Professor Robert Clancy on the Problems of the Covid Narrative By Brian Simpson

Professor Robert Clancy has been an outstanding mainstream academic critic of the Covid narrative, and right about everything too. In his recent Quadrant org.au opinion piece, he summarises the telling critique to has made over the Covid freak-out/plandemic. The core point, outside of some technical considerations, is that the Covid business was too much based upon commerce and social conformity, rather than genuine science, which involves relentless criticism and sceptical evaluation, none of which did occur. The cultist belief that the vaxxes would magically solve all problems is an example of this. Worse was the lockdowns, which were likely designed to soften up people by taking away liberties, so that they would take the vaxxes, unthinkingly, or the massive social blackmail to be vaxxes, or be sacked.

ttps://quadrant.org.au/opinion/covidiocy/2022/11/the-problem-with-the-covid-narrative/

“The “great common” of pandemics, as far back as the Black Death that wiped out one-third of Europe in 1347, is that science post-dates narratives — and those narratives create cognitive dissonance and “group think” driven by power figures of the day. The difference with COVID-19 is that it did not need to be that way: the science of COVID was known through experience with influenza and knowledge of compartmentalised mucosal immunology. The power of the pharmaceutical industry and its pervasive influence at every level of political and medical decision-making was underestimated.

Together with a political structure desperately needing a narrative, the world was powered by the belief that genetic vaccines would save the day. Anyone compromising vaccine roll-out had to be “cancelled” and demonised as well, just for good measure, irrespective of the quality of the person, their expertise or the logic of their argument. “False news” was a term used to ensure compliance with the vaccine narrative, supported by government, regulatory organisations, professional bodies, journals and individual health professionals. The world press fell into line to “combat the spread of harmful disinformation”. None could demonstrate their “belief” to be to fact, nor would they debate those who questioned the narrative. A comprehensive critique of censorship and suppression of argument opposing the narrative, Censorship and Suppression of COVID‑19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter‑Tactics, places particular focus on bad behaviour by media organisations.

Two recent personal experiences illustrate the global abnegation by professionals upon whom we traditionally depend for scientific guidance.

First, I approached the Society for Mucosal Immunology (SMI), an international body for the study of immunity at mucosal surfaces, including viral infection of the respiratory tract, and the body best placed to educate in regard to the science of COVID-19 infection. I was one of six founders of the SMI, and the Asian-Pacific representative for many years. There was no response to the proposal  that our society had a responsibility to provide leadership in understanding COVID, vaccination and management. No surprise, perhaps; the SMI “gold sponsor” was Pfizer.

Second, an approach to the College of Pathology (of which I was a Senior Fellow, a foundation Professor of Pathology, and past-Chairman of the College committee for undergraduate pathology education) emphasising the unique opportunity for an across-country study to determine whether COVID vaccination was responsible, or not responsible, for the spate of reports of an increase in unexplained deaths occurring in the Western world  — excess death above expected background rates of death, where Australian excess deaths during 2021/22 are now exceeding 17 per cent. The College, I suggested, could use its network in Australia and New Zealand developed for quality-control programmes to coordinate a standardised protocol for a post-mortem study to answer what is arguably the most important question facing medicine. After two approaches there was a reply: take your question to the Therapeutic Goods Administration!

These examples are important, as they reflect the failure of professional bodies to support debate or science conflicting with a narrative that has enabled the persecution of health professionals questioning its validity.

Two basic truths were ignored or not understood.  The first was that the natural history of COVID-19 as an infection of the respiratory tract was determined by the outcome of a host-parasite relationship (the interaction between the infecting virus and the immune response) involving the mucosal immune response. The second was that introduction of an experimental genetic vaccine to prevent an infection of a mucosal space was unnecessary, limited by the biology of the infection, and fraught with potential for unpredictable adverse events.

Replacing a narrative driven by commercial interests with science is surprisingly difficult. But it must happen.

Review of existing data for both efficacy and safety of genetic vaccines by professional organisations, mainline journals and the media has been a “no-go” area. Denial and ignorance fall in line with a narrative, with those who ask questions excluded from participation in the discussion by methods which have ranged from accusations that the offenders are “anti-vaxers” to the de-registration of health professionals. Recently, recognition of limitations and concerns with respect to genetic vaccines and the consequent failures to impact public health policies has begun to seep into the mainstream press.

Calls have been made for drawing a line under earlier decisions irrespective of how wrong they were based on “the uncertainty at the time”. The point of this essay is that there should have been very little uncertainty at the time.

The immunologic framework was known, the influenza vaccine model had been studied since the 1940’s, and concerning data not released by the pharmaceutical companies was available through the FDA and review by Prof Peter Doshi in the British Medical Journal. Red flags were all over the use of completely untested genetic vaccines. These “certainties” were reviewed with outcomes predicted, in a Quadrant– Online article as early as January 17, 2021: COVID-19: A realistic approach to community management.

Under camouflage of a pandemic, a different form of medical care was imposed on Western society. This in a manner outside of all the honed and traditional norms of clinical practise: the rule of science, and the doctor-patient relationship based on informed consent.

Numerous legal challenges current across the Western world may be the only way to bring clarity and sense to the table, with reversion to a tested pattern of safe, science-based medical practise, based on the relationship between doctor and patient that evolved from the time of Louis Pasteur.”