First strategic error: lockdown, a variable for adjusting health policies

Faced with the scourge of Covid, developed States have reacted by enacting border closures, curfews, administrative closures of companies, and even generalized lockdown of the population.

This was a first in history: never before had generalised lockdown – i.e. confinement of healthy populations – been used to combat an epidemic. This political measure is very costly from an educational, psychological, medical, social and economic point of view. Its effectiveness is limited to interrupting the spread of the disease in healthy families during containment at the cost of its dissemination in families where a person is already infected. When the confinement is lifted, the spread of the virus immediately resumes in healthy families.

As all developed States have progressively reduced their hospital capacities since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, most governments have adopted containment measures, not to control disease – which they cannot – but to prevent overcrowding in their hospitals. In other words, in order to continue their system of managing public health services, governments consider containment as the only possible adjustment variable. Yet the price of these confinements is much higher than more expensive hospital management. Above all, the ageing of the population in developed States makes it foreseeable that the same crisis of hospital congestion will occur every three to four years, the usual cycle of epidemics of all kinds. In practice, the use of containment condemns the countries concerned to resort to it more and more often, during epidemics of Covid, influenza or many other deadly diseases.

A comparative study by Stanford University, published on January 12, 2021, shows that countries that have practised widespread plant closures, curfews and containment have not ultimately influenced the spread of the disease, which they have only delayed, compared to countries that have respected the freedom of their citizens [3].

Contrary to popular belief, the choice was not between hospital overcrowding or containment, but between mobilizing or even requisitioning private clinics and containment. All developed countries have a private health care system that is largely capable of dealing with the overflow of patients.

Origin of the strategic error

The source behind the lockdown is CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations). This association was created in Davos on the occasion of the 2015 World Economic Forum. It is headed by Dr Richard J. Hatchett. You will not find his biography on Wikipedia or even on the CEPI website. He had it removed.

This man was the designer of the Healthy Person Containment for the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld [4]. In 2005, this member of President George W. Bush’s National Security Council was tasked with adapting US military procedures to the civilian population as part of a plan to militarise US society. Since IMs stationed abroad were instructed to confine themselves to their bases in the event of a biological terrorist attack against them, he advocated confining the entire civilian population to their homes in the event of a biological attack on US soil. This military plan was unanimously rejected by US doctors, led by Professor Donald Henderson of Johns Hopkins University. They stressed that doctors had never confined healthy populations before.

Professor Richard J. Hatchett was the first to draw a comparison between the Covid-19 epidemic and a war, in an interview on Channel 4 a few days before President Macron. His first CEPI donation, of course, was to Imperial College London. The director of this venerable institution is not British, but American, Alice Gast. In addition to being a director of the transnational oil company Chevron, she worked with Dr Richard J. Hatchett in the United States to mobilise scientists against terrorism. She supported propaganda work to discredit what I had written about the September 11th attacks. In addition, one of the most famous professors at Imperial College is Neil Ferguson, the author of the fairy-tale curves projecting the spread of the epidemic.

Messenger RNA” vaccines only have the name “vaccine” in common with conventional vaccines. The idea is no longer to inoculate a small quantity of the virus to provoke the creation of antibodies, but to play with the genetic material of patients so that they are no longer receptive to the virus.

Second strategic mistake: the exclusive focus of research on vaccines

Faced with this new epidemic, doctors found themselves without treatment. Western governments immediately directed medical research towards the discovery of appropriate vaccines.

In view of the sums involved, they directed all budgets towards genetic vaccines and closed research into pathology and care.

The use of the RNA-based vaccine technique, chosen by Moderna/NIAID, Pfizer/BioNTech/FosunPharma and CureVac, is not expected to involve classical side effects, but it is not without danger. Until now, this technique has been considered with great caution because it affects the genetic make-up of patients. This is why, in the absence of sufficient studies, these companies have demanded that their state clients relieve them of any legal liability.

Doctors who try to practise their art by treating their patients according to the Hippocratic oath have been prosecuted by their disciplinary bodies. The treatments they have implemented have been ridiculed, even banned, instead of being evaluated.

This is the second strategic error.

Western doctors, who, with rare exceptions, have never been confronted with the demands of war and disaster medicine, sometimes panicked. At the beginning of the epidemic, some did nothing at the first symptoms, waiting for the appearance of a cytokinic storm, of a brutal inflammation, to plunge their patients into an artificial coma. As a result, it was more often inappropriate care than the disease that killed the first patients. The disastrous results of some hospitals compared to others in the same region bear witness to this, despite the fraternal ban on criticism of incompetent doctors.

The gigantic budgets allocated to vaccines make it necessary not to discover a treatment without risking the bankruptcy of multinational pharmaceutical companies.

This is why all research in this field has been subjected to strict censorship. Yet a cocktail of blood-liquefying, immune-stimulating, antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs is being tested in Asia, which treats almost all patients if administered at the first sign of symptoms. Similarly, in Venezuela, the medical and pharmacological authority has approved a drug, Carvativir, which, according to the authority, treats almost all patients if administered at the first sign of symptoms [5].

As I am not competent in this area, I will not comment on these treatments, but it is frightening that Western doctors are not informed about them and have not had the opportunity to evaluate them.

The Pasteur Institute of Lille and the company APTEEUS, for their part, in September 2020, identified a drug that had fallen into disuse as preventing the replication of the virus. They were careful not to advertise it so as not to have to face the rivalry of the vaccine industry. Their experiments are now coming to an end. The manufacture of this drug, originally a suppository for children, has resumed in France so that it could be advertised soon [6].

Moreover, censorship of non-Western medicines is not only unacceptable because it is detrimental to human health, but also because it is carried out by unelected powers (Google, Facebook, Twitter etc.). The problem here is not whether these treatments are effective or not, but to free up research so that it can study these molecules in order to reject, approve or improve them.

Origin of the second strategic mistake

Incidentally, let us observe that there is a strategic contradiction between slowing down contamination through the practice of confining healthy people and accelerating it through the generalisation of live or inactivated vaccines. However, this remark is not valid in the case of RNA vaccines, which are destined to become predominant in the West.

The second strategic error is the result of group thinking. Politicians imagine that only technical progress will provide solutions to problems that cannot be solved. Thus, if vaccines can be discovered using a new technique based not on viruses but on “messenger RNA”, the epidemic should be defeated. It no longer occurs to anyone that we can treat the Covid and do without heavy investment.

This is the ideology of the World Economic Forum in Davos and the CEPI. It is therefore in the order of things that governments do not react when transnationals censor the work of Asian or Venezuelan doctors, blocking the freedom of scientific research.