Of COVID and Covetousness – II
by Come Carpentier de Gourdon on 28 Aug 2020 4 Comments

Recent mass protests and demonstrations in Europe (Germany, France, Spain, Britain etc...) and America have evinced the anger of large sections of the population against the harsh, oppressive, arbitrary and counter-productive policies of their respective governments. Many physicians, virologists and epidemiologists, some very eminent in their specialties, have come together to raise very serious accusations against health authorities and the political leaderships which acted on their advice. These include ACU in Germany, Medival Collective for Truth in Spain and Frontline Doctors in the USA.


They charge their respective governments of causing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. They do not deny the existence of a dangerous and widespread infectious pathology, contrary to what their opponents and critics allege, but make several important and scientifically irrefutable points based on their medical experience and on publicly available confirmed data.  In brief, the main charges are:


1] The governments, under the erratic and confused guidance of the WHO, reacted too late to the warnings about the viral epidemic and then abruptly imposed extreme measures that created great distress and harm to the general population, particularly to serious patients who were often left to their fates without care or recourse to hospitalization; many needed surgical interventions. Old age home residents were put at grave risk of contagion and death from other causes when they were abandoned by their caregivers and relatives were not allowed to reach them. Many were left to die and in France at least the government went so far as to prescribe ‘end of life’ medications (Rivotril and Clonazepam) for those regarded as too weak and sick to be treated in the circumstances. Not a few whistleblowers, including writer Jean-Claude Manifacier (Plumenclume.org, 31/7/2020) have accused those who took such decisions of administrative murder.


2] Many underline that the source and nature of the COVID-19 virus have not been properly investigated and no official interest has been paid to the scientific indicators pointing to an artificial origin and a possible accidental leak from a research facility. Specialists such as epidemiologist Alexandra Henrion-Caude suspect that political factors may have dissuaded state authorities from encouraging and publicizing results supporting that thesis. When the disease first struck Italy, for instance, no autopsies of the casualties were allowed and hence it took more time for physicians to discover that the cause of death was not pulmonary but vascular.


3] The decision to declare the health crisis a ‘pandemic’ according to the regulation adopted by the WHO in 2009 contributed to spreading a climate of worldwide panic even though the number of fatal cases never reached the minimal statistical frequency required for the disease to be clinically defined as a pandemic. The WHO had decided in 2009 that any infection affecting most countries, even if there were only a few mild occurrences in many of them, would qualify as a pandemic; this arbitrary label may have worsened the impact instead of helping to tackle if effectively.


4] The unprecedented decision to impose prolonged universal confinement in a very large number of countries was not in conformity with tested health strategies which only prescribe selective individual or group isolation and do not envisage locking up healthy individuals and families. There are evident conflicts with the elementary notion of individual freedoms and rights to free movement and gainful or leisurely activity of legitimate character.


The western democracies, always eager to claim scrupulous respect of liberty, arrogated to themselves dictatorial authority equivalent to war powers on the highly contestable ground that people had to be kept ‘safe’ by force in order to prevent hospital facilities from being overwhelmed. Violating their own constitutional laws, they invoked the questionable principle that everyone is responsible for the health of everyone else and should cease and desist from any activity and interaction outside the home for an indefinite period of time, even if that led to malnutrition, individual ruin, family breakup and severe physical and mental harm.


In many countries, people living in relatively isolated locations were not allowed to take walks in couples or alone in nature or in empty spots, and were severely punished and sometimes physically assaulted by police for doing so. The absurdity of such tyrannical measures beggars belief.


On the basis of a study conducted at Johns Hopkins University, both UNICEF and the very controversial and substantially discredited WHO, have admitted that the confinement policy and its enduring effects may cause the death of some 10,000 children a month worldwide.


5] As if all this was not already a ‘tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury’, most western countries were theatres of a bitter, indeed mortal conflict between physicians and public figures about the treatment to be applied to COVID patients. The early and successful prescription of hydroxychloroquine (Hcq) by, among others, Prof. Didier Raoult, an eminent specialist of infectious pathologies at Marseille University Hospital, generated a storm of accusations of quackery against him from many of his colleagues who were eventually found and reported to be on the payroll of major pharmaceutical corporations by investigative journalists. They used the classification of Hcq as a hazardous drug in France since December 2019 (despite its commonplace prescription for many decades against malaria, lupus and other afflictions) to accuse Raoult of risking the lives of his patients, as if he had no qualifications or experience in his profession.


The media became the echo chamber of their attacks; on March 26 the French Pharmaceutical Agency (ANDM) forbade its use ‘except for grave cases under strict hospital supervision’. Raoult declared repeatedly to the press that he was shocked by the violence of what he called ‘collective madness’ against him and a mundane inexpensive medicine available for decades over the counter. It turned out that he had received anonymous death threats emanating from a clinical centre headed by a highly paid consultant to the US pharmaceutical giant, Gilead. This politically influential firm (which had Donald Rumsfeld on its board before he became US Secretary of Defence), vigorously promotes its expensive and unproven drug Remdesivir against Covid-19, and even got the US government to buy all its production for a gigantic sum.


Several other eminent physicians in many countries, such as Dr. Christian Peronne, have since come out in support of Raoult and of the Hcq treatment, while the scientific studies (including the infamous one carried by The Lancet) that purported to demonstrate its inefficacy and even lethality have been discredited as they relied on trumped up and spurious data. A much larger number of clinical surveys confirmed the opposite. As a result of this debacle, the French Government reversed its March ban on Hcq and made its prescription legal once again in July. However, even now mainstream media mentions it as a controversial, dangerous and unproven drug and refers to Raoult as some kind of a mad witch doctor. 


President Trump took the Hcq preventively in the face of a rabid reaction from US medical authorities who in some instances claimed he was putting his health and America’s security at risk by reckless adoption of an allegedly toxic treatment. Trump so far has remained healthy and President Bolsonaro of Brazil, who also took it, recovered in a few days from his reported COVID infection, further embarrassing the transnational anti-Hcq lobby.

[See: an open letter addressed by a number of American medical practitioners to Dr. Fauci whose opposition to Hcq had a decisive impact:



6] The almost universal decision that as many people as possible need to be tested and that all recent contacts of those found positive are to be tracked and tested as well has proven to be highly questionable since experts agree that the best of tests are inaccurate and that many, though officially recognized, don’t meet the minimal standards of reliability. People can be diagnosed positive simply because they were earlier vaccinated against the flu or were exposed to another, innocuous Covid virus strain. ‘False negatives’ are more dangerous than ‘false positives’ but the latter cause distress, anguish and hardship even though a selective application of better tests might have been preferable to the wrong headed policy of general indiscriminate confinement and lockdown.


Many scientists, including Peronne and Raoult and Belgian nutritionist Martine Fallon, have stated on the record that they suspect that business arrangements between governments and test-kit manufacturers behind closed doors influenced the choices in the accreditation and selection of such tests. Despite the uncertainty, several countries are now requiring travellers to undergo such intrusive tests on arrival or provide evidence that they took one less than 72 hours earlier, even though infection could well have occurred in the interval.


7] An even bigger controversy is brewing over the all-out global race to develop a vaccine for COVID-19, given the poor record of previous attempts to make effective vaccines for earlier Corona-caused infections. In 2014, Helene Ecochard wrote on the investigative website, Mediapart, about the riskiness of many vaccines, especially new ones, given that their effects on the host organism stretch over years and are often unknown.  


The enormous sums of money provided by various governments to corporations and labs to find the miracle prophylactic in a context of acute economic crisis, has generated controversy and cynicism. Many states are competing to reach the goalpost first rather than collaborating, causing avoidable duplication of efforts and likely waste of vaccines produced in hundreds of millions of doses before any proof of efficacy could be secured. In the process, reciprocal accusations of hacking, espionage and attempts to steal research results are rife, particularly between the habitual geopolitical rivals.


The new cold war pervades the supposedly philanthropic and non-partisan medical field. A widespread fear is that whatever vaccine gets official approval will be made compulsory, whether free or not. Bill Gates is the most famous advocate of universal vaccination and certification as a precondition for allowing people access to public services and facilities, betraying his totalitarian bent of mind, reminiscent of the ‘ausweiss’ (permit to go outside) imposed by Nazis in countries under their occupation.


Clearly mankind is falling under the control of a coalition of influential scientific laboratories, oligarchic high tech firms and leading political powers intending to regulate populations under the questionable guidance of computerized analyses and projections involving new technologies (Artificial Intelligence, 5 and 6G communications, electronic surveillance, Big Data, Deep Learning and predictive algorithms). In the name of protecting ‘safety and security’, this globalist ideology leads its hegemonic promoters to put in place a dictatorship of ‘science and health’ (in service of Big Capital) that brooks as little opposition as its more primitive tyrannical predecessors. The human community must be aware of this prospect and come up with ways of reacting to it for the greater good.



User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top