(by Dr. Rachel Nicoll | The Daily Skeptic) – It is clear that many are now waking up to the realisation that much of the Government narrative on the pandemic was wrong and that many of the COVID-19 preventive measures did more harm than good. Both candidates for U.K. Prime Minister have recently admitted that the lockdowns were a mistake. In particular, many of the unsuspecting public who submitted to the vaccinations are now beginning to question the need for them. Vaccinations have not fulfilled the claims of manufacturers and governments and few in mainstream science seem to have anticipated the frequent mutations which render the early vaccines largely useless. More are now starting to question the unexpected, and sometimes fatal, conditions which some of the vaccinated mysteriously develop soon after vaccination. Others simply have ‘vaccine fatigue’ and can’t be bothered going for any more jabs.
Furthermore, there are those who know something about immunology and can see that natural immunity from having contracted the virus sets them up with excellent protection (not just antibodies but also the longer-lasting T cell immunity) against many future variants. They have also long recognised that you cannot stop a highly infectious virus spreading, as was acknowledged in the evidence-based U.K. pandemic plan, capriciously jettisoned by Boris Johnson and his ‘expert’ advisors. They can also see that these experts’ recommended means of avoiding the virus (masks, lockdown, social distancing) have not worked, and we are now seeing the results of the ‘Zero Covid’ policy in China, where successive cities are being placed back in lockdown. Meanwhile news is beginning to creep out of the success of natural remedies as well as banned drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which can protect against the infection and keep it from becoming serious.
Interestingly, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which provided the official recommendations on lockdown, masks and social distancing throughout the pandemic, followed slavishly in the U.K. and elsewhere, has now quietly changed its guidance to advocating personal responsibility by stating that “Persons can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviours to use and when”. They are now recommending the individual risk assessment and risk-based countermeasures which many of us have been advocating from the start of the pandemic, since the elderly and those with co-morbidities have always been at much greater risk than healthy children and young adults. Indeed, much of the revised CDC guidance could have been cut and pasted from the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s just such a pity that so many of us have been attacked, cancelled and sacked from our jobs for saying this from the beginning.
Although there was much talk early in the pandemic of achieving ‘herd immunity’ through infection or vaccination, we no longer hear anything about this, since it has become clear that vaccination does not bring about herd immunity; achieving herd immunity through infection would negate the validity of the vaccine roll-out. Of course, since vaccinations were introduced, it has become impossible to assess natural herd immunity but there is no reason to suppose that it would not have been achieved in the absence of vaccines; there is plenty of evidence of pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses.
It’s not clear exactly how many of us are completely unvaccinated; figures range from 5 million (official Government sources) to over 23 million (other sources). This matters, because over 23 million represents around 35% of the U.K. population, a not insubstantial proportion. Interestingly, this 35% is the exact same proportion as the official number of unvaccinated globally. So much for the unvaccinated being a tiny and insignificant minority! We can all remember how governments around the world have tried to stigmatise the unvaccinated as pariahs for the last 18 months because of their ‘selfishness’ in refusing the vaccine, thereby placing others at risk by potentially transmitting COVID-19. Yet all the evidence indicates that vaccination does not prevent transmission of COVID-19, a point that even the vaccine manufacturers now acknowledge. The CDC has also tacitly acknowledged this by stating that “prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur”. It even grudgingly allows for natural immunity by stating “persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection”. And who, after at least two and a half years of exposure to a highly transmissible virus, has not had COVID-19, even asymptomatically? So why bother getting vaccinated at all?
So what are the experiences of the unvaccinated? A recent study led by Dr. Rob Verkerk of the Alliance for Natural Health International, evaluating survey results from 18,500 completely unvaccinated respondents to a survey by the international, U.K.-based, Control Group Cooperative, found that reasons for avoiding COVID-19 vaccination included distrust of health authorities, governments or the pharmaceutical industry, insufficient evidence of safety or effectiveness and concerns over potential injuries or adverse reactions. Over 70% relied on natural remedies for prevention and treatment, while two thirds also used repurposed, generic, off-patent drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, sales of which provide no revenue to the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies.
So were these unvaccinated individuals all Covid-free? No, and that was neither expected nor desired – one cannot build up natural immunity without contracting the infection. Among those who contracted COVID-19 during the reporting period, only 0.4% reported hospitalisation (as either in- or out-patients). Since this was an international cohort, it is not possible to compare this figure to national hospitalisation rates, which are often not available. However, a rate of 0.4% is sufficiently low to suggest that the unvaccinated have not placed a significant additional burden on healthcare systems. While there have been plenty of media headlines mentioning the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’, the actual evidence for this was always thin on the ground and has since evaporated altogether. This is particularly so when bearing in mind that anyone who contracts COVID-19 within two weeks of vaccination is labelled ‘unvaccinated’. Instead, a recent study showed that, in the U.K., there are an increasing number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths among the vaccinated elderly.
Furthermore, the vast majority of hospitalised Control Group respondents reported no use of natural remedies or repurposed drugs in hospital, reflecting the mainstream belief that these products don’t work and should not be used in a healthcare setting. This meant that any ongoing benefit they might have experienced from these remedies was immediately curtailed. Although not mentioned by the authors, another factor potentially affecting severity of disease in this cohort of individuals who believed in self-care, was the likely lower incidence of comorbidities (obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease etc.), which have been found to predict more severe disease.
Disturbingly, the respondents reported a high incidence of mental health issues. Much of this is likely because of the legalised sacking from jobs due to being unvaccinated (reaching a peak of 29% in respondents from Australia and New Zealand), the personal hate campaigns experienced by many and being a target of governmental victimisation (57% to 61% in Australia, New Zealand, Western and Southern Europe and South America). Other useful nuggets from the survey included the fact that those who reported never wearing facial coverings or masks also experienced the lowest incidence of suspected or confirmed COVID-19, indicating once again that masks are ineffective in stopping a virus.
This paper was originally placed with the preprint server ResearchGate but was removed on the grounds that “the content may expose [ResearchGate] to harm, potential legal liability, or [was] in breach of [its] Terms”. Happily, Dr. Verkerk’s team and the Control Group Cooperative persevered and the analysis and interpretation, in revised and even expanded form, has now been successfully peer-reviewed and published in the much bolder International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research. An excellent commentary on this study has been put out by the Alliance for Natural Health.