"Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is and you must
bend to its power or live a lie" - Miyamoto Musashi
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has long been an outspoken skeptic with regard to the medical status quo. “It’s just not possible to believe much of the clinical research that’s published,” he says.
Just one week prior to this talk, delivered at CrossFit HQ during a CrossFit Health event on Dec. 15, 2018, Kendrick’s Wikipedia page was deleted because, as he explains, “I’m now considered dangerous enough to be removed from public consumption.” In this talk, he shares one thread of his “dangerous” thinking — a thread that follows the distortion of data pertaining to cholesterol and statin research, which he explores in greater detail in his second book, Doctoring Data.
That false positive tests are impossible, common, impossible, common, impossible, common.
That facemasks are useless, necessary, useless, necessary, useless… absolutely necessary.
We also know that some people are, are not, are, are not are, naturally immune. In addition, we know that having had COVID means that you can, cannot, can, cannot, can cannot – maybe you can, frankly who knows, get it again. I think Kurt Vonnegut Junior put it best:
“We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodely do,
What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must;
Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do,
Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust.”
I like to think I have some expertise in reading medical research papers, then trying to work out what they really mean, rather than what they say they mean. I even gritted my teeth and wrote the book “Doctoring Data” in order to help people understand the endless games and manipulations that are played with research studies.
I analysed the power of money to distort research findings, in ways such that black can be magically turned into white.
Of course, distortion is not just driven by money. This is only one of the factors that lays its heavy hand upon research. There are many others. The immense power of an idea to set thoughts in concrete, previous public statements made and fearing loss of authority if you change your mind. Status, power, political games, etc.
Just to look at an example of actions not (obviously) driven by money. On the back of COVID, Bill Gates seems determined to be remembered as the man who vaccinated the world. It will be his enduring legacy. He probably knows that his Microsoft empire will simply be a sub-paragraph in an MBA hypothesis in a hundred years. On the other hand, worldwide vaccination will secure him a place in history.
Although I understand many of the forces at work to distort research, and how the manipulates are carried out, when it comes to COVID I have almost given up. Almost everyone seems to have an agenda, twisting and turning meaning this way and that.
In many cases, the end result seems to be a determined effort to inflate the mortality figures, or paint COVID as the evillest virus ever. I suspect the vaccine manufacturers have a major role to play in this.
Just to give one reasonably well-known example of this. In England, if you ever had a positive test for COVID, and then died, you were added to the COVID death statistics. Whatever killed you, however long after you had a positive test you died of COVID.
This has recently been changed. Primarily because it was so patently ridiculous that even Matt Hancock (UK health secretary) was no longer able to confirm that this was absolutely the correct thing to do. Although it seems he had no idea it was happening in the first place.
Despite this change, we still have the situation in the UK, where you can never, officially recover from COVID – which is equally mad. Once you’ve got it, you’ve got it. I suspect this will be quietly changed at some point – maybe it has been, and I didn’t notice.
On the other hand, other very strange things took place, in the opposite direction. Right at the start of the pandemic, the UK Govt changed COVID to an infection no longer considered of high consequence
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.1
Yes, the 19th of March. The UK went into lockdown on the 23rd of March , and three days later COVID was no longer a high consequence disease. The only disease in history which has required lockdown, including the obliteration of many basic human rights, and the trashing of the entire economy. Yet it is not a disease of high consequence?
This happened virtually unremarked. Very quietly, you could almost say sneakily. What on earth went on here? My guess is this was done to stop healthcare workers suing the NHS if they contracted COVID at work – as almost no medical staff had adequate PPE. There may be other reasons, but I struggle to think what they may be.
Wherever you looked there was confusion, and statistical manipulation, and then we moved onto the hydroxychloroquine saga. At the very start of the pandemic I wrote a blog suggesting hydroxychloroquine could be helpful. This was based on earlier research demonstrating this drug could hamper viral entry into cells and, once within the cell, could impede viral entry into the nucleus. I even tried to get my trust to stockpile some of the drug – no chance there. Hydroxy-what?
Little did I know the massive storm that would erupt around this drug. A drug that has been around for decades. It is available over the counter in many countries and is, I think, the most widely used drug in India. It is primarily an anti-malarial drug – as it helps to prevent entry of the malaria parasite into cells and can hamper it breaking down haemoglobin, thus destroying red blood cells.
It is also used as an anti-inflammatory in diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), where it is extraordinarily safe (in the correct doses). It has been looked at as a possible anti-viral for many years. Earlier this year, I was reading various papers about it. Such as this one ‘Effects of chloroquine on viral infections: an old drug against today’s diseases.’
Chloroquine is a 9-aminoquinoline known since 1934. Apart from its well-known antimalarial effects, the drug has interesting biochemical properties that might be applied against some viral infections. Chloroquine exerts direct antiviral effects, inhibiting pH-dependent steps of the replication of several viruses including members of the flaviviruses, retroviruses, and coronaviruses. Its best-studied effects are those against HIV replication, which are being tested in clinical trials. Moreover, chloroquine has immunomodulatory effects, suppressing the production/release of tumour necrosis factor α and interleukin 6, which mediate the inflammatory complications of several viral diseases’.2
[Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are essentially the same drug, when it comes to efficacy/activity, but hydroxychloroquine has less side-effects. ‘Hydroxy’ means an OH group has been added to the basic compound]
I have to say I didn’t bother to read anything from 2020. It was clear that commercial interests were already heavily contaminating this area.
Which meant that, in order to get a handle on untainted data, I went back to calmer research papers from another era. Anyway, having read around the area, it seemed that hydroxychloroquine might do some good. It was certainly pretty safe, and we had nothing else at the time. Thus, I recommended that it might be used.
Then, the distorting engine was switched to full power. Driven by two main fuel types. Type one was money. Companies with anti-viral agents, such as remdesivir, did not want a ‘cheap as chips’ drug being used. No sirree, they wanted massively expensive (and almost entirely useless) anti-virals to be used instead.
This resulted in a study published in the Lancet, no less, slamming hydroxychloroquine through the floor. It turns out the study was almost entirely fabricated, by researchers strongly associated with various companies who, surprise, surprise, make anti-virals.
The other fuel type was the hybrid money/vaccine. If hydroxychloroquine (plus zinc and azithromycin) works, then there was great concern this would lower uptake of any vaccine that was developed. In addition, it would not be possible to impose emergency vaccine laws, which would make the manufacture of any vaccine far quicker and easier.
Such laws, in the US, are known as Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA). If enacted, these laws mean that a vaccine does not have to be tested for safety and efficacy before use. Just whack it out there, untested. Also, there is no possibility of suing a vaccine manufacturer if it turns out the vaccine caused serious problems.
In the US, UK, and several other countries, complete legal protection against vaccine damage is already enshrined in the law, so nothing changes here.
However, there is still a requirement to carry out at least some research on efficacy and safety. The EUA would remove this barrier. Just get it out there, no questions asked, none possible.
Depending on your view of the ethical standards of those companies manufacturing such vaccines, you would either welcome this move, or feel deeply disturbed. I would be in the latter camp. No way I am taking an active medication that has not been tested for either safety or efficacy.
Whatever camp you are in, there are vast fortunes to be made from developing the first vaccine for COVID-19. If all barriers to immediate uptake are removed, we have a goldrush on our hands. No need to prove your vaccine works, no need to demonstrate it is safe, no chance of being sued. Billions of dollars to be made. What could possibly go wrong?
Which takes us back to that pesky drug, hydroxychloroquine. Does it work, does it not? It seems we will never be allowed to know. Recently the Food and Drug Administration in the US, removed authorisation for its use. Even in a hospital, such as he Henry Ford in Detroit, that appeared to be getting impressive results:
”The U.S. Food and Drug Administration informed us that it would not grant our request for an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine for a segment of COVID-19 patients meeting very specific criteria,” said Dr. Adnan Munkarah, Henry Ford’s executive vice president and chief clinical officer, in a statement’ 3
All other trials around the world have also being stopped by the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Orhanisation and the UK health authorities.
This, remember, is a drug that has been taken by, literally, billions of people. It is considered safe enough to buy over the counter, yet now it is so dangerous that it cannot even be used for research purposes. Of course, you can still take it if you have rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, malaria – or suchlike – where it remains perfectly safe and is also known to reduce inflammation (a major problem with COVID).
At a stroke discussion, or research, has become virtually impossible, as noted by the Henry Ford hospital in Detroit.
‘Last week, Henry Ford issued an open letter about its study, saying, “the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible.”
The health system said in the letter that it will no longer comment outside the medical community on the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat novel coronavirus.’
So, what have we learned? We have learned that medical science is not a pure thing – not in the slightest. We have also learned that the world of research has not come together to conquer COVID, it has split apart.
Those wanting to make money, have distorted and damaged research for their own ends. Those who want to vaccinate the world, forever, have seen a door open to the promised land. Those who wanted lockdown, are inflating the numbers of those killed. Democrats in the US are using COVID as a stick to beat Donald Trump. It is all a bloody horrible mess.
It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Never has this been more certain that with COVID. In this case, first we killed the truth, then we killed science, then we beat inconvenient facts to death with a club. It is all extraordinarily depressing.
Several politicians, including Keir Starmer, the opposition Labour Party leader, have been demanding to know the exit strategy for the lockdown. “We should know what that exit strategy is, when the restrictions might be lifted and what the plan is for economic recovery to protect those who have been hardest hit,” he said last week.
This is an entirely valid question, but the Government cannot have an exit strategy, unless they have an overall strategy. One follows directly from the other.
And there are only four possible strategies:
To eradicate the virus from the entire population by enforcing lockdown. Or to enforce lockdown until there is an effective treatment. Or to enforce lockdown until there is a vaccine. Or to enforce lockdown to slow the spread of the virus, so as to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed.
Eradication is virtually impossible with such a highly infectious disease. Even if the UK was successful, if other countries were not, keeping Covid-19 out would require border closures for years, maybe decades. Endless checks on planes, boats, lorries, cars. Constant testing and restrictions. It is almost certain that the virus would still slip through. This does not seem a viable option.
What about finding an effective treatment? The chances are vanishingly small. Influenza, a very similar virus, has been around for decades, and no game changing medications have yet been found.
As for a vaccine? This solution is so distant that it does not really exist. It will be a minimum of eighteen months before an effective vaccine can be developed, then tested, then produced in sufficient quantities to be of any use. Waiting for eighteen months before releasing lockdown would be socially and economically impossible. We would be committing national suicide.
Ergo, there is only one overall strategy that can be followed. Control the spread to avoid overwhelming the NHS. This has never been made explicit, but the Government has, albeit indirectly, told us that this is exactly what they are doing.
In the last few days, a letter was sent to all households, signed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, before he too succumbed to the disease. It was entitled “Coronavirus – stay at home; protect the NHS, save lives.” It contained this key passage:
“If too many people become seriously unwell at one time, the NHS will be unable to cope. This will cost lives. We must slow the spread of the disease, and reduce the number of people needing hospital treatment in order to save as many lives as possible.”
The key sentence is the first. If too many people become seriously unwell at one time.
This fits with the initial UK strategy. Contain, delay, research, mitigate. The UK has passed through “contain” and is now in “delay and mitigate”. Research sits in the background and may, or may not, provide a solution.
However, delay and mitigate doesn’t mean that people will not become infected and die. It just means that the NHS will not be overwhelmed by a massive wave of people getting ill at the same time. We are simply, it should be made clear, trying to control the “peak”, which now may likely be a series of “peaks”.
At present, ministers are not admitting this. They are presenting lock-down as a way of “beating this virus.” In order to enforce lockdown, they are haranguing and scaring the population into compliance.
Covid-19 is being presented as a deadly killer that does not discriminate. Young, old, we are all at risk of contracting this dreadful disease. Every night, the television news has story after story of young people who have been infected, and who have died. In fact, very, very few people under 20 have died so far. I believe it was five, at the end of last week.
There is hardly anything said about the fact that the average age of death is around eighty, that the vast, vast, majority of those dying are old (92% are aged over sixty) The great majority of them have several other serious medical conditions.
The reality is that for anyone younger than about sixty, Covid-19 is only slightly more dangerous than suffering from influenza. The infection fatality rate (IFR) currently stands at around 0.2% in those countries doing the most testing. This figure will inevitably fall, once we can identify those who were infected but had no symptoms.
By avoiding this more reassuring message, by frightening everyone into compliance, the Government has painted itself into a corner. How can they say to people that, last week you couldn’t drive two miles to walk in the countryside, or go to the beach, or go to a restaurant, or lie in a park sunbathing, in order to prevent the spread of this deadly killer disease …but this week you can?
Worse than that, when cases begin to rise again, about a month after lockdown is relaxed, we will all have to lock down again, to prevent the next surge? How will the public respond to this? I don’t know, but I expect that it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to force everyone back into lockdown again.
By this point, millions will have been financially crippled and will be desperate to work, if their jobs still exist. Thousands of businesses will have fallen over, bankrupt. Hundreds of thousands of operations, and cancer treatments, will have been postponed and cancelled. I have already warned that it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that many more people could as a result of the lockdown than will die from coronavirus.
That great harm is being done by it was made clear in an article last week in the Health Service Journal:
“NHS England analysts have been tasked with the challenging task of identifying patients who may not have the virus but may be at risk of significant harm or death because they are missing vital appointments or not attending emergency departments, with both the service and public so focused on covid-19.
“A senior NHS source familiar with the programme told HSJ: “There could be some very serious unintended consequences [to all the resources going into fighting coronavirus]. While there will be a lot of covid-19 fatalities, we could end up losing more ‘years of life’ because of fatalities relating to non-covid-19 health complications.”
It may well seem that all this suffering was…well, for what, exactly? To simply prevent a surge of cases. This government, all governments, must be honest about this and admit that in the longer term we cannot prevent almost everybody getting infected and acknowledge that a proportion of those infected will die.
When lockdown restrictions are lifted this does not mean that the virus has gone. It does not mean that people cannot infect each other. It does not mean we can simply carry on as before. It means that we have kept the first surge under control.
So, what is the exit strategy? The answer is that we don’t have one. We have a strategy of delay and mitigation which will continue until… when? Until everyone has been infected? Until we have an effective treatment? Until we have an effective vaccine? Until enough people have been infected that we have achieved herd immunity?
The Government must tell us the truth and be clear about what end point they are seeking to achieve. Only then can we have an exit strategy. One thing for sure is that this lockdown is not a way to defeat the virus.
I’ve lost all trust in medical research – the financial muscle of Big Pharma has been busy distorting science during the pandemic
Evidence that a cheap, over-the-counter anti-malarial drug costing £7 combats COVID-19 gets trashed. Why? Because the pharmaceutical giants want to sell you a treatment costing nearly £2,000. It’s criminal.
A few years ago, I wrote a book called Doctoring Data. This was an attempt to help people understand the background to the tidal wave of medical information that crashes over us each and every day. Information that is often completely contradictory ‘Coffee is good for you… no, wait it’s bad for you… no, wait, it’s good for you again,’ rpt. ad nauseam.
I also pointed out some of the tricks, games and manipulations that are used to make medications seem far more effective than they truly are, or vice-versa. This, I have to say, can be a very dispiriting world to enter. When I give talks on this subject, I often start with a few quotes.
For example, here is Dr Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for over twenty years, writing in 2009:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
Have things got better? No, I believe that they have got worse – if that were, indeed, possible. I was sent the following e-mail recently, about a closed door, no recording discussion, under no-disclosure Chatham House rules, in May of this year:
“A secretly recorded meeting between the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine reveal both men bemoaning the ‘criminal’ influence big pharma has on scientific research.
“According to Philippe Douste-Blazy, France’s former Health Minister and 2017 candidate for WHO Director, the leaked 2020 Chatham House closed-door discussion between the [editor-in-chiefs] – whose publications both retracted papers favorable to big pharma over fraudulent data.
“Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet [editor-in-chief] Richard Horton.”
A YouTube video where this issue is discussed can be found here. It is in French, but there are English subtitles.
The New England Journal of Medicine, and the Lancet are the two most influential, most highly resourced journals in the world. If they no longer have the ability to detect what is essentially fraudulent research, then… Then what? Then what indeed?
In fact, things have generally taken a sharp turn for the worse since the COVID pandemic struck. New studies, new data, new information is arriving at breakneck speed, often with little or no effective review. What can you believe, who can you believe? Almost nothing would be the safest course of action.
One issue that has played out over the last few months, has stripped away any remaining vestiges of my trust in medical research. It concerns the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine. You may well be aware that Donald Trump endorsed it – which presents a whole series of problems for many people.
However, before the pandemic hit, I was recommending to my local NHS trust that we should look to stock up on hydroxychloroquine. There had been a great deal of research over the years, strongly suggesting it could inhibit the entry of viruses into cells, and that it also interfered with viral replication once inside the cell.
This mechanism of action explains why it can help stop the malaria parasite from gaining entry into red blood cells. The science is complex, but many researchers felt there was good reason for thinking hydroxychloroquine may have some real, if not earth-shattering benefits, in COVID-19.
This idea was further reinforced by the knowledge that it has some effects on reducing the “cytokine storm” that is considered deadly with COVID. It is prescribed in rheumatoid arthritis to reduce the immune attack on joints.
The other reason for recommending hydroxychloroquine is that it is extremely safe. It is, for example, the most widely prescribed drug in India. Billions upon billions of doses have been prescribed. It is available over the counter in most countries. So I felt pretty comfortable in recommending that it could be tried. At worst, no harm would be done.
Then hydroxychloroquine became the centre of a worldwide storm. On one side, wearing the white hats, were the researchers who had used it early on, where it seemed to show some significant benefits. For example, Professor Didier Raoult in France:
“A renowned research professor in France has reported successful results from a new treatment for COVID-19, with early tests suggesting it can stop the virus from being contagious in just six days.”
Then research from Morocco:
“Jaouad Zemmouri, a Moroccan scientist, believes that 78% of Europe’s COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented if Europe had used hydroxychloroquine… “Morocco, with a population of 36 million, [roughly one-tenth that of the U.S.] has only 10,079 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and only 214 deaths.
“Professor Zemmourit believes that Morocco’s use of hydroxychloroquine has resulted in an 82.5% recovery rate from COVID-19 and only a 2.1% fatality rate – in those admitted to hospital.”
Just prior to this, a study was published in the Lancet, on May 22nd stating that hydroxychloroquine actually increased deaths. It then turned out that the data used could not be verified and was most likely made up. The authors had major conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies making anti-viral drugs. In early June, the entire article was retracted by Richard Horton, the Editor.
Then a UK study came out suggesting that hydroxychloroquine did not work at all. Discussing the results, Professor Martin Landray stated:
“This is not a treatment for COVID-19. It doesn’t work,” Martin Landray, an Oxford University professor who is co-leading the RECOVERY trial, told reporters. “This result should change medical practice worldwide. We can now stop using a drug that is useless.”
This study has since been heavily criticised by other researchers who state that the dose of hydroxychloroquine used was, potentially, toxic. It was also given far too late to have any positive effect. Many of the patients were already on ventilators.
Then, yesterday, I was sent a pre-proof copy of an article about to be published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases which has found that hydroxychloroquine…
..“significantly” decreased the death rate of patients involved in the analysis. The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found
13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while
26% of those who did not receive the drug died.(ref)
When things get this messed up, I tend to look for the potential conflicts of interest. By which I mean, who stands to make money from slamming the use of hydroxychloroquine (which is a generic drug that has been around since 1934 and costs about £7 for a bottle of 60 tablets)?
In this case it is those companies who make the hugely expensive antiviral drugs such as Gilead Sciences’ Remdesvir – which costs $2,340 (£1877) for a typical five-day course in the US. Second, the companies that are striving to get a vaccine to market. There are billions and billions of dollars at stake here.
In this world, cheap drugs e.g., hydroxychloroquine, don’t stand much chance. Neither do cheap vitamins, such as vitamin C and vitamin D. Do they have benefits for COVID-19 sufferers? I am sure that they do. Will such benefits be dismissed in studies that have been carefully manipulated to ensure that they do not work? Of course. Remember these words:
‘…pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet [editor-in-chief] Richard Horton.’
Unless and until governments and medical bodies act decisively to permanently sever the financial ties between researchers and Big Pharma, these distortions and manipulation in the pursuit of Big Profit will continue.
Just please don’t hold your breath in anticipation.
Lockdown has two main purposes. One, to limit the spread of the virus. Two, and most important, to protect the elderly and infirm from infection – as these are the people most likely to become very ill, end up in hospital, and often die. [In my view, if we had any sense, we would lockdown/protect the elderly, and let everyone else get on with their lives].
However, the hospitals themselves have another policy. Which is to discharge the elderly unwell patients with COVID directly back into the community, and care homes. Where they can spread the virus widely amongst the most vulnerable.
This, believe it or not, is NHS policy. Still.
Yes, you did just read that. COVID-19 patients, even those with symptoms, are still to be discharged back home, or into care homes – unless unwell enough to require hospital care e.g. oxygen, fluids and suchlike. If this is not national policy, then the managers are telling me lies.
In fact, it does seem to be policy, although the guidance from the UK Government is virtually incomprehensible1. I have read it a few times and I fail to fully understand it – or partially understand it. I tried reading it upside down, and it made just about as much sense.
I wrote about this situation in my last blog, as the impact of COVID of care homes was becoming apparent – even to politicians. I thought that someone, somewhere, might have realised the policy of flinging COVID positive patients – or patients who may have COVID – out of hospital, and into care homes, might prove a complete and utter disaster.
I now call care homes COVID incubators. Places where the disease can grow and multiply, happily finding new host after new host. Not so happily for the residents.
Equally, sending people home is further complete madness. Sending them home to somewhere that, very often, contains another elderly and frail person. Normally a husband or a wife. Did anyone think through the consequences of this? Clearly not. Do you think the other person in the house may be at risk? Really, you think. Surely not, knock me down with a feather…
If there is not another elderly partner in the house, there will usually be carers who come in to look after the freshly discharged COVID positive patients. These carers will have almost no protective equipment. Even if they do, they will be lifting and moving the patient around, washing them, taking them to the toilet… in very close proximity. The chances of getting infected are very, very, high.
These carers will then go and visit other elderly, vulnerable patients scattered around the community. They become the perfect vectors to spread the virus far and wide, amongst the exact group of people that we are trying to protect.
I have been doing a lot of jumping up and down about this over the last few days. The hospital trusts appear incapable of understanding the argument. ‘Clear the hospital, clear the hospital’… are the only words they seem capable of uttering.
The hospitals, I point out repeatedly, have been cleared. Wards are standing empty, corridors echoing. The first peak has also been passed – even if no-one dares admit it. So why are we continuing to fling COVID positive patients out into the community? Why? Why? Why?
‘Because it is national policy’. Squawk. ‘Because it is national policy’. Squawk. ‘Pieces of eight, pieces of eight.’
The entire nation has been locked down. Do not travel, stay two meters apart, do not go outside blah, blah. Meanwhile we have the perfect anti-lockdown policy in place for the very people we are mostly supposed to be protecting. There are two parallel universes here.
If you wanted to create a system most perfectly designed to spread COVID amongst the vulnerable elderly population, you may well have come up with the current one. Infect people with COVID in hospital, and then scatter them into care homes and the rest of the community. Making sure that you infect all the carers on the way.
As Albert Einstein said. ‘Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity… and I’m not so sure about the universe.’
Thud… the noise of my head hitting the desk in utter frustration.
Jonathan L Trapman is an author, creative writer and photojournalist who has spent the better part of his 45 odd years in public life, learning from his personal experiences, sharing them, listening to others, whose lives have allowed him to open his own mind to a beauty, even within horror, that is transforming and empowering. His written work endeavors to convey, through true tales and fiction, impressions thus garnered. Dreams and Realities can be purchased (signed by the author if wanted) here.