Divided COVID falls… maybe

Here’s an excellent long-form presentation by Dr Shankara Chetty, a South African doctor who has successfully treated over 7,000 patients with COVID, which is on Bitchute (and no prizes for guessing why it’s there and not on You-Tube!).

I found the most insightful part of his talk to be the clear laying out that COVID-19 consists of two entirely separate diseases: (1) a mild upper respiratory viral infection which lasts a few days and can be adequately treated by a number of agents, though most people recover quickly, and (2) a hyper-immune reaction to spike protein beginning, pretty predictably in those susceptible, 1 week in. This occurs in many cases when all the viral symptoms have subsided and the patient feels well.

This is, of course, the SARS-type immune and clotting syndrome which made the first outbreak so terrifying, and which requires early treatment with the range of measures accepted by the mainstream, like steroids and anticoagulation, and those not so recognised, like ivermectiun and hydroxychloroquine. I’ve no intention of going into either the pathology or the treatment here, though, but merely to make some observations inspired by Dr Chetty.

The first is to note how much fog would have been dispersed, after the first weeks of tracking the radiation of the epidemic, by clearly distinguishing these two phases in the stats. Just think how much better public understanding would be if, instead of totalling the number of PCR-positive tests, ONS and its non-British equivalents had counted only those with clinical SARS, preferably confirmed by PCR. This would, after all, clearly show how much there was to fear, as opposed to thousands of cases of mild flu, sub-clinical infection and false positives signifying nothing, but stoking terror.

That figure would closely match those being admitted to hospital (one hopes!) with SARS, thus eliminating at a stroke the pregnant mums happening to test positive at an ante-natal clinic, and so on. And the deaths would be deaths from SARS, a figure very little different from deaths with SARS: for even a terminal diabetic or ventricular failure patient dying during a COVID hyper-immune cytokine crisis truly demonstrates a degree of causality, whereas excluding even the sick patient who dies without SARS, but with a positive test, would truly represent the state of affairs. There would no doubt be a few non-COVID pneumonitides wrongly included in the figures, but that would be trivial compared to those RTAs and suicides now counted as COVID deaths.

No doubt, also, some very vulnerable patients – the kind who would be carried off by a common cold, would also be carried off by COVID and not be recorded as dying from it. That too, though, is no problem, because it is only SARS that makes the bug worth distinguishing clinically at all.


A second nugget from Chetty is his contention that the MRNA vaccines are not producing immunity at all, but work by introducing a small dose of the SARS toxin, ie the spike protein. It is in most cases desensitising the recipient to the natural viral spike protein. This makes eminent sense of the observation that it reduces “severe illness and death,” since all the serious illness and death arises from the second-phase hyper-immunity response. If they were vaccines producing effective immunity to the viral phase, they woudl be sterilising and would prevent infection and transmission, which they do not.

If this is so, it also explains exactly why there are so many serious side effects from the vaccine: we have absurdly chosen to inject, or rather get the body to produce, the very toxin that makes the virus deadly. Only whereas SARS-CoV-2 delivers it via the nasopharynx, inducing an IgA response that will lead to longstanding immunity, vaccines deliver intramuscularly, and sometimes as an intravenous bolus, which at best provokes an IgG circulating antibody useless against respiratory infection, and at worst a multi-system inflammatory reaction causing the vaccine adverse effects.

Chetty believes those most seriously affected are those who, though poor injection technique, get an IV shot – how sad then that my son, describing his booster at a London nurse-led clinic yesterday, was admiring the speed at which she worked. No time for drawing back the syringe in the NHS, then, despite the problem being known in studies for a year and, indeed, despite the proper technique to avoid IV injection once having being taught as standard.

This all raises the question, once more, of why manufacturers choose, and regulators approve, agents which produce the very toxin one is trying to combat. Chetty suggests that, given the effective treatments he helped develop to combat the viral phase of the infection, it makes little sense to vaccinate anyone, the virus itself being a more appropriate stimulus to the immune system. He is in no doubt, since it is rapidly becoming clear that a laboratory origin is by far the most likely origin, that malice is involved somewhere – that, in effect, the virus and the vaccine have the same designers.

This, of course, may be a conspiracy theory too far: my take is that the lab leak was accidental, even if the CCP was working on it in a biologiocal weapons programme. But it might not be wrong. He speculates that the virus’s evolution might also have been engineered, since he noticed that the dominant variants have distinct ethnic profiles. Certainly Chinese military sources have discussed producing racially-targeted viruses.

I mention this last point for interest, more than real concern. But it does raise an interesting question about the current Omicron variant, whose mysterious origins and wondrous properties (contra SAGE doom-mongering) I have previously described. Its benign nature seems to make Omicron an unlikely part of the programme of any evil genius. But suppose it were part of just such a master-plan as Chetty speculates? How might it work?

If Chetty’s more basic assessment of the pathollogy of COVID is correct, then we can discount the virus as a harmful infective agent: it is merely the carrier for the spike protein, which in Omicron has many ill-understood mutations that make it more transmissible, less toxic, and who knows what else. So, getting into the mind of my evil genius, I would want my virus to spread as widely as possible and therefore with minimal harm, and it would be in the immune response that I would put my “sting in the tail.”

I would design my spike protein so that a subsequent exposure would provoke the mother and father of antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), either from the endemic virus, or (if I could keep up the political panic) by a new vaccine specifically tailored for Omicron, such as our benignant Big Pharma guys are already developing.

To be honest, I’m not too worried about this possibility on my own behalf: if Omicron is benign, I will be avoiding new vaccines like the plague anyway, and I can’t do anything to avoid the virus. However, time will tell if Omicron is the most sinister twist of a sinister eugenics plot (certainly that chimes in with Dr Mike Yeadon’s suspicion that it will be the next vaccine that is meant to kill us), or if instead it is a rather wonderful gift of God’s providential mercy to an undeserving population.

Me, I favour the latter, and if I turn out to be wrong, our judgement is more severe than most of us fear.

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics and sociology, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Divided COVID falls… maybe

  1. Ben says:

    Not sure if I’ve mentioned Geert Vanden Boosche here before, but I think I prefer his slightly less conspiracy theory (though no less alarming): that using a leaky vaccine in a pandemic inevitably causes (un)natural selection of breakthrough variants.

    I must admit that between his rather paulian sentences, and the technical terms, I can’t follow him much further than that. Contrary to most, he believes that this will eventually lead to selecting for a variant that will be more virulent for the unvaccinated (which is the bit I don’t understand).

    But it does make more sense to me than the people claiming that the unvaccinated are responsible for the emergence of breakout variants.

    • Jon Garvey says:

      Yes – Chetty’s idea is that likely mutation patterns were built into the original virus, but I’m also inclined to think that’s attributing too much cleverness to the Wuhan lab and their collaborators.

      I’d have thought it more likely that the arms race would disfavour the vaccinated in whom any selection occurs, but I suppose if selection happened for maximum virulence, there’s no reason it would spare the unvaccinated either.

      Certainly, I agree that nobody seems to have offered any good reasons to blame the unvaccinated for new strains, nor indeed for calling it a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We’re simply being asked to demonise them by repetition of slogans, in the face of a mountain of evidence that at best, the vaccinated gain a small temporary advantage in serious outcomes. If one can’t see that it’s classic propaganda (cf Jews, kulaks, counter-revolutionaries, etc) then one is part of the problem.

Leave a Reply