I have studied the pandemic response of many countries. One of them got a key element right, which resulted in very few deaths: Japan. Their response was to keep people OUT of hospitals. A policy of early home treatment works best, hospitals only for severe cases & NO INTUBATIONS

Let me talk about something
I consider myself qualified to discuss: a film director, Oliver Stone. OS is a great political director & a very clever man, one of the best in the industry. My view is that he did not simply take the Russian vx because he didn't want to wait for US 1

He's a very clever man, he made a judgement for his own life, for his family, & he chose the Russian vx instead of any of the Western ones, because he wanted the vx & considers Sputnik V the safest one.

I can see the logic:
1 No accountability for any of the Western vx, nobody can sue for any damage etc.
2 Those who made Sputnik V know they are always personally accountable to Vladimir Putin
3 S5 is based on a pre-existing vx with minimal changes so safety tried for many years

So if the Russians could find a safe way to adapt a tried & tested technology & only alter what is required, using adenovirus vectors, a technology in use for 50 years, experimented on for vx since the 1980s, why were Western Big Pharma so keen on something completely new: mRNA?

That is the question that Oliver Stone is indirectly asking us all to look into & answer: why were Western Big Pharma all at once suddenly so keen on using mRNA when there were much safer & tested directions available (adenovirus vectors), what is it that Western Big Pharma want?

"PCR is just a process..it does not tell you that you are sick."

Kary Mullis Inventor of the PCR test & Nobel Prize in

—SOME QUESTIONS A GOOD JOURNALIST MIGHT ASK POLITICIANS & PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES: A THREAD—

1/ Why has the government NEVER undertaken a comprehensive impact assessment before approving & re-approving highly intrusive & costly lockdowns?

2/ Why has the govt not been fast-tracking safe, inexpensive, & effective drugs like #Ivermectin for early intervention, when Ivermectin has shown excellent results in clinical trials & would likely substantially reduce the rate of Covid hospitalisation & death?

3/ Why are you toying with the idea of a vaccine passport when we know that the vast majority of travelers run minimal risk from Covid-19, most serious cases occur among elderly & ill patients, & therefore it is sufficient if at risk patients take the vaccine?

4/ Are you familiar with the Nuremberg Code (1947) on permissible medical experiments & its protection of the right of patients to give informed consent to medical experiments? How is penalizing those who refuse a novel vaccine compatible with this

5/ So far, regions with harsh lockdowns & universal mask mandates are NOT avoiding spikes in infections, hospitalisation, & deaths, & performing comparably to non-lockdown, non-mask regimes. Why have you made no change in your policies in light of their demonstrable futility?

—TAKEAWAY LESSONS FROM PANDEMIC 2020-21: A THREAD—

Below, a few basic lessons I have drawn, as a political philosopher and informed citizen who has made it my business to closely follow political, social, economic, clinical, & epidemiological aspects of the pandemic:

1/ Most mainstream journalists cannot be relied upon to critically uncover, & impartially convey, the facts surrounding a complex & unfolding crisis. If you watch RTE, BBC, or CNN, you are fed naively one-sided stories laced with fear-mongering, misleading use of statistics, etc.

2/ If you wish to inform yourself about a public crisis like this pandemic, you must find commentators who have limited access to mainstream media, good credentials, & arguments that consider a wide range of available evidence. You need to be pro-active about diversifying sources

3/ Reliance by govts upon advisory committees with a clearly one-sided take on the pandemic (eg suppression at all cost) has led to catastrophic outcomes. Govts must diversify their scientific sources & encourage ROBUST scientific debate among their advisors.

4/ Hyper-centralised management of public health is ineffective. Decision-making power must be decentralised so that it can adapt quickly to local conditions. Care homes were badly hurt by top-down mandates that were sluggishly responsive to evolving conditions on the ground.