What to Make of Covid and the Lockdowns?
By: Raelle Kaia
Tags: Belief, Covid 19, Liberty, Freedom, Policy

An Appeal for Free and Open Discourse

As of this writing in December 2020, we are all aware of an overall mainstream narrative regarding what to make of covid and how best to respond to it. This narrative is faithfully disseminated through the corporate press and various governmental, nongovernmental, and quasi-official institutions of power. We are also all aware that dissenting views exist. Included within the mainstream covid narrative are instructions regarding how to treat these dissenting views — namely, that they are to be disregarded and censored. Moreover, those who hold dissenting views are to be shamed, ridiculed, deplatformed, unfriended, vilified, and even arrested or fined. Above all else, their views should never be read, listened to, or fairly considered.

Dissenting views are themselves regarded as rivaling covid itself in their virulence and peril. They are the virus of wrongthink, a contagion which transforms a good human into a deranged monster. Fortunately, immunity from this mental disease is possible by simply shutting off one’s mind to it. If an overriding postulate guides the mainstream narrative regarding covid, it is this: The virus must be defeated at all costs, and the only sure method of defeating it is unquestioning universal obedience to the Authorities. How are we to know who the Authorities are and what they command? We read and watch mainstream corporate news and media, and we receive our instructions.

I am a dread dissenter. This article summarizes my dissenting view on covid, masks, social distancing, and lockdowns. I do not aim to convince those who adhere to the mainstream covid narrative to adopt my views. My aim is rather to persuade the reader that dissenting views to this narrative ought to be considered fairly, and that numerous, well-reasoned critiques to the Narrative exist. These critiques and objections are grounded in evidence, and they enjoy the backing of many voices in the fields of science, medicine, and epidemiology whose views would carry weight under the societal circumstances that prevailed until March, 2020. Moreover, these dissenting views, critiques, and objections are held and offered from a desire to prevent as much harm as possible — and to effect the best possible outcomes and quality of life for humanity. I seek to persuade the reader that we ought to return to our roots as a free society of open discourse, and we should once again cherish the spirit of scientific inquiry.

We were once a free people who did not fear speech or the pursuit of truth. We ought to become such people again, and the place to begin is through the invitation and encouragement of dissenting views, not their suppression. In particular, we ought to scrutinize both prevailing and dissenting views on covid and the lockdowns. We ought to expose these views to the light and rigor of honest and fair consideration of their strengths and weaknesses. Human society has never been so radically and suddenly altered in all our lifetimes as it has in 2020. We ought to find it both remarkable and disturbing that this alteration has been met with unquestioning obedience rather than open debate and inquiry.

At the end of the article, I will include a selection of links to websites and discourses on these matters. These links will provide the reader with the information needed to begin their own inquiry regarding these dissenting views, from sources unavailable in the sphere of the mainstream media narrative.

This article is secondarily intended to summarize my viewpoint on these matters thoroughly so as to alleviate the need for me to continue restating these points elsewhere — at the cost of much exhaustion and lost time. As stated earlier, I do not intend for this article to persuade anyone to adopt my view, though I welcome that as a possibility. My goal is rather to persuade the reader that dissenting views ought to be reckoned with, respected, and considered fairly on their merits.

At the time of this writing, in December of 2020, my view on these matters is very much a minority view. I believe this will change with time. Put simply, I am in opposition to the mandated lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. I am a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration in my capacity as a medical practitioner in the field of mental health (I am a licensed professional counselor) and also in my capacity as a citizen. This declaration lays out the scientific, epidemiological, and medical case that the aforementioned measures are not effective or necessary in response to covid, and are in fact, counterproductive to short and long-term public health.

The lockdown measures and policies are also harmful to important human values. I endorse the values of sovereign dignity, bodily autonomy, personal freedom, liberty, and democracy. These include the following as foundational elements: freedom of speech, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of movement and of privacy, bodily autonomy, divided and limited powers of governance, and fundamental rights reserved to the people, which are inalienable. All of these values, rights, and freedoms are currently under assault due to the prevailing covid lockdown zeitgeist. For a deeper exploration of these matters, I refer the reader to two companion essays: 1. Lockdown evoked a political and conceptual earthquake in my life,which discusses my journey from lockdown and mainstream narrative believer to my eventual position of dissent, and 2. The Sacred Left and Right, an inquiry into a rising authoritarianism in the covid response, and political implications.

I hold that the series of state mandates issued across this country and the globe are not compatible with a free society and a free people, and I believe that a society and its people ought to be free. I hold that free people are capable of governing themselves when it comes to evaluating personal risk, and they are capable of reviewing the recommendations of governments and experts (including conflicting and opposing views among said governments and experts), and of making their own determinations. I hold that it is proper for different people to arrive at different conclusions regarding risk, based on their own values, reasoning, personal circumstances, and level of risk tolerance. In the case of infectious disease, the more deadly the disease, the more people will willingly take safety precautions. The less deadly the disease, the more people will willingly choose to accept greater risk in favor of other cherished human values. If a government must violate the Constitutional and moral rights of a people in order to forcibly impose more severe isolation than those people would otherwise willingly adopt, I believe this is an indication of two things: First, it means the disease in question is almost assuredly less dangerous than that government insists it is. Secondly, it means the government has become tyrannical.

“But wait,” I hear you say. “All of this talk of rights and freedom and so forth sounds very well and good in theory, but we’re in the middle of a pandemic, and this calls for extraordinary measures.”

Even if I agreed that we were experiencing a severe enough of a pandemic to justify extraordinary measures, I would also still hold that a free society is something worth sacrificing and risking for. There are few things worth risking one’s life for that are more valuable than the free dignity of sovereign human life. A human life worth living for and dying for is a life that involves human touch and closeness, the dignity of bodily autonomy, the ability to breathe free air, to feel the wind and sun on one’s face, the ability to choose one’s movements, clothing, and activities, the ability to gather, to speak freely, to sing, to dance, to celebrate, to honor sacred traditions and rituals, to choose or refuse medical treatment, and to choose freely — based on one’s own wisdom and liberty, and one’s own cherished and sacred beliefs regarding reality and the divine. These are my values. I realize they are not everyone’s values, and in fact, they do not seem to be most people’s values. But these are mine. And these are values worth living and dying for.

That being said, the need to brave great risk for the sake of these values is not actually relevant in our current situation, for we are not at great risk. Moreover, the lockdown measures that have swept the world collectively expose people to greater risk, not less. I know these statements are rank heresy in the age of The New Normal. In order to explain them, allow me to first lay out the mainstream viewpoint as best I see and understand it.



The Mainstream View:

“This virus is extremely dangerous. It’s a once-in-a-hundred year occurrence. Just look at the death counts. And the case numbers are shooting through the roof. Not to mention the risk of “long covid.” Anyone could have the virus. Even if you’ve already had the virus, you can get it again and spread it again. People without any symptoms at all have the virus and spread it to others. The hospitals are overwhelmed. And even if you’re not worried about getting the virus yourself, you’re putting vulnerable people at risk of death and long illness if you don’t isolate yourself. You’re killing people through your selfishness. It’s a good thing opposing views are heavily censored and shamed. Sensible and responsible people listen to the public health authorities and obey their directives. That’s the way we can beat this virus as quickly as possible, and with the least amount of death and illness. We need universal compliance and obedience. We can’t afford personal rights and human freedoms. It doesn’t matter if you lose your job, your business, or your home; or if your mental, emotional, and physical health suffer due to your isolation and shrunken life. Nothing is more important than stopping covid.

“Fortunately, we know what to do: We stay six feet away from every single person who is not in our own household. (Some people form “pods” of friends and family across multiple households, but this is actually irresponsible, and they ought not to do it.) The best thing you can do is wear a face mask everywhere, and maybe rubber gloves too. The mask significantly stops the spread of the virus. But it’s best not to get too close even if you’re wearing the mask. We can’t take any chances with this terrible virus. The good news is we live in an age of modern science and there are vaccines on the way to save us. If we all take the vaccines when they come out, and we keep social distancing, staying locked down when ordered to, obeying all government mandates and media instructions, and wearing a mask everywhere, then we’ll finally eradicate the virus from the face of the earth. Then, and only then, will we be able to have our normal lives back. The media and government will let us know when that’s allowed. We can trust them.”



Forgive me if I am missing important aspects of the mainstream view. I can’t think of any other major components of this view, as I understand it. There is however one component of the mainstream view I haven’t mentioned yet, and I believe this to actually be the most important factor. I summarize it like this: “They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.” Who’s they? The governments, the corporate media, and the influential designated experts in public and private positions. This is the element of reasoning that ensures the mainstream narrative will never be challenged, no matter how inconsistent it is, no matter how much evidence stacks up against it. It is simply too challenging, too frightening, and downright incomprehensible for most people to believe that the governments, media, and influential experts would be conducting themselves this way if it weren’t necessary to keep us safe, healthy, and alive. I’ll answer this element of the mainstream view later. Before I do, I will detail the key points and arguments of the various dissenting critiques. I encourage you to explore the links at the end of this article if you would like to decide for yourself whether you agree with these dissents.

1. How deadly is the virus?

Back in March, we were led to believe that the virus would kill about 3% of all people, which would be around 250 million people worldwide, and 10 million people here in the US. For a brief period, we were even told that the virus might kill as many as 7% of people, based on figures coming out of Italy. That would have been more like half a billion people worldwide and 20 million in the US.

These figures scared us all into lockdown, with Italy leading the way. After all, “They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.” But even if one believes lockdowns are an appropriate response for a virus that kills 3% or 7% of all people, one might not agree to impose lockdowns for a virus that kills only 0.2% of people. This figure is where the current CDC estimates have been revised to. Furthermore, it was always a mistake to assume that covid would infect all people and then kill that percentage of them. As data have since demonstrated, a large percentage of people, perhaps between 30–50%, have natural immunity to covid, either from T and B cell immunity acquired from previous coronaviruses, or due to a generally strong immune system. Covid does not kill 0.2% of all people, but only 0.2% of the infected. Consequently, the deadliness of covid in the general population is actually much lower than 0.2%.

Making comparisons between seasonal influenza and covid induces rage and derision in many adherents of the mainstream narrative. But if the mainstream narrative is not simply to be followed unthinkingly, it would be well-advised to keep a cool head regarding this comparison. The usual death rate given for the flu is around 0.1%. This varies from season to season; there are strong flu seasons and weak flu seasons as influenza adapts and mutates. It’s worth keeping that comparison in mind, because there is a good chance that covid will similarly mutate and adapt into a seasonal illness. As the population acquires increased immunity and the virus adapts to become more transmissible and less deadly through natural selection, the covid death rate is likely to drop from the current rate of around 0.2% to a flu-like level of about 0.1%.

These mortality estimates are important in addressing the question of proportionality in response to the virus. It is reasonable to argue that the difference between a 0.1% and 0.2% mortality rate does not merit the unprecedented disruption and devastation of human life, health, and freedom we have witnessed in the 2020 response to this virus. Even if one is convinced that the death rate is higher, say 0.4%, the question of whether extreme measures are proportional or appropriate remains of vital import. Regardless of whether one is more convinced by the mainstream or dissenting view, the dissenting argument is on solid ground and should receive serious consideration. When we consider the monumental human costs of these lockdowns later in the article, I believe it will show the mainstream justifications for the lockdowns to be on very shaky ground. The primary argument in favor of the mainstream response remains: “They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.”

The entire preceding argument is based on accepting the official case and death figures as given — but there are also very good reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of those figures. To understand why the virus may be even less deadly than we’ve been led to believe, we need to understand two things: the PCR test, and what gets counted as a covid death.

The PCR test is the primary test used in most places to diagnose a covid case. Kerry Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for developing this test, insisted that the PCR test should not and cannot be used to diagnose a virus. This view is shared by many other scientists. The PCR test has a variety of uses in genetic analysis, but in the case of diagnosing an active virus, the test only supports the possibility of diagnosis, which is then to be confirmed by other factors (in particular, by the presence of symptoms or illness, or by isolating the actual virus). The PCR test is not being used as intended and designed for in its function of diagnosing covid cases.

What does the PCR test do? It produces copies of a single strand of DNA in exponential fashion, eventually creating millions, billions, or even trillions of copies of that strand, for the purpose of analysis. In the case of covid diagnosis, these DNA copies are then scanned for presence of an RNA segment that corresponds to an RNA segment found in the virus itself. It identifies only a segment, never the full virus. The test runs in cycles. Each cycle doubles the amplification of the previous cycle. The first cycle creates one copy of the initial DNA strand, yielding two strands. The second cycle yields 4 strands, the third yields 8, and so on. On this kind of exponential curve, the analyzed biological material has been amplified to a level of over one million strands after 20 cycles. After 30 cycles, it is amplified to over a billion.

After 35 cycles, which yields about 34 billion strands, many scientists (not to mention Dr. Anthony Fauci himself) regard further amplifications to be useless for diagnosis if the genetic material has not yet been found. Only positive tests identified earlier than the 25th cycle are likely to indicate the presence of enough live virus to be infective. Positive tests based on cycle thresholds over 35 are almost certainly only identifying dead nucleotides. It could be a dead segment of RNA from a prior infection, long cleared, or simply a dead strand of the stuff that found its way into someone’s body, though they were never infected with a live virus, or their immunity made short work of it. Put simply, when more than 35 cycles are used, the test yields mostly false positives.

In some countries, PCR tests are not conducted past 30 cycles. In others, the cut-off is 35. In Portugal, the PCR test has actually been ruled invalid as a basis for diagnosis altogether because it is so inaccurate. In Florida, new regulations will require all positive PCR tests to list the cycle threshold in response to this issue. But elsewhere there is no requirement to list the cycle threshold, and many countries are running 40 cycle tests, even as high as 45 (amplification levels of one trillion and 35 trillion strands respectively). In the US, the threshold varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from testing center to testing center, with many tests being run at cycles of 37, 40 and even 45. For positive tests at cycle thresholds this high, regardless of how miniscule the amount of genetic material is found, the patient is designated as a covid case — even if there is no sign of infection and a complete lack of symptoms. This also means that a patient who does have symptoms and receives a covid diagnosis due to a high-cycle PCR test may actually be getting symptoms due to the presence of a cold or flu, not due to covid.

If accurate, this analysis suggests that the case numbers are highly exaggerated due to false positives. In addition to frightening the public through the media, with high case numbers flashed constantly across the TV screen (used as continued justification for lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and rule by executive decree), the inflated case numbers also inflate the death numbers.

To understand the death count, one needs to understand that the CDC issued specific instructions to doctors across the country in March regarding how to fill out death certificates when the deceased has been diagnosed as a covid case. These instructions are viewable on the CDC’s website, which is where I viewed them. Doctors have been instructed to attribute covid as a cause of death anytime someone dies while also diagnosed with covid. The CDC confirmed this in August when they announced that only 6% of covid deaths in their official figures were caused by covid alone. We don’t know how many of the other 94% of covid deaths would have occurred whether or not a covid diagnosis was present. We don’t know how many of those covid cases were asymptomatic and completely unrelated to the deceased’s actual cause of death. We don’t know how many of those covid cases were false positives due to high-cycle PCR tests.

What we do know, is that there is a strong and credible argument that both the case counts and death figures are significantly inflated. There ought to be public debate and consideration regarding this issue, and the level of covid’s lethality generally speaking, in proportion to the extreme measures that have been deployed. I cannot think of any reason why this question shouldn’t be vigorously debated among our politicians and in our news media, other than “They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.” Oh yes, and this one too: “The virus must be defeated at all costs, and the only sure method of defeating it is unquestioning universal obedience to the Authorities.”



Finally, we must address the question of age of death. From the statistics I have seen in various countries, the average age of death from covid is usually around 80–85. In wealthier countries where people live longer lives, the average age of death from any cause is usually around 80–85. In some countries, the average age of death from covid is actually higher than overall life expectancy. This suggests that a large percentage of people who have died while diagnosed with covid were already close to death. As human beings we are mortal, and death is a natural part of life. Every single one of us will die, and death is not a tragedy when we have lived a full and complete life. But such deaths do become tragic when the dying person is forcibly isolated from their loved ones due to official social distancing measures. This kind of tragedy has been imposed on thousands of people in 2020.

A smaller number of people have died before their time due to contracting covid, who were not otherwise near to death. Anytime death comes early, grief and heartache are experienced by the survivors. My own mother died at the age of 49, and my brother at the age of 38, so I am no stranger to early death. It does not follow, however, that the extreme measures imposed on our society are proportional and proper due to the fact that some number people died of covid before their time. Extreme measures would only be proportional and proper in response to extreme levels of such deaths. The evidence does not indicate that such deaths have occurred or are occurring at extreme levels. What’s more, as I will show later in this article, the extreme measures themselves cause new people to die who would not otherwise have died.

2. What About Long Covid?

It is remarkable that there isn’t much information available regarding “long covid” given how big of a talking point it has been in inducing obedience to the lockdown/masks/distancing regime. At around the time data began showing that covid was significantly less deadly than we were originally told it would be, we began seeing stories in the media about long covid. These stories argued that it didn’t matter that the lethality of covid had turned out to be low — you could still get long covid and have symptoms of ill health for many months after having the illness, perhaps permanent causing damage.

In the media, such reports were always anecdotal. Just as the media overemphasized the risk of young people dying from covid by highlighting anecdotal instances of this, the risk of long covid was similarly overemphasized. A typical article would focus on a handful of anecdotes of specific unlucky people. In the mind of the reader or viewer, the risk becomes amplified significantly due to such coverage. The thought goes, “the media wouldn’t be scaring us about such consequences if those consequences were rare.” They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.



It required some scouring, but eventually I located a study conducted in the UK which found that about 2% of people who experience covid symptoms have some residual symptoms that last longer than 12 weeks after clearing the primary symptoms in the 2–3 weeks of the infection. The study did not measure symptom presence past 12 weeks. The possibility of permanent tissue damage was raised by citing the case of pneumonia, which can cause lung scarring whether pneumonia is brought on by covid, influenza, or some other reason. I have read other anecdotal reports referencing damage to other organs in patients who experienced severe symptoms, just as I understand that any patient who experiences severe symptoms from any illness may experience organ damage. The evidence demonstrates that a low percentage of patients with covid symptoms experience this kind of severe harm, as is the percentage of patients who die.

In fact, recent figures I have read indicate that anywhere from 50–80% of people who get covid have exactly no symptoms at all. (These figures may be suspect, however, if it is understood to include false positives from high-cycle PCR tests. I believe it is likely that a large percentage of that number are actually immune to SarsCov2 and cannot actually be accurately described as having contracted covid, even if a fragment of the viral RNA is found in their body). Elsewhere, I’ve read that instances of long-term tissue damage due to covid represent about 1% of infections and that this figure is similar to the rate of long-term consequences from other infections such as influenza.

I don’t have any particular confidence in these figures; the true rates could be higher or lower. What I find more interesting is how little available data there is on this question. When the media drums up fear about any issue, but does not provide hard figures to back their narrative up, they have not made a good case. In particular, they have not made any kind of case for the appropriateness of extreme measures to prevent non-lethal covid.



In the interests of fairness I will offer the following: I believe I had covid in January. It was the worst flu of my life, and included the dry hacking cough I’ve heard described as one of the telltale symptoms. Since then, I have continued to experience background chest pain that I haven’t yet been able to clear. I may be an instance of long covid. On the other hand, I might not have had covid — I might have just had a bad flu. It’s kind of hard to tell the difference. I had an antibody test in May which was negative. This could have been a false negative, but if it was accurate, then I’m suffering from “long flu.” If I had long covid, is it an argument for extreme measures? If I instead had long flu, is it an argument that extreme measures are not needed? At the very least, this ambiguity demonstrates another instance of the need for vigorous public debate and dialogue regarding the extreme measures we’ve been living with, rather than unquestioning obedience to imposed restrictions without justification.

It should be clear that I am not discounting the possibility that covid can cause severe harm or death. Indeed, for some number of people, covid can be a serious infection. For some number of people, influenza can be a serious infection, resulting in permanent harm or death. For some number of people, tuberculosis can be a serious infection, resulting in permanent harm or death. For some number of people, even the common cold can be a serious infection, resulting in permanent harm or death. My mother died from a common cold, due to weakened immunity from cancer treatment. The question is not whether some number of people experience such harm, but whether the percentage of people at risk of such harm is proportional to the governmental and societal response.





3. Should Everyone Be Wearing Masks?

In keeping with the objective of defeating the virus at all costs, we have witnessed the masking of the world. How did this happen? Is it warranted? The idea behind the masking is simple enough: if the virus spreads through the breath, then obstructing the breath will obstruct the spread of the virus. In addition, every single person is to be considered potentially infectious, even if they’ve already had the virus and cleared it. Although it is widely agreed that a person is mostly infectious only when expressing symptoms, there is a non-zero chance that a person could be shedding the virus during a window of time prior to the onset of symptoms, or could even be shedding the virus without ever developing symptoms.

Some readers will remember when the WHO announced that asymptomatic transmission was not a significant factor in the spread of covid back in June. They were pilloried in the media for several days and were eventually bullied into retracting this statement, although they never retracted the rationale behind the statement. The basic rationale for their retraction was that their scientific statement about the unlikelihood of asymptomatic transmission might cause people to become less afraid of the virus and therefore less vigilant. The Narrative required the public to continue fearing each other despite the lack of symptoms, so this information about asymptomatic transmission could not be allowed to stand. The public was also required to believe they could pass the virus on, without symptoms, to anyone at any time (and to think of themselves as murderers for doing so). This would keep the public anxious, shameful, and obedient — goals which have long been crucial to public health PR campaigns, called “Fear Appeal” by public health policy makers. Moreover, the mask mandates were about to be deployed across the Western world later in June, and these mandates relied entirely on the fear of asymptomatic transmission in order to have any validity.

Please forgive me if I have editorialized the reasons I believe the Narrative has been shaped as it has. From my viewpoint, the purpose of the mask mandates is clearly psychological, not medical. In particular, the masks represents a marker of state obedience and dominance — a form of psychological warfare on the people. It communicates the message that the human body is to be considered infectious and harmful at all times. It symbolically silences people’s voices by covering their mouths. It symbolically induces conformity by obscuring the face, the human being’s marker of individuality and identity. Mask compliance is also imposed as training for vaccine compliance. The state begins with one imposition on the human body in preparation for another. The public is to be trained to think of their bodies as belonging to the state or to corporations, not to themselves. Finally, the mask symbolically communicates to people that their fundamental humanity does not matter, by obstructing their ability to breathe. It is particularly notable that this reduction in the ability to breathe freely has been proposed as a safety measure for a disease that, when it kills people, does so by reducing their access to oxygen through the breath. Nothing is more fundamental to human life than breath. No birthright of the human being is more basic and direct than to breathe fresh air.

If widespread and mandatory masking really does make sense as a public health measure, then perhaps it is only a coincidence that the mask also accomplishes all those goals of dominating the individual and inducing continued fear and separation among the people. But there are good reasons to doubt the wisdom of masking, even if concerns about human freedoms and psychological effects are to be set at naught. The idea that wearing face masks could stop the spread of a virus was first proposed around the time of the early 1900s. Since that time, up until June 2020, a number of scientific experiments and studies were conducted over the course of decades to try and establish whether face masks had any efficacy in this regard. None of these studies found support for the use of masks for this purpose.

This makes sense when one considers how tiny virus particles are. To weave the fabric of a mask tight enough to block virus particles, the openings in the fabric that air molecules can push through would have to be microscopically small, less than 130 nanometers, making it very hard to breathe. Given the fact that breathing is somewhat impaired while wearing most everyday masks, one might reasonably assume that they also block and let through virus particles in proportion to the amount of air they block and let through. If so, they might have the effect of blocking something like 20% of your virus particles. If normally it takes 10 minutes of sitting and talking with someone indoors to pass on enough virus to cause an infection, with the masks on, maybe it takes 12 minutes. In other words, the expected ability of masks to reduce the amount of virus particles coming from your mouth would be negligible — and that’s what numerous studies showed for decades.

It was only in June 2020, the same month that the mask mandates were about to be rolled out everywhere, that the first study was released claiming to show masks reduced the spread of covid. But this study simply compared rates of covid cases from selected jurisdictions with differing mask laws. The confounding variables in the study were so numerous as to be laughable, from testing rates, to differing PCR cycle thresholds, to the rate of spread in each jurisdiction due to other factors such as general health and levels of immunity — not to mention the ability of the researchers to cherry-pick data from jurisdictions that already fit the conclusion they wished to reach, while excluding data from jurisdictions that did not support their desired conclusion. The study was not an experiment that tested a hypothesis. The subsequent mask studies that are meant to support the utility of mask-wearing were constructed the same way.

On the contrary, one can review graphs of new covid cases over time in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. One will never find an example in which introduction of a mask mandate influences the curve of new cases in either direction. I’ve viewed other charts that plot strictness of mask-use in various jurisdictions to case numbers, or deaths, and there is zero correlation. These charts just look like a scatter plot of random points. Recently, Denmark actually conducted an experimental study to test the efficacy of mask use and found no results that supported efficacy. One might also consider the example of grocery store workers, who continued working from March-May without masks during the height of the pandemic. This is the primary population one would be interested in to determine if masks were necessary or useful. But there is no evidence that grocery store workers contracted covid at higher rates than anyone else, either before or after the mask mandates were imposed, and no change in infection rates from before or after.

As mentioned earlier, the whole purported purpose of universal forced masking is based solely on the theory of asymptomatic spread. Many medical scientists and doctors assert that asymptomatic transmission represents a very small percentage of infections. Mandatory masking is a deeply personal imposition of the state on a universal level to target a very small number of people who actually have an active SarsCov2 infection without knowing they even have an illness. For instance, in a population of 1000 people, there might be 10 who have an active infection and are shedding virus. Of these, perhaps 8 have symptoms and are staying home. That leaves 2 people for whom wearing the mask has a purpose out of 1000 forced to wear them — and at best, the evidence that the masks do anything significant is highly questionable.

There are also harms to masking. Taking away someone’s sovereignty over their face and breath is an affront to their human dignity, spirit, and freedom. There are psychological harms to society which I touched on before. The masks induce suspicion, contempt, and fear among the populace. Seeing each other’s faces generates trust and connection on a very basic human level. Faces and smiles create a positive mood and joy in shared humanity. Wearing the mask involuntarily, whether forced or coerced against one’s will, creates a dominated and disempowered psychological effect. The masks create divisions in society, and generate anger, shaming, and condemnation. The masks implicitly silence one’s voice and blunt individuality. For those who believe the masks work to keep them and others safe, the danger exists of false confidence. People who do have symptoms, and would otherwise stay home, may be emboldened to go out and about, believing the mask prevents them from passing on the virus. People who would be vulnerable to a serious illness if infected will be more likely to expose themselves, believing the mask is providing protection it doesn’t. The masks obstruct the wearer’s ability to breathe fresh air, one of the most basic components of health and wellbeing. They can cause skin problems, and they can cause the wearer to breathe and rebreathe little bits of unhealthy bacteria that get caught in the mask, as well as fragments of mask material that break off and become toxic when breathed into the body.

The argument against the utility of masks is a strong one, and it is backed up by the scientific evidence. The argument that masks cause harm is also a strong one, and a valid one. Currently, those arguments are silenced, and most people believe masks are indispensible tools of safety because “they wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.” We ought to be having a public debate about the efficacy and harms of masks in the media and in our statehouses rather than having that debate silenced. Evidence for the efficacy and against the harms of masks would need to be clear and conclusive in order to justify the massive alteration of human experience we are now witnessing. In particular, forcing people to wear masks against their will is an extraordinary measure that would require extraordinary evidence of its need and efficacy to be justified. Instead, this extraordinary measure is being justified by this: “The virus must be defeated at all costs, and the only sure method of defeating it is unquestioning universal obedience to the Authorities.”

4. Social Distancing or Herd Immunity?

Adjacent to the entire argument for mask mandates is the question of social distancing and the imperative to stop or limit the spread of covid. Back in March, when we thought the number of cases was limited (now we have learned that SarsCov2 had already been spreading throughout the world for 4 months by then — probably just considered to be the regular flu where it popped up), there was a rationale for attempting to stop the spread. If there are just a few cases of a pathogen, there is a chance of isolating the spread by tracking and quarantining every case. The idea was that if everyone practiced social distancing, the virus might well die out before it became widespread.

By April it had become obvious that the virus was everywhere. There would be no possibility of containing the spread or eliminating SarsCov2. That should have been the point where we realized the virus was going to move its way through the entire populace — it was just a matter of how quickly. Some of us did realize that at the time; it became clear the virus would spread until herd immunity was reached through organic spread, or until a successful vaccine could create herd immunity.

On the question of immunity, the mainstream media very aggressively imposed the narrative that immunity was somehow impossible. Once again, we were subjected to anecdotal accounts of vanishingly rare cases of people who had covid once and then contracted it again. Of course, the possibility that such people had falsely tested positive the first time or the second time was not permitted in the discourse, nor was it permitted to point out that these cherry-picked anecdotes comprised a tiny proportion of the populace. Instead, we were instructed that there was a non-zero chance that prior infection would not confer immunity. Therefore, all people, whether they already had covid or not, would be required to social distance and mask themselves as if they were just as likely to catch and pass on the virus as anyone else.

In addition, the media made a big deal of the fact that covid antibodies in the bloodstream tend to decline quite quickly, lasting just a few months in most cases. The media insisted this meant that no one was actually immune if they did not have antibodies active in their bloodstream. Reports about T-cell and B-cell immunity were almost entirely ignored. But understanding these types of immunity is crucial to understanding why immunity continues to exist even after the antibodies disappear. These types of white blood cells carry the memory of the virus within them. When exposed to SarsCov2, they either fight off and prevent a new infection themselves, or send the signal to begin producing antibodies again, or both. Furthermore, it has been found that T-cell and B-cell immunity already exist in large numbers in the population, estimated from 40–50%, probably due to prior exposure to other coronaviruses of similar structure to SarsCov2.

Understanding that significant amounts of immunity already exist in the populace is also key to understanding why herd immunity is well within reach. If herd immunity adheres when about 65–70% of the population becomes immune, and 40–50% have preexisting immunity, it means only 15–30% of the populace needs to contract the virus and develop immunity to reach this goal. This fact was also predictably ignored and dismissed in the media. Instead, they rehashed the narrative about how no one really ever keeps immunity and therefore herd immunity could never be attained. Incredibly, the media simultaneously argued that immunity was impossible while also insisting we remain locked down, masked, and distanced until a vaccine is developed that makes us immune! Vaccines cannot produce immunity if actually contracting the virus does not produce immunity. But it’s as if a new religion has been declared that requires us to believe the human body has always been incapable of achieving immunity to disease, and that the invention of vaccines made immunity possible for the first time.

The “wait for the vaccine” strategy became the universally mandated solution advocated by the mainstream covid narrative. This strategy was never questioned in the media or anywhere else. It was not permitted to be questioned. Instead we continually heard some variation of “we have to hunker down until we get the vaccine.” Some of us had questions about this theoretical vaccine. We knew that no successful vaccine had ever been developed for a coronavirus, and we knew the fastest any vaccine had ever been developed was four years. We suspected that at best, a covid vaccine would be like the flu shot: limited efficacy, numerous side effects and adverse reactions — really only useful to the very vulnerable, who would be looking for whatever protection they could get. Was it worth it to remain socially distanced, locked down, masked, etc. for a year or more, just to wait for a vaccine that might never come, might not work, or provide limited benefit?

At this writing, the first vaccines have been rolled out and are now being distributed with a few different versions in the works. They do seem to induce significant adverse effects, as I expected, although these adverse effects are actually much more severe than I had guessed they would be. What I did not expect was that the vaccines would not actually confer immunity, nor prevent transmission! And yet this is apparently the case — at least, there is not any evidence they confer such benefits — if they do so, it will be a pleasant surprise. These covid vaccines have only been measured and tested based on their capacity to reduce symptom manifestation when covid is later contracted. The entire rationale for continuing with these extreme lockdown/masking/distancing measures has been to reduce the number of cases and deaths as much as possible while we waited for the vaccines to prevent transmission and provide us all with immunity. If the vaccines don’t do that, there is simply no rationale to the lockdowning. None at all.

Earlier in 2020, a group of notable medical scientists released the Great Barrington Declaration as a counterpoint to this strategy of lockdowning, masking, and social distancing. I am a signatory, as I related earlier in this article. As of December 2020, I have been joined by over 39,000 other medical practitioners, over 12,000 medical and public health scientists, and over 700,000 concerned citizens. The idea behind the Declaration is that to the extent that the extreme measures we are living with are effective at slowing the spread of covid, the only thing accomplished is to prolong the amount of time it takes to develop herd immunity. To the extent that herd immunity is delayed, the vulnerable are at risk for longer periods of time. Thus, slowing the spread is actually likely to cause more deaths among the vulnerable, not less. The strategy of the Great Barrington Declaration is to provide focused protection to those who are vulnerable and desire such protection. Those members of society who do not consider themselves vulnerable go about life as normal. The virus spreads freely among them with very little adverse consequence while the vulnerable stay protected. Immunity is developed naturally in the population at large — the more immunity developed, the more the vulnerable are protected. Eventually, herd immunity is reached and the virus can no longer spread significantly. The vulnerable are now free to discard their protection, sooner than if the society had slowed the spread and hindered the development of natural immunity.

Instead, the alternative strategy imposed on us is for everyone in society to stay sheltered, locked down, and isolated until the vaccine could provide artificial herd immunity. Now the vaccines have been released — and they don’t provide immunity. They don’t prevent transmission. There is no medical or epidemiological rationale for continued extreme measures. If the vaccines do not provide immunity or prevent transmission, our best strategy is to get out of lockdown right away, implement social closeness, and rip those masks off. The sooner we build up that natural immunity, the sooner our vulnerable members of society will be safe. Even if the vaccines did provide immunity, naturally acquired immunity is generally stronger. And for a disease as mild as covid is for the vast majority of people, a very strong argument exists for contracting covid as a superior method of gaining immunity than taking an experimental vaccine with significant and sometimes serious adverse effects. Yet the lockdowns continue. After all, “they wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary. The only sure method of defeating covid is through unquestioning universal obedience to the Authorities.”

5. Why Lockdowns?

The next question to consider is whether the harms of lockdowns outweigh the benefits. Society-wide lockdown is an unprecedented strategy that has never been part of public health policy as long as the discipline has existed. Until the advent of covid-19, the WHO did not recommend lockdowns, and in fact, their recommendations for managing a pandemic with such universal spread did not even include quarantine or isolation of exposed individuals. Decades of research and study in the field showed no benefit to such a strategy, just as decades of research and study found no benefit to mask wearing.

What changed? This is indeed something of a mystery. What we know is that China imposed severe lockdowns on its citizens in contravention of decades of epidemiological science, and the WHO and influential related figures started insisting that the world copy China. Why this recommendation was issued, and why countries all over the world listened, led by Italy, is not clear. The decision was certainly not made based on public debate. As soon as the rest of the world went into lockdown, China revoked their lockdown and declared covid eradicated. One wonders why we were required to copy China when they were lockdowning, but we’re not allowed to copy them now. As of October, 2020, the WHO has retracted the recommendation for lockdowns and now advises that lockdowns should not be imposed. Astonishingly, this reversion of policy back to the established science has been ignored. In country after country, lockdown fever has spread once again, but this time without even the excuse of following WHO recommendations, or of copying China, everyone’s favorite totalitarian juggernaut.

Why lockdowns? One would imagine that for such an extreme intervention to be deployed, they must be extremely effective. But there is no evidence to support their efficacy. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction, there is no correlation between severity of lockdown and severity of covid cases, deaths, or hospitalizations. There is likewise no correlation regarding social distancing practices or masking and severity of covid cases and deaths. We have a few control examples of countries that did not enter lockdown at all, including Sweden, Japan, and Belarus, as well as South Dakota in the United States. In addition, we have comparisons between US states that have entered lockdown again in November and December of 2020, and those that have not done so — as well as jurisdictions where there is widespread masking and those where there is very little masking. All of these jurisdictions can be compared against jurisdictions with severe and moderate measures of lockdowning and masking, and no correlation can be found regarding the efficacy of these policies. For in depth analysis of these comparisons, I will provide links to the work of Ivor Cummins at the end of this article. He has compiled extensive data on these comparisons.

In March, we were told we needed to “flatten the curve” in order to prevent the hospitals from being overwhelmed. Do you still remember that, dear reader? “Two weeks to flatten the curve” was the great rallying call. Then we threw another couple weeks on top of that for good measure. All well and good — society hadn’t been torn apart yet. It was only one month, after all. And then we had great news: the curve had flattened on its own. The hospitals were never overwhelmed. The government had spent millions of dollars constructing field hospitals to handle patient overflow, and aside for a few beds that were used in the New York area for a few days, these field hospitals were never needed anywhere. It was a false alarm. In most parts of the country, and the world, hospitals were not overflowing but largely empty. But the lockdowns remained in spite of the curve being flattened. It was a bait and switch. “Flatten the curve” was apparently never the real goal. The goal was lockdown itself and the seizure of power. Or so I have concluded, seeing no other way to square the evidence.



In December 2020, we are once again being told the hospitals are about to be overwhelmed, despite evidence to the contrary. Anecdotal reports of individual hospitals reaching capacity are once again cherry-picked by the media and projected as indicative of a widespread trend. We are given statistics about the percentage of hospital beds available without the context that hospital beds always fill up during respiratory illness season. The same method is always used of showing a chart with death rates and hospitalizations going up at a sharp rate. Then this rate of increase is projected forward in time infinitely, which if accurate, would quickly outstrip hospital capacity and result in mass deaths. Here, it is useful once again to consult Ivor Cummins, who is able to show that these curves follow a predictable pattern of sharp rise, a curling over after a few weeks, and then a steady decrease. He also shows that covid fits the well-established pattern for a new respiratory illness, with a big initial curve, followed by a much smaller curve the following season, and no third curve. The patterns of these curves are borne out regardless of lockdowns, masks, or other measures.

There is a lack of convincing evidence to support the efficacy of lockdowns. So we just keep telling ourselves, “They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.” Sometimes we may start to scratch our heads and wonder if the Authorities are doing the right thing. But then we shake it off as we remember: “The only sure method of defeating covid is through unquestioning universal obedience to the Authorities.” Meanwhile, we watch our private lives, our culture, our rights and freedoms, our society, and in many cases our livelihoods and businesses torn apart and destroyed in front of our eyes. We are paying a high price for these lockdown policies.

Even for those who presume the lockdowns must be helping, because after all, “they wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary,” it’s worth making a few comparisons to provide some perspective on the severity of covid and the proportionality of these measures. The Hong Kong Flu of 1968–70 was the deadliest strain of influenza in the past 100 years; it killed an estimated 1–4 million people worldwide. About twice as many people exist in the world today as did in 1970, so by extrapolation, that would translate to about 2–8 million deaths if that flu were present in 2020 and killed the same percentage of the population. Current figures list global covid deaths at 1.6 million. Without knowing the exact number of deaths that will occur in the next two years, it seems reasonable to assume the final number will fall within the same 2–8 million range of the Hong Kong Flu. The world never went into lockdown in 1968–70. No place in the world went into lockdown. No place in the world imposed mask mandates. No place in the world bankrupted small business owners, threw millions out of work, confined the elderly and dying into imposed isolation, closed borders, cancelled sports, concerts, gatherings of all kinds, canceled holidays, or imposed any of the other surreal and dystopian measures we have been suffering under in 2020. If you lived through 1968–70, you probably didn’t even know there was a Hong Kong Flu. You probably went about your life as normal. You almost certainly don’t wish the world had gone wild for lockdowning in those years. I’m just guessing.

How about a more current example? If we accept the covid death toll of 1.6 million in 2020 as accurate, we have a ready comparison at hand. Tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every single year. Like covid, this is an infectious disease. There has been a vaccine available for it since 1921. Perhaps some would argue that we made a mistake with tuberculosis. We should have been living in perpetual lockdown and wearing masks all over the world since — well, forever. Evidence currently shows that humans have carried tuberculosis since at least 4000 BC, and presumably for far longer than that. Indeed, this is one of the primary concerns dissenters such as myself have regarding the policies of 2020. If the logic of these policies were to be applied to other infectious diseases and not just covid, the policies would necessarily be permanent. The whispered threats we’ve received in the media about the New Normal, and “never going back” would become permanent reality. Do we really believe all of human history was a mistake? Do we really believe we figured out a better way of living in 2020 that had eluded humanity up until this year? Is this the year we finally realized the number one priority of every human life should have been and should always be to never catch an infectious disease?

I believe most people would not agree that this is a better way of life, or a way of life that should become permanent. But most people are unaware that in tuberculosis, we have been living with the equivalent of covid-19 every single year, for every year in recorded human history. After all, we’ve never had a new media with a running total of the millions of tuberculosis cases and deaths on screen at all times. We were never subjected to a narrative that dictated the eradication of tuberculosis to be the most important goal of human life. So we never worried about it. But don’t believe your own lying mind, or mine. After all, “They wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary.”

Which brings up the next part of the equation: the harms caused by lockdowns. This is where my professional expertise as a counselor is relevant and forms the basis of my signing of the Great Barrington Declaration as a medical practitioner (licensed professional counselor). The lockdowning is devastating to mental health. I can cite statistics (which again can be accessed by exploring the links at the end of this article), I can cite my observations in working with clients this year, and I can cite my knowledge of the basis of mental and emotional health through my training, studies, and experience. Put simply, suicidal ideation is through the roof. Substance addiction is through the roof. Depression is through the roof. Anxiety is through the roof. Old traumas have been reactivated, and 2020 itself constitutes a series of new traumas (very rarely trauma due to the virus itself, but instead, trauma due to lockdowns, isolation, and fear of the virus induced by the media). Social isolation is creating loneliness, self-hatred, and despair. Dreams for the future and personally meaningful goals have vanished into thin air. Economic anxiety and distress has become crippling, and the approaching threat of housing insecurity looms larger with the knowledge that rent and mortgage moratoriums cannot be of indefinite duration.

Human beings are not meant to exist this way. We need social connection, in-person congregation, touch, and bonding. We are being treated as prisoners and criminals for the offense of our very human breath, and in our core we know it. We are locked into an abusive relationship with our leaders who keep us sequestered, silence our speech, deceive us, attempt to terrify us, shame us, and guilt us into obedience, and tell us we are no less than murderers if we do not obey. The constant stress, depression, shame, and anxiety does more than destroy our quality of life and ability to take constructive action. This emotional distress in the body also weakens our immune system, rendering us more susceptible to covid and other pathogens. The lack of fresh air, exercise, and sunlight, coupled with stress-eating of junk food and increased alcohol use weaken our physical strength and immune system further.

In addition to these assaults on our mental, physical, and emotional health — and to our human spirit and dignity — and in addition to the ruined businesses, the millions of unemployed, the lost homes, the transfer of wealth and independence from common people to international corporations and billionaires, we can also speak of the deaths these lockdowns have already caused and will continue to cause.

How many suicides have been caused by lockdowns? How many overdose deaths? I haven’t located hard statistics yet, but I’ve seen reports that estimate these kinds of deaths have doubled in frequency this year. In a typical year, 50,000 Americans die from suicide and 70,000 die from overdose. A doubling of those figures would produce additional 120,000 deaths. Worldwide, we see 800,000 suicide deaths every year. A doubling of that figure alone would produce additional deaths equal to half of the deaths attributed to covid. Perhaps the true figures for 2020 suicide and overdose deaths will prove to be less than that. But either way, it puts the lie to the mantra that all the lockdowning is justified on the basis of saving lives. Lockdowning (if you believe it even saves lives in the first place, which is questionable) only trades certain lives for other lives. This imposed state abrogation of human rights will save some lives and kill others.

These policies also trade medical deaths from one cause to other causes. Lockdowning has resulted in the canceling of millions of medical procedures and screenings. In particular, untold thousands of cancer screenings have not occurred. How many cancer deaths will occur due to lockdowns that would not otherwise have occurred? How many deaths from heart disease will occur due to medical care interrupted by lockdowns? How many deaths from a plethora of other causes? Lockdowns have also severely disrupted food supply chains in vulnerable nations all over the world, resulting in rising food prices and scarcity, and widespread food insecurity. The UN World Food Program has estimated that an additional 130 million people in the world are facing starvation and famine this year due to the lockdowns in places like Africa and the Caribbean. Black lives matter — just not those black lives. How many of those 130 million will die from malnutrition? How many will die of disease from weakened immune systems? One percent? If so, that almost equals the entire covid death count for the year. Anything higher than one percent surpasses it.

Aftermath

For now I will set aside the question of why governments around the world decided en masse to copy the totalitarian method of governance employed by Beijing in instituting the 2020 regime of lockdowns, surveillance, censorship, and public fear and shame campaigns. That question deserves its own article. If the rationalization of “they wouldn’t be doing all this if it weren’t necessary” can at last be discarded, it will be enough to replace that rationale with a new conclusion: “They are doing this even though it is not necessary.” In seeking a motive for such destructive and reckless abusive action, one need look no further than the postulate the Narrative has provided us with: “The virus must be defeated at all costs, and the only sure method of defeating it is unquestioning universal obedience to the Authorities.”

The key ingredient here is the outcome: “Unquestioning Universal Obedience to the Authorities.” That is the purpose. The power seekers saw their chance and took it. As George Orwell once said: “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”

And that also explains the motivation that prompted me to write this article. As stated earlier, I write with two purposes: 1. To persuade the reader that dissenting voices to the lockdown zeitgeist have a strong case, based on sincerely held values and objections, backed up by solid reasoning and evidence — and ought to be heard and considered in the mainstream discourse. 2. To lay out my views on this subject in one comprehensive article I can refer others to if they question how I could possibly oppose what’s going on.

But my motivation is deeper than these purposes. Through the lens of the dissenting view, it is clear that the purpose behind everything we have been subjected to in 2020 has been to accomplish a sheer power grab — the largest, most sudden collective power grab in human history. In understanding that power is seized without the intention of relinquishing it, I recognize the need for those of us who can see what is happening to speak out against it and make our dissent public.

I admit I have censored myself until now due to fear of public condemnation, including the fear of alienating myself from friends and loved ones, and fear of professional and social reprisal. It took me some time to summon my courage to prepare this article and share it publicly, along with the accompanying articles I have written. The time for silence has passed.





Links and Research

Swiss Policy Research — This website is an impressive comprehensive compendium of linked articles and data points that on its own probably has enough material to back up every statement I’ve made in this article.

Ivor Cummins — Data on Lockdown Harms and Lack of Efficacy

Ivor Cummins has been a tireless researcher and voice of reason throughout the 2020 lockdown fiasco. The page linked above is a collection of 40 different studies and articles making the case for the harms caused by lockdowns and the lack of efficacy of lockdowns.

His YouTube channel is a treasure trove of clearly, patiently explained analysis of the data, coupled with clarifying graphs and charts. This recent video on Lockdowns in Europe and the US is a great example of his work. From there, you can explore all the other offerings on his channel.

PANDA — Pandemics, Data, & Analytics

An multidisciplinary resource for articles, data, and analysis, with specific focus on the efficacy of lockdowns, accuracy regarding case and death reporting, and other pertinent concerns regarding the covid response.

Collateral Global — This site is another great repository of articles and data regarding lockdown harms and the evidence that backs up the dissenting view.

The Great Barrington Declaration — This Declaration was authored by three world-renowned epidemiologists: Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford. Their Declaration can be read here, along with accompanying explanation of its philosophy in greater detail. Those who agree with the Declaration can also add their signature to it at this site.

Fear Appeal and Covid-19 Perception — This interview with Dr. Peter Breggin, who distinguished himself as a leading voice who brought an end to the practice of lobotomy in the 1970s, is an excellent overview of the practice of Fear Appeal in public health to induce desired behavior changes in the public at large.

Kate Wand — Finally, just for a taste of the human values at stake and the psychological and social harms of lockdowning, I recommend these two videos created by Kate Wand.

Lockdown: The Dark Side of History — Lockdown: The New Tribalism