'No question' Facebook and Twitter campaigned to...

There is “no question” Facebook and Twitter are partisan organisations who campaigned to get rid of the president of the United States, according to...

This is totally sick with Twitter showing this kind of content and a shame on Amazon Web Services for hosting Twitter. You need to get your family away from this site...


A Christian girl has been taken into care in Pakistan after allegedly being abducted by a Muslim man who forced her to marry him and kept her chained up in a cattle pen.

The girl spent five months chained up in the pen in the yard of her 45-year-old captor's home, where she was forced to work all day clearing the animals’ dung, her family claim.

They said that when she was rescued by police last month, she had cuts on her ankles left by the shackles put on her by captor, who is also said to have raped her repeatedly.

The case has now been taken up by human rights groups, who say the family's initial complaint to police went ignored for three months. They claim that every year, hundreds of girls from Pakistan's Christian and Hindu minority groups are abducted and forced into Muslim marriage, with the justice system often turning a blind eye for fear of offending Islamic hardliners.

They say that Britain, which gives £302 million in aid last year to Pakistan, should insist that more is done to counter prejudices against minorities and challenge institutionalised tolerance of sexual abuse.

In November, The Telegraph reported on the case a 14-year-old girl allegedly kidnapped by a Muslim man who then used threats of violence to make her sign false papers consenting to marriage.

When she escaped from his custody, a court initially ruled the marriage legal and returned her to her abductor's home. She is now in hiding, with the British charity Aid to the Church in Need petitioning Boris Johnson to allow her to seek asylum in Britain.

Mr Johnson previously spoke out in favour of Britain granting asylum to Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who spent ten years on death row in Pakistan on trumped-up blasphemy charges.

The most recent case involves a girl from the city of Faisalabad, in Pakistan's eastern Punjab province, who was allegedly abducted near her home on June 12 last year. The Telegraph knows her identity but is not disclosing it to preserve her privacy.

Read More


As President-elect Joe Biden is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, the chair of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom believes the incoming administration will continue the religious freedom successes of the Trump administration.

Gayle Manchin, the wife of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and who has served with the congressionally mandated commission tasked with advising the executive branch and Congress about global religious freedom matters since 2018, told The Christian Post that she has spoken with the Biden administration’s transition team about the issue of religious freedom.

“The Biden administration will be just as strong,” vowed Manchin, a former first lady of West Virginia. “I certainly congratulate the [Trump administration]. Trump put a spotlight on [religious freedom]. I believe the Biden administration will continue that.”

The work of USCIRF on religious freedom is important to the world because it’s the only government organization of its kind, she noted. Other countries don’t oversee international religious freedom in the same way the U.S. does.

“We’re the only ones that take an interest in how Pakistan or Azerbaijan or Egypt are treating their citizens,” she said.

Free CP Newsletters
Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!

Join over 250,000 others to get the top stories curated daily, plus special offers!
One of Trump’s religious freedom innovations was to appoint a permanent special adviser for international religious freedom to his office, said Manchin. This decision has allowed religious freedom concerns to receive attention when the president makes important decisions on foreign policy.

“I would hope that is something that will continue in the new administration,” she said. “I think the Biden administration will be very open to working with USCIRF and all of the groups involved with religious freedom.”

Both Republicans and Democrats serve on USCIRF and work together to advance the cause of religious freedom. The rest of Congress should take an example from USCIRF’s healthy bipartisanship, said Manchin.

The secret to its success is personal relationships, she explained. Members of the commission spend time together, talk about their families and build friendships.

Read More


Storm Warning – Michele Bachmann

Jan Markell talks to Michele Bachmann for the hour. What does one party rule in Washington mean for the country and for believers? What will the...

Jan Markell talks to Michele Bachmann for the hour. What does one party rule in Washington mean for the country and for believers? What will the coming persecution look like? Bachmann was at the Capitol on January 6. Were those participating patriots or terrorists? They conclude that global government is coming.

Follow Jan on:
Olive Tree Ministries:


Wrong type of words used by Franklin! Jesus is the total opposite of Trump. Trump is dishonest, foul mouthed, arrogant, egotistical, obstinate, and self-willed bully, he is a name caller, speaks when his gob should be shut, and has been disloyal on his own family and friends.

Thing he does well is politics and a peace maker around the world.



Evangelist Franklin Graham compared 10 members of the GOP to Judas Iscariot on Thursday after they voted to approve President Donald Trump's second impeachment.

Graham, the head of the non-profit organization Samaritan's Purse, has been a longtime supporter of Trump's presidency. Rifts between the evangelical community and Trump have developed after recent events, including a January riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump's impeachment in the aftermath of the riot at the U.S. Capitol did not change Graham's support of the president, leading Graham to draw parallels between Trump's impeachment and the betrayal of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible.

"Shame, shame on the ten Republicans who joined with @SpeakerPelosi & the House Democrats in impeaching President Trump yesterday," Graham tweeted. "After all that he has done for our country, you would turn your back & betray him so quickly? What was done yesterday only further divides our nation."

Read More


LIVE: Happening Now featuring @Behold Israel...

Join us for Happening Now with special guest @Behold Israel with Amir Tsarfati

British Lawmakers Demand 'Coherent' Policy...

'China Research Group' of ruling Conservative party lawmakers urges formation of coalition of 10 leading democracies to counter Chinese influence...

Today’s shocking excess death figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that we have not one, but two pandemics in the UK right now.

One is the Covid pandemic, which can be seen clearly in the spike in deaths in hospitals and care homes in Spring 2020, before deaths from this seasonal virus drop dramatically to below average in the Summer and rise again in hospitals with its return in Winter.

The other is the hidden pandemic caused by Covid policies, which has taken place in the home and shows no variation with the seasons. Excess deaths in the home have been consistently above average every week from March onwards, with a small rise during the Spring lockdown.

The death toll shows the figures split almost evenly: around half of the total excess deaths for 2020 occurred in the home and showed little variation from summer to winter.

Recovery has been warning of this tsunami of excess deaths from Covid policies for months. It’s caused a deadly cocktail of fear, mental health problems, and the denial of vital services to patients in urgent need of life-saving care. For example:

Read More


This article has got it right with the abusive mind games that the UK and Scottish governments are terrifying us with. If I did not have my faith, I would have succumbed the totalitarian regimes false propaganda. Like the article said, “Let us be courageous, let us be brave. We have to do this for our children and grandchildren. If we do not, they will never forgive us and we will never be able to forgive ourselves." If you are a believer in Jesus we have a great hope in that Jesus is coming for us one day, and are able to come to Him in prayer. There is no sight that this abuse from the government will end soon, as the low number of politicians speaking out are not been listened to, there is no help. If you are not a believer, try praying to Jesus and find peace! Peter J Gordon

We are in unprecedented times. Not because of the deadliest virus known to mankind, but because we have never been attacked with such ferocious psychological methods as is deliberately being done today by our UK and Scottish governments; measures to coerce us, manipulate us, to scare us, to shame us, and to make us shame other people for not following orders pertaining to COVID–19 measures.

We have been warned previously by many who suffered totalitarian communism in Eastern Europe. We were warned for many decades that such a moment would come to the West if we were not vigilant enough; unfortunately, it seems that our watchfulness has failed and our liberty has been stolen.

We have a lot to learn from history and from the great Russian writer and critic of Soviet communism, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, especially in our present era of the COVID–19 Brave New Normal. In his address to Harvard University in 1978, Solzhenitsyn said:

Many of you have already found out, and others will find out in the course of their lives, that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate our attention totally on its pursuit. But even while it eludes us, the illusion of knowing it still lingers and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth seldom is pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech too, but I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary, but from a friend.

Likewise, when it comes to our era of the COVID–19 Brave New Normal, there are many bitter truths we have to face now.

Applied behavioural psychology
One bitter truth is that we are being manipulated, coerced, frightened and shamed by the state; the very same state that is supposed to have our best interests at heart. The UK and Scottish Governments are using applied behavioural psychology, breaking the ethical guidelines for psychologists, to deliberately ramp up fear in the population. A group of psychologists called SPI-B, part of SAGE, have been tasked with advising the UK and Scottish Governments how to get people to adhere to COVID–19 restrictions. Their document which is freely available on the UK Government website, and which was reported on the UK Column News of 11th May 2020, states the following:

A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.


The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.

The psychologists of SPI-B and the UK Government knew fear alone would not be enough. Therefore, SPI-B suggested to government the use and promotion of social approval for desired behaviours, to consider enacting legislation to compel required behaviours, and to consider the use of social disapproval for failure to comply. They have used the mainstream media and social media, along with false "fact-checking" and censorship, to get their message across, and it has been working.

Professional standards
The tactics of the SPI-B psychologists who are informing the UK and Scottish Governments’ policies on the COVID–19 response are, in my opinion, contrary to the ethical and practice guidelines of the British Psychological Society (BPS), the psychology equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath for medicine. Below are some excerpts from two documents: the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018) and the British Psychological Society Practice Guidelines (2017).

From the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct document:

[From Section 3.1]

Statement of values: Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular regard to people’s rights.

In applying these values, Psychologists should consider:
(i) Privacy and confidentiality;
(ii) Respect;
(iii) Communities and shared values within them;
(iv) Impacts on the broader environment – living or otherwise;
(v) Issues of power;
(vi) Consent;
(vii) Self-determination;
(viii) The importance of compassionate care, including empathy, sympathy, generosity, openness, distress tolerance, commitment and courage.


3.3 Responsibility

Because of their acknowledged expertise, Psychologists enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Psychologists must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management. Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount.

Statement of values: Psychologists value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of Psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their
contribution to society.

In applying these values, psychologists should consider:
(i) Professional accountability;
(ii) Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;
(iii) Respect for the welfare of human, non-humans and
the living world;
(iv) Potentially competing duties.

From the British Psychological Society Practice Guidelines document:

4. Safeguarding

Safeguarding means protecting people’s health, wellbeing and human rights, and enabling them to live free from harm, abuse and neglect […] Abuse takes many forms and cuts through various domains of life. The categories below are often referred to in investigation/legislation context and are not mutually exclusive with e.g. emotional abuse featuring in the other domains of abuse. Abuse can be found across all sections of society, irrelevant of gender, age, ability, religion, race, ethnicity, personal circumstances, financial background or sexual orientation.

• Physical abuse is the use of physical force or mistreatment of one person by another which may or may not result in actual physical injury. This could include hitting, poisoning, deprivation of food, water or liberty, rough handling or exposure to heat or cold, amongst other things […]

• Psychological/emotional abuse is behaviour that is psychologically harmful or inflicts mental distress by threat, humiliation or other verbal/non-verbal conduct. This may include threats, blaming, controlling, intimidation or coercion amongst other things.

• Financial abuse is actual or attempted theft, fraud or burglary. It is the misappropriation or misuse of money, property, benefits, material goods or other asset transactions which the person did not, or could not, consent to, or which were invalidated by intimidation, coercion or deception […]

• Institutional abuse is the mistreatment or neglect by a regime or individuals, in settings which people who may be at risk reside in or use. Institutional abuse may occur when routines, systems and regimes result in poor standards of care, poor practice and behaviours, inflexible regimes and rigid routines which violate the dignity and human rights of the adults and place them at risk of harm. It may occur within a culture that denies, restricts or curtails privacy, dignity, choice and independence. It involves the collective failure of a service provider or an organisation to provide safe and appropriate services and includes a failure to ensure the necessary preventative and/or protective measures are in place.

• Neglect is the persistent failure to meet basic physical and/or psychological needs. It may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter, failing to provide or unresponsiveness to, basic emotional needs or failing to protect from physical harm.

It seems quite clear from the above ethics and practice guidelines that the explicit tactics of SPI-B — making people more fearful by deliberately ramping up their sense of personal threat, and encouraging people to shame others for not following regulations — have breached the ethical and practice guidelines governing the use of applied psychology.

Mental health crisis
From the reports of several mental health charities, and from UK and Scottish Government reports, it is clear that mental ill-health is in a crisis because of the COVID19 response/measures. Suicide risk has undoubtedly been greatly increased; when the official figures are completed, I have no doubt that there will have been, and there will continue to be, many suicides because of the COVID–19 governmental response. People have been isolated from friends, family and ordinary daily social interaction (and even from seeing a full face, due to mask wearing). They cannot travel freely. Many are stopped from working and transacting. Many businesses have gone and will go bust, and many people face losing their homes and becoming unemployed. Is this what applied psychology and responsible government was intended to achieve — to make us mentally unwell, suicidal, and to remove our sovereign rights of freedom and liberty? This is nothing but a tyranny.

All this has come to pass based on the threat posed by a virus, despite huge disagreement about the nature of this threat within the scientific community (for example, the Great Barrington Declaration signed by 50,000 scientists and doctors). However, UK and Scottish Government policy seems intent on taking the most damaging route for society for all concerned, relying on advice from scientific advisors who seem determined to change society forever based on the idea that a wonder vaccine will return us to normality: not the old normal, of course, but a new normal where surveillance, vaccine/immunity passports, and a cashless society will be the only way where people can shop, travel and work. Seems kind of harsh? Well, unethical diktats usually break over into the realm of abuse.

The COVID–19 response, with its resulting misery, fear, austerity and hopelessness, seems increasingly to equate to society-wide abuse. The similarities to domestic physical and psychological abuse, coercion and manipulation are striking. When reading the below, please bear in mind the restrictions that the UK is under. The applicability of the concept of abuse to the COVID–19 restrictions and their effects is self-evident.

Physical abuse is the use of physical force or mistreatment of one person by another which may or may not result in actual physical injury. This could include hitting, poisoning, deprivation of food, water or liberty.

Psychological or emotional abuse is behaviour that is psychologically harmful or inflicts mental distress by threat, humiliation or other verbal/non-verbal conduct. This may include threats, blaming, controlling, intimidation or coercion, amongst other things, as well as isolation from friends and family. Abusers want to know the victim’s whereabouts and obsessively track and check the victim’s location at all times.

Financial abuse is actual or attempted theft, fraud or burglary. It is the misappropriation or misuse of money, property, benefits, material goods or other asset transactions which the person did not, or could not, consent to, or which were invalidated by intimidation, coercion or deception.

In the realms of abuse by the government, the definition of institutional abuse is fitting. Institutional abuse may occur when routines, systems and regimes result in poor standards of care, inflexible regimes and rigid routines which violate the dignity and human rights of the adults and place them at risk of harm. It may occur within a culture that denies, restricts or curtails privacy, dignity, choice and independence. Institutional neglect is the persistent failure to meet basic physical and/or psychological needs.

Physical or psychological abuse follows a pattern of abuse and manipulation, often involving a phase of ‘grooming’. As a population, it seems we have been groomed since March.

Most survivors of abuse say that at the beginning of their relationship, their partner was charming and affectionate, that they expressed love for them very quickly and wanted to spend a lot of time together with them. Abusive behaviour is interspersed with warmth and kindness, slowly desensitising the victim to the behaviour.

Perpetrators use a wide range of hidden tactics to maintain control and brainwash their victim, by presenting insults as a joke, by gaslighting, and by presenting different versions of events.

Thus, at the beginning of the COVID–1984 nightmare, we were told we needed a three weeks' lockdown to "flatten the curve", save the NHS, and save lives. We were told to be good, and we have been good. We were told by the Government that they cared about us, that they loved us. But now, seven months later, we are told things are out of control, that we are at tipping point; that they only way out of this is for a vaccine, for an immunity passport, for a New Normal or Building Back Better to form a New World Order. We have been duped. We were good, we did our best, but now we have been told we are complacent, and we are now trapped, just like a victim of abuse.

Professor Susan Michie, a psychologist with SPI-B of SAGE, speaking on LBC Radio with Andrew Castle on 4 October 2020, declared how the population had been complacent by not following COVID–19 regulations. Castle mentioned all the businesses going bust and the rising unemployment. Michie retorted that people will just have to retrain for new jobs or careers. She even mentioned that because of social distancing measures needed for schools (and other workplaces, I presume), government should just take over unused or empty buildings to adapt to the new regime. Sound familiar? It should. That’s because this is what happened under totalitarian communism. Not surprising, as Susan Michie is a member of the Communist Party of Britain.

Like the abuser, the UK and Scottish Governments keep changing the story and goalposts to try to placate us. One minute, the crisis is the so-called deaths from COVID–19, the next minute it is the R number, and now we have a casedemic based on a questionable PCR test, which it seems will place us into a Kafkaesque indefinite COVID–1984: it seems the PCR test can be used and manipulated to bolster population control and movement at a whim; the PCR test was never designed for such diagnostic purposes or to inform public health policies in this way. And then they tell us we have been too complacent and that even more draconian measures could be needed for months or years to come, until a rushed-out unsafe vaccine can save us.

The COVID–19 Brave New Normal is an experiment in which the long-term outcomes on children are as yet unknown; but, from what we know about developmental psychology, it is highly probable that the government(s) are harming future generations.

While the unethical psy-op carries on, the British Psychological Society (the regulator of psychologists), the Health and Care Professions Council, psychologists, mental health charities, psychotherapy organisations, politicians, and so-called political activists are completely silent about this deliberate psychological torture of our society and our children. Is the silence from the British Psychological Society because the Director of Policy of the BPS, Kathryn Scott, is on SPI-B of SAGE?

The silence from the aforementioned groups and individuals is unacceptable; it is complicity.

The data and the science are clear: COVID–19 is not a threat requiring us to lock down society and destroy the economy. COVID–19 is the equivalent of a bad flu season. The PCR test is unreliable and should not be used as a diagnostic instrument, and the use of the PCR has contributed to what is now just a casedemic. The hospitals are not overwhelmed; they never were, nor ever will be. Indeed, the famous Nightingale Hospitals were never used and for all intents and purposes have been decommissioned.

Why have mask wearing and hand sanitising not seen a reduction in the yearly average for flu deaths, and why are flu deaths currently outstripping deaths from COVID–19? This is a question never asked by a UK mainstream journalist. Why are the politicians not yelling in anger that lockdown measures will cause more deaths that COVID–19? People cannot get operations, people cannot get screened for illness and disease, people cannot see a dentist, and people cannot see their friends and family. Isolation is a huge killer, especially for old people who are unable to see loved ones if they are in a care home.

It seems clear that COVID–19 is an excuse to take away our freedom and liberty. But here are some things to bear in mind:

Churches are closed, brothels are open. The rule of six does not apply to supermarkets. We have to wear masks in supermarkets, but MPs and MSPs from many households can meet in the UK and Scottish Parliaments, without masks. Children have to wear masks and are not allowed to sing in school, yet politicians can shout and mingle unmasked in government buildings. Children cannot say goodbye to a dying parent; old people are dying alone, unable to be comforted by loved ones. Matt Hancock, allegedly, can drink wine in the Houses of Parliament Bar after the 10 pm curfew — not socially distancing, of course. We can go grouse shooting but not to a restaurant. Amazon is doing a roaring trade, as are the big multi-national supermarkets, but the High Street is dying.

In Scotland, it was estimated two months ago that one half of all small and medium-sized business will not make it out of this mess. No doubt, with the new measures in Scotland, the list of businesses going bust will be even bigger.

In the good old days, before COVID–19, social justice activists used to cry that "austerity kills". Those activists now are silent; they put on their masks and comply with the regulations whilst the economy burns. In the age of #MeToo, we became used to people calling out abuse and abusers. There is widespread abuse now with the COVID–19 measures, #MeToo activists are silent. Pre-COVID–19, the Adverse Childhood Experience “movement” (ACEs, ACE Aware, etc.) was concerned with negative childhood experiences. Now, they say nothing about children being forced to wear masks, of having to socially distance in classrooms, nor about children are being scared witless by being continually told in school that they are in danger of death, even though the risk of children getting even mild symptoms of COVID–19 is minuscule. ACE awareness, it seems, does not stretch to inappropriate fear-mongering and depriving children of oxygen by muzzling.

Cognitive dissonance
How strange it all is. Can people see how illogical these positions are? Can people perceive the cognitive dissonance in those tasked with making decisions?

The psychological attack, the abusive nature of it, the illogicality of measures and the cognitive dissonance of those who should speak out confuses us, frightens us, angers us and demoralises us. As KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov indicated in relation to the takeover of totalitarian communism, we are in the stage of demoralisation. The psy-op of SPI-B and the politicians who dictate to us are deliberately trying to frighten us, scare us, shame us and sap our morale.

Unfortunately, at the moment there are not enough people (especially politicians and mainstream media journalists) with the necessary courage to call out the tyranny and call out the abuser. Historically, this has also been a problem: both on the political and on the personal scale, the victim finds great difficulty calling out their abuser. In a critical remark and warning to the West, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Harvard address in 1973:

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations ... Should one (have to) point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

In our COVID–19 Brave New Normal, let us not ignore the warnings of the past and the historical events through which totalitarian regimes came to flourish. A totalitarian medical technocracy is now being forced upon us. Let us be courageous, let us be brave. We have to do this for our children and grandchildren. If we do not, they will never forgive us and we will never be able to forgive ourselves.


This is a fantastic article sharing the truth and science that you don't get on mainstream media. Please use the link to read the full article which gives you links to other information.

You would think that governments always do a cost-benefit analysis before embarking on a certain course of action, especially if it is likely to have significant effects on many different aspects of society. The global lockdowns in response to the covid pandemic probably constitute the largest, most extreme measures taken by western governments since the second world war. So, you would think a careful cost-benefit analysis would have been done before the decision was made to lock down.

Apparently, if you thought that, you would be wrong. As far as I am aware, not a single government anywhere has presented a carefully deliberated cost-benefit analysis, in which they look at all aspects, and then explain why they think lockdown is the right decision, in spite of all the likely harms.

Since no government has bothered to do this (at least publicly), we’re going to help out. This article will by no means be exhaustive, since the harms are innumerable, affecting every aspect of life. Instead, I’m going to focus on two things that I think are representative of wider harms, cardiovascular health and children’s health.

As I mentioned in a previous article, during the covid peak in spring in Stockholm, hospital admissions due to heart attacks were down 40% . Presumably the number of people having heart attacks didn’t decrease by 40%, so most likely a lot of people were having heart attacks but choosing to stay home for fear of catching covid. It seems similar patterns have been seen around the world. This is a big problem, for two reasons. Firstly, the risk of sudden cardiac death immediately after a heart attack is big. Secondly, if you have a heart attack and don’t get emergent treatment, you are at much bigger risk of permanent damage to your heart, which can result in chronic heart failure.

A study was published in Heart in September that sought to understand what the effects of the first lockdown were on cardiovascular mortality in the UK. The researchers looked at official mortality data for the first UK lockdown (March to June), and compared it with the average for the same time period during the preceding six years. What did they find?

There was an 8% increase in cardiovascular mortality during the lockdown, compared with what would normally be expected for the time period. At the same time, the proportion of cardiovascular deaths happening in hospitals decreased from 63% to 53%, while the proportion happening out of hospital (in private homes or care homes) increased from 37% to 47% .

What does this tell us?

Well, the data is observational, so it’s hard to draw causal conclusions, but we can make some reasonable guesses. The authors of the article think it is likely that fear of covid caused people to seek help later than they normally would have. Therefore, more people died outside of hospital, and more people died overall, because they didn’t get the help they needed for their cardiovascular emergency. I think that is a very reasonable conclusion. And it is supported by one additional data point, which is that a larger share of the people who died in hospital after having a heart attack died of cardiogenic shock or ventricular arrythmia – complications that are more often seen when people seek treatment late.

Another study was published in June in Neurological Sciences. The purpose of the study was to see what impact lockdown measures had on patients with stroke. The study was carried out in one hospital in Italy. All journal data from patients entering the hospital from March 11th and one month forward (the first month of national lockdown in Italy) were gathered. The data were then compared with journal data for the same time period in 2019. In total, 52 people came in to the hospital with strokes during the one month period in 2020, compared with 41 in 2019.

Before we get in to the results, I should mention that a stroke is a time critical emergency, just like a heart attack. A common saying, that I’m sure many people will have heard before, is “time is brain”. In other words, every extra hour of delay before getting treatment increases the risk of a bad outcome.

In 2019, the average time from beginning of symptoms to arrival in the hospital was 161 minutes. In 2020, the average time had more than doubled, to 387 minutes.

One treatment that is used for strokes is thrombolysis, where a drug that breaks up blood clots is infused in to the blood stream. But thrombolysis is a time critical treatment – studies have shown no benefit when it is given more than 4,5 hours after the beginning of symptoms, so patients who arrive later are not eligible for this treatment. The delay in arrival in the hospital meant that there was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients who received thrombolysis, from 32% to 14% .

Now, this was a small study, but the doubling in time to arrival at the hospital was highly statistically significant, and unlikely to have been due to chance. As with the previous study, the authors suggest that the delay in seeking help was due to fear of covid.

So, we have two studies which point in the same direction, that people have been slower to seek help for medical emergencies due to an overblown fear of covid. This delay has likely resulted in a significant number of deaths. Now, of course, deaths due to delays in seeking treatment aren’t directly due to lockdown. Rather, they are due to government and media fear mongering. But that fear mongering has been, and continues to be, knowingly used as a tool to get people to accept tough restrictions.

In an earlier article, I mentioned that childhood vaccination programs in many developing countries had been put on hold due to the global obsession with covid, and that this will likely result in many more years of life lost than are lost directly due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But we don’t need to go to developing countries to see children being harmed by the disproportionate response to covid.

An article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in November, that sought to calculate the cost, in terms of life years lost, of taking children out of school. Now, this article was based on modeling, which I’m generally skeptical of, because you can get pretty much whatever outputs you want, depending on what inputs you choose and what assumptions you make in the model.

However, the study sought to do something which has largely been ignored in the public debate around school closures, which is to make the harms of school closures concrete in a way that would allow them to be compared to the more direct and obvious harms of SARS-CoV-2. In other words, they sought to create a situation where you’re comparing apples with apples. Therefore I think it’s worth talking about.

So, what they did was model to what extent being taken out of school for a period of time affects longer term educational attainment. The assumptions that were fed in to the model came from an earlier analysis of a teacher’s strike in parts of Argentina, which had resulted in significantly lowered long term educational attainment for children in regions where the strike resulted in prolonged absences from school.

The outputs of these calculations were then fed in to a second model that used data on how educational attainment affects longevity, in order to determine the effect of school closures on long term mortality for the affected children.

Schools across the US were shut for a median of 54 days during the first covid wave. Based on their modeling, the authors estimate that this 54 day hiatus will result in affected boys living four months shorter lives, on average, than they otherwise would have, and affected girls living two and a half months shorter lives than they otherwise would have.

Overall, 24 million primary school children across the US were affected by the school closures. That would mean about 6 million years of life lost just due to the school closures in spring. At this point in time, 300,000 people have died in the US from covid. If we assume around 7 years of life are lost per person dying of covid (probably generous, as I have discussed in a previous article), that would mean around two million years have so far been lost directly to covid in the US. So by that estimate, the two month school hiatus in spring will result in three times as many years of life lost as have so far been lost directly to the virus.

Like I said, this is a modeling study, so the specific inputs used and numbers arrived at can be criticized in plenty of different ways, but the overall point that is made is sound. Taking children out of school is harmful to them, both over the short term and the long term, and that should be factored in to any decision to keep children out of school “for the greater good”. Just because harms are invisible over the short term doesn’t mean they’re not real.

So, the global covid hysteria has resulted in suspension of childhood vaccine programs, and in school closures, both of which will likely result in many more years of life lost than will ever be lost to the virus directly. Can the situation for children get any worse?

Apparently, yes it can. An article was published in the British Medical Journal in July, written by a group of doctors working at the Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London. The authors noted that the incidence of abusive head trauma in children arriving at their hospital had increased by 1,500% in the first month of lockdown (23rd March to 23rd April), when compared with the same period in preceding years. In other words, there was a 15-fold increase in children getting beaten so badly by their caregivers that they ended up in hospital with severe head trauma.

The authors report that all the children lived in poorer neighborhoods, and 70% had parents with known underlying vulnerabilities (criminal records, mental health issues, or serious financial distress). Obviously, most people won’t start physically abusing their children just because they’re stuck at home with them all day for months on end, but for children that are already at risk, the risk increases substantially.

So, what can we conclude from all this? Very simply, lockdown and the fear-mongering that goes with it almost certainly kills many more people than it saves, and it certainly results in many more years of life lost.

You might also enjoy my article about whether lockdown prevents covid deaths or my article about how many years of life are lost, on average, when someone dies of covid.


Amazing story of Ian Paisley who knew Revival

Loading content, please wait.