News and opinion: Omicron hysteria; Covid-19 waning; the rise of biosecurity state and scientism

(i) Omicron discoverer perplexed by hysterical global response
(ii) “Super Immunity”: Pandemic collapses into self-parody. Claims that “breakthrough infections” might be good for you are hilariously desperate
(iii) COVID May Be Waning, but Will They Tell Us?Epoch Times
(iv) Anthony Fauci and the Creation of the Bio-Security StateEpoch Times
(v) ‘Follow the Science’ a Potent Source of Authority for PoliticiansEpoch Times

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-104.png

Omicron discoverer perplexed by hysterical global response

Source: Free West Media, reposted by Peckford 42, Dec. 23, 2021

For weeks now, the newly discovered Corona variant Omicron has been misused by politics and the mainstream media to spread even more fear and panic. The doctor who discovered this variant does not understand the overreaction in Europe and warned that this could lead to a missed opportunity.

The disease is mild and the spread of Omicron could lead to natural immunity in the population. That would be an advantage if new variants emerge again. Lockdowns would, however, prevent this positive development.

This graph highlights the peculiar response to a mild course of Omicron.

The South African doctor Dr. Angelique Coetzee reported the first Omicron case and treated it. In an article in the British newspaper Daily Mail the doctor was surprised at the exaggerated reaction to the variant in Europe.

“Let me be clear: nothing I’ve seen in this new variant justifies the extreme measures the British government has taken in response,” said Coetzee, shocked after UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged people to “think carefully” before attending Christmas parties and social events.

“I was stunned by the response,” she said. “Nobody here in South Africa has been hospitalized with the Omicron variant, and it is also assumed that nobody here is seriously ill with it,” added Coetzee.

“My first Omicron case, a young man who came to my practice who initially believed he had been in the sun too long after working outdoors. Patients typically come with aches and pains in their muscles and limbs, headaches, and some tiredness. And their symptoms don’t seem to be getting worse. They subside after about five days, and that’s it,” she explained, describing the mild course of the disease.

Patients are treated at home with anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen and low doses of cortisone. Contrary to the alarmism in Europe, there are no considerations in South Africa to impose new restrictions or lockdowns. The doctor explained that one has got used to new variants. “When our scientists confirmed the discovery of another one, no one made anything big of it. Lots of people didn’t even notice.”

She also pointed out that relatively few people in South Africa have had the experimental preparations. So far, just over 31 percent have had an injection, and around 26 percent have been jabbed stung. “Even unprotected bodies repel this variant much more easily than Delta.”

South African data analyst Pieter Streicher agreed with Coetzee’s take on the Omicron variant, saying it could in fact end the pandemic.


“Super Immunity”: Pandemic collapses into self-parody. Claims that “breakthrough infections” might be good for you are hilariously desperate

by Kit Knightly, Off-Guardian, Dec. 23, 2021

The Covid19 “vaccines” don’t work. They’ve admitted it, and now they’re seriously trying to tell us it’s actually a good thing.

What “working” really means when your pandemic is nothing but wave after wave of meaningless positive tests and weasel-worded changes to the meaning of “cause of death”, is a different discussion for another time.

Indeed, whether they were ever meant to work, what they are actually for, and why the establishment needs to push them so hard, are interesting questions for a future article.

For now, let us confine ourselves to Big Pharma’s stated intention: The “vaccines” are allegedly meant to stop the spread of “Covid19”. They don’t do it.

The “vaccines” are not even true vaccines by the traditional definition. People who have been “vaccinated” still get infected, and can still spread the infection to other people.

Such infections are called “breakthrough cases”, and their existence has run a familiar course in the media.

First, they didn’t exist, then they did exist but they were rare, then they weren’t that rare but they were mild…and now they’re not just mild, they’re actually a good thing…because of “super immunity”.

That’s right, getting sick after being vaccinated might actually be good for you, according to a recent study, currently getting wall-to-wall coverage in the press.

Apparently, a team of researchers studying the blood of people who had breakthrough infections found that [our emphasis]:

“breakthrough infections of Covid after double vaccination developed as much as 1,000 percent more effective and abundant antibodies, creating a form of “super-immunity””

One. Thousand. Percent. That’s a lot of percents. Like, ten times the usual amount of percents. Mightily impressive sciencey-sounding numbers.

So, it turns out, if you get the double-jab, but still get sick anyway, that’s not a sign you’ve just been conned into taking an experimental gene therapy that doesn’t do what it claims to do.

It’s not an indication that the entire narrative is just a construction built on assigning a new name to standard cold and flu symptoms via a faulty test.

And it definitely doesn’t mean the vaccines don’t work…it means they super-duper-mega work, and you’re basically invulnerable.

…unless a new variant comes along, in which case get a booster. Or two. Because while 1000% immune might sound like a lot…wouldn’t 2000% immune be even better?

In less than twelve months we’ve actually circled all the way around from “the vaccine’s work” to “the vaccine’s don’t work…and that’s a good thing”.

At this point, you just have to laugh.

COVID May Be Waning, but Will They Tell Us?

by Roger L. Simon Dec. 8, 2021

I woke up the other day with the feeling that it was more than a little possible that the pandemic is finally over, nearly so anyway.

The stock market was certainly indicating as much, the Dow up big for the second time in a row.

The reasoning wasn’t complicated even for this layman. The traditional course of viruses is to keep mutating to survive, but as they mutate, the new variants tend to be weaker.

This appears to be the case with the CCP virus. New variant Omicron, though highly transmissible, is apparently relatively harmless—no deaths and hardly any hospitalizations in the 30 or so countries that have reported cases thus far. It even shares genetic material with that other somewhat benign coronavirus, the common cold.

Of course, things could change; a more dangerous variant could come along, or Omicron could morph in some unforeseen manner, but if I’m correct, we’re witnessing the beginning of the end of an era when politics overwhelmed science to a degree that it practically destroyed our country and the world.

What a relief. What a Happy New Year this could be. Let’s sing that great song from World War I, “When This Bloody War Is Over.” We all feel as if we’ve been through it.

Not so fast, grasshopper. It’s not over yet, just starting a new phase.

I have two predictions to make that are to some degree related and not entirely optimistic. In fact, the second is about as pessimistic as it gets if we don’t watch our steps.

  1. Joe Biden, to get a very needed political boost, and with him, Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the great control freaks of American history, willing to change his opinion at any time as long as we follow his opinion, will claim victory and try to take credit for this to the nth degree—an attempt that is as nauseating as it is ludicrous. This will be echoed by much of our media, but at least as many, hopefully more, of our citizens will be skeptical. A battle will ensue between the two sides not all that different from what we have now.
  2. Much more ominous, until there is a regime change at the presidential level, they will never tell us the pandemic is really over. Instead, they will say the situation is slightly better (for now), but we must always maintain our guard with extreme vigilance. Otherwise, it can come back at a moment’s notice. That means continued masking (where authorities deem necessary) and booster shots every few months like teeth cleanings, probably intermittent lockdowns as well. (Schools could practice those like fire drills.) We should still maintain social distancing when we can. You never know what your neighbor might be carrying. It’s a good habit. Like flossing. We must do all this into perpetuity.

Am I exaggerating? Not if you ask the prime minister of New Zealand, who has already asserted there will never be an endpoint to the vaccination program in her country.

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has just informed us that he believes the “acute phase” of the pandemic will end in 2022, but evinces “surprise” that so many resist vaccination and masks.

The rules and regulations of the pandemic always have been first and foremost about control, not health. To declare them over is to lose control.

Specifically, it’s to lose a grip on the acquiescent masses, to lose the possibility of advancing an American socialism-communism, however you want to describe it, as long as the state is more important than the individual (except, of course, those individuals who are in charge).

This won’t be relinquished easily. COVID-19 has provided excuses for state control beyond anything in most of our lifetimes. The last two years have brought the dreams of the left closer to reality—to transforming the United States—than they have been for decades.

Stopping them will be more difficult than stopping COVID-19 itself, even if it goes away. The residue will still be there. Cleaning that up and, yes, disinfecting it, will be all of our responsibilities.

Anthony Fauci and the Creation of the Bio-Security State

by Roger Kimball Dec. 6, 2021

A new populist spirit, represented by Donald Trump, among others, has led to a reshuffling of seemingly settled ideological alliances.

The reshuffling is ongoing.

I know this because I find myself approving of at least parts of “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” the new bestseller book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

It’s odd indeed that I find myself in nodding agreement with an anti-vax climate warrior named Kennedy, but there you are—or, rather, here we are.

Toward the end of a long and riveting interview with Tucker Carlson about his book, Kennedy reflects on the extraordinary—indeed, “totalitarian” isn’t too strong a word—government impositions upon individual liberty in the name of battling the COVID pandemic and issues a critical admonition that we forget at our peril.

“We have to love our freedom,” he said, “more than we fear a germ.”

Can we pause for a round of applause?

The risks of COVID to the general population were and are wildly exaggerated.

Everyone knows that now, although not everyone is yet ready to admit it.


But even if the disease was as dangerous as some alarmists at first predicted, Kennedy’s point still stands.

“Even if this was the deadly disease that they say it is,” he told Carlson, “there are worse things than death.”

Indeed, he continued, “We’re lucky that there was a whole generation of Americans in 1776 that said, ‘It would be better to die than to not have these rights written down.’”

Noting the extraordinary assault on our constitutional liberties—a phenomenon that has echoes in other democracies around the world—Kennedy asks us to remember the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Washington’s army during the Revolution and the “malaria contagion that culled the Army of Virginia.”

The Founders were well acquainted with “the deadly and disruptive potential of infectious disease epidemics.”

Nevertheless, they included no references to pandemics in the Constitution.

Over the past couple of years, however, “public health” is wheeled out to rationalize “a string of new exceptions to our Constitution. We are given just one rationale to explain everything that is happening: COVID.”

In other words, Kennedy opposes the spirit of “safetyism” that pervades our culture and gives license to the many corporate and government actors who are only too happy to exploit our abhorrence of risk in order to control us.

Kennedy’s book is full of alarming things.

In some ways, it reads like a 1960s leftist tract against militarized government and “transnational corporations.”

The fact that I find myself nodding in agreement with much of his analysis is part of that ideological reshuffling I mentioned.

It reminds me once again that the categories of “right” and “left” are no longer reliable guides to political filiation.

I also note with some amusement the hysterical (I do not mean “funny”) vituperation directed at the book by the left.

Isn’t there some mistake?

After all, we’re talking about a paid-up eco-warrior here, the son of liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy, for heaven’s sake!

How is it that he has attracted the ire of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who actually asked Amazon and other online emporia to alter their search algorithms so that people looking for books about the CCP virus wouldn’t be directed to Kennedy’s book?

Fauci and ‘Endemic Corruption’

A large part of Kennedy’s book, as its title suggests, is an attack on Dr. Anthony Fauci, who emerges as one of the most malevolent and destructive characters on the public scene in the past five decades. How is it possible that he emerged as “America’s Doctor,” showered with adulation from a terrified but grateful public?

As Kennedy shows in meticulous detail, Fauci’s career has been a litany of greed, incompetence, cruelty, and a callous and unquenchable thirst for power.

He’s joined by a rogues’ gallery of supporting actors, including Microsoft busybody Bill Gates and bioweapons expert Robert Kadlec, a Dr. Strangelove wannabe. Even former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, he of the Trump–Russia “dossier,” makes a cameo appearance here.

But the focus is mostly on Fauci and “the carefully planned militarization and monetization of medicine that has left American health ailing and its democracy shattered.”

In June, Fauci told a reporter, “Attacks on me quite frankly, are attacks on science.”

But what was this “science” of which Fauci spoke?

“As the world watched,” Kennedy notes, “Tony Fauci dictated a series of policies that resulted in by far the most deaths, and one of the highest percentage COVID-19 body counts of any nation on the planet.”

That’s not all.

“Anthony Fauci,” Kennedy writes, “seems to have not considered that his unprecedented quarantine of the healthy would kill far more people than COVID, obliterate the global economy, plunge millions into poverty and bankruptcy, and grievously wound constitutional democracy globally.”

It gets worse.

“We have no way of knowing how many people died from isolation, unemployment, deferred medical care, depression, mental illness, obesity, stress, overdoses, suicide, addiction, alcoholism, and the accidents that so often accompany despair. We cannot dismiss the accusations that his lockdowns proved more deadly than the contagion.”

Consider these facts:

“Between 2018 and 2020, the average Hispanic American lost around 3.9 years in longevity, while the average lifespan of a Black American dropped by 3.25 years.”

Fauci’s lockdown “shattered the nation’s once-booming economic engine, putting 58 million Americans out of work, and permanently bankrupting small businesses, including 41 percent of Black-owned businesses, some of which took generations of investment to build.”

“Dr. Fauci’s business closures pulverized America’s middle class and engineered the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion.

“Some 493 individuals became new billionaires, and an additional 8 million Americans dropped below the poverty line.”

Who won in the COVID Wars?

“The biggest winners were the robber barons—the very companies that were cheerleading Dr. Fauci’s lockdown and censoring his critics: Big Technology, Big Data, Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Media behemoths (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, Viacom, and Disney), and Silicon Valley Internet titans like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Jack Dorsey.”

All this sounds bad, but I have barely scratched the surface of Kennedy’s indictment.

As he notes, while COVID is certainly a problem, it is “not the problem. … The problem is endemic corruption in the medical-industrial complex, currently supported at every turn by mass-media companies.”


Doubtless, it’s possible to take exception to parts of Kennedy’s analysis and some of his political causes. But his book is exhaustively researched and every assertion is supported by publicly available evidence.

His analysis of the formation of the “bio-security” state in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union makes for chilling reading. What if the security apparatus set up to deal with Islamic terrorism has mutated into a “track and trace” intelligence state whose object is the citizens of the United States?

But perhaps his biggest contribution, which comes in the course of his discussion of Fauci’s chillingly corrupt and incompetent handling of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, is this pellucid observation about the nature of science.

“While consensus may be an admirable political objective,” he observes, “it is the enemy of science and truth.”

This is exactly right. As Kennedy observes, “the term ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron.”

Moreover, “the admonishment that we should ‘trust the experts’ is a trope of authoritarianism.”

Those few sentences are worth the price of “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

‘Follow the Science’ a Potent Source of Authority for Politicians

by Nathan Worcester, Epoch Times, Dec. 10, 2021

To hear the way some politicians talk, when it comes to COVID-19, they’re all “following the science,” not to mention “the data.”

“Look at the data. Follow the science. Listen to the experts. Be smart,” now-former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wrote on Twitter in May 2020, after “Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve” had fully transitioned to “The New Normal.”

“We’ve been operating on facts and data and science from the very beginning,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker in a campaign ad titled simply “Follow The Science.”

President Joe Biden has frequently appealed to “the science.” In an executive order announcing a vaccine mandate for federal workers, for instance, he said his administration used “the best available data and science-based public health measures.” In an article criticizing Biden’s move to push vaccine boosters in September, StatNews’s Lev Facher described “Follow the Science” as “a mantra” for the administration.

“The science” emerged long before 2020 as a potent source of authority for politicians. Yet while the scientific method is a powerful tool for advancing human potential, the belief that it alone can guide us is an example of “scientism.”

Scientism is, in the words of public intellectual Scott Masson, “the belief that moral or evaluative judgments are merely subjective and that only the ‘hard’ sciences—think physics, chemistry, or biology—furnish legitimate objective knowledge.” While few American politicians would openly endorse this position, the actions many have taken during the COVID-19 pandemic reflect scientism in deed, if not in word.

Scientism lets politicians off the hook for their decisions. They didn’t really make a decision—they merely “followed the science.”

As a scientistic credo, “Follow the science” doesn’t just abrogate leaders’ accountability as decision-makers. It also does violence to the nature of science, which seldom offers the clear-cut, politically useful conclusions that politicians want.

A popular meme contrasts the “scientific method” with the “science worshiper’s method.” While the former moves in a rigorous, self-correcting way toward results that may or may not align with a specific hypothesis, the latter constructs a model and then only accepts the data that will confirm that model.

At its most extreme, “following the science” is inflexibly dogmatic. When less inflexible, “following the science” can lead to sudden, sharp changes in public policy, often in the face of other evidence and goals separate from the COVID-19 response—for example, avoiding other health problems or economic disruption traceable to such policies.


In the case of masking, “following the science” has led to a series of dramatic reversals.

In February 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams wrote on Twitter that Americans should “STOP BUYING MASKS!” as they were “not effective.”

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHOmaintained that healthy individuals didn’t need to wear masks.

Yet as mask production ramped up in the United States, U.S. public health authorities changed their tune. In early April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that Americans consider wearing cloth masks.

By June 2020, WHO recommended that healthy members of the general public wear masks in situations where physical distancing wasn’t possible, citing new scientific evidence on transmission.

In 2021, the CDC repeatedly shifted on masking. In July 2021, it reversed a May recommendation that vaccinated people need not wear masks, drawing rebukes from Republican governors.

Some experts believe that such shifts mark a significant departure from our understanding of masking before the pandemic.

“When it comes to the point of certain interventions that are sort of weakly supported, and if you go back and look at everything that was published before 2020, and come to this completely different conclusion if you read the things that published later on in 2020, about masks or the ability of lockdowns to stop and end spread indefinitely—long-term lockdowns that have devastating collateral damage—and that type of thing. And then you realize how politicized this really has become,” immunologist Steven Templeton, a professor at Indiana University, formerly with the CDC, said in an interview with The Epoch Times’ EpochTV.

One of the most politicized issues is the masking of young children. While advocates have argued that children could be major transmitters of COVID-19, opponents have argued that children are neither major vectors of the disease nor vulnerable to serious illness or death. They have also pointed out the understudied developmental and physiological risks of masking young children.

One 2021 preprint found no correlation between mask mandates and COVID-19 case rates among students and faculty across schools in Florida, New York, and Massachusetts, though the authors included caveats about how well their findings could be generalized.

Still, for many schools, “following the science” has led to universal mask mandates. Portland Public Schools, for example, requires the masking of children at all times and places, indoor or outdoor, and irrespective of vaccination status, “except when eating, drinking or playing a musical wind instrument.”You realize how politicized this really has become.Steven Templeton, Indiana University

In one instance, guerilla footage showed kindergartners “eating” while sitting outside on buckets in 40-degree weather while socially distanced from playmates.

In cases such as these, “following the science” has the look and feel of political theater.

Omicron and Beyond

The Omicron variant of COVID-19 hasn’t yet caused a surge in serious COVID-19 cases. Yet as soon as the new strain made international headlines, governments across the world were ready to “follow the science,” or at least take some sort of action in its name.

The United States, the UK, and other countries have banned travel from many countries in southern Africa, where Omicron was first detected. Japan, meanwhile, barred entry of all foreign nationals.

WHO and other scientists and physicians argued that these bans weren’t warranted, in part because they would do little to slow the variant’s spread.As the new strain made international headlines, governments across the world were ready to ‘Follow the Science.’

The CEO of Pfizer, too, has speculated that the variant could push up the debut of its latest booster, telling CNBC, “I think we will need a fourth dose.”

For now, however, the new variant appears to be mild. To date, Omicron doesn’t seem to have caused a single verifiable death.

When asked by The Epoch Times if Omicron had led to a single confirmed fatality, a WHO spokesperson sent its weekly epidemiological update for Dec. 7.

According to that guide: “All of the 212 confirmed cases identified in 18 European Union countries for which there was information available on severity were asymptomatic or mild. While South Africa saw an 82 percent increase in hospital admissions due to COVID-19 (from 502 to 912) during the week 28 November–4 December 2021, it is not yet known the proportion of these with the Omicron variant.”

In addition, the WHO spokesperson said, “For Omicron, we have not had any deaths reported, but it is still early in the clinical course of disease and this may change.”

The CDC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times on whether there were any confirmed Omicron deaths.

Other examples abound. For instance, while data show vaccinated individuals are significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than the unvaccinated, “following the science” to preapproved conclusions may prematurely foreclose or minimize serious concerns about vaccine safety, particularly in relation to heart inflammation or other cardiovascular disease.

In September testimony before the FDA in its evaluation of the Pfizer booster, entrepreneur Steve Kirsch said that Pfizer’s vaccines kill more people than they save, citing Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data, among other information.

Just days ago, physicians and scientists in the UK reportedly warned that post-pandemic stress disorder is driving a rise in heart attacks and other cardiovascular issues, including among younger patients.

Some commentators speculated that the rise could be related to vaccines.

Candace Owens wrote on Twitter in response to the story: “I’ve just learned that the sudden increase in heart-related illnesses is likely due to **checks Big Pharma notes** Post-Pandemic Stress Disorder. Nothing to see here!”

Following Science, Not ‘Following the Science’

While New York and New York City have pursued hardline policies, including the city’s vaccine pass system applicable to children as young as 5, the state of Florida has blocked mandates and prioritized individual choice.

Today, case rates in Florida are lower than in New York, likely in part because of the disease’s seasonality. Moreover, while Floridians are on average older than New York residents, suggesting that they should be more vulnerable to COVID-19, the death rate per 100,000 is still lower in that state than in New York, according to NBC News. New York City itself has had more than 34,000 deaths, due partly to major early clusters in nursing homes in the city.

The Senate’s Dec. 8 vote to block Biden’s OSHA vaccine mandate for large employers, which came soon after the 6th Circuit Court overruled the same mandate, could signal the resilience of checks and balances against compulsion in the name of “the science.”

Elsewhere in the world, “following the science,” often in spite of other scientific evidence, is leading to more draconian policies.

New Brunswick, Canada, has permitted grocery stores to exclude the unvaccinated, violating the basic human right to food articulated in Article 25 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Numerous studies have raised questions about whether vaccination stems transmission, with some suggesting that vaccinated people with suppressed symptoms of the disease may even be major drivers of new infection. Regardless, “the science” demands greater sacrifices by the day.

Good science can and should inform our judgments as well as those of politicians. But unthinking gestures toward “the science” don’t shield any of us from responsibility—though as Jeffrey A. Tucker of The Brownstone Institute points out, the bureaucrats whose banalities enforce our new scientistic consensuses shirk any blame for its self-evident failures.

1 Comment

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s