A splendid Coronation. The fact that I mention this is to remind myself that I started writing this a month ago, but a funeral and a wedding at some distance took a couple of weeks out, and thereafter the allotment needed weeding.
So – a piece appeared in the BMJ entitled “What are the latest covid drugs and treatments?” (BMJ 2023; 381: p872 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p872, published 3rd May). They might not have been deemed the latest had I been listened to, so I responded:
“It is pleasing to see that steroids and interleukin blockers for Covid appear at the start of this article, an acknowledgement at last of what I stated in May 2020 – that the serious illness of Covid-19 is a hyperimmune response, or cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). However I remain puzzled by the continuing search for antiviral agents, the success of which with other viruses has been very poor.
If a virus makes you a bit ill then it requires no treatment. If a virus makes you seriously ill through a clearly defined mechanism for which treatment is available then (a) you need to identify developing serious illness and (b) administer appropriate treatment. The diagnostic tests for showing the development of CSS are clear. The treatment is clear. As only a small percentage of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 go on to develop CSS, and most have little more than a bad bout of flu, I see no need to provide antiviral drugs (or, for that matter, vaccines (or gene therapy in this case, not least as immunity conferred by infection seems superior to that conferred by vaccines). One can, certainly, be on the lookout for those who might be more at risk because of underlying disease, obesity or racial origin but the best predictors of serious illness remain oxygen saturation, platelet count and acute-phase reactants such as D-Dimer and ferritin. Thereafter early treatment with steroids, tocilizumab and anakinra should be obligatory.
The debate on Covid-19 has been hijacked by those who apparently fail to see that preventing transmission has been a complete failure. All that is needed is treatment for the serious illness- and that we have, and indeed had before the Covid pandemic, as anyone who had read the definitive CSS textbook by Cron and Behrens would know.”
In the intervening month the usual arguments have raged; lockdowns do or don’t work, the virus did or didn’t originate from the Wuhan laboratory, the gain of function research which did or didn’t happen was outsourced to Wuhan from the US following the moratorium there on gain of function research, vaccines do or don’t prevent transmission, vaccines were or were not properly tested, children and young adults do or do not need to be vaccinated, government was or was not duplicitous, its members should or should not submit unredacted WhatsApp messages to the Hallett Inquiry, critics were or were not flagged by a secretive committee called the Counter-Disinformation Unit. A lorra stuff. In the context of my BMJ response most of it is irrelevant to patient management and I hope Baroness Hallett will treat it with the scant respect any of it deserves.
But the critics are still being targeted. This week’s BMJ carries a report “Doctors launch bid to challenge GMC over its failure to act on “high profile doctors” who spread vaccine misinformation” (BMJ 2023; 381: p1220; doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p1220 published 26th May 2023). This is the most appalling thing. The report says that a group of doctors have launched a campaign to fund legal action against the General Medical Council because said council has been “reluctant” to investigate doctors accused of vaccine misinformation. I do wonder whether this group understands the difference between misinformation and disinformation; it would be embarrassing if it doesn’t. But more importantly the group wishes to remain anonymous – and the “high profile” doctors they accuse remain unnamed, and their supposed misinformation is unidentified.
I wrote a response:
“I think it is irresponsible of the group of doctors working with the Good Law Practice to remain anonymous. By remaining so it denies others the ability to determine whether they have any conflicts of interest. Do they have something to hide? Are they government medics? Do they have funding from vaccine manufacturers? By the same token it is important that we learn who are the “high profile doctors” they are complaining about. Or indeed what the exact details of the “misinformation” is. There is no transparency here.
There remain substantial concerns over coronavirus vaccines, which are anyway not strictly vaccines at all, but gene therapy. There is substantial evidence that they do not protect against viral acquisition, do not influence transmission, that their effect is short-lived, that they can provoke serious side-effects (not a surprise, as the virus can do so too, the immunogenic entity causing myocarditis, among other conditions, being the spike protein). There are questions to be answered about what the “vaccine” is supposed to be protecting against in the very low risk young population, the risk of introduction of DNA contaminants and the absence of any longer-term follow-up. Raising these concerns, specifically relating to coronavirus management, does not undermine the general consensus on the effectiveness of traditional vaccines.
I have reviewed a great deal of evidence and my review has raised sufficient doubt in my own mind about benefit and risk that I will not be having another “Covid jab” – and my personal evidence is that I still acquired coronavirus after two jabs and a booster.”
To date there are three others saying essentially the same thing. The BMJ report says the group cites repeated or implied claims that Covid-19 vaccines do not work (which, depending on the meaning of “work”, they do or don’t, so reasonable to ask questions); that harms outweigh benefits (much evidence supporting such a claim, not least as immunity following infection seems to produce a better antibody response than the vaccine, the effect of which is anyway short-lived) and that, without evidence, particular deaths are due to the vaccine (for which claim there is substantial if circumstantial evidence, so it again seems reasonable to raise questions).
By remaining anonymous it becomes impossible to know whether this group’s members are independent, employees of government or the pharma industry, in receipt of grants from that industry and qualified to raise such serious allegations. By not naming the “high profile” doctors they accuse, and by not detailing the supposed misinformation, it is impossible to decide whether the claims are valid. I suppose by not naming names they are protecting themselves from a libel action. I am not a GMC member, but if I was I would be firmly on the side of being reluctant, and were I to be one of these high profile doctors I would certainly be consulting my lawyers.
The report notes the suspension of Andrew Bridgen from the Conservative Party. What he was suspended for was to repeat a quote given him by a high-profile doctor, with which I can see no problem except perhaps for use of the H- word. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Group – name yourselves, and name those you accuse, or remain tarred as cowardly ignorami. I mentioned this shadowy committee or whatever called the Counter-Disinformation Unit. It exists, and dissenters have been reported to it. One is Dr Ros Jones, a paediatrician and member of HART, who describes her experience in an interview with John Campbell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvEXX985RKA). I am wondering whether the email interference I have suffered since writing to the DoH, resulting in one email address appearing on a spam blacklist, is because I too have been reported. Watch this space.
The Wry Observer 