COVID19: Debunking the propaganda narrative

In this article, Annes Bouria, who has been closely observing what has been going on since the beginning of the health crisis, offers 10 points of debunking⁽¹⁾ about the official narrative of the health crisis and the general public’s beliefs about covid.

1) The « coronavirus » is an extremely dangerous virus

Coronaviruses are a family of viruses to which Sars-cov2 belongs, the agent of the disease called covid19. The latter is a potentially dangerous atypical pneumonia for certain categories of the population, just like other respiratory infections… Otherwise, not so much. At least, not as much as we thought at first. The actual case fatality rate (number of deaths per infected person) is estimated to be between 0.27 and 0.65%⁽²⁾. This is 5 to 15 times less than the 3% given at the beginning of the pandemic. This is of the same order of magnitude as the case fatality rate of seasonal flu (0.1–0.5%) and far from the case fatality rates of the most deadly viruses such as Ebola or smallpox, which are well over 20%.

Moreover, the mortality by age group is eloquent⁽³⁾: only the elderly pay, unfortunately, a heavy price to this disease. In the Belgian statistical data, there is no excess mortality in the age groups below 65 years for the year 2020. In Belgium⁽⁴⁾, almost half of the « covid » deaths occurred in nursing homes⁽⁵⁾.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of « covid deaths, » 92% according to a Sciensano report ⁽⁶⁾, are deaths of patients with one or more risk factors called comorbidities. Many victims were unfortunately already very weak when they were infected. So, one might ask, how much of a role did the virus play in the deaths of these people?

Serious cases in healthy people under 45 years of age are practically anecdotal! In all, there is a large proportion of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients⁽⁷⁾ (equivalent to a cold or flu), less than 5% of « covid cases » require hospitalization, with about 1% of severe cases requiring intensive care⁽⁸⁾ who are largely elderly and/or frail.

As for the after-effects of covid, they are difficult to evaluate, but seem to be reversible and mainly concern fatigue or loss of smell. Only 20 to 30% of hospitalized patients (themselves a very small minority) would still have major sequelae 60 days after remission⁽⁹⁾.

With up to 75% of asymptomatic cases, a disease that almost totally spares children and a median death rate of over 80 years⁽¹⁰⁾… Without minimizing the pain or suffering of the victims and their families, one can objectively find a worse disease.

2) It is a very contagious virus

Again, there is nothing exceptional about it. The contagiousness of Sars-cov2 is of the same order as most viral respiratory infections, a little more contagious than the flu, but no more.

The contagiousness of a disease can be theoretically calculated using a mathematical formula called R0 or « reproduction rate ». According to the literature, covid19 varies between 2 and 4⁽¹¹⁾. The R0 for seasonal flu is about 2, mumps is 4 to 7, rubella is 5 to 7, diphtheria is 6 to 7, chickenpox is 10 to 12, pertussis is 12 to 17, and measles is 12 to 18.⁽¹²⁾

So, contrary to what we are led to believe, Sars-cov2 is not more contagious than its cousins, the other coronaviruses, responsible for colds which have R0 which are also around 3.

3) There are no treatments

Wrong! The methodological orthodoxy of the academic world, in conjunction with the pharmaceutical industry, is based on double-blind randomized clinical trials as the only evidence. But neither science nor medicine can be reduced to this type of statistical measurement. Medicine is about treating people, and science is mainly about observation… And in this field, the observations made by field practitioners around the world have highlighted several therapeutics that give good results⁽¹³⁾. We will not go back to the controversy of Hydroxychloroquine, but it is used in many countries with satisfactory results according to their health authorities, Morocco, Greece, India … To name but a few⁽¹⁴⁾. Azithromycin, an antibiotic frequently used in respiratory infections, is also favored by many general practitioners, as it seems to prevent severe forms of the disease, provided it is administered early in the infection. Used in Africa, Artemisia annua also seems to be effective against covid⁽¹⁵⁾. Not to mention Ivermectin, an anti-parasite whose effectiveness has been widely demonstrated.

As prophylaxis (prevention), zinc and vitamin D could drastically reduce the incidence of severe cases. In the more advanced stages, corticosteroids such as dexamethasone, anticoagulants to prevent thrombosis, or oxygen therapy can be used.

Intubation of ICU patients is primarily due to the fact that they arrive at the hospital in very advanced stages of illness. Something that happens logically when you choose not to treat people by telling them to stay home and take only paracetamol…

4) We have witnessed a « second wave

The concept of a « wave » is not based on any epidemiological model of viral infections. This is anxiety-provoking novlangue terminology that does not reflect the dynamics of viral outbreaks at all.

Viral epidemiological models observe patterns⁽¹⁶⁾: an epidemic peak where the infection is very virulent, then fades. Then, either the pathogen disappears or it mutates, adapts to its host and becomes cyclic/seasonal (as in the case of influenza and other endemic viruses). It seems that this is the second path that the Sars-cov2 took.

Today, we are told of a 3rd wave as if the hypothetical upcoming covid peak and the fall episode were the result of the same epidemic phenomenon as the first episode in March 2020. This is not the case, as different variants of the virus have spread⁽¹⁷⁾. The « second wave » was a different epidemic from the first, and was not a « rebound » from the first, or even a predictable or inexorable phenomenon. Otherwise, why was there no « second wave » in the Far East?

All we can do are observations, because we do not know what the future is made of, on the other hand, catastrophist speculations are going well!

5) Variants or mutants are necessarily more dangerous

Once again, this is a preconceived notion that is widely promoted by the sensationalist media. All microorganisms mutate, especially viruses. And the category to which Sars-cov2 belongs, the RNA viruses, mutates enormously⁽¹⁸⁾. Flu viruses also mutate. Each year, different mutants from last year give the winter epidemics. The purpose of a virus is not to kill its hosts, but to adapt to them in order to survive and multiply. This is why, generally, a mutant virus can be more contagious without being more deadly.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, 12,000 mutations of this Sars-cov2 have been identified, only a few of which have had an impact on the dynamics of the pandemic⁽¹⁹⁾. This is a good reason to put things into perspective!

6) There is an increase in « cases » and « contaminations

These are not « cases » or « contaminations » in the clinical sense. What is happening is that the authorities, as well as the press, are listing protocol PCR tests where it is determined whether an individual is a carrier of the virus. But this does not necessarily mean that the person is sick or contagious⁽²⁰⁾. Especially since a majority of positives are asymptomatic, which means, at worst, that they are in the incubation period, or at best that their immune system has managed the virus and that the patient is potentially immune.

Not to mention that PCR tests are very sensitive and produce false positives. Studies have shown that up to 90% of positive PCR tests are of no clinical significance when performed in such a broad population⁽²¹⁾.

Only indicators such as hospitalizations, intensive care unit occupancy, and mortality have significance for the severity of the epidemic episode. And here again, not everything is 100% reliable, because these indicators are also based on PCR tests…

7) Rules must be imposed on everyone to protect the vulnerable

This is the fallacy on which the entire coercive health policy is based if we take into account the epidemiological data by age group.

Yes, older people and/or those with risk factors are encouraged to protect themselves. But the rest of the population does not have to maintain all these health rules since it presents little risk and is therefore potentially a breeding ground for building the collective immunity of the population. And this herd immunity is really the best way to protect people at risk in the medium term⁽²²⁾.

At the beginning of the epidemic, all the sanitary measures were imposed, because collective immunity was not yet available. Today, the measures taken prevent it from being reached. As for the case of the masks, discouraged, then obligatory, it is to understand nothing!

8) Vaccine is THE panacea, our « only chance » to defeat the virus

First of all, vaccination is a health tool, not a « magic wand ». However, we are literally witnessing an unprecedented vaccine dogmatism, which is more a matter of faith than of science! This strategy consists of relying on artificial herd immunity obtained through mass vaccination. The latter is, in fact, only an « imitation » of natural herd immunity, but without the health drawbacks such as severe cases and deaths. At least, in theory…

For the moment, only two (soon three) vaccines are available in Belgium. And these first two vaccines involve a new messenger RNA technology for which we have no experience in humans on such a large scale.

The only data we have to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these vaccines are the publications of the pharmaceutical companies on their phase III clinical trials, which were conducted over an unprecedented period of time. In other words, contrary to what this gigantic vaccine propaganda peremptorily asserts, we are in the dark. There is no certainty about the real long and medium term risks, which remain unknown. There is no certainty that this vaccination campaign will be effective in reducing the incidence of severe cases. Especially when we are told that we don’t know if vaccinated people will always be contagious or how long the hypothetical immunity conferred by vaccines will last, or if vaccines will be effective against new variants⁽²³⁾.

Even so, what is the point of vaccinating an entire population for a condition that is so non-lethal in the age groups that correspond to the active population?

According to the principle of the benefit/risk balance, these vaccines should be reserved exclusively for people at risk. But at this point, it is legitimate to consider it as a nonsense!

9) Containment and mandatory masking are effective solutions

Containment and mask requirements are political, not medical, measures. They are not based on any scientific evidence of effectiveness on either epidemic dynamics or mortality. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! This was the result of a scientific investigation by the world’s leading epidemiologist, Professor Ioannidis of Stanford University, in a meticulous study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation⁽²⁴⁾.

By simple observation, countries that have not imposed any of these measures (Sweden, Belarus, Estonia) or have done so in a local or reduced manner (Germany, Netherlands, Croatia) have more or less the same epidemic curves⁽²⁵⁾They are doing even better than the countries that have imposed these rules in a drastic way (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom)⁽²⁶⁾ !

Remember why the^first containment was imposed: to smooth the curve of hospitalizations in order not to saturate the resuscitation beds. This flattening of the curve has NEVER been scientifically demonstrated, and the official narrative is intent on confusing coincidence with causation when it claims that « lock-downs » are followed by a drop in case incidence. The confinement would have supposedly served to avoid saturation of a hospital system already under tension for 20 years and very often overloaded during epidemic peaks of influenza⁽²⁷⁾.

Let’s be clear:

There is a difference between detecting, isolating and treating contagious patients (as has always been done in the case of epidemics), and indiscriminately confining the entire population without any discernment and without any local care. Some studies have even shown the opposite effect of that expected⁽²⁸⁾, not to mention the secondary mortality (suicides, undetected diseases) as well as the catastrophic social and economic consequences.

There is also a difference between CORRECTLY wearing, in a hygienic way, a protective mask type FFP2 or surgical, in closed and crowded places in phase of epidemic peak, when the risk of contagion is great especially, if one is a person at risk, and imposing to wear pieces of fabrics or surgical masks badly used, without preliminary rules of hygiene, including in outside and out of a period of epidemic peak on top of that. That’s a lot of crap, sorry!

No, it is legitimate to think that indiscriminate containment and mandatory masking bring more disadvantages than expected benefits.

10) The authorities know what they are doing

There is in some minds not very subversive the idea that the ruling class has the power because it deserves it or that it has a capacity to lead. Nothing could be further from the truth. The political system and the hierarchical power of the authoritarian authorities in general, function by mediocracy and co-optation. That is, the top leaders choose mediocre, but obedient and grateful individuals for subordinate positions.

In this context, people who seek positions of power and responsibility are rarely competent, honest or caring. They are people who rarely admit their mistakes, persist in their misguided ways and have only their career ambition as a goal. Not to mention their technocrat advisors, often in conflict of interest, who have visions totally disconnected from reality and act more by ideology than pragmatism. Quite a cocktail!

This is why, in conclusion, it is urgent to put an end to this political-media hysteria as well as to the counter-productive, anti-democratic and medically and scientifically unfounded health measures.