Our trusted sources..

The Black Swan – Australia’s Dr Fauci.

  Looking at the key role that scientific experts and trusted sources have played in facilitating Pandemic policies which favour corporate interests and government agendas contrary to public health and interests. 
 Few people have had more influence over the development of the globally standardized and accepted narrative of the “Coronavirus Pandemic” than “America’s top infectious diseases expert” Dr Anthony Fauci. Whether in describing the nature of the virus and predicting its spread, recommending or rejecting treatments and protection against the disease, or prognosticating on the use of vaccines, Dr Fauci’s advice has led the way around the world. This has been despite early revelations, notably in Newsweek, of his sponsorship of the very research that led to the development of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and his doubtful record on drug and vaccine research. And as seen recently over the email scandal and Senate hearings, his genial disposition covers a rough and rather abusive interior to anyone who dares to challenge him. 

  Dr Fauci has been key to maintaining the shibboleths of the “Covidian cult” in the US, and by extension in the UK, Europe and Australia. Those countries also have their own key scientific advisors – Neil Ferguson in the UK, Christian Drosten in Germany and Mary Louise McClaws in Australia spring to mind, but there are many others – more epidemiologists, immunologists and virologists than one ever imagined, to advise and interpret the latest developments through media interviews. While their analysis and advice may vary quite widely, it rarely leaves the “Fauci envelope”. 

 In this scene – one of carefully curated disinformation serving the agenda of the leading powers – few individuals have more influence on controlling the narrative in Australia than Dr Norman Swan. Dr Swan has built up a loyal following in the chattering classes through his weekly Health Report on ABC Radio over the last thirty years, presenting detailed and well researched science on all health matters and new developments in a way that most listeners can understand. If he was controversial and upset some people with special interests in the past then it was probably justifiable, with malpractice and vested interests often a focus of his attention. 

  Against this background it is particularly striking that Norman Swan’s presentation of the whole “COVID story” has suffered from a severe political bias – that is one not based on purely scientific and medical prerogatives. While this is obviously the case across the whole of society, one would have expected to get a more balanced and unemotive viewpoint from Swan and his “Coronacast” – as indeed it portrays itself - and is widely perceived. So what is this impartial and scientific viewpoint?
The SARS-CoV-2 virus may be a novel type of Coronavirus which has some specific characteristics coming from its chimaeric composition, but it nevertheless still shares some basic details with other respiratory viruses - such as seasonality - which have been a guide to its treatment and control. These characteristics were soon identified by Chinese researchers and observers, and acted upon rapidly by some impartial independent specialists and practitioners, such as the renowned French epidemiologist Professor Didier Raoult. But when he devised and tested a treatment protocol based on known anti-viral drugs and antibiotics which showed very promising results from a small early trial, the negative reaction from other French and Western institutions and authorities was revelatory. 
 What explanation could there be for the apparent lack of interest in Raoult’s research discovery, or the evident attempts from many quarters to discredit and dismiss his results, or simply to ignore them? Why was there a general acceptance that humanity was defenceless against this new contagion, as if nothing had changed since the Spanish Flu pandemic a hundred years earlier? Who was responsible for spreading misleading ideas about the nature of the threat from the Virus, while failing to disclose information that would help the community deal with and overcome that threat?
Such details were easily available in good science, and the sort of advice that came from independent researchers and experts like Prof. Raoult, but gained little attention behind the wall of simplistic statements from government’s chosen health advisors and experts. By appearing to be an independent commentator and presenter of this sometimes contradictory advice, Norman Swan gained great but unjustified credibility. When the range of opinion presented on a specific issue does not actually include “the truth” – on aerial transmission for example – then a discussion within that range is both pointless and misleading. 
 On this particular and crucial question – the means of transmission of the virus – the views expressed by Dr Swan and close colleagues – Prof. Raina Macintyre in particular, have helped to develop a false narrative around transmission, advocating measures that do little to control the spread of the virus while having a huge effect on society and the government’s ability to manipulate the people. From the start it was clear that the novel virus was spread almost exclusively by close contact with people showing characteristic symptoms – headache and fever and loss of taste and smell. People showed less of the more common signs of related colds and flu – runny nose, sore throat and sneezing – that contribute to aerial transmission and against which masks might have some effect. 
  Despite this knowledge, and ongoing evidence that the viral infection spreads predominantly within families and in workplaces, the idea of aerial transmission has somehow been cultivated and is now presented as the main means of transmission. Influential media like the BBC have presented graphic videos and simulations of this supposed transmission that are highly persuasive yet mostly false. To add a further layer of deception and nonsense, those who observe that masks don’t and can’t work are ridiculed, and fined if they do the logical thing and refuse to wear them. Meanwhile millions are being spent on air filtration equipment and improved ventilation for schools to “make them safe for children”. 
 But there is another aspect to this contradictory situation, as trying to prevent the transmission of the virus in ordinary public settings may not be the best policy if herd immunity is to be reached. Yet again this is an area where influential commentators like Norman Swan continue to mislead the public. Over a year ago another such expert in the UK, Prof Carl Heneghan, made predictions on the likely level of infection in the community that would need to be reached to gain the herd immunity he advocated – that is the point at which the virus ceases to spread and declines to a low level.  Heneghan estimated this level at around 60% of the adult population – an estimate that has been proven accurate in studies around the world where antibody surveys have been done. Large parts of the Indian community were thought to have reached herd immunity early in 2021, where the virus had spread unchecked through the poorer working population. 

  Somehow or other though, herd immunity was made into a subject of ridicule, and anyone advocating it presented as cavalier and callous, suggesting we should “just let it rip” – and kill all those old people we don’t need any more. Despite this being a completely false portrayal of the way herd immunity operates, it henceforth ceased to be a politically tenable option. But the reason the idea was unpopular had little to do with caring for the old or the young, and everything to do with guarding the interests and profits of the Pharma industry and the whole state machinery behind it. In reality, the particular characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were ideally suited to this path to dealing with the epidemic – something which the industry and its assistants in the media have done their utmost to conceal. 
This is the central issue of the crime that is now being perpetrated by the state against the health and interests of its citizens. 
  In essence, the age profile of those who succumb to “COVID disease” is the same as those who die of all other causes, largely because the virus itself is rarely the direct cause of death – rather as with influenza deaths it may be the last straw that finally takes the old with low life expectancy. Deaths are uncommon in middle age, and very rare in normally healthy individuals, while deaths are almost unknown in those under twenty. Children rarely even show any sign of infection as their immune response is highly effective and rapid, but they nevertheless develop strong and long-lasting immunity to the virus and its variants. A similarly good immune response develops in most adults under fifty, many of whom show few symptoms if any. 

  It took an independent observer like Didier Raoult to notice and highlight this epidemiological characteristic of the novel virus, and pose the obvious question why it should be; he concluded that the widespread resistance to the SARS-2 viral infection in children and younger adults could be due to pre-existing immunity to other common coronaviruses. His views were ignored or dismissed at the time, so it must be riling to read the just published (though completed in June) survey of health care workers in the UK that found around 15% never showed signs of infection despite repeated exposure, thanks to a memory T-cell immune response. This was so rapidly effective that PCR testing failed to demonstrate any infection in these individuals.  
 The consequence of this disease profile is that it is ideally suited to the development of herd immunity in the whole community, as proposed in the “Great Barrington Declaration”. The expert epidemiologists who drew up this proposal in October 2020, and backed subsequently by thousands of doctors and specialists around the world, proposed that life should continue normally for working people under 50 and that schools must stay open, allowing the virus to circulate and develop their immunity safely, while those older and more vulnerable people shielded themselves until it was “safe to come out”. (the success of this “Swedish Model” has been adequately demonstrated, particularly in the benefits of keeping schools open). There is also the alternative option to vaccination, that those people more susceptible to illness take proven anti-viral drugs Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin that would prevent them from developing dangerous illness if they were infected. 
The Declaration was of course dismissed, but we should be very clear why. It wasn’t just a proposal for the management of the epidemic, but a recognition that this was a disease that could be managed and overcome without the need for debilitating social control measures or the development of vaccines, whose effectiveness would anyway likely be limited. Importantly also, and it is a point that Prof Raoult and other impartial independent experts continue to make, vaccination of the general healthy population is quite inappropriate and unnecessary for this respiratory virus, while the vaccination of anyone under 20 is irresponsible and unjustifiable. 

 And it is the vaccination of this younger portion of the population, currently being pursued and encouraged in many countries, that must be our primary focus. It’s not simply that children don’t need “protection” against the infection, but there is a far more serious reason why the vaccination of children cannot be justified, and should be condemned as gross medical malpractice – the dangers of the mRNA “vaccines” both known and unknown. In as far as the dangers are known, and in some detail, they are significantly greater to young children and teenagers. Anyone who dismisses these dangers as minor and very rare - or worse, worth taking – is either grossly incompetent or seriously compromised by commercial or political interests. Astonishingly this now includes Dr Norman Swan. 

Swan’s influence over the public dialogue is immense, and recognized by those who seek to move it in a particular direction; in this case towards an acceptance of and desire for vaccination against COVID-19. While the initial push to vaccinate the more vulnerable and aged was hardly controversial, given that even in Australia we had witnessed significant deaths with COVID in those groups, the extension of the vaccination program to younger adults and finally to children had to rely on the spreading of disinformation and the concealment of counter information. 
It is probably the failure to explain or acknowledge certain key points in the “narrative” that has been most destructive – or most effective for those attempting to mislead the public. Such points include:-
 - the lack of serious danger from contracting the infection to healthy people under 50, and very particularly to children;
- the benefit to those groups of natural immunity gained through infection, obviating any need for vaccination; and -
- the availability of cheap and effective anti-virals that can cure or prevent infection in more vulnerable individuals.

 On these points Dr Swan – albeit in common with most other specialists consulted by mainstream media – has simply failed to mention or emphasise these simple realities of good medical treatment. Never do we hear it said that people catching the virus have nothing to worry about if they have only mild symptoms, nor that maintaining good vitamin levels and general health will protect you. As a consequence of this missing reassurance, and in the current climate of hysteria about the spreading “Delta variant” (which is actually less dangerous than its antecedents) many people have been calling an ambulance as soon as they experience any symptoms. Parents too have gone into a flat panic on finding their child has “tested positive”, even though they show no sign of disease and are in fact not sick. It has been said before but is worth repeating – that on no previous occasion has it been deemed necessary to test people to discover if they are sick, and to then conclude that they are even though they show no sign of disease. 
  Adding enormously to this disproportionate fear – which for those under 30 is like being afraid of catching a common cold – have been highly irresponsible statements about the supposed dangers of ending up in hospital from leading health advisors, and incorporated in government advertising campaigns. Combined with a media that seemingly wants to prove that young people with no health problems can catch COVID and get really sick, the idea that such a person has a 1 in 50 chance of ending up in hospital has gained credibility. Both health spokesman Nick Coatsworth and Dr Norman Swan have made such an outrageously misleading statement - which both must know not to be true, nor remotely near to the truth.

 The figure is based on the total numbers going to hospital compared with the total testing positive to the disease, but is meaningless for specific groups because of the huge disparity in hospitalisations between healthy younger people and unhealthy older people. Without citing specific data it can be said that the need for hospitalization amongst healthy 50 year-olds is about one in 10,000 infections, while amongst teenagers one in 200,000 would be closer. At such low levels it would also be logical to conclude that there was some undiagnosed or undisclosed reason for these very rare serious cases in younger people. Meanwhile mainstream TV and news reports constantly highlight the stories of younger people “with no other health condition” who have ended up in ICU following infection, while ignoring the 999 others who were “old and sick”. 
 Had Norman Swan’s alarming and alarmist claims about the dangers from catching COVID been a general statement of warning they may have passed the pub test, but they were issued at a key point in the push to “Vax the Nation”, and coupled with alarmist TV adverts and endless reports about vaccinations, coinciding with the rapid spread of the Delta variant in Sydney and Melbourne. The effect of this, and apparent intent, was to create a panic amongst younger people and parents about the supposed need to get vaccinated, and to have their children vaccinated as soon as the mRNA vaccines were “approved” for younger people. 

  Dr Swan made these claims in August, but has recently repeated them in the context of the final push to reach the magic levels of vaccination which supposedly will allow restrictions to be eased – for the “double-jabbed” at least. In this episode of his “Coronacast”, which conveniently comes with a transcript, Swan makes some specific statements about the COVID-19 disease which are quite false and dangerously misleading. To wit: 
  “So if you are grandparents, you've got primary aged grandchildren or you are a parent of primary aged children, knowing that the disease…and it's as we predicted, with some criticism, by the way, on Coronacast some months ago, that COVID-19 will become a paediatric disease, will become a childhood disease, and that's what it is progressively becoming because older age groups are indeed immunised.”

 Not only is Swan appealing directly to the fears of parents and grandparents about children’s long-term health and safety, but he makes the ludicrous assertion that this is a childhood disease because older people have been vaccinated against it! The opposite applies in the case of childhood vaccinations, which are precautionary against later and adult infections. But it is this misrepresentation of COVID-19 as no different from other childhood diseases against which we agree to be vaccinated that is so essential to the false narrative, and in the dismissal of all opposition to it as “just anti-vaxer nonsense”. 

 Norman Swan’s advocacy for childhood vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus does however have a much darker side to it, in that such a position can only be maintained by excluding all knowledge and honest discussion of the clear short and long-term dangers from the mRNA drugs he is advocating. The long term dangers fall into the “known-unknowns” category, both because of the absence of long-term testing and because of well-grounded fears based on the charted distribution of the drug around the body. The short-term dangers however are in the “known knowns” category, following studies in several countries and confirmed association of adverse effects with the vaccination. 

  A striking illustration of this “mixed messaging” about childhood vaccination came Swan’s regular Monday interview by the ABC on September 6th. Asked about the risks to children from the mRNA Pfizer vaccine that was about to be approved for 12-16 year olds by the TGA – whose head John Skerrit had already stated were significantly less than the benefits – Norman Swan said:

- “With 6 billion doses of the vaccines around the world now, and under intense scrutiny, so we know what the side effects are… and out of 350 million doses of mRNA about 700 cases of myocarditis., so it’s rare, maybe 1 in about 50,000, or rarer than that with under reporting, and these kids get better within three of four days after they’ve had it so it’s not a serious side effect, and I’m not aware of anybody dying from it for example.”

  Ignoring Swan’s apparently poor grip on maths and statistics – major under-reporting of vaccine-associated injuries makes them far commoner – his trivialization of myocarditis is quite breathtaking and disingenuous. As it happened, only the day before a woman in her 30s had DIED following severe myocarditis post-vaccination just over the Tasman in New Zealand – though it took the Daily Mail to find it! In fact even “mild” cases of myocarditis leave permanently damaged heart muscle, and serious cases may even need a heart transplant. 

  But what followed in the interview with Fran Kelly, who had done her research on the UK’s expert opinion, was more astonishing. Kelly noted that the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had advised against giving the mRNA vaccine to normally healthy 12 – 15 year olds, because the relative risk to them of serious illness from COVID-19 was extremely low, and asked Swan “what does that tell us?”

 Swan:  “Well it’s another quite breathtaking decision on behalf of the British Government which has made a series of really quite poor decisions public health-wise over the past year or so, which is amazing as Britain was once the light on the hill in terms of population Health.
 Look here’s the reasons why you would have it, and there’s plenty of parents in Australia just gagging to have it for their children because they know the benefits, so there’s the population effect, which means that the more of these 12-15 year olds who do have these social networks, get immunized, you are lowering the burden of disease in that group and their chance of spreading it…”

As more and more reports of cardiac injuries and sudden illness emerge, not in the mainstream but in conversations and alternative media, it becomes clear that vested interests and agendas are at work to suppress the truth of what is being done in the name of “public health and safety”. Although there are massive fortunes to be lost in the cancelling of the vaccination program for children under 18, and equally massive fortunes at risk from compensation claims that could follow, the financial risk is insufficient to explain the apparent suppression of the truth by governments, health authorities and leading commentators like Norman Swan.
 Their pursuit of the agenda – to see the whole population including very young children given the mRNA treatments in the face of such a stark risk-benefit equation – has an almost demonic quality; nothing will deter them from it, even as the vaccination of the older population shows itself to be of less and less benefit, and “booster shots” are administered even before some have had their initial doses. And rather than taking a more cautious approach to ongoing expansion of the vaccination to even younger children, along with booster shots for adults, governments around the world seem to be doubling down on the program. Unlike the caution shown by the JCVI over mRNA vaccines for teenagers, the drug advisory group the MHRA has just advised that these vaccines are safe for 5-11 year-olds, and that contrary to earlier claims that the second dose was five times more hazardous than the first, it now also recommends that teenagers have their second jab. 

As Dr Swan should have said – “this is a quite breathtaking decision” by the MHRA, in the absence of ANY long term safety data or even trials of the experimental drugs. It is also breathtakingly cavalier, and apparently oblivious to the mother’s wrath that may descend on the doctors’ and advisors’ heads when their children start showing signs of vaccine injury and they realise that is what it is. If the predictions of some eminent specialists are correct, this is only a matter of time, and inevitable as more and more unusual health effects appear, and fail to clear up after a few days. What sort of damage will by then have been done to children’s health, and whether it can be repaired, can barely be imagined. 

DM November 22nd 2021