Experts list “pushers” of ineffective social measures that were aggressively promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic

Four years after the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) started, individuals and institutions that were responsible for pushing the “harmful and destructive” idea that SARS-CoV-2 could be eradicated by their social measures, such as lockdowns, deserve to be immortalized in a “Hall of Shame,” as per writers and experts Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson. “Trust the Evidence,” the Substack newsletter authored by Heneghan, a professor of Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Oxford (Oxon), Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) and NHS Urgent Care general practitioner and Jefferson, a clinical epidemiologist and an Oxon senior associate tutor, listed those who pushed for the said ineffective measures.

“Those listed below showed crass ignorance of respiratory viral epidemiology, and they are likely to approach other topics with the same facile attitude in the future,” Jefferson and Heneghan said. “Some of them have since apologized, but most of them are carrying on, pretending nothing happened.” (Related: More and more lockdown experts are admitting they were wrong, now begging for forgiveness.)

They added that it was quite clear to them by April 8, 2020 “zero COVID” was “pie in the sky,” a poisoned pie, despite impressive names and credentials arguing the contrary. “You cannot suppress an endemic respiratory virus, at least not until you have understood its ecology and transmission routes. Neither of these boxes has been ticked,” they pointed out. Plus these people’s support of the government narrative resulted in two catastrophic consequences. First, it gave backing to restrictions. Second, some or most created a witch hunt climate in which few people felt like knuckling down and studying what was going on, thus missing the golden opportunities the situation presented to do their own research and share information through debate.

Thanks to your generous support, we are building the infrastructure of human freedom and actively donating our technology to independent publishers, authors and home schooling organizations. Learn about our game-changing non-commercial AI project here. Support our ongoing efforts to preserve and enhance human knowledge by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com.

First on the “shame list” was Deborah Leah Birx, an American physician and diplomat who served as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator from 2020 to 2021. They also included public health researcher Devi Sridhar and the Scottish government as well as Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews. Zero Covid Canada, a group of researchers, physicians, engineers, activists, lawyers, educators and concerned citizens who ‘are calling on Canada’s leaders to adopt a Zero Covid strategy,’ including its leaders Stephane Bilodeau, Dr. Malgorzata Gasperowicz, Karl Parkinson and Dr. Irfan Dhalla were also cited as well as U.K. Zero Covid conference attendees Jeremy Corbyn MP, Diane Abbott MP and Jeremy Hunt MP.

Of course, Big Tech mogul and self-proclaimed vaccine czar Bill Gates was also on the list. They cited various events and conferences as well as the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Coronavirus, chaired by Member of U.K. Parliament Layla Moran. The reach of the COVID-19 “lockdown” rhetoric was so widespread that even children’s cartoons promoted it. See the “SpongeBob SquarePants” episode below.

U.K. study: Lockdowns affected mental health, increased distress during pandemic

Supporting the premise that lockdowns were harmful and destructive, an October 2023 study published in the journal Economic Inquiry, found that there was higher mental discomfort observed among U.K. residents during the first COVID-19 wave, with more severe impacts reported among younger individuals and females. Furthermore, lonely people, those with financial problems and people living in congested places had much lower mental health.

Also, the impact on female psychological health was projected to be more than double that of men. Moving from the baseline of absent or infrequent loneliness to the occasional group nearly quadrupled the psychiatric well-being impact to 1.8 from 0.7. Meanwhile, the transition from occasional to frequent loneliness reflected a higher rise than the mean population impact of 1.8 to 2.7 compared to 0.9. Each additional individual in a bedroom reduced the COVID-19 mental health effect by almost 50 percent.

An individual reporting absent or rare loneliness without economic worries and residing in averagely crowded housing, which was defined as 0.9 people in each bedroom post-pandemic, would have undergone a less severe mental health decline. In contrast, an individual experiencing financial hardship and loneliness in overcrowded houses would have experienced significantly worse psychiatric health degradation than the average population impact at 3.4 compared to 0.9 respectively.

They concluded that the increased psychological anguish may be caused by crowding stress and lockdown constraints. Researchers recommended that future studies assess the extent of COVID-19 recovery and long-term psychiatric consequences, including behavioral changes produced by living with the disease permanently because previous research has concentrated on documenting the pandemic’s population impact and inequities, with limited studies addressing the moderators driving the pandemic’s consequences for mental health.

Check out Pandemic.news for more stories related to the continuing false narrative of the globalists regarding the “pandemic response.”

Sources for this article include:

Expose-News.com

TrustTheEvidence.Substack.com

News-Medical.net