COVID-19 saw the emergence of an industry of fact-checking websites and censorship of alleged misinformation, portrayed as a danger to public health and safety. Official sources were almost as focused on refuting competing ideas as on providing supposedly useful and accurate information. A good example of this was a guide against 'coronavirus fake news' issued by Castle Point MP Rebecca Harris in autumn 2020, probably following the publication of the Great Barrington Declaration by three eminent scientists challenging lockdown orthodoxy. It is well worth retrospective review: was officialdom right?
The MP's guide comprised 14 claims, each dismissed as 'fake news'. In what follows, the 'myth' is stated in bold, the 'refutation' from Harris is quoted below it, and our assessment comes next.
1. 5G has caused the virus
FACT CHECK: FalseThe COVID-19 pandemic is caused by a novel form of a coronavirus and there is no evidence that 5G technology has any effect on people's health at all. Scientists have made it clear that there is no link between 5G and coronavirus. A connection with the virus is "both a physical and biological impossibility". This is a conspiracy theory that has come about as a result of false information online. Damaging telecoms infrastructure is particularly dangerous and anyone responsible for these criminal acts will face the full force of the law. 5G is an information technology that allows for faster mobile internet communication and will allow for new innovative services. After extensive trials OFCOM, measured 5G sites in various towns and cities across the U.K., focusing on areas where mobile use is likely to be highest. At every site, emissions were a small fraction of the levels included in international guidelines, as set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. And the maximum measured at any site was 1.5% of those levels. Therefore, 5G is scientifically proven to be safe.This is the tactic of using an unrepresentative and extreme idea to discredit opponents. Politicians are good at asking themselves questions rather than responding to more important or legitimate concerns. Whatever the possible harms of 5G, the spate of mast installations during the first lockdown was unlikely to affect viral communication.
2. If you have Covid and aren't showing symptoms you won't transmit the disease
FACT CHECK: UnquantifiableNot everyone who has COVID-19 has symptoms and it can take up to 14 days to show symptoms in some cases. In reality, we don't yet know exactly how many people might be completely asymptomatic (meaning that you don't show symptoms) while carrying the virus, but studies show it could be a high number. That's why it's so important to self-isolate for at least 14 days if you either live with someone who might have the virus or you've been instructed to by a contact-tracer, and why keeping a safe distance from others is essential.Asymptomatic transmission of respiratory diseases is claimed and was before COVID-19, but by admission of the 'fact-checkers', we do not know how many people are asymptomatic (in theory, everyone in the population). The MP's guide states a 14-day period as necessary for isolation, but this lacks evidence. Taken to its illogical conclusion, this principle would mean that everyone should be endlessly self-isolating and social-distancing, because contraction of the virus is not limited to the symptomatic. Note that the guidance does not mention testing positive: if there was such faith in the tests, as discussed below, surely that would be definitive.
3. Face masks don't work
FACT CHECK: TrueScience in this area has evolved during the outbreak, the body of scientific evidence that has built up shows that the risk of transmission is made lower by wearing a face covering. The more we learn about COVID-19 the clearer it is that face coverings are an absolute vital tool in our fight against the virus. They effectively capture droplets, which is the main way the virus travels from person to person. According to the British Medical Association, if you don't wear one and have COVID-19, the risk of spreading it to others can be as high as 70%. If you do wear one, the risk drops to 5%. Make sure you wear one in all public indoor spaces and whenever you can't keep a two-metre distance from others. It is simple and easy way we can all stop the spread of the virus. Because face coverings are mainly intended to protect others, not the wearer, from coronavirus, they are not a replacement for social distancing and regular hand washing.There is no high quality evidence for the effectiveness of face masks, as shown by the DANMASK-19 study (the only rigorous RCT of face masks to date) and the most recent Cochrane systematic review. But this was known as far back as the Spanish influenza outbreak of a hundred years ago, and medical experts such as Anthony Fauci initially advised against mask use.
4. Masks are harmful to your health and can kill you
FACT CHECK: Partly trueOnly an airtight mask could possibly cause any breathing difficulty. That eliminates cloth masks, the preferred personal protective equipment in public. It actually eliminates N95 respirators, too, usually reserved for healthcare professionals. They fit tighter than a cloth mask but still not tight enough on the face to kill. Surgeons wear even more substantial face coverings all day without endangering their health. The average facemask user without pre-existing respiratory illness has nothing to worry about. Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards.There is credible evidence to suggest that wearing masks can kill, and reports of adverse effects were published in the BMJ. Ironically, amidst the shrill climate alarmism about carbon dioxide, this gas of life was trapped in masks, reaching levels that were genuinely harmful in children.
5. We don't need to worry about a second wave of COVID-19. It's just the same as the normal winter cold and flu season
FACT CHECK: The second wave was hyperbolicCOVID-19 is not the same as winter cold or flu illness - in many ways it's much worse. Seasonal flu has been around for a long time, so scientists and doctors know a lot about it and how to treat people who have the illness. There's also a yearly vaccine available for seasonal flu. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is completely new. Scientists and medical professionals are still learning about the virus - what we do understand is that COVID-19 looks to have a higher reproductive number (the number of people infected by one person) than flu and has a higher death rate. A vaccine is most likely to be some months away. That's why we must do all we can to follow the Government's guidance to stay as safe as possible over the coming months.Official data show that there was indeed a second wave in the U.K., attributed to a new but less dangerous variant of COVID-19 (the Kent or Alpha variant). Toby Young was roasted by Covidians for apparently being proved wrong on this. But just as COVID-19 data in the initial outbreak probably included many people with influenza, it is likely that the second wave included other coronaviruses including the common cold. Although official sources suggested distinct symptoms of COVID-19, the trumpeted loss of taste and smell is not unique, also featuring in influenza. The populace was on 'high alert' for COVID-19, inevitably influencing self-diagnosis, and mass testing of dubious accuracy undoubtedly led to overestimated incidence. Moreover, the Lockdown Files leaked by Isabel Oakeshott revealed Health Secretary Matt Hancock asking colleagues when the new strain would be deployed.
6. It only affects older people, so young people don't have to worry about it
FACT CHECK: True: there was no need for healthy young people to worryMost people who aren't elderly and do not have underlying health conditions will not become critically ill from COVID-19. But the illness still has a higher chance of leading to serious respiratory symptoms than seasonal flu, and we are still learning about some of the other long term effects.Based on official mortality data, the threat of COVID-19 to healthy younger people was negligible. Everyone gets colds and an occasional flu, but it is predominantly frail older people who perish (pneumonia, a bacterial sequel to influenza, is sometimes known as 'the old man's friend'). The narrative around 'Long Covid', obliquely mentioned in Harris's guide, has been crumbling with scientists unable to agree on a definition, middle-aged women possibly confusing it with the onset of menopause, some reports mixing it up with the side-effects of Covid vaccines, and the extraordinary finding that half of the people who report Long Covid symptoms have never had COVID-19.
7. COVID-19 death rate is 0.1% of people that catch it
FACT CHECK: Partly true: slightly higher in older people and very low to negligible in younger peopleThis is incorrect, and the death rate is likely to be five or 10 times higher than this. However, it should be noted that the relative fatality of coronavirus is greatly affected by exogenous factors such as previous health conditions, age and other factors such as smoking or obesity.Was COVID-19 more lethal than flu? Worldometers shows an infection mortality rate of 0.99%, but this is faulty in both numerator and denominator. The latter depends on testing, which we'll consider below. Some people who died within 28 days of a positive test were deemed COVID-19 victims if the physician issuing the death certificate included COVID-19 on the death certificate, including people dying from cancer, heart attacks or accidents, which undoubtedly added to the toll. The lockdown regime, by reducing access to healthcare, possibly contributed to the surge. Arguably, no disease has ever had such inflated mortality, although this eventually became a casualty of mass testing, diluting the death rate. A WHO bulletin by John Ioannidis in 2021 estimated the median infection fatality rate of Covid-19 at 0.23% and in younger people at 0.05%.
8. Testing is inaccurate, and testing for COVID-19 has false positives of 80%
FACT CHECK: Partly true: testing is inaccurate and the problem of false positive tests exists and is far from negligibleTests for active coronavirus are not always correct: at present they are understood to produce false negatives in between 2% to 20% of cases. If you are exhibiting symptoms but receive a negative test result, you must continue to self-isolate. Antibody tests are understood to be accurate in all cases where a person has not suffered with coronavirus, presenting a false negative in approximately 16% of cases where someone has had COVID-19. Developers of these tests have been working to maximise accuracy.Leaving aside the controversy about isolation of the virus, the PCR method is not designed for screening of infectious diseases. The U.K. Government's report on Covid testing indicated a false positive rate of 25%. This report, based on observational data, explained:"If the operational false positive rate was 0.4%, 400 of the 1,570 positive tests would be false positives. That would represent 400 people being isolated when they are well, and much wasted effort in contact tracing. It is possible that a proportion of infections that we currently view as asymptomatic may in fact be due to these false positives."
9. We should let everyone catch the virus so we become immune, even if it causes some deaths in the short-term
FACT CHECK: Partly true: elderly and vulnerable people should be protected if they want it, but few suggested otherwiseIf everyone caught the virus without any strategies in place to suppress it, this could lead to an enormous number of deaths, a devastated healthcare system and a breakdown of our economy and society. It would also prevent people from accessing healthcare, emergency services and even prescriptions for normal medical reasons, and minor conditions could prove to be more fatal. The people most likely to suffer would be some of the most vulnerable in our society. We all have a duty to look out for each other and every person's life is worth protecting. We all have a part to play to protect the most vulnerable people in society. Everyone's actions have a direct impact on how fast the virus spreads. Young people can spread it to older and vulnerable members of society without knowing they are infected. Whatever you do, please remember to follow the Government's guidance.This was the central argument about lockdown: should the Government save lives from the contagion or 'let it rip'. A massive PR exercise ensured that the country was shut down, with Boris Johnson — who initially favoured 'letting it rip' — threatening citizens with arrest if they left home unnecessarily. In fact, as proposed in the much-maligned at the time but now vindicated Great Barrington Declaration (painted at the time as tantamount to 'letting it rip'), a strategy of focused protection of those vulnerable to COVID-19 was put forward, and ignored. As this website (then named Lockdown Sceptics) warned at the time, lockdown was an unmitigated disaster, wreaking severe social, economic, educational and psychological damage, for no significant health benefit.
10. Obesity kills more people than coronavirus
FACT CHECK: True in the longer term at leastThis is a misleading statistic and coronavirus remains the greatest threat to public health. The post circulating takes Covid deaths at one of their lowest points and compares it to an average of obesity caused deaths over a full year. However, as noted by fullfact.org, if you work out an average in a similar manner for the months in which we have had COVID-19, the death rate is significantly higher than that of obesity.We were told that COVID-19 was the biggest threat to humanity since the Second World War or the Great Plague, varying by politicians' bluster. Ironically, after two years of pronounced daily death reports on the news in 2020-21, now politicians and mainstream media are mute on the persistent excess mortality that began after the pandemic declined.
11. The Government is using Behavioural Scientists in SAGE to brainwash and manipulate the public to achieve compliance with dangerous policies and laws
FACT CHECK: TrueThe purpose of SAGE is to provide scientific advice to the Government. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that this has been used to help save lives, and has been nothing to do with behavioural control, nor would it ever be so. I believe that it [is] particularly important during the coronavirus outbreak that the public are provided with truthful information and guidance. The spread of rumours, lies and falsehoods can put lives in danger. Cross-Government work is helping to identify false narratives and provide rebuttals to those claims.The Government has since admitted use of covert and coercive means to manipulate society, as documented by State of Fear, a detailed exposé by Laura Dodsworth. Whether or not it was the behavioural scientists on SAGE (a body including unabashed Communist Susan Michie) who was doing this is not the important point. The Government, though various actors and agencies, subjected people to terrifying propaganda to increase fear and boost control.
12. COVID-19 is man-made
FACT CHECK: Possibly trueScientists from across the world have disproved this theory. Research firmly determines that coronavirus is a result of a naturally occurring process and not a product of laboratory engineering. New diseases have emerged throughout human history, and we have seen two other major coronavirus outbreaks in the last two decades: SARS and MERS. The COVID-19 pandemic is not a hoax, it is a global outbreak caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2.The presence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the city of the first major COVID-19 outbreak inevitably aroused suspicion, particularly as its laboratories were engaged in gain-of-function research on SARS-like, bat-vectored coronaviruses. Harris parrots the official narrative without satisfactory rebuttal of the lab leak thesis.
13. The Government will force everyone to take a harmful and potentially lethal vaccine which it is already buying millions of doses of with our money.
FACT CHECK: Partly trueThe powers granted to the Government under the Coronavirus Act 2020 are made under and subject to the restrictions of the Control of Disease Act 1984. Under the 1984 Act, Ministers have the power to make regulations which prevent danger to public health and prevent the spread of infection, but these regulations do not include mandatory treatment or vaccination. Across the globe, there are 140 vaccines not yet in human trials, 19 in small-scale safety trials, 11 in expanded safety trials, and three in large-scale efficacy trials, including the Oxford vaccine trial. Scientists worldwide are hoping to develop a coronavirus vaccine within 12 to 18 months. While severe side-effects from vaccinations are rare, as a result of the rigorous testing and review process prior to usage, in the event that these effects occur, the Government has established the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. This means that, if an individual is severely disabled as a result of a vaccination against certain diseases, he or she can receive a one-off-tax-free payment of £120,000. While the VDPS is primarily designed to cover adverse reactions for vaccination in the child immunisation programme, the scheme is kept under review at all times with further vaccination programmes included if appropriate. However, safety, effectiveness and the ability to tolerate the vaccine are top priorities for manufacturers and regulators, and I fully support the system of clinical trials currently in place to minimise the risk of side-effects.The Government most certainly tried - and failed - to force everyone to take a course of experimental injections, which proved to be neither safe nor effective. COVID-19 vaccines are demonstrably harmful (as shown by the Yellow Card system) and sometimes lethal (as confirmed by coroner reports).
14. Bill Gates has a vaccine to the coronavirus
FACT CHECK: Red herringThis is untrue and deliberately misleading. A patent application was made for a different coronavirus filed by the Pirbright Institute, which receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but this has no connection to COVID-19. Coronavirus is a large category of viruses that includes the common cold, SARS and the new virus that causes COVID-19.Why is the Government so keen to protect Bill Gates? He provided funding for COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution. Whether he personally had a vaccine ready is a spurious claim that is used to associate sceptics with wacky conspiracy theorists.
Thankfully, there is now the investigative team at BBC Verify to rescue the truth from future pandemic propagandists!
Roger Watson was previously the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Advanced Nursing, published by Wiley, and is currently the Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Education in Practice, published by Elsevier. He is also an editorial board member of the WIkiJournal of Medicine.
Niall McCrae was an editorial board member of Journal of Advanced Nursing.
Reader Comments
15. The 'virus' has been isolated
Fact check: False
What these virologists do is exactly the opposite, they contaminate by adding all kinds of genetic materials and toxins to the 'virus', and let this sit in a petri dish for 7-10days. Forget about all the excuses they give you for doing this.
This makes the whole process invalid .
This does NOT fit the definition of isolation.
If other testing is performed to show that no other pathogenic material is present that could have caused the damage, it can be inferred that whatever has been identified is the isolated cause of the destruction. I can point to a study where a mock-infected control shows no CPE, yet a patient's nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples produce CPE. In effect, we would hope that that means that the Vero cells aren't capable of producing exosomes indistinguishable from virus. Further testing of other cell cultures in this study showed the virus seemed incapable of reproduction therein--ergo the CPE can be inferred to not be a result of simply being inoculated by the patient specimen, but that some other transformation had taken place for that to occur.
Basically they treat the samples differently and then get different results.
The only time they even mention controls in this is They don't tell us what they did. Did they use water? Samples from uninfected? PCR-negative samples? Did they use the same amount and concentration of growth medium, antibiotics/antifungals? Did they keep them for the same amount of time?
They cite this study from the same main author: [Link]
The only time they mention controls is this: aliquot: Aliquot of a sample, in chemistry or the other sciences, an exact portion of a sample or total amount of a liquid (e.g. exactly 25 mL of water taken from 250 ml)
So they used infected sample for the experiment and a smaller part of infected sample for controls. Same questions as above apply.
The point is the different treatment/conditions, which by itself invalidates them as controls. If you don't get this, you're part of the pseudoscience.
How about the validation is that cell lines can go on without displaying CPE despite being insulted by other lines that show positive results?
For the entire context of the second quote you made, So, they tested for human genetic material to confirm the extraction step of the PCR. Between the science of viral cell culture and genomic sequencing, which cross-verify and mutually support each other, there's better evidence in support of the theory of transmissable pathogens than in whatever hand-waving alternatives are making the rounds on bitchute.
Rather, what do you propose can explain the phenomena that are attributed to viral theory, as per your bold quote above? Certainly your attempts at refutation are not dispositive in the face of all the work being done and able to be reproduced throughout the world by non-arm-chair-scientists. You're obviously illiterate on the topic since you searched for control in who knows how many articles just to cherry-pick that part above.
For God's sake do your own research or learn how to. Think for yourself.
Look at how the article is created. Look at the words that are bold-type at the beginning of each "myth". What is the phrasing?
For example, Face Masks Don't Work . The text following indicates that the "myth" is face masks work. The tendency of the audience will give prominence to the "myth" is Face Masks Don't Work, instead of the opposite.
A different example, 5G has caused the virus. In this case the author says the "fact checkers" are using an "extreme" example to demonstrate they are truthful. What is the effect of this? Simply that 5G is not related to the virus. Does the author address anything about 5G? No. It has been claimed that Wuhan turned on a 5G network during the initial phase of the "plandemic".
8. (tests are inaccurate) has direct implications for 7. (death rate).
If the tests are inaccurate, the death rate is inaccurate. Curious, that the author decided to list these points the other way around.