THE COVID 19 CONTROVERSY

INTRODUCTION

“Don’t you believe in science?” This is what I hear from my friends and neighbors when I wonder about the policies instituted because of Covid-19. For people who are not doctors or epidemiologists, it has been hard not to be coopted into highly politicized camps. The review below is a first attempt to turn to “specialists” for clarification.

CORONA: FALSE ALARM? by Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi.

The authors of Corona: False Alarm? have one small paragraph on science, which the following sentence summarizes. “Let’s not be naïve. Science is just as corrupt as politics.” And that statement comes from two people who have all kinds of scientific credentials in biochemistry, immunobiology, and epigenetics.

Of course, I believe in science, but not being a scientist myself, I have to trust those who transmit the scientific message, i.e., government agencies and the media – and there’s the rub. It is therefore very gratifying to hear directly from two scientists who take the trouble to make the science accessible. They happen to describe the situation in Germany, but it is eminently recognizable from the situation we experience in the U.S. as well.

The SARS virus is apparently familiar from respiratory infections known by non-scientists as the common cold. It mutates frequently and received the name of SARS-CoV-2 in December of 2019 during its manifestation in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where it proved highly contagious.

However, Drs. Reiss and Bhakdi warn that SARS-CoV-2 is a virus, while the designation of Covid-19 refers to the possible illness caused by this virus. Not all people who tested positive with SARS-CoV-2 became ill. Moreover, the reliability of the tests is highly questionable. Nevertheless, the more people are tested and are found to be (often falsely) “positive,” the more “evidence” is claimed that we are suffering a Covid-19 “pandemic.”    

Another open question is how lethal the illness is. Apparently, the mortality statistics in Wuhan proved, in time, to be relatively minor. Was this because Covid-19 is not much more dangerous than the common cold – or is this because the Chinese resorted to the extreme measures of quarantining the entire Wuhan population of some 7 million people? Evidently, most governments around the world concluded that the latter program was to be followed.

Moreover, the mortality statistics, which are attributed to Covid-19, do not take into account other factors. The first country in Europe, which reported high mortality, was Italy. But it happened primarily in Lombardy, which is known for high air pollution, and to an older population with a number of serious pre-existing conditions. Corona-19 may have precipitated their death, as “regular” influenza is known to do as well, but the defining cause of death was cancer, heart, or pulmonary disease.

The news from Italy, described as the “China of Europe,” caused general panic. Hospitals in Germany and elsewhere received special funds for intensive care units and stocked up on ventilators. People with serious illnesses, who needed hospitalization, avoided hospitals for fear of contracting the “deadly virus” and died, particularly in nursing homes. 

The authors report that the German RKA, the counterpart of the American CDC (Center for Disease Control), initially issued reassuring news. But later in mid-March, when statistics showed that the epidemic had reached its peak, the RKA proclaimed a state of emergency and prescribed a lockdown. This was partly due to the massive increase in (largely unreliable) testing: if you test positive for SARS-CoV-2, it was declared that you are ill with Covid-19. Never mind if you are asymptomatic: you are a danger to others. The lockdown which the authors state to have been unnecessary in the first place, was repeatedly renewed. And now we hear of a “second wave.”

In May “a confidential document appeared on the website of the German Ministry of the Interior” the authors report. It was a copy of “the minutes of a meeting of the coronavirus task force” conducted in April. The authors conclude: the document revealed that ”the central goal was to create a massive shock effect.” Dying from Covid-19 was to be described like “slow drowning.” Children were dangerous infection carriers. Alarming consequences of the disease were to be expected. (pp.64/65)

This frightening narrative is familiar to Americans as well. Perhaps some of us have been tempted to ascribe this to the expected theatrics prevailing in years of presidential elections. This year’s elections have been particularly fraught with taking sides: Democrats dutifully wear masks, while Republicans do not. The German authors who have no stake in our elections state that there is no single scientifically sound reason to wear masks: asymptomatic people without cough or fever are not contagious, nor can such cotton masks protect from infection.

But as the authors also point out, the collateral damage to these official decisions is incalculable: failing economy; disruption of medical care; increase in drugs and suicide; the toll on the elderly; the stress on the children deprived of school; consequences on the world’s poorest people.

Do they have overcrowded prisons, Black ghettoes, millions of undocumented Latinos, poor Native American reservations – and no national health care in Germany? These exclusive American circumstances are responsible for high instances of mortality in these vulnerable populations – whether triggered by Covid-19 or the result of the circumstances themselves.

While the authors deeply deplore this tragic fallout, they do not take it much further than the general incompetence of the politicians. They even quote Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to the effect that “the stupidity of governments should never be underestimated.” They also regret the failure of what we call, pace Jefferson, “the fourth estate.”  They describe how dissenting professional voices from the scientific community were systematically disallowed by the authorities and vilified by the media.

And then there is the question of vaccines, so urgently promised for our salvation. The authors engage in a detailed and rather technical analysis on the usefulness of vaccines. Their general conclusion is that in the case of SARS-CoV-2 they would not be of much use. In the U.S. Robert Kennedy Jr. has for quite some time been questioning the usefulness and safety of certain vaccines but has largely been denied a platform to debate the issue.

But the use of vaccines has broader implications. The book under review, however, does not address them. In May of 2018 the World Economic Forum (WEF) which meets yearly in Davos, Switzerland, partnered with Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to simulate a pandemic – called “Clade X.” Its purpose was to see how prepared the world would be if ever faced with such a crisis. In October of 2019 there was another pandemic exercise, specifically simulating a coronavirus outbreak, called “Event 201.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation participated in this second simulation. The foundation is well known for its support of vaccine development and is one of the principal contributors to the World Health Organization (WHO). On March 11 the WHO officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status. The dire consequences predicted by the simulations, triggering economic and social problems on a global scale, are visible everywhere today.

Just as the authors of the book under review drew attention to the “planned” character of the alarm call by the German coronavirus task force, the “simulations” by the WEF as well as the willing support of the WHO have all the indications of a plan. Apparently, Klaus Schwab, who founded the WEF in 2014, has been calling for a reorganization of world affairs to be managed by the world leaders gathered at Davos.

And now that a world crisis, thanks to the paralyzing fear of a “pandemic,” is in progress, the opportunity to institute the major changes the WEF deems necessary – which Klaus Schwab calls a “reset,” seems possible.

But don’t we need some sort of “reset” to rescue us from our troubles? It’s just that no one elected the WEF leaders. And the leaders we do elect have been practicing “resets” for some time now: did they not “reboot the economy” after the 2008 recession and yet again with the recent Care Act by refloating the banks and the multinationals? Has this increased job, health, and education opportunities for the rest of us?

And now they are planning an even more promising “reset.” The high-tech algorithms will facilitate international private-public busines. And vaccines, now ever more genetically engineered, will facilitate population tracing. In the meantime, some countries are considering, and others have already instituted ID cards for the vaccinated. Will this restrict access to work, travel, or entry to public places for those who refuse to be vaccinated?

You must give the “leaders” their due: they are not sitting in lockups or running around choking on masks. They are working to save themselves and the system that supports them.

What is to be done then, to ask the perennial question. Since their “system” is clearly failing, let us replace it by a system that works for the rest of us. It has been said so many times before: they have the money – we have the numbers.  We can begin by heeding the authors’ evidence that the “corona pandemic” is largely a “false alarm.” We can take off our masks. And we can get together and work on defending our own vision of a just and prosperous world.