Science summary: Doing nothing found to be best COVID intervention

Photo by Martin Sanchez on Unsplash

An academic’s handy and short summary, sources included, comparing doing nothing with face masks, lockdowns, and the jabs, for COVID Skeptics to share with their less skeptical loved ones, as well as randoms and bots they’re debating with on social media. No conspiracy theories. No wild speculations. No rants. Just a huge dollop of science, with a sprinkling of logic, and a dash of unintentional humour.

A serious intervention - doing nothing

The very concept and framing may sound funny, but this is deadly serious (pun intended). When COVID-19 initially threatened to decimate humanity, the 3 most intrusive interventions were enforcing face masks, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates. Opposed to all this was/is the very ancient, easy, and cost-effective approach of simply doing nothing, which has the extra benefit of not adding further wealth and power to those who wish to dictate every aspect of our lives. Before we compare doing nothing with the other major COVID interventions, let us quickly look at what doing nothing may have achieved had the other interventions not have been deployed.

Assume for a moment that the other interventions did not help (we will soon consider evidence that they actually harmed). There are about 8 billion people on the planet. Source. And assuming the figures given to us by people who wanted to scare us into compliance are accurate, there have been around 763 million COVID cases (source) and 6.9 million COVID deaths (source) since the start of the pandemic. Back of the envelope calculations reveal that doing nothing may have been over 90% effective against COVID infections and, more importantly, over 99.9% effective against COVID deaths.

But these other interventions occurred. When you factor in the truism (we’ll get there) that the major interventions actually did more harm than good; the exaggeration of cases and deaths due to the ‘with COVID or from COVID’ issue (and now we also know that jab deaths are underreported); the majority of COVID deaths being in the old and sick (so those already close to death); and that rumour has it some people occasionally died in the pre-COVID days, around 60 million people every single year, give or take 10 million, (with cardiovascular issues, cancer, and even tobacco use causing way more deaths than COVID); it becomes exceedingly obvious that the above figures are conservative, and that doing nothing was and is an extremely effective and reasonable approach, especially now as the pandemic winds down. To hammer the point home further about COVID-19 being a relative nothingburger, the Black Death wiped out about 50% of Europe’s population, and other legitimate pandemics were quite serious too; COVID killed a few million old and sick people, with the global population actually continuing to grow rapidly throughout the pandemic (source). Kind of makes you wonder what all the fuss was about, and why hundred of millions (billions?) of us had to be harmed in the fight, hey?

Face masks vs doing nothing

This won’t take long. Plentiful studies, and a huge review, found that face masks did nothing. Nothing good that is. And that shouldn’t be a big surprise to those who know that coronavirus particles are much smaller than the pores in face masks. Face masks have harmed, however. For example, they interfere with normal social interaction (maybe not the best outcome amidst our growing polarisation?), they negatively affect the brain development of children (those little people whose COVID risk is about 0), and expose people to toxic levels of carbon dioxide. Woops. Let’s hope not too many people who opted for the at least as effective and much safer doing nothing approach weren’t fined too much, right? Right? Source.

Lockdowns vs doing nothing

Given that COVID pretty much went everywhere, it would be hard to say the lockdowns were a success. Even the approved science, TheScience™ had to admit that lockdowns did little to nothing. Nothing good, that is. And even a mainstream news outlet dared to think objectively and logically for a moment, openly wondering if the increased deaths in young people associated with the lockdowns were worth the elderly lives potentially saved from COVID. But the go-to example for the futility of lockdowns would have to be Sweden. Initially heavily criticised for being so ‘anti-lockdown’, Sweden ended up performing very well with regard to COVID deaths and excess deaths, and without violating civil liberties and causing longer term financial and health crises, leading to slightly more positive attitudes towards the doing nothing approach later on. The other countries, not so much.

As reasonable people expected, despite the tyrannical lockdowns everywhere else (the tyrants were exempt, of course; “rules for thee and not for me”), COVID-19, uh, found a way. And while the billionaires of the world adding trillions of dollars to their collective wealth added a heartwarming twist to this harrowing tale (yay!), normal people were thrust into poverty. Poverty is no joke. Unlike COVID, it is very serious, with issues like hunger causing the deaths of 3 million children alone every single year. Source. Even in the affluent West, lockdown-induced poverty may be a more serious issue than COVID itself. And that is before we consider the obvious social harms, the mental harms, and the physical harms (note that being overweight increases the risk of pretty much every single disease, including COVID - source), including less sunshine leading to lower vitamin D levels - a crucial vitamin for combating respiratory diseases, and much else. Source. Our experts and authorities also seem to be willing to throw lockdowns under the bus, when it comes to explaining away the mysterious rise in excess deaths, at a time (after the first few years of a pandemic) when we should see a lower than normal number of deaths, even noting specific examples of how the lockdowns prevented people suffering from more serious conditions (in terms of deaths) accessing medical care. After all, we can’t have people thinking the vaccines are to blame, right? Another clear win for doing nothing, then.

Jabs vs doing nothing

Now it’s time to get real. Like, really real. We’re going to talk - badly - about the sacred cow. The COVID-19 vaccines, the jabs, are no good. Read our earlier science summary to get up to speed, really speedily (a fancier version has been submitted to a top medical journal and is available as a pre-print). In short, the jabs seemed to be no good from the beginning, as made obvious by Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own clinical trials, which showed as many or more serious health outcomes and even deaths in the jabbed groups compared with the doing nothing groups; any benefits have vanished as the pandemic winds down, while more is known about the harms, seemingly by the day; increasing evidence suggests that efficacy of the jabs not only quickly wanes to 0 (that’s why you need your 27th booster!) but even turns negative, meaning that the jabbed are more likely to get COVID, be hospitalised with COVID, and die with COVID; and there is also that earlier mentioned mysterious rise in excess deaths, with some evidence suggesting the jabbed are dying at a greater rate (not just greater numbers, which is obvious due to the greater number of jabbed) than the doing nothing crowd, with regard to both COVID and non-COVID deaths. Evidently, it’s only a mystery for those too scared to be called a conspiracy theorist; too scared to admit what they’ve done to themselves; even worse, too scared to admit what they’ve done to their children; and with one eye on their wallets, too scared to admit what they have done to the endorsers of doing nothing.

Now with their own clinical trials indicating the vaccines seemingly caused as many or more severe outcomes, like deaths, as they prevented, you might wonder in what way they were claimed to be effective. Well that is easy when so much crucial information is left out! Without a word about the fact that the jabbed groups appeared to have about the same, if not more, number of serious outcomes like deaths in total, the claim was made that “Severe Covid-19, as defined by the Food and Drug Administration, with an onset after receipt of the first dose occurred in 31 participants, of whom 30 were placebo recipients”. Source. Without even looking specifically at deaths, or generally accounting for non-COVID serious outcomes in the jabbed groups, it is easy to claim that the jabs were very effective, even if they didn’t bother to make the claim for the most important outcome (preventing death) and can’t justifiably say that the ‘benefits outweigh the risks’. Interestingly, even then, the doing nothing mob had 30 participants ending up with ‘severe COVID’. 30 out of 23,037, or 0.13%. So even then, it looks like doing nothing had over a 99% success rate! Combined with an equal or even lower chance of serious outcomes - like deaths - in general, and without having to bother about long-term effects for highly novel products made by unethical companies who fund their own regulators and that underwent days and days of (dodgy?) testing after mere months of development (you’d typically want 10 or more years), doing nothing appears to have another easy win.

And the case for doing nothing with regards to the jabs gets stronger by the day. While it is unfortunate that some people died of COVID, including some of those practicing the evidence-based method of doing nothing, those unjabbed that survived the ‘pandemic’ ended up with natural immunity. That thing that was initially brushed off as a conspiracy theory, despite all commons sense and medical science up to that point, and has now been shown to be as good or better than the jabs. Much better if the jabs really do confer negative efficacy as the evidence increasingly indicates. And even better again if jab deaths were counted like COVID deaths are, namely ‘with jab’ (think about that one, COVID deaths are any deaths within x days of a positive test, while jab deaths need to be verified by those who don’t realise they are jab deaths and in any case have every incentive to not verify them). Maybe this is why attempts were made to hide the data for around 7 decades (coincidentally the same amount of time it took to realise that pholcodine wasn’t so safe, after all).

The authorities and experts are fond of saying that ‘x side effect is very rare’. And that might be true, but COVID deaths are also very rare, especially in the young and healthy. Perhaps it might be worth figuring out which is rarer. And maybe we should be accounting for the multitude of ‘very rare’ side effects that cumulatively might indicate that serious adverse effects of the jab are not so rare after all. It also is unhelpful to contrast the risk of an adverse effect, like myocarditis, occurring with COVID and the jab, when the jab doesn’t stop COVID and may even increase one’s risk of getting COVID; so it isn’t this risk vs that risk, but this risk *plus* that risk. A similar situation arises with long COVID, whereby researchers have found that those uninfected with COVID have around the same chance of developing long COVID symptoms, and others have noted that given the jabs’ reliance on the spike protein (the same spike protein we were falsely told doesn’t hang around the body for long), the jabs can be expected to cause long COVID as well. And unfortunately, more serious adverse effects are being linked to the jabs all the time. Just in the past few weeks, for example, a study in a major medical journal linked the jabs to significant increases in a multitude of health problems, and an Australian government report linked the jabs to astounding numbers of serious health outcomes, including deaths.

Other interventions

The ‘big 3’ in the COVID intervention game were highly unsuccessful and highly intrusive. Interestingly, however, there were other options, besides doing nothing, that may have been successful. Ritual hand washing may have helped a little, though COVID is primarily spread through the air. Source. Nevertheless, it is relatively unobtrusive, and was/is recommended. Source. It was, however, not mandated. Hydroxychloroquine use and ivermectin use were also not mandated, despite evidence for their efficacy, and decades of safety data. Indeed, they were effectively banned (source, source), with endorsers vilified as conspiracy theorists (source). Yes, you read that right. The stuff they forced us to do didn’t help, harmed in fact, while the stuff that would have helped save actual lives was banned. Doesn’t really seem like ‘they’ care about us, huh?

And why would ‘they’ care about us? ‘They’, including “Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Eli Broad, George Soros, Ted Turner, Oprah, Michael Bloomberg”, think there’s too many of us, that “overpopulation was a priority” (source, source). The British royal family seems to think so as well, with the current monarch’s father having even commented about “returning in another life as a virus to wipe out some of the world’s population”. Source. And ‘they’ own/control everything, including the jab manufacturers and the major news networks. But we should probably stop there. We wouldn’t want to be called conspiracy theorists, simply for pointing out easily-verified facts!

Conclusion

Even with the evidence increasingly revealing that the 3 major covid interventions (mask mandates, lockdowns, and the jabs) did more harm than COVID, regarding COVID outcomes alone, we only lost around 0.1% of the population *with COVID* during the *whole pandemic*, compared with the up to 1% we lose from *all causes*, *every single year*. Doing nothing is far more effective, far safer, and that’s being conservative. If the other interventions hadn’t been such obvious cock-ups, doing nothing would appear to be even better. And what of those of us who endorsed the undeniably superior doing nothing approach from the beginning, and were vilified and persecuted as a result? And what of those of us who were lied to by the people they trusted, and have been injured and seen loved ones die as a result? We need a little more than half-assed apologies.

See you in court!

Dr Raphael Lataster