There is no reason for believing that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives.
The key to responsible policy-making is not bureaucracy but accountability and independence from interest groups.
“It is as though mankind had divided itself between those who believe in human omnipotence (who think that everything is possible if one knows how to organize masses for it) and those for whom powerlessness has become the major experience of their lives.” –Hannah Arendt
In science the solution to bad information is more information not less information -Dr Michael Greger
A literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality
January 2022 – By Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke
The Studies in Applied Economics series is under the general direction of Prof. Steve H. Hanke, Founder and Co-Director of The Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise ([email protected]).
This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel.
This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-placeorder (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies.
An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.
While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.
More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions
November 30, 2021 – The great body of evidence (comparative research studies and high-quality pieces of evidence and reporting judged to be relevant to this analysis) shows that COVID-19 lockdowns, shelter-in-place policies, masks, school closures, and mask mandates have failed in their purpose of curbing transmission or reducing deaths. These restrictive policies were ineffective and devastating failures, causing immense harm especially to the poorer and vulnerable within societies.
Nearly all governments have attempted compulsory measures to control the virus, but no government can claim success. The research indicates that mask mandates, lockdowns, and school closures have had no discernible impact of virus trajectories.
Bendavid reported “in the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (‘lockdowns’) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.” We’ve known this for a very long time now but governments continue to double down, causing misery upon people with ramifications that will likely take decades or more to repair.
The benefits of the societal lockdowns and restrictions have been totally exaggerated and the harms to our societies and children have been severe: the harms to children, the undiagnosed illness that will result in excess mortality in years to come, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation in our young people, drug overdoses and suicides due to the lockdown policies, the crushing isolation due to the lockdowns, psychological harms, domestic and child abuse, sexual abuse of children, loss of jobs and businesses and the devastating impact, and the massive numbers of deaths resulting from the lockdowns that will impact heavily on women and minorities.
Lockdowns Didn’t Slow the Spread of Covid-19
While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions.
NPI Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention
The study seems to indicate what we have known for decades. [Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.]
This is that there are a number of things that the state can do to help slow the spread of disease but closing down society is not one of them.
This article is referring to the study “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19” published by Dr Eran Bendavid and Prof. John Ioannidis , Jan 2021 also in this section a little lower. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
Lockdown Effects on Sars-CoV-2 Transmission – The evidence from Northern Jutland
The exact impact of lockdowns and other NPIs on Sars-CoV-2 transmission remain a matter of debate as early models assumed 100% susceptible homogenously transmitting populations, an assumption known to overestimate counterfactual transmission, and since most real epidemiological data are subject to massive confounding variables. Here, we analyse the unique case-controlled epidemiological dataset arising from the selective lockdown of parts of Northern Denmark, but not others, as a consequence of the spread of mink-related mutations in November 2020. Our analysis shows that while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbour municipalities without mandates.
In our own analysis of this dataset, which we invite others to investigate, we did not find evidence of any effects of the lockdown on the development of infection rates across Northern Jutland, relative to the control. In other words, we find that an extreme version of societal lockdown had no effect on virus development: Although infections fell over time, they did so before the mandate was implemented (and even before it was announced)
The data is in: lockdowns serve no useful purpose
The data is in: lockdowns serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic harms. They must never be repeated in this country.
Many international studies bear out that lockdowns have proven to be a complete failure as a public health measure to contain a respiratory virus. They did not succeed in their primary objective of containing spread yet have caused great harm.
Lockdowns were explicitly not recommended even for severe respiratory viral outbreaks in all pandemic planning prior to 2020, including those endorsed by the WHO and the Department of Health. The reasons for ignoring existing policies and adopting unprecedented measures appear to have been (i) panic whipped up by the media (especially scenes from China), (ii) a reluctance to do things differently to neighbouring countries and (iii) the unfaltering belief in one single mathematical model, which latterly turned out to be wildly inaccurate (Imperial College, Neil Ferguson).
Our group of scientists, medics and public health experts have put together this rigorously and widely researched document. Topics included are:
- COVID policies and harm to children – Professor Ellen Townsend; Dr Karen Neil
- COVID-19 vaccination in children – major ethical concerns – Dr Ros Jones
- Vaccine passports – an ethical minefield – Dr Malcolm Kendrick
- Asymptomatic spread – who can really spread COVID-19? Dr John Lee
- Economic impacts – the true cost of lockdowns – Professor David Paton; Professor Marilyn James
- Mutant strains and the futility of border closures – Dr Gerry Quinn
- ‘ Zero Covid’ – an impossible dream- Professor David Livermore
- Masks – do the benefits outweigh the harms? – Dr Gary Sidley
- Psychological impact of the Government’s communication style and
restrictive measures – Dr Damian Wilde
- Lockdowns – do they work? – Professor Marilyn James
- Mortality data & COVID-19 – Joel Smalley
- The ONS Infection Survey: a reevaluation of the data – Dr Clare Craig; Dr Paul Cuddon
- Promising treatment options – Dr Ros Jones; Dr Edmund Fordham
- Care homes – we must do better for the most vulnerable in society – Dr Ali Haggett
- Ethical considerations of the COVID-19 response – Professor David Seedhouse
A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19
April 27, 2021
MIT professor Martin Z. Bazant and lead researcher for the study put it this way,
“The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask.”
Researchers criticized the guidelines, considering the huge toll they’ve inflicted on businesses and schools.
“What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be. Oftentimes the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good,” Bazant said.
“I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions.”
“If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission.”
“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fear mongering but is actually based in analysis.”
Lockdowns are the single biggest public health mistake in history
Florida governor DeSantis with Harvard, Stanford and Oxford COVID experts
Lockdowns are the single biggest public health mistake in history. Lockdowns have failed to protect the vulnerable lockdowns have led to many, many, many unnecessary deaths both directly as a result of the lockdowns, also indirectly through the misplaced faith in the ability to protect the vulnerable.
The UGLY truth about the Covid-19 lockdowns
PANDA’s co-founder, Nick Hudson, was the keynote speaker at the March 2020 inaugural BizNews Investment Conference in South Africa.
The presentation, “Time To Reopen Society” begins with the early days of the pandemic recalling the confusion, the conflicting information, the ever-changing recommendations. By following the data and official communications from global organisations, PANDA unravels what transpired that led us into deleterious lockdowns, which continue to have enormous negative impacts across the world. This presentation negates the fear and gives clear reasons why ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself’ in the story of the COVID-19 pandemic response.
The presentation files can be downloaded from https://www.pandata.org/time-to-reopen-society/
The Lockdowns Are Creating a New Virus. Then We Have a New Epidemic.
Dr Knut Wittkowski (Epidemiologist)
We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.
Knut Wittkowski website: http://asdera.com/
Full transcript and links ▶▶ https://dryburgh.com/knut-wittkowski-lockdowns-are-creating-a-new-virus/
Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐19
Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P. A. Ioannidis
First published: 05 January 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484
Background and Aims
The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less‐restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).
We first estimate COVID‐19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States. Using first‐difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, 2 countries that did not implement mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons).
Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a nonsignificant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, for example, the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95% CI: −5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden and + 13% (−12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.
While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less‐restrictive interventions. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484
Lockdowns have killed millions
Lockdowns are inherently racist and elitist, with unclear benefits but proven harms. We all need to stand up and tell our governments that we don’t support what they are doing, and we will not vote for any politician or party promoting continued lockdowns and restrictions as a solution to covid-19, unless they can clearly show that that benefit to society as a whole is greater than the harm.
The Abuse of Science in the Corona Crisis
Michael Esfeld – January 11, 2021
American Institute for Economic Research
Leopoldina, the German National Academy of Sciences, writes in a statement dated December 8, 2020:
At least three things are remarkable about this document:
(i) it claims to be THE scientific viewpoint, with no discussion, no plurality of voices to argue with reason and evidence;
(ii) it makes coercive measures by the political authorities that imply a massive encroachment on basic human rights absolutely necessary, with no gap to be overcome between science that discovers facts and normative proclamations;
(iii) given a controversy about the appropriateness of such coercive measures in the general public, the mission of the Academy, consisting in promoting “a scientifically enlightened society and the responsible application of scientific insight for the benefit of humankind” is to employ its authority and reputation to help the government out: science becomes the ultima ratio to legitimize central state planning of people’s lives, including their social contacts and family life, and the suspension of the constitutional rights that this implies.
Dr Lee Merritt
Below text from Dr. Lee Merritt presenting at … unfortunately the Vimeo video does no longer exist.
Our military our generally young, healthy people in good shape they are not the people that are high risk for dying of covid or even getting really sick with covid if we don’t do anything if we don’t give them a vaccine.
A study that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine of United States Marines and having been with the United States Marines for four years as a Navy surgeon I could tell you this was a controlled study!
I mean they put these people under supervision, they put him in closed barracks, they masked, they did hand washing, they sterilised their environment, and nothing made a difference in the transmission of this virus.
But none of them died, none of them got really sick. These are healthy young people!
OK but so if we don’t do anything, I know that next week we will have a military force but if we give them this vaccine and it turns out to produce immune enhancement and then the virus comes around or some virus that they programmed to come around we could not have a military force in a few weeks.
It’s that’s the kind of thing that could potentially happen
I have some real concerns about not only the national security as well as all of our health issues. Closing I have to say one thing; when we started hearing about crazy things like Hydroxychloroquine was deadlier, it was not going to work; we were looking at the literature and you have to say what’s the benefit to anybody ignoring that!?
Well one is you don’t need a multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry if you have a treatment for this disease for any disease. I hate to say that but that’s the truth!
The last thing is again a national security point; you cannot terrorise the population with designer viruses if you have a treatment in the back pocket!
Website Dr Lee Merritt
Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19
Eran Bendavid Christopher Oh Jay Bhattacharya John P.A. Ioannidis
First published: 05 January 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13484
Background and Aims
The most restrictive non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).
While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.
Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence
December 19, 2020 – Reading Time: 13 minutes
The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.
Lockdowns don’t work, period!
Lockdown papers of shame – the lockdown ideology is destroying our societal health, selling the lie off saving lives. https://new.awakeningchannel.com/lockdowns-dont-work/
Tom Woods Lockdown efficacy in Charts
December 21, 2020
You may have noticed something about your social media contacts.
They think cases go up when people disregard state-imposed restrictions, and go down when they comply.
These are people who haven’t seen any charts.
Charts compiled by Tom Woods. Details about the charts below
December 10, 2020
One place after another is using “cases” as the metric to decide whether people are allowed to experience joy or not. So let’s meet them on that ground.
Yinon Weiss (@yinonw) has been heroic through this fiasco, and he just released a series of charts, along with commentary, that I can’t improve upon. So for today’s issue I’m sharing them with you.
Charts compiled by Tom Woods. Details about the charts below
PANDA: More evidence lockdown is complete failure
One of the most important findings from the masses of emerging Covid-19 data is the complete failure of the lockdown theory as a means of reducing the pace at which the infection spreads—what is known as the “reproduction rate”.
Governments and modellers have assumed that imposition and relaxation of lockdowns would cause step-changes in the reproduction rate, but in country after country, no such step-changes can be seen. Reproduction rates track a linearly declining path.
Dr. Scott Atlas
October 31, 2020
There’s this frenzy of focusing on the number of cases.
First of all cases is not the most important metric. What’s important to understand is that the vast majority of people that are getting these cases are lower risk, healthier people…
And what I mean by that is not that zero people die, but the risk to younger people is extremely low.
We see the case fatality rate is much not just much lower than what we thought it was in the beginning, but it’s decreasing for every age decile.
It’s absurd to start looking at a model at this point.
If you look at the academic literature by epidemiologists who have looked at that model. For for even 24 hours later, on a state by state prediction of this for 24 hours in advance, they were outside of their 95% confidence interval more than 70% of the time. It’s absurd to think that model can predict, for instance, how many people are going to die with or without masks wearing.
Anybody who’s really focusing on models, has learned nothing from the past.
The lack of evidence lockdowns actually worked is a world scandal
28 May 2020 – SHERELLE JACOBS
DAILY TELEGRAPH COLUMNIST
There is still not a shred of real proof that the planet’s reckless stay-at-home experiment made any difference
This is a scandal so overwhelming that there is only one good place to start: the evidence as it stands. In accordance with pro-lockdown theory, if stay at home orders worked, you might have expected to see daily deaths spike 3-4 weeks after such measures were implemented. (Studies estimate Covid has a symptom-free incubation period of rougly five days, and fatalities typically die 2-3 weeks after showing symptoms.) But, in Britain, infections may have peaked a week before lockdown, according to Prof Carl Heneghan of Oxford University, with daily deaths in hospitals plateauing a fortnight after it was introduced. We are not an anomaly: peak dates across Europe also seem to confound the official theory.
Don’t just take my word for it. A University of the East Anglia study posits that Europe’s “stay-at-home policies” were not effective. A JP Morgan investigation suggests the virus “likely has its own dynamics” which are “unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures”. But such insights have failed to induce even the vaguest quiver of serious mainstream debate.
Nobel prize-winning bio-physicist Michael Levitt has fared little better, despite his valiant one-man effort to expose the inconvenient truth about Covid numbers. He has claimed, sensationally, that the modelling that justified lockdown made the fatally incorrect assumption that Covid-19’s spread is continuously exponential.
Dr. Dan Erickson -Lockdown is absurd!
One of the best interviews I have seen. Simply using the numbers to argue against the lockdown. Below the original recording from March 2020.
Prof. Dr Dolores Cahill – I was astounded!
a world-wide renowned expert in high-throughput proteomics technology development and automation, high content protein arrays and their biomedical applications, including in biomarker discovery and diagnostics. Prof. Cahill pioneered this research area at the Max-Planck-Institute of Molecular Genetics in Berlin, Germany, and holds several international patents in this field with research, biomedicine and diagnostic applications.
Lockdown / Social distancing not necessary (15 seconds)
Professor Alexander Kekulé – Politicians need science education
Virologist and epidemiologist. Director of the Institute for Biosecurity Research (IBS) and Director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at Martin Luther University in Halle, Germany.
“AK: The real issue is that we cannot predict how long the lockdown is needed. It only makes sense for two or three weeks to see if it has an effect on stopping the exponential growth of infection rates.
AK: All EU countries definitely need more courageous politicians, and those politicians need a better science education. To be frank: I was shocked by how health authorities played down the severity of this situation for too long, and I do not exclude Germany here. The EU Commission itself needs a pandemic appointee and an advisory group of scientific experts. During a crisis the best arguments count: with a couple of reasonable binding principles like early country-wide testing, and stopping travel from outbreak zones, Europe would have been safer. It’s never too late to do this — nor to ban the arguments of the nationalists against a stronger EU.
Coronavirus – Interview with Professor Alexander Kekulé
Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi – open letter to Angela Merkel
German spoken; youtube version censored by Google
The Biderman Report of 1956 and Covid-19
In 1956, there was a study of the impacts of trauma-based mind control on Korean War prisoners detained by communists in North Korea and China. It was call the Biderman Report. Another document followed in 1961. What follows are observations from those documents.
The fear of being controlled by others, with the consequent loss of the autonomy, is believed to be fundamental to the conception of the self and the will.
Communist Coercive methods for eliciting individual compliance
Biderman’s Chart of Coercion
A tool designed to demonstrate and explain the coercive methods of stress manipulation used to torture prisoners of war. It has been applied to explain the coercive techniques used by perpetrators of domestic abuse.
This list directly reflects the original chart, it has not been changed to fit the domestic abuse context. Biderman Report
… And Last But Not Least A Little Bit Of History.
It is as though mankind had divided itself between those who believe in human omnipotence (who think that everything is possible if one knows how to organize masses for it) and those for whom powerlessness has become the major experience of their lives.”
– Hannah Arendt (1950)
1919 – Dr Milton Rosenau, attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease
But most revealing of all were the various heroic attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease, using volunteers. All these attempts, made in November and December 1918 and in February and March 1919, failed. One medical team in Boston, working for the United States Public Health Service, tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five.
Their efforts were impressive and make entertaining reading:
“We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way. The patient with fever, in bed, had a large, shallow, tray-like arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solutions, using perhaps 5 c.c., which is allowed to run into the tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous surface of the throat… Each one of the volunteers… received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described. They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick.
”In a further experiment with new volunteers and donors, the salt solution was eliminated, and with cotton swabs, the material was transferred directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using donors in the first, second, or third day of the disease. “None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way… All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three ‘shots’ as they expressed it.”
In a further experiment 20 c.c. of blood from each of five sick donors were mixed and injected into each volunteer. “None of them took sick in any way.”
“Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way.”
Then a further attempt was made to transfer the disease “in the natural way,” using fresh volunteers and donors: “The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patients. They shook hands, and by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes. At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this
expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out… After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five different times… [Then] he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old… None of them took sick in any way.”
“We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps,” concluded Dr. Milton Rosenau, “if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”
the above text is from the book The INVISIBLE RAINBOW by Arthur Firstenberg
ISBN 978-1-64502-009-7 (paperback) | 978-1-64502-010-3 (ebook)
Although George Orwell 1984 fits as well this is also very remarkable
Booktitle “End of Days” Published in 2008 Author Sylvia Browne, Lindsay Harrison
Chapter 7, Page 10
In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and the bronchial tubes and resisting all known treatments. Almost more baffling than the illness itself will be the fact that it will suddenly vanish as quickly as it arrived, attack again ten years later, and then disappear completely.
Book title “The Eyes of Darkness” Published in 1981 Author Dean Koontz
Chapter 39, Page 3
‘To understand that,’ Dombey said, ‘you have to go back twenty months. It was around then that a Chinese scientist named Li Chen defected to the United States, carrying a diskette record of China’s most important and dangerous new biological weapon in a decade. They call the stuff “Wuhan-400” because it was developed at their RDNA labs outside of the city of Wuhan, and it was the four-hundredth viable strain of man-made microorganisms created at that research center.
Dishonest efforts will not bring real success.
Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The saying is recorded from the early 19th century, but a related idea with an ironic twist is found in John Harington’s Epigrams of the early 17th century
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. – Joseph Goebbels Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator.
Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. Hermann Wilhelm Göring
Nuremberg Diary Paperback – August 22, 1995