(1) World Doctors Alliance says: No Need for Lockdowns. Pandemic is over, we have reached herd immunity,
   no need for a vaccine(2) UK lockdown was a ‘monumental mistake’ and must not happen again – Boris scientist says(3) FDA Captured and Corrupt - FDA Foundation (Reagan-Udall ) is funded by the Gates Foundation(1) World Doctors Alliance says: No Need for Lockdowns. Pandemic is over, we have reached herd immunity, no need for a vaccineFrom:Howard Miller <ausgrass@gmail.com>WDA Open letter to the UK Government, Governments of the World and the Citizens of the Worldhttps://worlddoctorsalliance.com/ims/WDAOpenLetter.pdfWe the undersigned call upon the UK government, governments of the World and the Citizens of the World, to stop all lockdown measures immediately.INTRODUCTIONWe were told initially that the premise for lockdown was to ‘flatten the curve’ and therefore protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. It is clear that at no point was the National Health Service (NHS) in any danger of being overwhelmed, and since May 2020 covid wards have been largely empty; and crucially the death toll from covid has remained extremely low.We now have hundreds of thousands of so-called ‘cases’, ‘infections’ and ‘positive tests’ but hardly any sick people. Recall that four fifths (80%) of ‘infections’ are asymptomatic (1)Covid wards have been by and large empty throughout June, July, August and September 2020. Most importantly covid deaths are at an all-time low. It is clear that these ‘cases’ are in fact not ‘cases’ but rather they are normal healthy people. So-called asymptomatic cases have never in the history of respiratory disease been the driver for spread of infection. Rather it is symptomatic people who spread respiratory infections - not asymptomatic people.(2)It is also abundantly clear that the ‘pandemic’ is basically over and has been since June 2020. (3) We have reached ‘herd’ immunity and therefore have no need for a vaccine.We have safe and very effective treatments and preventative treatments for covid, we therefore call for an immediate end to all lockdown measures, social distancing, mask wearing, testing of healthy individuals, track and trace, immunity passports, the vaccination program and so on.There has been a catalogue of unscientific, non-sensical policies enacted which infringe our inalienable rights, such as - freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These draconian totalitarian measures must never be repeated.LOCKDOWNCovid has proved less deadly than previous influenza seasons – There were 50,100 flu deaths from December 2017 to March 2018 in England and Wales. There were 80,000 flu deaths in 1969. To date we have circa 42,000 covid related deaths in the UK.We have never locked down society for a respiratory virus before. The basis for lockdown was a mathematical model by Professor Neil Ferguson. His modelling which predicted half a million deaths in the UK has been roundly condemned as being not fit for purpose. His estimated death figures were clearly wrong by a factor of 10 or 12 times. (1)Professor Ferguson’s modelling was not even peer reviewed before being acted upon by several nations. Eminent epidemiologists such as Professor Gupta from Oxford University were ignored, they estimated the death count would be far lower in the UK.Professor Ferguson has a long track record of woeful modelling he was entirely wrong about sars, mers, mad cow’s disease (CJD), and swine flu. Why did the world listen to him again? (2)Countries which did not lock down Sweden, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Belarus have all done significantly better than us in terms of percentage of population deaths. They also have herd immunity and intact economies.Lockdown did not save lives, and this has been published in the Lancet ‘….in our analysis, full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.’ (3)The vast majority of deaths occurred in elderly and very elderly people. The vast majority of deaths occurred in people with preexisting serious health issues such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes etc. Covid poses virtually zero risk to the under 45’s who have more chance of being struck by lightning than dying from covid. Covid poses a very small risk for healthy under 60 year olds who have a greater chance of accidental drowning than dying from covid.The entire nation was essentially placed under house arrest. We have never isolated the healthy before. Isolating the sick and those who are immunocompromised makes sense. Isolating the healthy has hampered the establishment of herd immunity and makes no sense.To put it into perspective we had 115,000 smoking related deaths in the UK in 2015 compared to the 42,000 deaths from covid. We usually have around 600,000 deaths every year in the UK, roughly 1600 deaths per day.COLLATERAL DAMAGE THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE VIRUSPlacing the public under virtual house arrest has caused untold damage to both physical and mental health.(1) Ventilating patients instead of oxygenating patients proved to be a deadly policy and an unwarranted failure. Ventilation resulted in many unnecessary deaths. (2) Sending infected people from hospitals to care homes placed the elderly and frail under unnecessary risk and resulted in many unnecessary deaths. (3)  Blanket Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders were imposed on thousands of people without their consent nor the consent of their families – this is both unlawful and immoral and lead to unnecessary deaths in care homes. (4)Hospitals became essentially ‘covid only’ centres vast numbers of patients were wilfully neglected, resulting in many thousands of unnecessary deaths. (5) The government’s own report estimates that some two hundred thousand (200,000) people will die as a direct result of lockdown – not the virus. Hospitals being closed, suicide and poverty will result in more deaths than the virus. (6) The cure is worse than the disease!DEATH CERTIFICATES (1)The majority of people who died had significant comorbidities, such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Counting death certificates with a ‘mention’ of covid as being a death caused by covid is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and has vastly over exaggerated the death toll.The rules for the signing of death certificates have been changed solely for covid by the Coronavirus 2020 Act. Doctors do not even need to have physically seen the patient in order to sign death certificates. The Act has removed the need for a confirmatory medical certificate for cremations. Autopsies have virtually been banned, no doubt leading to misdiagnosis of the true cause of deaths; and also reducing our understanding of the disease itself. Worse still, care home staff who largely have no medical training are able to give a statement as to the cause of death. Covid was put on death certificates merely on the ‘suspicion’ of people having covid. This may well be unlawful, since it is a crime to falsify death certificates.People who die within 28 days of a positive pcr test are deemed to have died from covid, even if they die in a car crash or from a heart attack; clearly over inflating the death toll (2)ECONOMIC RUINReports now estimate that as many as six and a half million (6,500,000) people in the UK will lose their jobs as a result of lockdown. (1) It is well known that poverty directly adversely affects health, we can expect to see many people suffering with poor health and resulting in many premature deaths, as a direct result of lockdown.CENSORSHIPGovernment have acted maliciously in censoring doctors, nurses and NHS staff. The people have the perfect right to hear what is going on in hospitals, and the medical profession have a duty to look after the public and to reassure them. (1) The medical profession have not been allowed to let the public know that covid wards have been empty for months, nor that covid deaths have reached an all-time low for months, and this has unnecessarily added to the public’s distress and anxiety. Doctors and scientists with views that differ from the government narrative have had their videos and articles removed from the internet.TESTING - FALSE POSITIVESPCR tests cannot be verified for accuracy as there is no ‘gold standard’ against which to check them. The virus has not been purified. (1)  PCR tests cannot detect viral loads and are prone to false positives. (2) A positive PCR test does not mean that an individual is infected nor infective. (3) In fact approximately 90% of the PCR positive ‘cases’ are false positives. We therefore have no second wave and no pandemic. (4 , 5) The government’s report estimates a false positive rate of between 0.8 to 4.0 % using data from other viral infections – not from covid (6) Viral fragments may remain in people’s bodies for several weeks following recovery from infection. (7) The crisis will never end if we are waiting for zero positive tests. Everyone has probably had a cold caused by a coronavirus and will likely have a few viral fragments matching those of the cousin SARS-CoV-2 virus (8)Testing healthy asymptomatic individuals is non-sensical, unscientific and a colossal waste of money. The governments moon shot daily testing program will cost £100 Billion roughly two thirds of the annual NHS budget. Antibody testing is not the gold standard as many people have T-cell immunity, and antibodies may not circulate following recovery from infection.HYDROXYCHLOROQUINEThe controversial drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been unfairly smeared, by the WHO, CDC, NIH and the media. However HCQ has very firm support from, amongst others: Professor Harvey Risch epidemiologist from Yale, The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), American Frontline Doctors, the Henry Ford Health System and Professor Didier Raoult microbiologist and infectious disease specialist - to name but a few. (1) The Lancet was even forced to retract a study on HCQ after it was revealed by the Guardian newspaper that they had been completely fabricated and written by a sci-fi writer and a porn star. Even following this astounding revelation HCQ was still banned in most countries. (2)HCQ according to AAPS has a ninety per cent (90%) cure rate when given early and alongside zinc (3) HCQ is safer than many over the counter drugs such as aspirin, Benadryl and Tylenol. The AAPS also point out that there has never been a vaccine as safe as HCQ. (4)HCQ has been licensed for over sixty years and has been safely used by billions of people worldwide. There is a very small risk of arrythmia which is easily monitored. Why was HCQ banned then? Could it be that there are no huge profits to be made from this out-of-patent drug?HCQ was used to great effect in the Sars1 outbreak of 2005 (5) In short had HCQ been available then there would not have been a pandemic !PREVENTIONPreventative measures such as hydroxychloroquine or vitamins D, C and zinc should have been recommended for the public. (1) Early calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) treatment to hospitalized COVID-19 patients significantly reduced intensive care unit admissions (2) Vit D reduces the severity of covid. (2,3)Voluntary isolation of the frail - should they so choose; in combination with preventative measures would have been a far better strategy. The rest of society could and should have continued as normal.VACCINEA rushed vaccine is clearly not in the public’s best interest. Indemnifying vaccine manufacturers against all liability is also clearly not in the public’s best interestCONFLICTS OF INTERESTChief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance has £600,000 worth of shares in GSK Glaxo Smith Klein. He has in recent years sold £5 million of shares in GSK which he ‘earned’ whilst chief of GSK (1)Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer UK, accepted over £30 million in funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to study malaria vaccines. (2)It has become clear that members of SAGE, Public Health England (PHE), World Health Organisation (WHO), Centre for Disease Control (CDC), National institute for Health (NIH) etc have many conflicts of interests. They all accept very large ‘donations’ from the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry. These conflicts of interests may well have effectively corrupted their integrity. (3)It is also clear that governments are heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry and the vaccine industry, again this may have compromised their integrity. (4)CUI BONO? WHO BENEFITS?Vaccine manufacturers will make trillions from this, as will track and trace manufacturers, and the pharmaceutical industry stand to make trillions from covid testing.Prime minister Boris Johnson announced the new ‘moon shot’ testing will cost £100 Billion, approximately two thirds of the annual NHS budget. Surely these vast sums would be far better spent on treating all of the neglected patients who have been wilfully neglected during lockdown and who now face huge waiting lists.CONCLUSIONSWe have effective and safe treatments and preventative medications for covid, therefore there is no need for any lockdown restrictions and associated measures. The pandemic is essentially over as can be seen by the consistent low death rate and hospital admissions over the past four months. We demand the immediate and permanent ceasing of all lockdown measures. Lockdowns do not save lives, that is why they have never been used before. Civil liberties and fundamental freedoms have been unnecessarily removed from the public and this must never happen again. Preventative measures such as Hydroxychloroquine, vitamin C, Vitamin D and zinc must be made readily available to the public. Isolation must be voluntary. People are perfectly capable of making their own assessment of the risks and must be free to go about their lives as they so choose. People must have the right to choose whether to isolate or not. Likewise, businesses must have the right to remain open if they so choose. We demand that doctors, nurses, scientists and healthcare professionals must be permitted free speech and never be censored again. Professor Mark Woolhouse epidemiologist and specialist in infectious diseases, Edinburgh University Member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, that advises the Government stated that - ‘…Lockdown was a monumental disaster on a global scale. The cure was worse than the disease.’ ‘I never want to see national lockdown again. It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now. It was never going to change anything fundamentally, however low we drove down the number of cases,’ ‘We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school.’ ‘I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19.’(1) The World Doctors Alliance agree fully with Prof Woolhouse’s assertions, he is right! We must never lockdown again! NB the term ‘covid’ has been used to represent Sars-CoV-2 and Covid-19

See Source link for references(2) UK lockdown was a ‘monumental mistake’ and must not happen again – Boris scientist sayshttps://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1320428/Coronavirus-news-lockdown-mistake-second-wave-Boris-JohnsonUK lockdown was a ‘monumental mistake’ and must not happen again – Boris scientist saysLOCKDOWN will come to be seen as a "monumental mistake on a global scale" and must never happen again, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases says.By LUCY JOHNSTON, SUNDAY EXPRESS HEALTH EDITOR08:12, Wed, Aug 26, 2020 | UPDATED: 08:13, Wed, Aug 26, 2020Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a "panic measure" but admitted it was the only option at the time because "we couldn’t think of anything better to do".But it is a crude measure that takes no accounts of the risk levels to different individuals, the University of Edinburgh professor said, meaning that back in March the nation was "concentrating on schools when we should have been concentrating on care homes".The professor of infectious disease epidemiology said that the Government must now focus on increasing testing and striving to unlock society safely rather than restricting it further.Prof Woolhouse OBE, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the Government, said: "Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."I never want to see national lockdown again. It was always a temporary measure that simply delayed the stage of the epidemic we see now. It was never going to change anything fundamentally, however low we drove down the number of cases, and now we know more about the virus and how to track it we should not be in this position again."We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school."I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19."He said that Sage, the government’s advisory board on dealing with Covid, needed to have members from a wider range of fields.UK lockdown was a ‘monumental mistake’ and must not happen again – Boris scientist saysMark Woolhouse said lockdown was a 'panic measure' but admitted it was the only option at the timeThis would allow it a better understanding of how lockdown has had effects across the whole of society.He said: "I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19."This is why we need a broader range of people on the government advisory board Sage with equal input from economists to assess the damage to incomes, jobs and livelihoods, educationalists to assess the damage to children and mental health specialists to assess levels of depression and anxiety especially among younger adults, as well as psychologists to assess the effects of not being able to go to the theatre or a football match."Prof Woolhouse said he had hoped the combined efforts of the world’s scientists would work out how to handle the virus during lockdown. But this hadn’t happened.He said: "At the time I agreed with lockdown as a short term emergency response because we couldn’t think of anything better to do, but it was always clear that the moment we started to relax enough measures we were likely to see infection rates rise again either nationally or locally."My hope was that we would have learnt how to handle the virus better so lockdown would no longer be necessary."But we haven’t made much progress in finding a viable alternative to lockdown. My concern is that far too many people involved in managing this pandemic have in mind that it will somehow burn itself out. I don’t expect it to."I would not dignify waiting for a vaccine with the term ‘strategy’. That’s a hope not a strategy. But we do need to get on with providing an alternative to lockdown."He said a better understanding of who was actually at risk from the virus would allow better solutions to be presented. Any restrictions imposed should be "considered measures" and should protect those who needed it while letting everyone live more freely.As an example he explained: "Closing schools was not an epidemiologically sensible thing to do."Evidence shows that children very rarely transmit to adults and there is not a single documented example of a child transmitting to a teacher in school."But throughout this pandemic we have been very bad at communicating the actual risk of infection to individuals."Instead of concentrating on schools we should have been concentrating on care homes. We were not really thinking about where the risk lies, just on suppressing the virus.Lockdown will come to be seen as a 'monumental mistake on a global scale'"We should open schools, monitor closely for any outbreaks and have effective plans in place to deal with them if they happen."The bottom line is that if we want to relax measures we have to accept there will be some outbreaks, which will be containable if we don’t open up too far, and not go into panic mode again."As we lift restrictions, the most important thing is to make sure that people who need protection are protected – particularly those over 70 or with underlying health conditions. This is not a one size fits all."We need to protect those at greatest risk and make sure that the support they need is in place. Then we can re-evaluate the balance between controlling the virus and harms that lockdown causes to the wider economy and society."Ultimately he believed the only viable long term solution was testing, which had already paid dividends in the sporting world.He pointed out that the Premier League had shown testing could allow events to take place that had been considered undeliverable just a few months ago.Applying the same principle on a larger scale would help the country back on its feet.The Premier League has shown testing could allow events to take place that had been considered undeliverable just a few months agoHe explained: "The challenge we have is asymptomatic transmission, particularly in younger age groups who may not get symptoms. The answer is more testing. This he said should also include schools because even though there is less risk of transmission from children or severe illness among children, testing in schools would inspire confidence about the safety of opening them."Healthcare workers, care home workers and social care workers. Testing of teachers in schools and universities would have to be done on the scale of the Premier League - they made it work and used testing to get their core activity up and running."People say cost is an issue with widespread testing but the cost of not doing it is absolutely enormous because without it we cannot unlock society."The Premier League carried out 40,000 tests to run its final series of matches - and it was successful. This should be a benchmark. If you can run football safely you can run businesses and schools safely with the same strict testing regime. Schools and businesses need to think like the Premier League. The costs have to be found."(3) FDA Captured and Corrupt - FDA Foundation (Reagan-Udall ) is funded by the Gates Foundationhttps://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/21/reagan-udall-foundation-for-the-fda.aspxFDA — Captured and Corruptby Dr. Joseph MercolaOctober 21, 2020STORY AT-A-GLANCEWhile the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation, which receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interestsThe Reagan-Udall Foundation is a nonprofit foundation created by Congress in 2007 to support scientific research that is of interest to the FDA. It accepts grants from government, individual donors and other nonprofits — even when those nonprofits are created and funded by industryThe Reagan-Udall Foundation has received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationEllen Sigal, who currently chairs the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s board of directors, is also vice president of the Cancer Moonshot program, funded by the Gates Foundation, and she’s on the board of the Parker Institute, which is partnered with Inovio, a Gates-funded company that is currently working on a COVID-19 vaccineAccording to the rules, no more than four of the 14-member board of the Reagan-Udall Foundation are supposed to be representatives of FDA-regulated industries, yet in 2017, nine of the then 13-member board had financial ties to industry at the time of their appointment If you’re like most people, you probably assume that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is funded by the U.S. government and therefore isn’t catering to private industries.The agency itself certainly tries to present itself as independent from the industries it regulates but, in reality, legal loopholes have led to the FDA receiving money from, and being captured and corrupted by, private interests.While the FDA itself does not accept corporate money, it does receive money funneled via a nonprofit foundation, which in turn receives money from other nonprofits funded by private interests. It’s really all a façade because the end result is the same. Those donating the money ultimately end up with the ability to pull strings, when needed.The Reagan-Udall FoundationAs explained by NPR1 back in 2012, the Reagan-Udall Foundation is a nonprofit foundation created by Congress in 2007 to support scientific research that is of interest to the FDA. According to NPR:2"The idea was that this foundation could do things the FDA can't. It would raise money from private sources, fund research in areas where the FDA lacks expertise, and organize collaborations involving industry, patient groups and academia."As explained in a 2008 article3 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the creation of the Reagan-Udall Foundation was part of a larger plan to establish a private-public partnership to facilitate the Critical Path Initiative.The Critical Path Initiative was part of the FDA’s attempts to streamline and modernize the drug approval process by having companies pay user fees. Part of the Reagan-Udall Foundation’s responsibilities was to set goals and priorities for the Critical Path Initiative, and then award grants to meet those goals.Massive Loophole: Nonprofits Funded by IndustryHowever, critics voiced concern, saying the Reagan-Udall Foundation might allow the food and medical industries "to sway FDA decisions," since it could raise money from private, including industry, sources. To quell some of these fears, the Reagan-Udall Foundation said it would only accept grants from government, individual donors and other nonprofits, not industry.After a few years of scraping by on small, private donations, the foundation received a $150,000 grant from the PhRMA Foundation, another nonprofit foundation funded by drug companies. Being a nonprofit, the PhRMA Foundation fit the description of an acceptable funding source, but just how independent can it actually be when it’s founded and funded by drug companies?As noted by consumer advocate Sidney Wolfe with Public Citizen, while the PhRMA Foundation is technically a nonprofit, "one can hardly expect that they're going to do things that are not in the interests of their funders."4Indeed, and this influence is in addition to the influence food, drug and medical device companies already have, by way of user fees. Again, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act established an accelerated application process for new drugs. The sped-up process is funded through industry-paid fees.This fee, however, works more like a payoff or soft bribe. When a company pays the FDA for an accelerated review, the agency no longer has an incentive to find fault with the product or demand more extensive testing.FDA Foundation Funded by the Gates FoundationNot surprisingly, the Reagan-Udall Foundation has received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which we now know rarely does anything that doesn’t benefit Gates’ personal bottom line and overall agenda.As detailed in "Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?" Gates has used his philanthropy to shape public policy in ways that benefit his own agenda.A March 17, 2020, article5 in The Nation titled, "Bill Gates’ Charity Paradox," even points out that the Gates Foundation has given $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies, including GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, Vodafone, the Mastercard affiliate MasterCard Labs for Financial Inclusion,6,7 Scholastic Inc. and NBC Universal Media.8,9Many of these so-called donations end up benefiting the Gates Foundation, as it also invests in the very same companies and industries that it donates money to. This circular economy is why Gates just keeps getting richer, the more money he gives away.Part of this wealth growth also appears to be due to the tax breaks given for charitable donations. In short, it’s a perfect money-shuffling scheme that limits taxes while maximizing income generation.If donating to for-profit companies sounds oddly illegal to you, you’d be right. Gates is a tax evader for doing so — he’s simply getting away with it. The nonprofit foundation is a disguise to avoid taxes while funding the research arms of for-profit organizations that his foundation is invested in, which is illegal.The image below shows donations received by the Reagan-Udall Foundation in 2013. Topping the list is the Gates Foundation, whose contributions for the year amounted to $977,165, followed by a string of drug companies.donations received by the reagan udall foundation Board Members With Ties to IndustryIn addition to all of this financial clout, food, drug and medical device makers also have the ability to exert influence over the FDA via the members10 of the Foundation board, and this was a concern right from the get-go.As reported in the 2008 Journal of the National Cancer Institute article,11 members of the then-newly created Reagan-Udall Foundation executive board had troubling ties to industry — and to the Gates Foundation, which years later (see above) ended up being a top financial donor. The article, written by Joel B. Finkelstein, reads, in part:12"The Food and Drug Administration's most recent steps toward modernizing the drug approval process have renewed some old questions about the FDA's relationship with the industries it regulates. [...]- Sources and References1, 2, 4 NPR April 3, 20123, 11, 12, 13 Journal of the National Cancer Institute March 5, 2008; 100(5): 296-2975, 8 The Nation March 17, 20206, 9 Jacobinmag.com November 20157 PND December 8, 201410, 17 Reagan-Udall Foundation Board of Directors14, 15 The BMJ 2017;358:j327516 The Fedup Democrat June 19, 202018, 19 Science Magazine October 1, 2020