, that those labeled with all sorts of names such as 'anti-vaxxer' and 'conspiracy theorist', were in many cases the very experts that should in fact have been advising the government and guiding the response.  Even Elon Musk is on record as saying that most, if not all, of the so-called 'conspiracies' are actually true, and that it is even more true than people thought. See video below.

Please see a selection of articles below on this topic and do your own further research to determine for yourself whether the mass testing of healthy people using a test that produced mostly false positive results; and using these test results to report false case and death numbers; was an effective response to Covid-19.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

Early in the Pandemic, from October 1-4, 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research hosted a remarkable meeting in Great Barrington, USA, of top epidemiologists, economists, and journalists, to discuss the global emergency created by the unprecedented use of state compulsion in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. The result was 'The Great Barrington Declaration', which urges a “Focused Protection” strategy.  

They basically proposed focused protection for those most at risk of Covid, whilst those largely unaffected such as the younger, healthier people, should be left to live life as normal.  Whilst they may spread the virus, they would build immunity, and avoid the devastating health and economic effects of lockdowns and other pandemic response measures.  

Please go to the links below to read the declaration for yourself, which has signatures from over 47,000 medical practitioners, 16,000 medical and health scientists and 870,000 concerned citizens.

The authors of this document were three of the world's leading epidemiologists:
- Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations
- Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases
- Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

Surely these 3 leaders in their field should be listened to.  But not only did the US Government regulators ignore these 3 experts, but they set out on a campaign to smear their names and discredit them in the public arena. 

This fact was proven when emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Institute for Economic Research, revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, colluded to quash dissenting views and 'take down' these 'fringe' epidemiologists.

In an Oct 8, 2020 email to Fauci, Collins wrote:

“The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention … There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises …”

“Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied.

You can draw your own conclusions after reading the evidence below, as to why the US regulators not only failed to consult with experts who were best placed to provide the right advice on how to manage the pandemic, but even worse, they set out to 'silence' and discredit them.

Sadly, the real-world data is now clearly showing that the approach proposed by The Great Barrington Declaration, was in fact the right approach all along.  Had Fauci and Collins listened to the experts and worked with them instead of trying to 'take them down', the outcome from the pandemic could have been similar to a bad Flu season.

Even those elderly and vulnerable members of our society, whom the regulators claimed we would be protecting with all of the mandates and measures, were treated unnecessarily cruelly by the overreach of governments throughout the pandemic.  See just one example under the supporting evidence below, which is quite representative of what governments did to the elderly during the pandemic.  

There are over 150 published studies and articles that confirm that masks have no effect in preventing community spread of an airborne virus. 

The simple logic of virus size (~0.1 microns) versus the mask pore size (~19 microns), means that the virus passes right through the mask. It is like putting up a chain wire fence to keep out mosquitos.  

There is ample evidence demonstrating that masks cause a range of ill effects such as malaise, increased CO2 inhalation, contamination, and reduced cardiopulmonary function.  These include many studies which show significant damage from wearing masks in the development of young children, including respiratory issues, and dental health issues.

Furthermore, a false sense of security resulting from a false belief in mask effectiveness may lead an infectious individual to wear a mask and mix with high-risk people, putting them at serious risk of potential infection and illness.  

In fact, even the WHO stated in June 2020:

"At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Other papers and data on this issue are cited in the 'PANDA WHO Review', listed under supporting evidence below.

To quote further evidence from another well referenced paper by retired Neurosurgeon Russell L Blaylock, listed below under Supporting Evidence, 'COVID UPDATE: What is the Truth?':

"The draconian measures established to contain this contrived "pandemic" have never been shown to be successful, such as masking the public, lockdowns, and social distancing.  A number of carefully done studies during the previous flu seasons demonstrated that masks, of any kind, had never prevented the spread of the virus among the public.

In fact, some very good studies suggested that the masks actually spread the virus by giving people a false sense of security and other factors, such as the observation that people were constantly breaking sterile techniques by touching their mask, improper removal and by leakage of infectious aerosols around the edges of the mask.  In addition, masks were being disposed of in parking lots, walking trails, laid on tabletops in restaurants and placed in pockets and purses.

Within a few minutes of putting on the mask, a number of pathogenic bacteria can be cultured from the masks, putting the immune suppressed person at high risk of bacterial pneumonia and children at a higher risk of meningitis.  A study by researchers at the University of Florida cultured over 11 pathogenic bacteria from the inside of the mask worn by children in schools.

It was also known that children were at essentially no risk of either getting sick from the virus or transmitting it.

In addition, it was also known that wearing a mask for over 4 hours (as occurs in all schools) results in significant hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels) and hypercapnia (high CO2 levels), which have a number of deleterious effects on health, including impairing the development of the child's brain.

We have known that brain development continues long after the grade school years.  A recent study found that children born during the "pandemic" have significantly lower IQs - yet school boards, school principals and other educational bureaucrats are obviously unconcerned."

In summary, Masks were not an effective response to the’ pandemic’, and this was already agreed and documented in most countries’ approved pandemic plans prior to the Covid outbreak.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. 7 Reasons to End Mask Mandates for Good
2. Mask Ineffectiveness: PANDA Review
3. COVID UPDATE: What is the Truth?
4. PANDA WHO Review
5. Feb 2023 - Massive Peer-Reviewed Mask Study Shows 'Little To No Difference' In Preventing COVID, Flu Infection

This was confirmed by Dr Paul Alexander who was a Covid 19 pandemic advisor to the White House in early 2020.  See the following video where he explains how the social distancing rules were determined.

Dr Birx who served as the White House Coronavirus Response Co-ordinator under President Trump from 2020 to 2021, also admitted that she and Dr Fauci 'made up' 'the science' behind social distancing and lockdowns.

Social distancing was not an effective response to the’ pandemic’ and was never a part of the approved pandemic plan in any country.  By the admission of the most senior pandemic response scientists working in the White House, there never existed any 'science' behind this policy, which was adopted by governments in lockstep all over the world.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1.  Dr Birx Admits that She and Fauci Made Up 'The Science' on Social Distancing and Lockdowns                      

Numerous studies around the world now confirm that there was no difference in spread of the disease between those cities that were locked down, versus those that were not.  

This impact was known before the pandemic began, as the World Health Organization had already conducted studies in 2019 that showed that during a pandemic, lockdowns should not be used, as they cause significant damage to people and are largely ineffective at stopping or slowing the spread of airborne disease particles.  The agreed pandemic policy pre Covid, was to keep people and society running as normal as possible, so why was that policy overturned in early 2020, with no new evidence to contradict the findings of the previous studies?

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, supported by thousands of medical and scientific experts, were correct in their recommendation not to lockdown everyone. But they were ignored by government regulators and the US government agencies worked with the mainstream media, to discredit these well credentialed and well-respected experts, so that people would not listen to their advice.

Lockdowns were not an effective response to the ‘pandemic’, and this was already agreed in most countries’ approved pandemic plan, as the research had already confirmed prior to the start of the pandemic, that lockdowns would cause more harm than good.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. Dr Birx Admits She and Fauci Made Up 'The Science' On Lockdowns & Social Distancing/
2. Sept 2022 - Russell Brand: Thought The Pandemic Was Bad? THIS Is What’s Coming

Never before in history have we kept loved ones from sick and dying relatives.  Yet this was an unnecessary and cruel Covid-19 policy that was enforced in many countries around the world.

Please see the video at the link below where a nurse articulates very well the many reasons why this practice made no sense, and the immense amount of trauma that has been inflicted upon the sick and dying, as well as their families and loved ones. 

All for a virus that has roughly same fatality rate as the seasonal Flu, a fact which was known from the outset (please see section above on this fact).

As evidenced on other pages on this website*, from Day 1 of the Pandemic, thousands of doctors around the world were using existing, safe drugs including Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, to effectively treat Covid-19.  But these drugs were actively withdrawn from use by many hospitals and government regulators in many countries, very early in the pandemic, including the USA and Australia.  Why did regulators stop doctors from using these drugs?    *See above Q1 FACT: Effective Treatments for Covid-19 have been suppressed since the beginning of the 'pandemic' declaration)

Many believe it is because it is not possible to get ‘Emergency Use Authorization” for the new drugs (i.e. the new vaccines), if drugs to treat the illness already existed.  By effectively ‘removing’ treatments from doctors, governments around the world told us that vaccines were our only way out. 

Arguably, there never was a pandemic, it was created by lies about how deadly the virus was, false test results using PCR tests, and by withholding treatments that would have saved the old and vulnerable, who were the only ones at risk of dying from Covid 19 from the outset.

Now that the drug companies have produced new ‘treatments’ for Covid 19, these same government regulators and agencies are now promoting these new drugs, whilst still withholding the use of drugs that have been used for decades which are known to be very safe. 

The new drugs for treating Covid-19, like the new vaccines, have not gone through the same rigorous testing as the already existing drugs, nor have they been in use long enough to know whether there may be long term side effects. 

As stated by Dr Chris Shoemaker in the video below, government regulators knew that Ivermectin was the answer to a Corona virus outbreak.  They had done the research in advance following the earlier Sars outbreak.  But they kept this safe and effective drug from the public in favor of lockdowns, masks, and gene therapies which were relabeled as 'vaccines'.

To obtain some insight into the lengths that those in power went to, in order to suppress Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for Covid-19, please watch the short film at the link below "Dear Andy".

In the film Dr. Tess Lawrie recites a letter to Dr. Andrew Hill and asks him what made him turn his back on a potential cure for Covid-19.

In October 2020 Dr. Andrew Hill was tasked to report to the World Health Organization on the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

But on January 18th, 2021, Dr. Hill published his findings on a pre-print server. His methods lacked rigor, the review was low quality and the extremely positive findings on Ivermectin were contradicted by the conclusion. In the end, Dr. Hill advised that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”

The researcher seeking a global recommendation on Ivermectin had instead recommended against it. What were his reasons for doing so? Were his conclusions justified? Or were external forces influencing his about-face?

One year on, this film recalls exactly what happened from the perspective of somebody that experienced it firsthand; Dr. Tess Lawrie; also featuring contributions from Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik who worked closely with Dr. Hill during the same time frame.

Please don't underestimate the gravity of Dr Hill's conclusions in this report.  We will never know how many lives would have been saved if doctors around the world had been allowed to follow the scientific proof that Ivermectin effectively treats Covid-19, and do what they always do, which is to use their clinical practice experience to repurpose existing drugs.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. Dear Andy (Short Film) | World Council for Health
2. Covid-19: A Second Opinion - Enquiry Held by US Senator Ron Johnson Feb 2022

In young healthy adults, sudden adult death (or SADS), heart attacks, strokes, myocarditis, pericarditis, decreased fertility rates, rare skin disorders, shingles, bell's palsy and other neurological disorders, decreased fertility rates, and irregular bleeding in women are not normal. Yet these causes of illness and death, as well as new rare illnesses in children, have all become prominent since the rollout of the vaccines. 

Since the rollout of the vaccines began, insurance companies have reported up to a 40% increase in ‘all case mortality’ that is not related to Covid 19, in working age adults.  What this means is that 40% more people have died than the insurance companies expected to die, based on their very accurate predictive models.  Is it simply a co-incidence that all of these previously rare illnesses and conditions and increased deaths in young people, began to appear when the vaccine rollout commenced?  The question needs to be investigated at the very least.

The increase in deaths and illness since the vaccines began, was first reported by the US Department of Defense in 2021.  Their database of the health of young men and women in the forces is very accurate and reliable.  This led to a legal trial which is still ongoing, but the fact that this data was released and yet the US government continues to this day to vaccinate young, healthy servicemen, raises some very loud alarm bells for most people.

Sadly, most of the vaccine injured people are being ‘gas lighted’, so they cannot get the help they need.  The sooner we expose the full truth about the effects of these vaccines, the sooner we can focus our medical and research communities on finding effective treatments for the injured and seek remedy for the families who have lost loved ones.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. June 2022 - Sudden Adult Death Syndrome Baffles Doctors
2. The Covid Blog

It usually takes at least 8 to 10 years for a new drug to be developed and fully tested ready for approval for use.  These vaccines were developed in less than a year.  Furthermore, these mRNA vaccines are new technologies which have never been used in humans before.  So we cannot assume that the Covid-19 vaccines are as safe as other vaccines for which we have a long history of use.  The Covid-19 vaccines are made using a completely new technology that is different to the way in which the other vaccines are made, and the way they work in the body is also completely different. 

To rush through the ‘emergency use authorization (EAU)' or 'provisional approval' for these new drugs, big pharma companies were allowed to skip many important safety tests.  For example, it has been revealed that the Pfizer vaccine has not been specifically tested on pregnant women, nor has it undergone all of the usual toxicology tests that would normally be required for a new drug to be fully approved.

You may also be interested to know that not all of the trials for these new drugs have been completed yet, with some of the trials scheduled for completion in 2023.  Pfizer also vaccinated the 'control group' from the trial (i.e., the group who were originally given the placebo product) after only two months, so now it is impossible to get any further data from the trial that shows the effects of the vaccinated group compared to those who didn't get the vaccine.

So given the above information, it is clear that the risks of these new drugs, are likely to be far greater than the risk of other drugs approved for use by humans.  But given this increased risk, we can safely assume that the big Pharma companies who are profiting from the sale of these experimental drugs, will be liable for any damage that they cause, right?  WRONG!!.

In fact, it is quite the opposite. Governments around the world have actually indemnified these big Pharma companies from any liability.  So big Pharma get all the profits with none of the risk.

Many governments around the world do offer a vaccine injury compensation scheme, which demonstrates that they did understand on signing these contracts, that there was a risk of injury or death from these vaccines.

So big Pharma was not willing to carry the risk of these products, and yet our governments have coerced their people to take the risk of harm from these new experimental 'vaccines'. 

Even pilots, whose regulations specifically restrict them from taking any experimental drugs, were coerced to take them by many airlines globally.  These regulations have kept passengers safe for decades, and with good reason, as the impact of a pilot collapsing at work from a drug reaction, is much more serious than for other professions and jobs, as the pilot carries the lives of many people in his or her hands. 

You may be interested to read the report at the link below, which claims that according to reports, WEF members are being transported solely by unvaccinated pilots to the 2023 conference in Davos, Switzerland due to safety concerns.  Bear in mind that many of the WEF members are the very same global elites and government leaders and officials, who are forcing vaccine mandates on the people.  So why would they be concerned about the safety of flying with vaccinated pilots? What do they know that they are not telling the people?

Why is it that the safety regulations for pilots (and others) were ignored, when it comes to a vaccine for which even the companies producing them, consider the risk to be too high to accept liability for harm?  This question needs to be answered!

People should also consider the impact that taking an experimental vaccine, may have on their life insurance policy.

Of course, these 'indemnity clauses' would not likely hold up in court, should there be any fraud committed in respect of these contracts.  You may be interested to know that there is already at least one high profile legal case in the US between a whistleblower and Pfizer in respect of fraud in relation to their vaccine.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: 

1. WEF Hires Unvaccinated Pilots

See the video below in which Robert F Kennedy Jr, a US lawyer who has spent decades suing pharmaceutical companies, explains that the reason why the drug companies need the vaccines to be approved for children, is to maintain indemnity from being sued by people of any age who suffer death or injury from their vaccines. 

He also provides information about Maddie de Garay, a 12-year-old girl who was part of the original Pfizer trial.  Although Maddie was seriously injured in the trial, Pfizer did not report her injuries in their trial report.  He explains that Pfizer therefore knows that their vaccines will seriously injure children, but they seek approval anyway in order to obtain the indemnity.

 

As discussed in the video below of Robert F Kennedy Jr., a leading US Attorney, "the pandemic created the biggest shift of wealth in human history, impoverishing the world and creating 500 new billionaires...whilst workers lost 3.7 trillion dollars".

Does this sound like the pandemic response was successful? That depends on whether you were part of the global elite. Successful for the global elite; but devastating for the rest of the world's population. 

See also the video at the link below, in which Max Blumenthal provides more detailed insight into the many and diverse negative impacts of the lockdowns on most of the world's population, including many people who starved in developing countries due to trade restrictions and other economic impacts; whilst the global corporations and governments, gained power and profits.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

1. Sept 2022: Russell Brand & Max Blumenthal discuss the impacts of Lockdowns and the Benefits to Governments & Global Corporations