Review of BBC “False vaccine claims debunked” video

This is a review of the BBC hit-piece video found here: Coronavirus: False vaccine claims debunked.

Claim 1: There’s a microchip or tracking device.

My Response: No one claims this. It is poisoning the well.

The idea of implanting a digital tracking device into all humans is an authoritarian’s dream. It has been speculated about as something the Elites may wish to do in the future. Given their goals and plans, the usefulness of having all individuals electronically tagged and tracked is undeniable. Plans to electronically tag all resources and devices, to create an “internet of things”, are already well-advanced. The real question is why wouldn’t they want to tag all humans in the same way?

Bill Gates is among these Elites, as explained in Who is Bill Gates?. One of the organisations funded by The Gates Foundation through GAVI is ID2020. This organisation plans to create a digital identity for every person on the planet. They have an article about their strategy for achieving this goal, literally called Immunization: an entry point for digital identity. They say:

“In order to enable digital identity at scale, we will need to identify and leverage many entry points. Immunization service delivery presents a tremendous opportunity to provide children with a durable, portable and secure digital identity early in life”

So, within the plans of the Elites, there is a connection between digital identity and vaccines. They consider vaccines an opportunity to advance the digital control grid they are creating. Vaccines, digital identity, tracking devices, and nanotechnology are all part of The Great Reset agenda. They are all crucial elements in their plan to “fuse our biological, physical and digital identities”.

No one claims there are tracking devices in the Covid vaccines or any other vaccines that currently exists. It is a future concern, not a present one.

There is no honest reason to bring this claim up in this video. The video is presumably aimed at people with doubts about the Covid vaccines, who may be concerned about “dangerous information” they have “heard online”. The choice not only to include this claim about tracking devices among the five claims, but to put it first in the video, shows that this video is BBC propaganda. This claim is prominently placed to smear all dissenters, and conveniently put them in the bracket of “conspiracy nuts”. The same old trick works every time.

Claim 2: The vaccine contains pork or beef.

My Response: No one claims this. It is poisoning the well, again.

The ingredients of the Covid vaccines can be found on the Information for Healthcare Professionals documents produced by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Approval (MHRA):

The Covid vaccines do not contain pork or beef. No one claims they do.

Does the BBC really think this is what is of concern to people? Or is it more likely they decided to include this claim for propaganda value? This claim seems to have been included to stoke animosity between groups. This is a standing order at the BBC, to make every issue into a war between groups: genders, races, classes, religions, etc. By including this issue about pork and beef, they are associating questions of vaccine safety with the cultural wars. This is part of the BBC’s campaign to paint vaccine refusers as not just wrong, gullible, and stupid, but also selfish, bigoted, and evil.

Claim 3: The vaccine will change my DNA.

My Response: No one claims this. Some have claimed that there is an unknown (and likely very small) risk of damage to DNA through reverse transcription. This is a far cry from “will change my DNA”.

In their November 2018 corporate prospectus, Moderna describes mRNA as “the software of life” and declares that:

“We are creating a new category of transformative medicines based on mRNA.”

The Moderna and Pfizer mRNA-based products are not vaccines by the definition of the term up until 2020. They contain no antigen. All existing vaccines contain an ingredient that directly triggers the immune system. The antigen is either “attenuated live” (e.g. MMR, Rotavirus, Varicella, BCG) or “inactivated” (e.g. DTaP, HepB, Hib, Polio, HepA, Influenza, Pneumococcal). In contrast, these new mRNA-based products contain code for the body’s own cells to create the antigen. In this case, coding for the cells to create the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Vaccines directly trigger an immune response; these products are designed to create a temporary auto-immune condition.

The delivery system for the mRNA is a particular safety concern. The mRNA is encased in a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) coated with polyethylene glycol (PEG). The idea of the PEG-coated LNP is to get the mRNA to the cells intact. Once in the cells, the mRNA gets transcribed into the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The longer the mRNA endures in the cells, the more SARS-CoV-2 spike protein the cell produces. It needs to endure long enough to trigger an immune response significant enough to induce immunological memory, but not so long that it causes a long-lasting or permanent auto-immune condition.

This is brand new biotechnology. The Pfizer and Moderna products are best described as software being installed into the human body via injection. The software is written in the code of mRNA. The definition of vaccine has been expanded to make the novel seem familiar. Risk of altered DNA is one of many concerns raised by medical professionals about the safety of this new biotechnology. How can be we be sure that the mRNA will get broken down before it gets reverse-transcribed into DNA?

This new biotechnology had a troubled development. In 2017, Moderna was forced to abandon development of an mRNA/LNP-based treatment for a rare disease called Crigler-Najjar syndrome. In animal trials, there were serious side effects, and it was not proved safe enough to test in humans:

“the safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver… Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects”.

Despite this setback, Moderna persisted in trying to develop mRNA-based biotechnology. Their November 2018 corporate prospectus is open about the signficiant risks associated with their strategy:

Most of our investigational medicines are formulated and administered in an LNP which may lead to systemic side effects related to the components of the LNP which may not have ever been tested in humans. While we have continued to optimize our LNPs, there can be no assurance that our LNPs will not have undesired effects.

Our LNPs could contribute, in whole or in part, to one or more of the following: immune reactions, infusion reactions, complement reactions, opsonation reactions, antibody reactions including IgA, IgM, IgE or IgG or some combination thereof, or reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP.

Certain aspects of our investigational medicines may induce immune reactions from either the mRNA or the lipid as well as adverse reactions within liver pathways or degradation of the mRNA or the LNP, any of which could lead to significant adverse events in one or more of our clinical trials. Many of these types of side effects have been seen for legacy LNPs.

There may be resulting uncertainty as to the underlying cause of any such adverse event, which would make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials and would result in significant delays in our programs.

So, the mRNA delivery system biotechnology had to be abandoned in 2017 due to failed safety studies in animals, and still had all these risks associated with it in November 2018. What happened next? Was there some remarkable breakthrough made in 2019 or 2020? How did all these issues just disappear overnight? Are we supposed to believe that these risks are now understood and mitigated? Where are the studies that demonstrate that?

Why is it treated like heresy to raise concerns about this new biotechnology that had so many admitted problems before Covid happened, but which are now being ignored or dismissed? Is it possible that being granted legal immunity from adverse events to Covid vaccines influenced the decisions made by Pfizer and Moderna around safety testing? Could it have tipped the balance and made them decide that the previously showstopping risks of mRNA technology are now worth taking?

An article by Mercola about issues related to LNPs is here. Children’s Health Defense has a comprehensive and well-resourced article about issues related to PEG here.

Given these strong reasons to doubt the safety of mRNA products, can we be absolutely sure that the mRNA will not be reverse-transcribed and alter our DNA? There is a plausible biological mechanism for it to be happen. Even if the risk is a million-to-one, if everyone on Earth gets the vaccine, that is eight thousand people with altered DNA. More research is needed to quantify the risk, and to reveal specific groups vulnerable to this happening.

The health consequences of altered DNA are unknown. It is also unknown whether the altered DNA would be passed to future generations, potentially creating the first bloodlines of genetically-modified humans. Is this an acceptable risk? How sure are we that the odds of this happening are too low to worry about?

Claim 4: The vaccine contains aborted fetus cells

My Response: No one claims this. Use of fetal cells in production is a non-issue for most people, and for those who do oppose it, it is typically on ethical rather than health grounds.

Cloned human fetus cells are used in the production of many vaccines, like the MMR, varicella, Hepatitis A, and polio. The main two cell lines used in vaccine production today (WI-38 and MRC-5) were derived from two abortions in the 1960s. New lines were started later, such as in 1973 (HEK-293), 1977 (IMR-90), and 1985 (PER.C6). As the serial numbers suggest, these were the successful attempts among many during the development of each new line. According to Stanley Plotkin’s 2018 deposition, there were 76 aborted fetuses used in the development of WI-38 alone. All the fetuses were all over three months old and obtained from women in psychiatric institutions.

For all vaccines that use fetal cells in production, they are not meant to be in the final product. But they are still listed as an excipient. There is always a risk that some fetal cells do end up in the vaccine, due to imperfect isolation techniques. For example, the Havrix (Hepatitis A) vaccine excipient list includes:

“residual MRC-5 cellular proteins (not more than 5 mcg/mL)”

The Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines are not produced this way. As discussed above, these products are not really vaccines, because they contain no antigen, which also means they have no need to use fetal cells in production. Fetal cells from the HEK-293 line were used by both Pfizer and Moderna during testing, but are not used in production of the final product.

The AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is produced using fetal cells from the HEK-293 fetal line. The MRC-5 line was also used in testing. The BBC video assures us that:

“the UK regulator [the MHRA] told us that no fetal material ends up in the vaccine”

I don’t know what evidence they have for making such an absolute statement. If it is the same as with other vaccines, there is a risk of residual fetal cells at trace amounts in the AstraZeneca vaccine. I do not know of any specific health risks associated with this, so this is really a non-issue for me and most other people.

Claim 5: The vaccines can make women infertile

My Response: This one (finally!) is a genuine claim that is made by some of us opposed to the Covid vaccines. The claim is that there is a reason to be concerned about the risk of infertility, and there has not been enough testing to rule it out.

This claim was first brought to wide attention in a petition submitted to the EU Parliament. The petition requested an immediate pause to the vaccine rollout to allow for more safety testing to take place. The petitioner was German politician Wolfgang Wodarg, and the co-petitioner was Mike Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist at Pfizer. Here is a brief description of the petition, written by Wodarg. Here is a long interview of Mike Yeadon by James Delingpole (from before the petition was created).

The risk of infertility is briefly mentioned in this part of the petition:

“Syncytin-1… which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses. There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile. To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included.

According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention).

This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of postvaccination infertility could be observed.”

Within a few weeks, there were several responses to the proposed biological mechanism – such as this article, this article, and this Twitter thread. These responses argue that the similarity between syncytin-1 and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is minimal, so there is no risk of the immune system being triggered by the placenta. They also argue that if they were similar enough to confuse the immune system, having SARS-CoV-2 itself ought to cause infertility, and there is no evidence that it does.

I cannot find any response Yeadon or Wodarg have made to these counterarguments. It appears that Yeadon is no longer on Twitter. On the basis of the responses above, and the lack of a comeback argument, I do not think the biological mechanism that Yeadon proposed is plausible.

Here is the response in the BBC video to this claim of a risk to fertility:

“None of the data studied so far indicates any harmful effect on fertility. The UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says there is no plausible biological way for the current vaccines to cause any impact on fertility. Even after trials are done and vaccines are approved, their effects are continually studied.”

The “data studied so far” refers to the pre-approval clinical trials. Here is the MHRA Information for Healthcare Professionals paragraph on Developmental And Reproductive Toxicity (DART) testing for the Pfizer vaccine:

“Reproductive and developmental toxicity were investigated in rats in a combined fertility and developmental toxicity study where female rats were intramuscularly administered with the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 prior to mating and during gestation (receiving 4 full human doses that generate relatively higher levels in rat due to body weight differences, spanning between pre-mating day 21 and gestational day 20). SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody responses were present in maternal animals from prior to mating to the end of the study on postnatal day 21 as well as in foetuses and offspring. There were no vaccine-related effects on female fertility, pregnancy, or embryo-foetal or offspring development. No data on the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 are available on vaccine placental transfer or excretion in milk.”

The FDA reports the following about DART testing for the Moderna vaccine:

“A combined developmental and perinatal/postnatal reproductive toxicity study of mRNA-1273 in rats was submitted to FDA on December 4, 2020. FDA review of this study concluded that mRNA1273 given prior to mating and during gestation periods at dose of 100 µg did not have any adverse effects on female reproduction, fetal/embryonal development, or postnatal developmental except for skeletal variations which are common and typically resolve postnatally without intervention.”

While it is reassuring to be told that no adverse effects on fertility were found in the animal studies, such studies are too small to pick up low-probability adverse effects. Furthermore, what is safe in animals is not always the same as what is safe in humans.

From the Phase 3 human studies for the Pfizer vaccine, we find the following reported by the FDA:

“Female study participants of childbearing potential were screened for pregnancy prior to each vaccination, with a positive test resulting in exclusion or discontinuation from study vaccination. The study is collecting outcomes for all reported pregnancies that occur after vaccination, or before vaccination and not detected by pre-vaccination screening tests. Twenty-three pregnancies were reported through the data cut-off date of November 14, 2020 (12 vaccine, 11 placebo).”

The same exclusions applied for the Moderna vaccine Phase 3 clinical trials, and we find the following reported by the FDA:

“Thirteen pregnancies were reported through December 2, 2020 (6 vaccine, 7 placebo).”

It is mildly reassuring that there was no difference between the pregnancy rate in the vaccine group compared to the placebo. But like the animal studies, this study is not large enough to detect low-probability adverse effects on fertility. In this case, the limitation is the length of the study period. There simply hasn’t been enough time since the vaccines and placebos were administered to properly assess whether the vaccine affects fertility. 23 pregnancies from the 38,000 test subjects is not enough to make a comparison between pregnancy rates in the vaccine and placebo groups meaningful.

The pre-approval studies have now effectively ended, because the researchers and subjects have been un-blinded and many of those who received the placebo are being given the vaccine.

Fertility is not going to be picked up by either of the two early monitoring systems in the US. These systems are VAERS and V-Safe. A slide summary of the data for the Covid-19 vaccines up to February can be found here, including the rates of miscarriages and stillbirths in vaccinated women. 15% of pregnancies reported to V-Safe ended in miscarriage, but this result is dismissed as being in line with background rates. 29 miscarriages have been reported to VAERS, most occurring within days of getting a Covid-19 vaccine, but this has not triggered a safety signal.

It may take years before evidence emerges either way about whether the Covid vaccines have an effect on fertility. Safety studies can now only be retrospective cohort or case-control studies. This is an inherently weaker form of study than the pre-approval Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). It was a big risk to end the pre-approval studies so early, and to approve Covid-19 vaccines with such limited safety testing.

Given that Covid-19 is low-risk in women of childbearing age (and younger), and that the risk of infertility from the Covid-19 vaccines has not been ruled out, I think it would be wise for them to delay taking it.

Conclusion

The BBC aimed to debunk five claims supposedly made by those of us who oppose vaccines. Four of the five claims are not made by anyone; they are strawmen, included only to poison the well. I hope in this post I have shown why they are strawmen and have responded to the kernel of truth within each of them.

The only claim that is genuine is about the risk of infertility. Although in my assessment the biological mechanism proposed by Mike Yeadon does not seem plausible, there is a lack of safety data to be confident that the Covid-19 vaccines do not cause infertility.

Most Covid Cases Are False Positives

How reliable are Covid test results?

The most common way of testing for Covid has been PCR testing. PCR testing has been estimated (in Cohen 2020 meta-analysis) as having a false positive rate (FPR) of 2.3%. This is the percentage of known negatives that will receive a positive test result. The interquartile range on this estimate was 0.8% to 4.0%. The same study estimated a false negative rate (FNR) 0f 20%, with a wide range of possibilities from 0% to 40%. This is the percentage of known positives that will receive a negative test result.

This may not sound too bad. However, these two rates alone do not tell us much about the reliability of the test results. The statistic we want is the Positive Predictive Value (PPV): the likelihood that a given positive test result is accurate. We can derive the PPV from the FPR and FNR, but it requires making an assumption about the prevalence in the population being tested.

High Prevalence

For example, in the table above, we have assumed a prevalence within the population being tested of 20%. If you are testing for SARS-CoV-2 and your test population is people sick in hospital with a respiratory illness, this may be a reasonable assumption. We test 1000 people, so 200 are real positive cases. The FNR means 40 of the 200 real positive cases will get a (false) negative result. The FPR means that 18 of the 800 real negative cases will get a (false) positive result.

Now we can calculate the PPV by dividing the number of real positive results by the total number of positive results: 160/(160+18)=89.7%. If you get a positive result, there is a 90% chance that it is accurate – so take it seriously. We can also calculate the Negative Predictive Value (NPV) by dividing the number of real negative results by the total number of negative results: 782/(40+782)=95.1%. If you get a negative result, there is a 95% chance that it is accurate – so rest easy.

Medium Prevalence

So far, so good, but now look what happens if we assume the prevalence in the population being tested is lower.

In the table above, we have assumed a prevalence within the population being tested of 1%. If you are testing for SARS-CoV-2 and your test population is anyone in the general population with symptoms, this may be a reasonable assumption. Here, with the exact same FPR and FNR as before, we find a Positive Predictive Value of only 26%. If you get a positive test result, there is a 74% chance that it is inaccurate, so it can’t be relied on.

Lower prevalence in the tested population is what makes the test unreliable. In the example above, there were only 10 real positive cases to find, so any good the test did in identifying the real positives was overwhelmed by the 23 false positive results coming from the many real negative cases. A positive result is not reliable, but a negative result is highly reliable, with a NPV of nearly 100%.

Low Prevalance

With the government now planning to test 3 million schoolchildren twice a week, the prevalence within the population being tested is going to be even lower than 1%. How many schoolchildren are showing symptoms of covid right now? It will be more like 0.1% than 1%, so let’s use that. Let’s also increase our test population size from 1000 to 3 million.

Now it can be seen that a positive result is virtually meaningless. There is only a 3.4% chance you are among the 2,400 true positive cases; you are much more likely to be in the 68,931 false positive cases.

Not only is an individual positive test result almost meaningless now, it also means the reported case numbers are vastly overestimated. In this example where prevalence was 0.1%, there were 3,000 real cases, but 71,331 positive test results, i.e. reported cases. The reported figure would be 24x higher than the real figure. The accuracy of the reported case numbers is thus largely dependent on how many people are being tested and who they are. They can be manipulated at will by changing the testing regime.

Lateral Flow Test

An alternative to PCR testing is the Lateral Flow Test (LFT). This is a viral test like PCR but gives quicker results. The UK government is now planning to test 3 million children aged 11-16 twice a week to see if they have SARS-CoV-2, and they will be using LFT.

The FPR for the LFT has been estimated as only 0.32%, which is much better than the PCR test. The FNR is estimated as 23.2%, which is worse than the PCR test.

However, as we can see from the table above, this does not help much. Even when a test is very good, it doesn’t help much when the prevalence is low. A positive test result is very unlikely to indicate a real case, with a PPV of only 19%.

Conclusion

The government’s new expanded testing regime says that any schoolchild that tests positive (in either of their two weekly tests) must isolate for a fortnight. This is despite a 80+% chance that a positive test result is wrong. Even a very good test cannot give reliable positive results when the prevalence in the tested population is low, as it is in schoolchildren.

The costs of this policy will be huge: not only in the disruption to the lives of the individual children falsely testing positive (and their families), but by conditioning all schoolchildren to believe that their freedom is dependent on compliance and permission granted by the state. It is dangerous to create a generation of children who passively accept that the state can take away their freedom at any time, simply based on the result of a medical test.

All mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 should be stopped immediately, especially this absurd policy of testing all schoolchildren twice a week.

Short Answers to Big Questions

Covid-19 is a big lie. It is a crisis manufactured as a pretext to justify lockdowns. We are surrounded by big lies.

If you are only now recognising this truth, this post is for you. You probably have a lot of questions, such as:

  • What is going on?
  • Why is this happening?
  • How is this happening?
  • What else are we being lied to about?
  • How do we change this?

I may be able to help. Below are my short(ish) answers, based on many years of research, to these five big questions.

What is going on?

A small group of enormously powerful and ultra-wealthy individuals are covertly influencing world events through their control of political systems. These Elites – in a multi-generational project going back at least 150 years and planned out for at least the next 100 years – have moulded society so that it works primarily to benefit themselves, rather than the broad masses. Their goal is permanent world domination.

2020 was a transitional year in their long-term project. They carefully planned to lockdown every society in the world, and they successfully executed their plan using Covid-19 as a pretext. This new phase of their plan is being branded as “The Great Reset” and is described in Klaus Schwab’s book of that name, with Prince Charles as brand ambassador for the plan. It is a new name for a vision and plan that used to be kept secret and known as “The New World Order”. UN Agenda 2030 (formerly UN Agenda 21) is the Elites’ inventory-and-control plan for this decade.

Why is this happening?

The ideology that unifies and motivates these Elites is eugenics. They believe that through selective breeding, the human species can be “improved”. They also consider themselves to be genetically superior to everyone else. Once they have achieved their goal of world domination, their plan is to take control of all human reproduction, so that they can limit and reduce populations of the groups they consider to be “unfit” – everyone but themselves.

Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1932) is the long-term vision of the Elites. We have already moved a long way towards it in the time since the book was written. In the story, there is an elite group of World Controllers, who have created a highly efficient form of slavery. The Elites control the masses by making them love their own enslavement. The clever use of mind control (conditioning, brainwashing, propaganda) enhanced by pharmacological methods (vaccines, medications, drugs) means there is no need for physical force to be used against the slaves, and no risk that the Elite power structure will ever be challenged.

The most striking element of Brave New World is that the slaves are perfectly happy and have no desire to free themselves, if they even notice they are slaves at all. They have easy jobs, accommodation, and access to all the food, drugs, and entertainment they could desire, it all being provided “for free” by the State. They enjoy their lives too much to value abstractions like liberty. The truth is not concealed from them; there is no censorship of ideas or information, because there is no need for it. The conditioned masses do not care what the truth is, and do not see any reason to read or learn or think outside their specialisation. They consider broad learning to be complete once their conditioning period (youth) is over.

The Great Reset is designed to shift the world another step toward the kind of society in Brave New World, by initiating an age of transhumanism. Central to the agenda is to create “a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities”. The Covid-19 “vaccines” are part of this process. They are not vaccines, because they contain no antigen. Moderna describes its product as mRNA software for the human body. It is the first of many “vaccines” that will be produced in this decade to transform the human body into a new form, augmented by technology.

We are living through the creation of a global control grid designed to enable the Elites to rule indefinitely, with no chance that the enslaved masses will ever be able to challenge their power. We are being conditioned to love our servitude. We are being modified by biotechnology and pharmaceutical methods to make us easier to control.

How is this happening?

The Elites carry out their agenda by promoting ideologies that allow them to achieve their objectives. They transmit these ideologies to the masses through the universities, the mainstream media, and the schools. Eugenics itself was openly promoted and popular in the early 20th century; some states, including California, passed forced sterilization laws, explicitly to prevent the breeding of the “unfit”. After 1945, eugenics had to be promoted more covertly because of its association with Nazism. Some of the ideologies that were created by or heavily promoted by the Elites to covertly control and reduce the growth of the human population are: environmentalism, feminism, egalitarianism, abortion and birth control, transgenderism, unrestricted migration, and veganism.

The interests of Elites have changed over time because different ideologies are needed to achieve each step in their plan. For example, prior to 1945, nationalism was heavily promoted by the Elites. This was to bring about two world wars and the establishment of a global government: the UN and its specialised agencies the World Bank, WTO, WHO, FAO, ILO, and UNESCO.  Once these global government power structures were in place, the Elites no longer benefitted from nationalism and they switched to promoting globalist “one world” ideology. This enabled a gradual process of transferring power from national governments to the global government, some via regional political unions like the European Union and African Union.

The political ideologies of the 20th century that we are told were in opposition to each other were all controlled by the Elites. They were ultimately experiments conducted by the Elites to figure out how best to control a society. A mixture of socialism and capitalism with heavy state intervention emerged as the most successful system of control. Democracy and the political party system, along with an elaborate system of vetting, bribery, and blackmail, is how the Elites ensure that all national political leaders are loyal to them. National elections are used to create the illusion of choice and control by the people; the real power resides in the Deep State. State regulatory agencies create cartels in industry (big banks, big energy, big pharma, big tech, etc); a permanent partnership between the state and the corporations.

What else are we being lied to about?

Scientific myths are deliberately created and promoted by the Elites because they allow them to execute key steps in their plan to dominate the world. The natural/physical sciences – especially human biology, nutrition, health, and reproduction – are heavily corrupted to promote the interests of the Elites. Some of these scientific myths include: that humans are causing climate change, that carbon-based fuels are running out, that an animal-based diet is unhealthy, that vaccinations are safe and effective, that diseases are caused by germs, and that gender is a spectrum.

The biggest myth of all is that the Earth is overpopulated – conditioning people to believe that population reduction is a good thing, and that human sacrifices are required in order to “save the planet”.

The Elites have programs actively poisoning us. These include the fluoride in the water, the aluminum in the vaccines, the many poisons used in food production, and the chemical spraying of the air. These toxins are responsible for chronic diseases and mental disorders, and create chemical dependency on pharmaceutical products sold as cures and remedies. Meanwhile, natural methods to prevent illness and cure diseases are ignored or ridiculed in the mainstream.

The humanities – economics, political philosophy, sociology, psychology, and especially history – are even more heavily corrupted by the Elites.  Much of mainstream history – at least of the last 150 years – is fake; the key events of history did not take place in the way we are told, or for the reasons we have been given.

For example, President John F Kennedy was not assassinated by a lone gunman; there was a conspiracy involving the Elites to murder him, because he was becoming trouble to them. The President’s brother Robert and son John Jr were also assassinated by the Elites. Many people have been assassinated over the years when they threatened the power structure too much, such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Princess Diana, Benazir Bhutto, and David Kelly.

The New York World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives in 2001 to begin the War on Terror, the next step in the Elites’ plan for world domination. The Madrid (2004) and London (2005) bombings were also engineered by the Elites to maintain the terror. The Elites also executed many earlier terrorist attacks, such as the Bologna (1980) bombing, part of a campaign of CIA/NATO-led terrorism in Italy and Western Europe, and the World Trade Center (1993) and Oklahoma City (1995) bombings.

Wars are almost always started using either a false flag attack (such as the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 that started the Third Arab-Israeli War), a facilitated attack (such as the sinking of the Lusitania in 1917 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that got the US into the World Wars), or a fabricated attack (such the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1963 that started the Vietnam War). Sometimes lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction are all that is needed. All wars are conducted to benefit the Elites.

How do we change this?

The most urgent action is to protect ourselves from the chemical warfare that is being used against us. This means taking care of our bodies and our minds. Eat a healthy diet, including lots of meat, fish, eggs, and butter, and avoiding sugar, vegetable oils, and processed food of any kind.  Avoid toxins as much as possible: filter your water, avoid cleaning products, and stop using any prescription drugs or any harmful addictive drugs.  Spend time outside in the sun and fresh air. Exercise. Get plenty of sleep. Meditate. Reduce your exposure to electro-magnetic frequencies. Socialise. Do not restrict your breathing by wearing a mask. Refuse all vaccines, mRNA software injections, and implanted microchips, nanobots, and neurolinks. Nourish your body in every way you can; nature designed it very well, but if it is starved of nutrients or overloaded with toxins, it will not function properly.

The way the Elites took control was by influencing the ideas of the masses. Their evil plan for world domination can only succeed if they continue to have widespread support from the masses; they can only enslave us because we have been manipulated into demanding our own enslavement. Therefore, we win by taking back control of our own minds, replacing bad ideas with good ideas. We must help each other to escape the mind control: to stop supporting the ideas that enslave us, and to start supporting the ideas that will set us free. Ideas shape the world. It is up to us to ensure that good ideas prevail over bad ideas. When the people stop demanding slavery and start demanding freedom, it will inevitably come about.

The priority must be to educate ourselves and each other. We must learn to see the world as it really is, to see through the big lies. We must accept the existence of the Elites and the extent of their control over political systems. They are fighting a war against us, but most of the population remains oblivious. We must all learn who these enemies of free humanity are, what they want, how they operate, and what their plans are. This is all too much for any one individual, so we must help and support each other, share ideas, discuss, and debate.

In my opinion, the following four strategies to decentralise power are good ideas that can be implemented right now, to help turn things around:

  • Unschooling. Educate children outside of school and reject the methods of schooling.
  • Agorism. Covertly engage in peaceful forbidden activities.
  • Disobedience. Openly engage in peaceful activities that undermine the state.
  • Secession. Support any group that wishes to declare independence from a larger political unit.

Conclusion

That might be a lot to take in. Escaping the mind control matrix can be dizzying and terrifying. I know because I went through that process, and in many ways I am still going through it.

To choose the red pill, to escape the matrix, is to begin an intellectual journey of enlightenment. It means unlearning a lot of what you previously thought was true, and reforming a worldview based on a solid foundation of truth. The hardest part for some of us was giving up views and causes that we once firmly and vocally believed in, and leaders we once followed. But the process of escaping the matrix is worth it in the end. As scary as it is, it is better to know what is really happening in the world today, so that we can prepare for what is coming next, and resist it.

P.S. If you think anything I’ve said above is “nonsense conspiracy theory” or “pseudoscience”, let’s discuss the arguments and the evidence, without making appeals to authority or ad hominems. We have been lied to for so long that it can be hard to figure out what is real and what is a lie. I have found the best way to discover the truth is to discuss it with others and learn from each other. Let’s talk.

Lockdowns Kill More People Than They Save

In March 2020, when the WHO declared covid-19 a pandemic, there was understandably a lot of fear and uncertainty. We feared that covid-19 might be severe. We feared that the NHS might get overwhelmed. It was an unprecedented situation. It could have been an existential crisis for our species.

The state offered us a solution: a 3-week lockdown, to slow the spread of the virus, protect the NHS, flatten the curve, and thereby reduce the number of deaths to covid-19. We were assured that the number of deaths caused by a lockdown (from excess deaths due to heart attacks, suicide, etc) would be relatively few. So, based on an implicit utilitarian argument, lockdowns were recommended as the safer and wiser option.

Now, eight months later, we are still in lockdown, but with none of the fear or uncertainty that we had back in March. In those eight months, we have learned a lot about the benefits and the costs of lockdowns. It turns out that lockdowns save few lives, if any, but they kill many people. Consider the following evidence.

Lockdowns save few lives, if any 

This can be seen in international comparisons, like UK v Sweden.

The magnitude and trend of the deaths-per-million are similar between the UK and Sweden. The UK has a 40% higher peak in Covid death rate than Sweden. There may be confounders that need to be adjusted for, but if lockdowns were effective, the difference should be obvious. Sweden was supposed to be a pile of corpses by now. The Ferguson model predicted 96,000 deaths in Sweden by July with no lockdown; thankfully the actual figure was just 5,530.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that lockdowns were effective to demonstrate it using data. In my assessment, from comparing the death rates between countries and between U.S. states, there is no clear evidence that lockdowns saved lives. If lockdowns saved any lives at all, then it was few.

This is backed up by multiple studies of the question:

  • “Our analysis shows that this is a constant pattern across countries. Surprisingly, this pattern is common to countries that have taken a severe lockdown, including the paralysis of the economy, as well as to countries that implemented a far more lenient policy and have continued in ordinary life.” Ben-Israel, Apr 2020
  • “We provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic” Meunier, May 2020
  • “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the published disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before UK lockdown, and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a short time later” Wood, Jun 2020
  • “We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some nonessential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact.” Hunter, Jul 2020
  • “Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.” Chaudry et al, Aug 2020
  • “I find no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development” Bjornskof, Aug 2020
  • “Most of the slowing and reversal of COVID-19 mortality is explained by the build-up of herd immunity” Colombo, Sep 2020
  • “The United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.” Kuhbandner et al, Nov 2020
  • “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.” De Larochelambert, Nov 2020

Lockdowns kill many people

Lockdowns kill in a number of ways, and victims of lockdowns tend to be younger and poorer than covid-19 victims. In the first two months of lockdown, there were significant excess deaths from dementia, Alzheimer’s, heart attacks, and strokes.

Delays in cancer screenings, referrals and treatments will result in excess cancer deaths in the coming years. Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King’s College London, said “Most modellers in the UK estimate excess of deaths [from cancer] is going to be way greater than we are going to see with Covid-19”. Cancer patients being generally much younger than Covid patients, he added that “years of lost life will be quite dramatic” on top of “a huge amount of avoidable mortality”.

The mental health cost of lockdowns has been huge. Anxiety, depression, stress, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicidal ideation are all on the rise. Research estimates “deaths of despair” (suicide, drug overdoses, etc) in the U.S. due to lockdown at between 28,000 and 150,000. A study from Australia estimated that suicide deaths due to lockdown are likely to exceed covid deaths.

The figure describes the percentages of U.S. adults struggling with mental health or substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is the developing world that is hit the hardest by lockdowns. The UN has reported that 66 million children could fall into extreme poverty, and 132 million people are at risk of starvation, due to lockdown-induced disruptions of supply chains. The NYT reports that there will be 1.4 million excess tuberculosis deaths, 500,000 excess HIV deaths, and 385,000 malaria deaths due to lockdowns. UNICEF warns of over 6,000 child deaths for every day of lockdown, equating to 1.2 million child deaths for every six months that lockdowns continue.

The WHO itself now advises against lockdowns as a primary means of controlling the virus. Over 12,000 medical and public health scientists and over 37,000 medical practitioners have now signed the Great Barrington Declaration, calling for an end to lockdowns.

A global repository for research into the collateral effects of lockdowns has been created: Collateral Global. Here are some of the studies:

  • “Lockdowns were desperate, defendable choices when we knew little about covid-19. But, now that we know more, we should avoid exaggeration. We should carefully and gradually remove lockdown measures, with data driven feedback on bed capacity and prevalence/incidence indicators. Otherwise, prolonged lockdowns may become mass suicide” Ionnadis, Jun 2020
  • “The costs of continuing severe restrictions are so great relative to likely benefits in lives saved that a rapid easing in restrictions is now warranted.” Miles et al, Aug 2020
  • “A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives with tremendous costs and possible overwhelming economic effects” Shlomai et al, Sep 2020

Conclusion

The decision to lockdown was made in circumstances of fear and uncertainty. There was a reasonable utilitarian argument that a 3-week lockdown was going to be the best course of action; in terms of saving lives, not locking down appeared to many to be the bigger risk.

The fear and uncertainty are now abated, and we know a lot more about Covid-19 and the effects of lockdowns. There is a growing body of evidence that lockdowns kill more people than they save. Indeed, lockdowns kill more people than Covid-19 itself, and the victims of lockdowns are younger and poorer than the victims of Covid-19.

Lockdowns are immoral, destructive, and dehumanising.  To this list we can now add unnecessary, ineffective, and deadly.

If you supported lockdown on the basis that it would save lives, please review and consider this evidence of the devastating effects of lockdowns. If you still think lockdowns are a good idea, make a counterargument.

Lockdowns Don’t Work

In the absence of global government (for now), we have the opportunity to learn from how different national governments have responded to the Covid-19 threat.

The UK vs Sweden

The UK imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in Europe, while Sweden did not lockdown at all. Here are the charts for daily deaths per million population for these two countries:

Lockdowns were sold as a way to “flatten the curve” to “protect the NHS” in order to “save lives”. The comparison to Sweden shows that the lockdown did not flatten the curve. The two lines are the same shape: rising at the same time, peaking at the same time, and both falling to almost zero by the beginning of August. The only differences are the peak (UK 40% higher) and the slope of the line downward from the peak (UK fell slightly quicker).

The “second wave” threat

We are faced with the prospect of a second lockdown, in response to a “second wave” that the media have been fearmongering about for months. The first lockdown saved very few lives, if any, from covid. However, this evidence is apparently being dismissed and the dials of tyranny are being turned up again in the UK: meetings of groups above six are banned from this week. Lockdown is no longer to be thought of as a binary, but a sliding scale of tools the state now has in it’s toolbox to control people based on the “disease threat level”. It’s an upgrade to the old “terrorist threat level” idea, which has become stale.

Ever since the Cummings incident and the BLM protests/riots, we have been told that a second wave is right around the corner and that we citizens are to blame for it… because we were naughty and did not do as we were told. We were told that people flouting social distancing rules, gathering on beaches, going back to pubs and restaurants, refusing to wear masks, and other expressions of liberty now forbidden or frowned upon, would lead to a second wave. None of these things led to a second wave.

There is no sign of a second wave in either the UK or Sweden, according to the death rates chart. This explains the shift in propaganda messaging from focussing on deaths to focussing on cases. It is no longer about saving lives or protecting the NHS, but about “slowing the spread” of the virus, measured by case numbers.

Even if there is a second wave coming now, those imposing the lockdown can be confident that the public will continue unthinkingly accepting the pronouncements of the men in white coats. Just like in the Milgram experiment, most people will follow an order from an authority figure even when it goes against their own moral code and would be needless and cruel in normal circumstances. Most people will continue obey every command from the authorities: “keep your distance”, “small groups only”, “wear your mask”, “let us track your movements”, “take the vaccine”, and so on.

The general public must continue to believe the lie that they are too stupid to think about these subjects for themselves, and so have no choice but to slavishly follow the commands of the expert scientists the authorities have chosen to present. Most of them won’t question the rules (except to moan about inconsistencies and exceptions, as designed) and they certainly won’t question the goal.

Slowing the spread is the wrong goal

The strongest argument for trying to prevent the spread when the outbreak first occurred was the uncertainty. There was a chance the NHS might get overwhelmed. Now, there is far less uncertainty. We know that the disease is mild, along the lines of a bad seasonal flu, that it did not spread so quickly that it overwhelmed the NHS, and that lockdowns saved no lives. We also know by comparison with Sweden that trying to slow the spread of the disease turned out to be the wrong strategy. The best way to protect those at risk from covid is for the virus to spread quickly among healthy people. Once you have had the illness, you are no longer a threat to grandma.

The so-called “herd immunity” approach was taken by the UK government until the March u-turn, when social distancing and then lockdown were imposed. It was the approach used in Sweden all along. Once there is a high level of herd immunity, the vulnerable are better protected. The data show that Sweden got it right, and the UK (and most every other country) got the strategy wrong. Now, it is time to learn from the mistake and stop trying to slow the spread the virus.

(Herd immunity relies on immunity developing after having covid-19. The evidence so far suggests that those who suffer from covid-19 do indeed develop immunity to it and cannot catch it again. This immunity will probably last for many years, if not decades. See my post: How long does immunity to SARS-Cov-2 last?)

Cases are the wrong metric

Case rate charts are being used when fearmongering for a second wave in the UK. This chart compares the daily case rate for the UK and Sweden:

We can see from the Swedish line that the number of cases is not closely related to the number of deaths: deaths peaked in April and were down over 60% by June, when cases peaked. The following chart shows deaths-per-case:

In both countries, the number of deaths-per-case has fallen from a peak of around 20% to less than 1%. This could be due to better treatment or a difference in the population being diagnosed over time: more vulnerable people were hit sooner, and now most cases are in young and healthy people. It could be due to different testing policies.

Here is a chart of covid daily tests-per-thousand population in the UK and Sweden:

It is unsurprising that the number of cases has risen, given the increase in the number of tests. Case numbers can easily be manipulated by changing the number of tests, who gets tested, what type of test is used, what thresholds are used to define a positive result, and so on. When there is a divergence between the trend in cases and the trend in deaths, it should be the death chart that is considered more reliable.

There is no second wave until evidence for it appears on the deaths chart, and so far that hasn’t happened. It may happen, particularly after administration of this year’s flu shot, given the likelihood that the flu shot weakens the immune system to coronaviruses.

Summary

According to the data, the first lockdown did not save any lives from covid. We know it claimed many lives through deaths of despair, and will claim many more due to delayed medical diagnoses and postponed procedures and appointments, for example. It also wrecked the economy (although the effects have mostly been kicked down the road so far) which will cause a load more deaths, as well as poverty and reduced standards of living.

A second lockdown will be just as ineffective as the first, and even more destructive to lives and livelihoods. There are no good arguments in favour of a second lockdown, but unlike with the first lockdown, now the people do not even need to be given arguments or reasons or justifications. They will accept and support a second lockdown and do as instructed by authorities, regardless, and shame those of us who don’t. That is the power of the state’s propaganda machine.

How long does immunity to SARS-Cov-2 last?

Do people that recover from COVID-19 become immune to it? If so, how long does immunity to COVID-19 last?

COVID-19 Studies

Here are two recent studies have looked at this question:

  • Long, April 2020 showed that 100% of cases (N=47) were immune 19 days after COVID-19 symptom onset. This is based on measuring levels of IgG antibodies, with immunity, or a positive result, defined as being above a set threshold level.
Long, 2020
  • Seow, July 2020 was a longer study, widely reported (incorrectly) as showing that immunity is short-lived. It looked at 65 individuals that were admitted to hospital and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus linked to COVID-19). They measured three different types of IgG, relating to three parts of the virus: the surface spike protein (S), the receptor binding domain (RBD), and the nucleocapsid protein (N). For each type of IgG, 90%-95% of subjects were above threshold after 2 months. In the few cases for which they had data beyond 2 months, it appeared that IgG levels were decreasing, but this results was not statistically significant and did not reduce the immunity level.
Seow, 2020

The evidence we have so far on SARS-CoV-2 suggests that immunity after recovery from COVID-19 is almost guaranteed for at least 3 months, but beyond that it is too soon to tell.

Other Coronavirus Studies

SARS-CoV-2 is one of seven coronaviruses. The others are:

  • SARS-CoV-1 (2002) – 8096 cases, 774 deaths (~10% CFR), mostly in China and Hong Kong, all in a single outbreak in 2003
  • MERS-CoV (2012) – 2506 cases, 862 deaths (~35% CFR), mostly in Saudi Arabia (2014) and South Korea (2015), with minor sporadic outbreaks continuing up to 2020
  • HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1, four viruses that are found in about 15% of cases of common cold (the majority of colds are caused by rhinoviruses), with mild symptoms and no deaths.

Studies of these other coronaviruses can give us clues about COVID-19 immunity duration:

  • Wu, 2007 showed that IgG antibody levels for SARS-CoV-1 were above the immunity threshold within 3 weeks in >90% of cases that had recovered from SARS, and after 3 months, 100% were immune. At 7 months it started decreasing, dropping below 90% after 2 years, and 55% after three years.
Wu, 2007
  • Payne, 2016 showed that 7 out of 7 patients that recovered from MERS were still immune after 34 months, based on their antibody levels, with 5 of them seeing no decrease in antibody level.
Payne, 2016
  • Callow, 1990 gave 10 volunteers a nasal spray of HCoV-229E, giving them an infection and a cold, triggering an adaptive immune response and the development of antibodies. 1 year later, the volunteers still had a high level of antibodies, and when given the same spray again did not get any cold symptoms.
Callow, 1990

Immunity is more than Antibody Levels

All the above studies measure antibody levels and then compare the measurements to a set threshold level, to determine immunity. This is a convenient but flawed way of defining and determining immunity. Merriam-Webster defines immunity as “a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products” and immune as “having a high degree of resistance to a disease”. This definition is the common usage.

Then there is the more specific medical definition of immune, which is “having or producing antibodies or lymphocytes capable of reacting with a specific antigen”. This narrower definition is easy to measure, but it can be misleading when the two definitions are conflated, because antibodies are only a small part of our arsenal of resistance against pathogens.

The Innate Immune System

Our first line of resistance against pathogens, besides physical barriers like the lungs, gut and skin, is the innate immune system, which involves:

  • Complement: proteins synthesised to identify pathogens and tag them, attack pathogen cell membranes, induce inflammation, and attract phagocytes to the infection site.
  • Inflammation: changes in the blood vessels to allow phagocytes to enter tissue in the infected area more easily, and to try to prevent the infection from spreading to the rest of the body.
  • Phagocytosis: innate immune system cells – macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells – engulf and break down pathogens or particles. Natural Killer cells, a type of lymphocyte, target and destroy compromised host cells.

The innate immune system alone is enough to defeat most pathogens. Small infections can be cleared quickly and with only mild symptoms, if any. If we take immune to mean “having a high degree of resistance to a disease”, then having a strong innate immune system is the most important way of being immune.

The Adaptive Immune System

The adaptive immune system evolved much later than the innate immune system. Only vertebrates have an adaptive immune system. It is an add-on that exists to target specific pathogens that are causing a particularly bad infection. It involves two new types of lymphocyte, called T cells (because they mature in the thymus) and B cells (bone marrow):

  • T cells become specific through the process of antigen-presentation from a dentritic cell or macrophage, and then target and destroy that pathogen, in a similar way to Natural Killer cells.
  • B cells become specific through direct activation by a pathogen, and then produce antibodies to tag that pathogen, to assist the innate immune system in clearing the infection.

The adaptive immune system can take days to be activated due to the clonal selection process used to develop lymphocytes that can target the specific invading pathogen, never before encountered. After an infection has been cleared, some T cells and B cells become memory cells, adding to the immunological memory bank. Should the same pathogen return, the memory cells are activated, skipping the clonal selection process, so the adaptive immune system gets activated hours, instead of days.

Memory Cell Studies

It is the presence or absence of memory cells that determines whether the adaptive immune response will take hours or days to be activated. Antibodies may continue to circulate for months or years after an infection is cleared, but they decline if their target pathogen does not return. A person can have no antibodies, but still have memory cells, so an antibody-level test would declare them non-immune. Thus, antibody-testing does not even accurately test for the medical definition of immune.

A more direct way of assessing whether a specific pathogen is in the immunological memory bank is to test for a response from memory T cells. The following studies of are based on testing for SARS-CoV-1 memory T cells in survivors of SARS:

  • Ng, 2016 demonstrated that SARS-specific memory T cells persist in three SARS-recovered individuals at 9 and 11 years post-SARS in the absence of antigen
  • Le Bert, 2020 showed that memory T cells for SARS-Cov-1 remained in blood 17 years . These subjects can therefore still mount an quick adaptive immune system response to SARS-Cov-1, even if there are no measurable antibodies after so many years. The same study showed that SARS-Cov-2 is sufficiently similar to SARS-Cov-1 that an adaptive immune response even takes place in individuals that recovered from SARS 17 years ago.

Conclusion

SARS and MERS had very high Case Fatality Rates (10% and 35% respectively) and appear to confer immunity lasting at least a few years, if not decades. Common cold coronaviruses may confer immunity of a year or more, but not for as long as the more serious coronaviruses.

Covid-19 was initially said to have a CFR of 5% but this has been revised down to 0.26%, and is likely to be revised down again to <0.1%. Thus, it seems likely that SARS-Cov-2 will fall in the middle of the coronavirus duration-of-immunity spectrum.

These studies combine to show that the length of immunity following an infection is closely related to how severe the infection was, which makes sense given the evolved design of the immune system.

On an individual level, as shown by the Seow 2020 study, SARS-Cov-2 antibody levels are related to the severity of Covid-19 symptoms; the more severe the case, the stronger the immune response, the higher the antibody levels, and presumably the longer immunity lasts.

Thus, Covid-19 immunity probably lasts for years, rather than months, and longer in those that had severe symptoms. It will be shorter in those that had mild or no symptoms, whose innate immune systems were sufficient to end the infection.