TRIGGERnometry - "There's No Justification for Another Lockdown" - Ivor Cummins

Episode Date: October 21, 2020

Biochemical engineer and corporate complex problem solver Ivor Cummins (thefatemperor.com) joins us. Support TRIGGERnometry: Paypal: https://bit.ly/2Tnz8yq https://www.subscribestar.com/triggernometry https://www.patreon.com/triggerpod Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:  https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod About TRIGGERnometry:  Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals, when you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at Redfin.com. Own the dream.

Hello and welcome to you. Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kisson. And this is a show for you, if you want, honest conversations with fascinating people. Our brilliant guest today and very timely, I dare say, is a biochemical engineer and a corporate complex problem solver. Iva Cummings, welcome to Trigonometry. Great to be here, guys. It's great to have you. Thank you so much for coming on the show. If people don't know who you are, just give them a little brief overview of who are you, how are you where you are, how do you find yourself sitting here talking to us? Yeah, okay, well, brief version. I'm biochemical engineer originally. I'm around 30 years in

corporate kind of high volume manufacturer medical device and electrofluidics, all kinds of stuff. But my primary role has been as a complex problem solving leader, large teams across the world. And I've also been a technical manager with teams directly reporting to me. But again, nearly always involved in problem solving, multi-factor complex. stuff. So it's just been my whole life. And around eight years ago, I had some blood test issues. So I began to research chronic disease. And I discovered a lot that we have not been told. So I got into that whole field. And then more recently in March, the corona thing kind of happened. And by April, it was quite clear that they weren't removing the lockdowns appropriately after we'd

flatten the curve. And I began to focus more and more in the virology, the epidemiology, you know, all aspects of the science and indeed the lockdown so-called science. And I've been on that now for many, many months, getting a lot of material out there just to show people the data, the science, the logic, the rational approach, the balanced approach, and counter the unusual hysteria that's actually occurred. And for anyone who's watching who doesn't know who you are, I should say you're not one of these 5G David Ike people by an stretch of that imagination at all.

But there's a lot of misinformation flying about, but you've obviously been interviewed on a bunch of mainstream shows and all that sort of thing. So take us right back to the beginning either, because you mentioned the initial lockdown. You mentioned flattening the curve. Was that the right decision then? Yeah, well, you can never make the perfect decision. But I understood it then and supported it because as we came into late March, there was a lot of concern. There was enormous amount of fear. The fear engine had already got a big.

head of steam. So I said, well, okay, there's a lot of fear. So why not do a short couple of weeks kind of lockdown and try and stymie the virus spread and make sure the hospitals don't overload? Because if the hospitals overload, you get excess debts by lack of care. So that's a very lofty goal. So why not do it? Now, I didn't believe it would make any real difference to the lockdown because of the dormancy of viruses and because it was a high-or virus that, had been spreading for months and it was seasonally triggering, I figured, from my knowledge. And also Professor Michael Leavitt, the Nobel Prize winner, who I interviewed months ago and met in London for our new coronavirus movie, interviewed him in 4K.

He had done all the calculations from the China situation in February. And he had seen that the curve of mortality and impact follows a specific shape, kind of independent of lockdowns. and he had verified that for the Italian data. So he was already working out that this was not what they perceived, that the lockdowns would not do much that cause enormous economic damage and that the curve would be followed kind of regardless. So at the time, I thought lockdown's not going to do much at this stage,

but you know what? Why not? And it was really in April then I began to get more and more concerned when there was no desire to take out the lockdowns once the curve had turned. You know, the peak in the UK was, I think it was April 11th, and it was coming down, and the hospitals were beginning to empty out. So we were clearly in a seasonal virus, similar to a very bad flu, and it was coming down following its pattern. So why not begin to take out the lockdowns?

But there was no desire to do that. In Ireland, there was a four-month plan put in at the end of April. A four-month plan. over the summer when our hospitals are emptying out. Kind of weird. So I really dug in then. And either we're talking about lockdown. In London, we're just about to go into a second lockdown.

They're going to do a local lockdown that's going to come in as of Saturday. Why is it that governments are still pursuing this policy if, as you claim, it simply doesn't work? Well, it will do something. But I agree at the moment there's no justification whatsoever. I think there's an engine driving this of fear and ideology. So there's a belief system throughout the advisors and the government that lockdowns are a hammer that can crack the nut. There's five published papers now that have actually analyzed the data for Europe.

Retrospectively, real data, not Neil Ferguson modeling pie in the sky, but that I'm not. actual data and have come to the conclusion that I said. But it appears they're not interested in the science of the data. They've got an ideology that lockdown helps and they've got a fear coming into the winter. Now, all of the science would suggest that this winter will be not massively different than prior ones with or without lockdown because these viruses go through an enormous hump when they're new to a naive, immunonive population. But then you get three key things that I always mention. There's many, but three key things. You get the passing of the most susceptible. So that changes the curve. You get immunity building in the community, you know, T-cell mucosal and everything.

And you have seasonal change coming into the summer and out of the winter. So those three things kind of acted on the curve and brought it down. As we come into the wind, winter, we're going to see more respiratory challenges. And because we're testing in a hyper fashion with PCR tests, we're going to see SARS-CoV-2 virus more often in the winter. We know that from prior research and coronaviruses. So we're going to see things happen. But the question is, are we in immediate threat of a rapid hockey stick rise like back in March? And the fact is, look at the data for England. There's a steady rise and in fact it's mostly in northern England that probably didn't get hit as much in the first wave. It's completely controlled. We know from Spain who's way

ahead of UK, they've been flattening now for around five or six weeks, you know, at around two deaths per million people per day with the virus, not necessarily driven directly from it. And France has several weeks of flattening. So we can see what happens. in our neighbours, a flattening. And the UK, if people want to think of it, in a real epidemic like back in March, you have a near vertical increase in impacts like we saw. What we have now is a nearly horizontal, steady increase.

There's simply no justification for lockdown-type behaviour that's more appropriate to a new virus coming into society with everyone exposed and a massive rise before a fall. it just doesn't make sense now scientifically. Iva, but hold on. You're talking about science. If I put myself in the shoes of an ordinary person, I mean, the polling shows that you talk about fear.

It seems to be working. 40% of the public in this country think that we're not locking down hard enough. There's widespread support for many of the measures that we're seeing. We're told that over 50,000 people have now died with the coronavirus. And with the width of thing, which you mentioned is obviously there for debate. but a lot of people have died. We do seem to have excess deaths this year, right? Isn't this, you know, a real health emergency?

Surely something must be done. Well, what you described there, Constantine, exactly. It was a major issue. The 50,000 were March, April, May. That's a reality. No one can deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a potent virus, especially for aged or, you know, immunocompromise. certainly. But we're kind of talking about now where the UK is around one death per million people per day.

It's nothing like the actual epidemic. So, you know, we either talk about the epidemic or we talk about now. So UK had got a very soft 2019 season in terms of excess mortality. And we see this in Sweden also and in Ireland figures. therefore 2020 was going to have inevitably an increase, especially with SARS-CoV-2. And that's what we saw, and it was tragic. To give an example, though, for Ireland, because I have more accurate figures, in Ireland, we had around 1,600 put down as deceased from SARS-CoV-2 back in March April. That was our epidemic. 95% of those people who died were never given an intensive care.

unit to save them. You might go, but wow, that's terrible. Well, no, it was an ethical decision because the reality was that 95% were so aged or ill with other problems independent of COVID that it wasn't appropriate to try and save them anyway. So not to take from any deaths, but we have to have a perspective here. If 95% were that type of person, we have to have a sense of perspective. And Iva, what do you say to those people go, look, hang on a second. This is a new virus. We don't know what the long-term implications for the human body are. It's never been exposed to this type of virus. There's lots of people who've lost a sense of taste, a lot, a sense of smell for many, many months. There's a case about the divers that they went diving and their lung capacity was

reduced dramatically as a result. Yeah. So the long-term effects are not unique to SARS-CoV-2. So influenza's can leave very long-term effects as well. And SARS-CoV-2 does attack the vasculature or the vessels in the lungs. So there will be long-term effects. Mostly they will resolve. And they'll be a very small percentage of people who will have significant ones. But no one denies them. However, let's stick to the science.

There's 40,000 publications now on SARS-CoV-2 since February March. there's a mountain of science published there isn't one credible publication showing an extraordinary exceptional effect that you just described so in nine months plenty of time and everything's been researched and published on i mean you wouldn't believe some of the papers and the weird stuff that they're looking into but there's nothing really on that and i think that's quite telling you know that yes there are long-term effects with influenza with shingles with many viruses, but no one ever before focused on them too closely. Whereas now in this environment, every shred of negative impact is being exalted. That's my perception. So I'm waiting for some

published science on those effects and to compare it with the published science on influenza long-term effects and make that compare. And either the one thing that you pointed out, which I found very, very interesting is one of the effects of lockdown that people don't seem to be discussing is the fact that we're not intermingling with one another. We're not socialising in groups. Our immune system isn't being challenged. If anything, we're becoming weaker and more robust because we're effectively isolating ourselves. Less robust. Yeah, that's right. Less robust. And as a result of that, when the winter comes along, more people are going to get very sick because our immune systems aren't as strong?

Yeah, well, in principle, that would apply from the science, but quantifying it is very hard to say. So I suspect that for all what was done all summer, that people still went to the stores, they still did mix. So it may not be a very big effect. But I did say in one of my videos, however, that in the summer, the most astonishing thing, almost in history for May happened.

So right in the middle of the summer, when the hospitals were empty, when the issue was down on the floor, as we predicted in March, April, you know, seasonal virus, they brought in mandatory masks. So you've got to actually stop for a moment and think about that. How on earth could you ever make a logic for bringing in mandatory masks at the nadir in the summer? I mean, maybe in October you might think about it. Maybe.

Whatever about the effectiveness of masks. But it was brought in around June, July. So I made the point that there's no exit strategy for that. So essentially, de facto, a decision was made in the UK and Ireland and across Europe to bring in face masks for the citizenry in perpetuity. Because there's no exit strategy if you take them in at the Navy. and make them mandatory, how would you ever take them out? So that's one point. But the other point I made was to your point, that suppressing a safe spread of a virus in the summer is going against all of evolution. We knew there were no impacts in the population. So if anything, you'd want to have

safe spread in the summer and some degree of immunity gained in the population, which will actually protect grandma and grandpa in the coming winter by getting more immunity in the safe summer. So if anything, the strategy should have been to remove all restrictions all summer. And just to illustrate that, we had the situation, I think, Dorset and what's your other famous Cornwall, around 2 million people in the UK, because they couldn't really travel so easily, piled into Cornwall. I think the population more than doubled. And he couldn't get a table booking anywhere.

I checked the veracity of this. And for three and a half months, Cornwall was overpacked. And a lot of that was before the masks. And guess what? In all that time of three and a half months, there was no ICU action at all. And there were zero debts.

Wow. So it just illustrates the point that it was exactly, as we said in April, it's a seasonal virus and the summer is going to be a long nothing burger. And that's the time to allow evolution to work and then worry again when you come into next winter what kind of things you want to do. You talk about what kind of things you want to do and you mentioned mast. Very quickly, I want to ask you a couple of questions. But the first one, what is the science on mass do they work to stop this spread of this disease? Okay, there's no, there's never a definitive answer in science. There's never any absolute proof, really. There's just evidence. So I just say that there's 40 years of science that's been pretty much unanimous that masks don't really assist Werthe Dam with influenza type viral transmission. Many, many, many papers and there's many, many studies. Just so the listener understands, that all changed in May June,

2020. And there were a flurry of low evidence strength papers came out, associational studies, suddenly saying that masks could be good. So I'll hold judgment on it. But my attitude is, because I'm the person of science, I would tend to go with four decades of published science rather than four weeks of hurried, low-grade evidence papers. that's just the way I roll. Sounds very conspiratorial to me. No, but there's no conspiracy. It's just that the science, the saying masks are useful, is brand new.

And like anything brand new, you've got to be careful to take it with the preponderance of the evidence in a balanced and proportionate scientific thinking manner. So there's no real conspiracy. It's just we got to be balanced. I was being sarcastic either. But don't worry about it. Those are the normal reaction to his jokes. We're both comedians, but neither of us has been on stage for about eight months. So the jokes are landing very, very flat at the moment. Mate, don't bring me into this.

That was your joke. Yeah, you're responsible for it. It's your fault. Anyway, have you ever done hypnotherapy, life coaching or counselling? We haven't, which is a really good reason you should. One of our supporters is a hypnotherapist and life coach. His name is Brian Basham. And he can help you overcome obstacles in your.

life and achieve your life goals. Brian doesn't just rely on his skills and qualifications to work with people. He's also been there and done it himself. And that means you can trust him to be empathetic and understanding of exactly where you're coming from. Brian is based in rural Australia. However, thanks to the wonders of modern technology, you can get his assistance wherever you are in the world. Even the north. The great thing is, Brian is offering trigonometry fans 50% of their first session. When you contact him, simply let him know that you're coming from us. All you have to do is go to bryambasham.com.com.com.com. All you have to do is go to Brianbasham. But let's talk about, I mean, one of the things you talked about was essentially that the

governments of our different European countries are essentially mostly pursuing ideological policies as opposed to science-based policies while telling us they're following the science, which is a bit of an absurdity in and of itself because there's clearly no consensus on this issue among scientists. But as two comedians, we obviously are not in a position to judge the medical data or the scientific data. Although we do. Although we do, obviously. But it doesn't seem to make any logical sense. So let me just talked through where we were coming out of from. First lockdown, we don't know what's going on. It's a new disease. The government is saying we need to lock down. Well, maybe that's what we need to do. Maybe an overreaction is the right reaction. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now, you know, in London,

for example, the, about to introduce as we record this tier two lockdown, last week there was like one or two or three deaths. Literally, you could count the number of deaths from COVID on one hand. and yet we're locking down. Increasingly, it feels like to a lot of people, none of this makes sense anymore. It used to make sense. Now it doesn't make sense. So why, surely it's not some plucky YouTubers like us

who are right about this and all the governments of Europe, surely they're getting us right and we're just three idiots. Well, yeah, except that's not the case, honestly. With that said, We have Professor Michael Leavitt Nobel Prize winner. We have Professor Carl Henigan in the UK, Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine. We have Professor John Lee. We have Professor Sinatra Gupta from Oxford, you know, who's mathematical epidemiologist.

We have Professor Carl Sikora. We have Professor Bida Stadler, who I went to Switzerland a few weeks ago and interviewed for our movie, who's the Vaccine Pope of Europe. He's an industry guy and he's the Fauci of Switzerland and he's an emeritus professor of immunology. I could actually go on for a long time with this list, but one thing is common to them all. They're all on our side completely. So it's not the case that it's just YouTubers. We have the Great Barrington Declaration now that's on the web.

It's been signed by around half a million people set up by Professor Gupta from Oxford and two professors from Stanford and Harvard, respectively, medicine, epidemiology, etc. And there's, I think, 35,000 scientists, doctors and specialists have signed it specifically. And they're all pushing for what I would push for. What makes scientific sense, if we can lock down the whole country with 60 million people, with some degree of success in viral transmission, of course we can much easier protect the at risk and we know exactly who they are exactly. We could put them up in five-star hotels, you know, with concierge service, with PPA people,

PPE protected people serving them for a hundredth of the cost of what's being done. It's a no-brainer. And that's what the Great Barrington Declaration in essence asks. below 60, if you're reasonably healthy, the risks are vanishingly small. Even in the epidemic, that was kind of the case. But now, with the horizontal slow rise, it's 100 times the case. They need to run the economy and get the economy working again. We need to get cancer, diagnoses back.

There's a ton of death that's going to encourage you to that problem. Depression, suicides, economic catastrophe caused. is death and suffering that will utterly eclipse coronavirus problems. Even during the epidemic, never mind now. Look, I spend a lot of time telling you what's wrong with the world, so let me tell you about something that's actually right. Sleep, specifically getting more of it, better quality, the kind where you wake up and feel like a human being,

rather than someone who's been thrown down a staircase. Most mattresses are just layers of synthetic foam and crossed fingers. You're spending a third of your life on the thing, and most people have no idea what's actually in it. Avocado green mattress is different. Their mattresses are certified organic, built from natural materials, designed to actually support your body properly rather than just hold you in one position until morning.

The craftsmanship is real. These aren't mass-produced objects. Someone has put thought into them. I'll be honest. I'm not the person who thinks carefully about where he sleeps. My dating history will tell you that. I'm the person who's been on the same mattress for eight years and called it, fine. But the older I get, the more I notice that fine isn't actually fine. Your body tells you,

if you're going to invest in anything for your home, your bed is the one that pays you back every single night. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocado green mattress.com slash trigger to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. Avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. When we started this show two and a half years ago, we had one dream. And that dream is now fulfilled.

Finally, after all that hard work, we're advertising B-Days. And it's not just any B-Days, it's Scoosh B-Days. And not just Scoosh B-Days, these are B-Dates. which means that if you don't have the space in your toilet for a beading, maybe because you're an ordnourner, you can get an attachment and it's dirt cheap, no pun intended, and it's far more hygienic for you to clean yourself with. It's dead easy to install, it's environmentally friendly,

and finally, this is what running out of paper. It's a perfect solution. Absolutely. So if you want be hygienic and save the planet as well, alternative to toilet paper, go to scoosh. Shop. That's scoosh.shop for all your B-Day needs. Scoosh B-Day are offering all trigonometry fans a 10% discount. Just head over to their website and enter our code, which is T-P-O-D-1 to get your amazing discount. That's T-P-O-D-1 to get 10% off a B-D-A.

I'm so glad we finally achieved our dreams. And Iver, this is, I think, is a point. that we talk about a lot. It's a point that has meant that I've lost friends. It's a point that gets people very angry because a moment you mention it, you become a right-wing Nazi, etc., etc. But people don't seem to understand what happens when there is an economic crash, not only to physical health, but also to mental health. It's an absolute disaster. There are plenty of studies on this, and people argue that they're associational data. But yes, increased mortality and all kinds of of bad things come from economic challenges.

And this economic challenge is enormous. And because we have five papers now and more, actually, analyses showing that lockdown has a very limited benefit, it's all cost. The cost is enormous compared to the supposed benefit. So it's an own goal of spectacular proportions. And now they want to go and kick the ball into their own net again and again. It's fascinating to watch. It's frightening to watch.

It's scary. I have five children. I'm focused on the next generation. You know, I'm going to die. We're all going to die. I mean, the average age in Ireland was 82 of the deceased, sadly, and 84 was the median. The latest figure is brought out for coronavirus. The WHO last night quietly put Professor John Iia Anadises,

analysis on their website, very quietly. But his infection fatality rate, which the WHO and everyone at the start, when everyone went crazy was thinking was at 3%, 4%, is actually 0.2% and 0.05% if you're below 70 years old. So the data is all there now. But everyone is acting like nothing was learned in the last six months. It's like a vacuum. It's like we're back in March now facing into a genuine epidemic. It's like we learn nothing.

It's like they're, I don't know, like mice in a wheel, they're just trapped in some kind of hamster wheel. Okay, Ivor. So if that being the case, why are we still, and it's not just the UK, it's lots of other countries, why are we still pressing ahead with something that will guarantee our own economic destruction? that's a big one. So I roughly look at it that there's two primary mechanisms of driving this.

One of them is local in country. So the government's got enormous fear back in March and they inflicted enormous fear on the population. You could argue it was justified because it was their strategy to get the population fearful, to use the media, social media, get people challenging other people amongst the community. and shaming them, that's actually published. And that was to make sure they follow the guidelines. So you could say, okay, I don't think it's very honest or ethical, but, but okay, we let it go. They did too good a job.

And they're still doing too good a job. So the fear created in the population now has gone into a rationality or arguably psychosis, given the actual data. And that psychosis is being projected back on the governments that are now demanding the governments do more, as you mentioned. So they've created this. In engineering, there's a lot of self-reinforcing loops that can occur. They're catastrophic. In this case, it certainly is. They've created a self-reinforcing loop that's catastrophic.

But that's an in-country thing. And you could also add to that a little extra nuance. The politicians who are realizing now the magnitude and the mistake, if they don't lock down coming into the winter, and the winter turns out to be as I would expect, people are going to ask a lot of questions. They're going to say, but hold on, we didn't really lock down going into the winter. And it was kind of like a similar excess mortality to previous years.

And that means this is really a seasonal flu-like illness. We thought it was some kind of crazy thing. So they're actually incentivized now to lockdown so they can credit a normal winter. They can credit the lockdowns that they're doing. Do you see the deceit? So there may be a big enough factor there in the people in politics. who are more knowing about this, they'll know they need a kind of placebo lockdown to cover the story. So that's not conspiratorial. That's just politics. And I'm a long time in corporate

politics. So that's why I recognize these things so easily. But then that's the in-country. And that's a huge engine that's driving this. But we've got to keep in mind, too, that there are international engines too. Like the WHO has been very clear in driving all of these strategies. from March, lockdowns. Their own guidelines up to November 2019 said for pandemics, no isolation, no lockdowns. I have the published paper November 2019. In February, March, they decided, let's copy China.

I don't know what their reasoning was, but they decided that. But they have kept pressure on, and that's international, true to every advisory body in every country, is coming down to do this kind of stuff. The World Economic Forum has been very public, very powerful international organization. I think your own Matt Hancock was, you know, enthusing about them back in 2018 and the fourth industrial revolution and their great reset. They've been very public. This is an enormous opportunity, apparently, this COVID crisis, to get their strategies implemented for tracking, tracing, control and stuff.

And they're public. So it's not a conspiracy when they tell you. So I could go on, but let's just say there is that second engine from the start of international organizations of great influence. That's probably causing a lot of the similarity between countries, as well as a Me Too kind of thing going on between countries. Sweden is the exception. So Sweden has proved what I'm saying, and they've done it elegantly. Firstly, they followed the traditional science on pandemics up to November 19. They actually followed it perfectly, and it worked.

The second thing is they never brought in masks for the same reason I said, not a conspiracy. They looked at the science and they said there's potential downsides and there's no strong evidence supporting it. Therefore, we are going to stay scientific thinkers. We're not doing it. So they followed the science of 40 years and they had a lower mortality per million than UK and effectively the same as Ireland if you account for care home and age profiles and their soft 2019 flu season. That's what caused their big hit compared to the Nordics. So we have all the data now and Sweden now are four to six weeks back pretty close to all normal and I have the photos.

people on buses pretty packed no masks shopping the distancing has fallen away for a month or two now because there's no driver for it and their debt rates and ICU rates are on the floor for months as you were talking that frances started staring longingly into the distance maybe remembering one of those great moments being packed onto a bus and packed onto the northern line with my head trapped under some sweaty business and businessman's armpit and you know what i actually felt nostalgia for that memory. I think I'm going insane after being locked down here for so long. But, so we've seen this is the Swedish model works. We've seen that actually that is a way to deal with it. When are we going to get out of this either? Because I'm going to be honest with you, I was looking at the situation. And to myself, I think there's only, there's three options. We either adopt the Swedish model, number one. Number two, we have a vaccine. And, And from what, I'm not epidemiologists, I'm not a virologist.

The large truly great pandemic was the HIV-AIDS virus. They isolated the HIV virus. I think it was an 83 or 84. They've never managed to find a vaccine to combat that. They've never had a vaccine against a coronavirus. So there's a vaccine option, which is looking tenuous at best. Or number three, we just carry on with this. Till what?

The economy doesn't exist anymore. Yeah, that's why I've been despairing for months, particularly since the mandated masks, which made zero scientific sense regardless of their efficacy, as I said. I'll have to say that again because that was a dark day for me, because I realized then they've gone nuts. And it's just getting worse now. It's almost like they held on to the winter to just get back some mortality in ICU action so they could do this again. It's just like bizarre. But yet, there's no exit strategy because the vaccine, you know, there's loads of really great vaccines. And then the influenza vaccine, you know, it's 20, 30 percent effectiveness.

And there's some studies that show it doesn't really leave a mark on elderly mortality anyway. So coronavirus vaccine, they've never been able to do one for 30 years. Now they may do it. It's probably easier than AIDS or HIV because HIV is a shapeshifter, shifter virus. that interacts with the immune system and changes its profile, whereas to be honest, this coronavirus is more kind of a classic coronavirus, just a high impact one. But the problem is, if they get a vaccine and it's like the flu vaccine, which would be an amazingly good result, because it takes six years to safely develop a vaccine, and they've like had eight or nine months.

But if they achieved the safety and efficacy of flu vaccine, let's say it's 30% effective. It's not going to move any needle. And there's publications coming out now, even from some of the vaccine companies, that it probably won't affect transmissibility and transmission. It'll just minimize the actual impacts in the elderly or whoever. So again, it's just not going to move the needle a huge amount. And it could be out next summer. So your question is very valid. Like, what are we doing now? It's not like waiting for a magic vaccine because in industry, if you did project,

management and tried to say to the management team, oh, we're doing this to get to that, you'd be eviscerated. They'd say, look, that's great if you get that later, but that's not going to make a huge difference. So what do we do now? And what we do now is the Swedish model. I mean, there's just, there's no question about it unless the ICU's and hospitalizations and mortality actually start going up to genuine epidemic levels, in which case you might need to do emergency measures. Short of that, it just makes no sense. And like, it does no way out. Well, did we do this every winter now? It makes no sense is a phrase that the two of us have been uttering for months now, because it doesn't make any sense. And the worry for us as well is,

if we're prepared to do things now that, as you talk about mass, for example, they don't have any scientific basis until very recently and not very strong evidence on that. So how do we know that it's time to end this because you could argue, for example, look, we've got everyone wearing masks, right? Everyone is social distance. Everyone is using hand sanitizer. Everyone's keeping to their bubbles. Well, that's a great way to stop people dying of other diseases, isn't it? So why don't we just carry on like this for the rest of our lives? Because you don't want granny to die of the flu. You don't want granny to die of this or that. Or what if there's another thing? Why don't we just preventatively continue wearing masks?

continue social distancing, continue not shaking hands, continue with all of this, right? And every now and again, why don't we just have a preventative lockdown once a year just to make sure? Like, where does this end? Yeah, there is no end. There is no logic, as we've discussed. It just makes no sense. We're back to that phrase again. It makes no sense. So we've changed our whole history of humankind, our culture, our traditions, our freedoms. We've completely turned on its head everything we wear to become a people terrified of viruses that were always there and always causing trouble every winter. We've done all that in this past six months. And now where we are makes no sense.

I'm not often speechless, but I just, I've been pinching myself every day for six months or more now. every day for a moment it flashes through my head this is not real and then i realize it is real that's how disbelieving i am as a 30 year technical master and problem solving master in many different fields i cannot believe it anymore i don't know where it's going it's just Sweden is the only possible model and that was clear in march it was clear in march and it's in been borne out by the data with absolute clarity. And either how much of this is political caradus in that, you know, governments don't want to be seen to adopt the Sweden model

because if there is a slight spike, they're going to be labeled as murderers, especially to the conservative government, uncaring, unfeeling, yada, yada, yada. Yeah, that's part of like the first engine I described earlier. That's definitely, you know, we got a devil's brew in there between the governments, the politicians, the advisors, the conflicted parties, you know, in academia and science, and the people, the citizenry, that whole self-reinforcing kind of negative loop, destructive loop, that's running now. You need a leader. You need a Churchill or something to come in and actually smash that loop and stand in front of a microphone and say some of the stuff

we're saying and say, guys, I'm calling it. Refer to the Sweden data. show a couple of graphs say guys we got it wrong but what modern politicians going to do that the answer is none of them none of them are statesmen are stateswomen or stateswomen anymore well not none but let's be honest we don't have the people of the caliber of the 40s and 50s we're not within a million miles of it and i mean i saw you know he could say it's a bit harsh but i saw this cartoon meme and it showed the young soldiers american jumping off at maybe uterus beach or one of the beaches, and they're all jumping out with rifles. And it says, 1944, Americans jumping to sudden or to almost certain death. And then it shows a guy cowering under

a desk with a mask on. And it says Americans, you know, 2020 terrified of a virus with a 99.9% survival rate. And that contrast in those two pictures brings it home to how far we've fallen. I mean, when you actually think of it in those terms, we've given away everything we stand for based on one virus that has a 99.9% survival rate. And to be honest, it's a thousand times more dangerous to the over 70s who are ill than to, you know, middle-aged or young people. This was raised by British professors. Like, you just keep asking, what have we done? I mean, it's like, father, what have I done? It's biblical, I think. One of the things as well, I mean, you talk about politics, Francis, is that we in this country, I don't know whether it's also the

case in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, but we have an opposition that is even more keen on these measures than the government. And so what that means is people like us, and look, let's be honest, statistically speaking, those of us who are skeptical about the measures the government is implementing now. We're in the minority, according to the polls. If you believe the polls, we are in the minority. But nonetheless, there is no receptacle for that dissatisfaction. We don't have an election until 2024. I imagine if we're still wearing masks, then it might be a bit more of an issue than it is now. But really, right now, there is no one who is going to, not only you talk about the caliber of politicians, and that's something we've discussed on

the show for many months as well, there's nobody of that caliber. But in addition to the that everybody in politics seems to agree on this issue with one or two exceptions. And therefore, there's absolutely no representative group that would actually talk about this stuff in the way the three of us are doing now. Yeah, and that's unfortunately not to be fatalistic, but that's the tragedy here. And we know from the start, I mean, the CEO of YouTube said anyone who goes against WHO guidance, which we now know was catastrophically wrong. that's just the reality and they're changing a little,

anyone gets taken down. Professor Knututkowski, Professor Wolderdard, you know, a whole load of people who are saying what I'm saying now, but they were saying it in March. They knew it in advance. They were taken down off YouTube. And ever since then, you're not even allowed to have the discussion. Did you notice that?

The discussion in Ireland is never allowed on the mass media. it's literally not allowed. So what kind of democracy have we got now that you can't even discuss the biggest issue of the day? You're not allowed to discuss it. I mean, then that's not, democracy is gone. You know, it's not like the 10% who actually understand this, who want to change things for the better, for the future of society. It's not like you have to give them the conch all the time or give them the authority to decide. But they should be allowed on the radio.

television to discuss it. I mean, last night, I'll give you an example. This is how bad it is in Ireland, right? I don't know which is worse now, England or Ireland, but this is how bad it is in Ireland. We had a professor last night who's been scaremongering for eight months. And as far as I'm concerned, he's unhinged. I mean, or something's wrong with him in his brain. So last night he came out and he was asked, well, if we don't lock down and do all this stuff, what would the impact be? Is it being exaggerated? And he said, well, if we don't, it'll be refrigerator trucks, mass graves, and maybe up to 30,000 people die in Ireland. Now, we had a total of less than 1,000 die in the actual epidemic.

And he said 30,000. You know where that comes from? He's still quoting from Ferguson's ridiculous model that's been debunked totally. 30,000 people. So I simply drew Ireland's epidemic. I had to scale it down in a graph right down to allow room for his absurdity. And I showed what he was saying. It's absurd.

We know from Spain and France that we're getting nothing like the original wave and it's leveled out there. And he's saying we're going to get something 20 times bigger than the original actual epidemic. And that's on prime time television and no one countered them. Like, oh, it's just, this is surreal. It's surreal for a technical person to even see this. It's insane. I mean, I don't know. I don't know, guys.

And I mean, going to the virus itself, there's, at first we were told all this, you know, inatry evolved from, you know, a combination of a bat and a pangolin. and then it seems that it might have actually been come from a lab, from the Wuhan lab. What do we know about the actual chemical makeup of this virus? Is it artificially created or is it naturally evolving? Yeah. I mean, I read a couple of papers back then and there was a French professor who insisted because of the sequences that were in there wouldn't have happened naturally.

And I quickly moved away from it because I made a decision. It's like 5G and stuff. I'm not even going there. I'm not even going to look up any science there. I'm just not going near it. So I just decided whether or not it was a gain of function. So we have the technology for decades to do something like that, which you assume that no one would ever do it.

But if it was, say, made in Wuhan and that stuff, and it was mistakenly let out, it doesn't really change the reality now. So for me, the reality is what we've been talking about. What is the impact and is a. our response scientific and proportional. That's the game I'm in, only based on published data, government sources, verifiable data. That's where I'm staying. So I could speculate about whether it was made or whether it was a freak in nature. But to be honest, it doesn't really matter what it was. It's the destruction of a society. That's the problem now. And technically, it doesn't matter where

it came from. You talk about the destruction of a society, and we touched on it briefly. We've had Dr. Carol Sikora on the show, and he talked about some of the stuff that you talk about vis-a-vis cancer. But there's a bigger issue at stake. When we talk about the impact of focusing all our resources seemingly on this one virus, and when I say that just for people listening, I have many friends who are doctors, these are people who save lives on a daily basis, who were off work. They were forced not to work for many months in their primary role, doing surgeries, doing brain surgeries, all that sort of thing.

And instead, everybody was thrown into dealing with COVID. As a result of which there's a backlog of operations, there's a backlog of cancer. And Francis mentioned mental health. You mentioned the economic impact of poverty, all of this other stuff. Is there any estimate scientifically at what some of the impacts might be if we carry on like this? Yeah. There's a publication. from it's a UK big university, I'm pretty sure.

They were putting down that long term the death impacts could be like 200K. But that paper was kind of claiming they saved 350K, you know, from Ferguson's modeling. Now we know that's not true. 44,000 excess deaths in England with SARS-CoV-2. It might have been a bit higher without lockdowns, you know, but those savings were a losing. They were never real. So that's the 200K figure. But again, I'm not sure that they do it in qualities or quality adjusted life years.

But remember that a lot of these deaths are going to be people in their 50s and 60s and middle age people. So there's vastly more life lost for each person who's affected, as we described. So you're saving a couple of years of granny. And in the process, you're killing off a father of three, a mother of two, someone in their 20s who kills themselves because of depression. etc, et cetera, et cetera. You're trading people who are, look, obviously any death is a tragedy, someone in their 80s deserved to live as long as they possibly could. But the point is we're in the situations where they're trade-offs.

And what we've chosen to do is we're trading an extra year or two or three for someone who may be very ill already versus someone in the prime of their life. Yeah, and I'd say an extra year or two or three, Professor Levitt has done estimates of this. And I'd say that's hugely generous. And again, I bring you back to Ireland as a typical case. We have the data. 95% of them were so moribund or heading towards death already

that they didn't give them ICU. 95%. So when you think about that, you're not talking about all the people who died had a few years each. No way. You know, it just don't, it's irrational. So the cost, there's another paper came out that, it's a few million dollars possibly per kind of life year extended, those kinds of numbers.

And in the UK, the niece organization, NICE, they've got a guideline not to spend more than 20,000 sterling per quality adjusted life year saved for medications, because you've got to make tradeoffs, like you say, this has been done for decades. That's how the medical system works. I reckon you're talking, I don't know, somewhere like a million per quality adjusted. life you're saved, which is like, you know, 20K is the guideline. It's 50 times that. But no one seems to care. You know something, guys.

No one's actually done a proper cost benefit of lockdown using the data. And if they did, they get figures like I just mentioned. But no one's actually really done it. Just one or two papers and they're ignored. So they did the biggest intervention. They broke with all of our history of science on pandemic management, did this enormous weird thing that came out of China, no less, and then would not go back and look and see, well, did it work? Like, so we'll know the next time. Would you think they be interested?

The fact they never went back and even explored the data. In fact, they, they, anyone who talks about the data is not allowed on the radio. That gives you your answer. I mean, that gives you your answer. This is encouraging and positive, isn't it? Happy times. Happy times. I mean, it does make you think that this could potentially go on indefinitely. We know that there's a very well precedent with governments that once they have taken away civil liberties and rights, they don't really like to give them back. An example is raising taxes, a classic one.

They never lower them. Do you worry that there's some civil liberties that have been taken away from us? They're not going to be wanting to give back anytime soon. I have no doubt that unless poor should, they won't give anything back, because that's, as you describe. This in the summer, clearly in June, they could have taken down the emergency powers and watched carefully like a proper government and proper scientists for any sign of trouble

where they could reintroduce them. That would be logical and it would respect our freedoms and our democracy and rights. But they didn't do that. And I knew, again, in July when mandatory mass came in a new law to wear masks with no exit strategy, flying in the face of all, every scientific kind of edict or not edict principle, I realized then we're remorselessly caught in some crazy train ride into anti-science. And God knows where it's going to go. But I agree.

Wherever this train is going, unless people push back or like the Great Barrington Declaration, G.B. Declaration.org, you can sign there. Unless the medical people and the scientists, and I know scores of them in Ireland, doctors who are pulling their hair out, agree with me entirely in what I said. But they're afraid for their jobs. If they actually, three doctors have gotten big trouble just for discussing this in Ireland already. two of them lost their jobs. So all the doctors are kind of scared to even say the truth. It's a weird situation, right? Well, I've one of the things that I'm sort of experiencing is we're having this conversation.

And I was very careful, I think, to distance us from genuine conspiracy people, David Dykes, etc. But I do feel like I would someone to pass the joint and give me that tinfoil hat right now. Because the way we're talking, we are sort of discussing. in very conspiratorial terms. But as you look around, I mean, if you're objective and logical, that's what you see. And there's another element to all of this stuff that I would add, which is big tech censorship. You alluded to briefly with YouTube. But, you know, when we had Peter Hitchens on, who, you know, he's obviously, you know,

someone who divides opinion in this country, certainly. But you have to say he's one of the people who's been vindicated throughout this whole episode. And when we had him on, YouTube shadow banned that video. it was impossible to find on YouTube without having the direct link. We kicked up a big stink. It was in many, many papers. It was covered all over the place

and they eventually relented. The Great Barrensen Declaration that you talk about, same thing. And on and on and go. So someone somewhere made the decision that basically the arbiter of scientific and medical truth is now Susan Wachicki at YouTube.

She knows best. And none of the rest of us are supposed to be talking about this. What do you make of our ability to do science? and make correct medical, economical and other decisions based on the evidence going forward in that sort of informational environment. Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with ebbglis, a once-monthly treatment

for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four in 10 people taking ebbglis achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks, and most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librikizumab, LBKZ. A 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapes. Ebbglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to Ebbglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Ebbglis. Before starting Ebbglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebbglis.com or call 1800 lilyrx or 1,800 545-979. Yeah, that's, and I've seen many examples.

I wasn't aware of that one. And I thought Hitchens actually might be let go because he wasn't an epidemiologist saying the wrong thing. They kill those guys quick. But either way, the censorship by tech giants. is just so profoundly dangerous to the future of society. I don't think I'm overstating it. I'm under no illusions and things like this. It's a profound concern and should be to everyone.

But of course, because of what they're doing, everyone doesn't even get to hear about it. It's just so dangerous because science fundamentally is based on discord. And you must have arguments and counterpoints open and uncensored in anything scientific or you're going to get group think and you're going to get very very bad scenarios developing you know consensus that's not correct and that can have enormously damaging consequences so science is very important for society look look what we're doing based on science in the last six months so it what can i say it's very frightening now the good sign was that google stopped

kind of suppressing in Europe the Great Barrington Declaration when people complained. Yeah, but I mean, come on, that's not going to make me a lot happier. Why did they do it in the first place? Why did they feel they needed to? That's the other question. A bunch of scientists are getting together saying we should protect the elderly, but back off on the young, healthy. It's not like they were saying, you know, we want to do something insane.

I mean, that's why did they need to censor that? Just to follow up quickly on that, you talk about science thrives on discord. In other words, the whole process of science is someone comes up with a hypothesis, you test it, someone else comes along, goes, no, that's bullshit, here's the way you do it. And that's how society moves forward by sequentially exposing the fallacies in the previous ways of thinking. So what do you make of this phrase that we've all been, we've had rammed down our throats? We're following. the science? Yeah, when someone says that you have to be immediately suspicious now, it's like when the cholesterol industry, I was involved in that stuff for a couple of years, when they say we're following the science on cholesterol-causing heart disease, well, come on, like, if you look at the science, it's vaguely connected as a proxy for other disease dates. But they were saying that for decades. We've published, we're following the science. It was all wrong. So it's similar to that.

I need this one is much more impactful. And when they say following the science, it's just to pacify the Great Unwashed, you know, to give them the impression that this is not just politics. It's all sciencey and stuff. But the Great Unwashed, sadly, are so innumerate and so lacking in scientific capability, it appears, that you kind of got 80 or 90% of them, even if you treat them like idiots. I mean, it's quite sad. I mean, basic logic.

I give you an example, right? Someone close to me who is not sciencey, accountant, doesn't watch any of my metabolism and my scientific videos on, you know, chronic disease and all this stuff. Never watches them. Couldn't be bothered. And that person said to me in April, Ivers, is this kind of bullshit, this thing? And I laugh and I says, why? Have you been watching my videos? because I'd interviewed like Wall Street risk managers who showed how Italy the lockdown did not affect the curve, blah, blah, blah.

And I was surprised that this person was watching. He said, no, no, no, never watched stalls. I said, how do you figure? And he says, well, I kind of realized we're in the middle of the epidemic or even we're coming out of it maybe. He said, I don't know anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who's died. To be honest, I don't really even know anyone who has it or had it. He said, what kind of epidemic is that? And I said, very good.

So you're using logic. You may not be scientific. And then I said, but is that it like? And he said, no, there's another thing. And this is really good. He likes shopping, but a lot of the stores are closed. So he's actually going around to all the generic food stores and supermarkets because there were no electronics open all, you know.

And he said, I noticed that no one got sick in the stores and they're not locked down at all. they're eight to ten hours a day, no masks, all the great unwashed flowing in and out of the store, indoors for a respiratory virus. None of them are getting sick. Certainly none of them died. I even asked some of the older ones, and they don't know anyone who knows anyone. He said they're not locked down at all, pretty much. And nothing happened to them. So how can the lockdown be doing something? And I said, fair play to you. So based on logic alone, he actually worked out the truth. with no science, but that's rare. That's rare.

He's a smart guy. I mean, it just seems that we're, it doesn't seem, we are in absolutely dire straits. And we have a political system that is unwilling to make difficult choices to do the right thing. We're heading towards another lockdown. Do you think we're going to be out of this next year? and we're going to go back to normal life? Or do you think, again, that's wishful thinking?

Yeah, well, I'm a brutal realist. Like I said, I'm a corporate guy for a long time. I think there's hope that with Barrington, and today, for example, in Ireland, someone spent, I don't know, probably 20 grand on a full-page advert in the Irish Times, basically kind of saying a mild version of what I'm saying. And apparently it's a doctor who sold a company

and there's money. But the Irish Times did print it. That's a good sign. We are seeing pushback in the media increasingly along the lines of what I've been describing for people today. Maybe not as strong, you know, baby steps, but it's beginning to happen.

The UK, the telegraph, the spectator, talk radio are fantastic, and Julian and Alison and the guys. We're seeing more coverage of the scientific reality. Now, it's still probably only 10% and 90% is pure hysteria and psychosis. But if that could build, you know, I think we could have some hope. I wish we'd done it a couple of months ago in the summer because now they've actually got some ICU action and hospitalization and a bit of mortality as currency.

You know, but in the summer, no one really pushed enough. But I think, yeah, there's a hope. And I think there's leaders all around the world. And I'm hearing it now and I'm connected to major business leaders who are realizing now that this has gone too far and that the science is basically largely junk on all of this. Largely, not completely largely. And I think they're going to start flexing some muscle. So, you know, we live in hope and die in despair. But I think if people show courage.

So I know scores of doctors who know this and the vast. majority won't speak up. But if people could show courage and leadership, then we'd have a huge surge. So that's what I ask of you, people of science and medicine, logic, mathematicians, all the smart people out there who have worked out what I said today, you know, speak up. Because if you don't speak up, your children will pay for it. And mark my words, they will pay with a less free world and all kinds the negative implications in the future. Because if we become a society that's based on a rationality, we can't even predict the future anymore.

You know, this is such a big, big stakes game. It's enormous. We're going to call this episode of Trigonometry. We live and hope and die in despair. To call you, Iva. But listen, mate, thank you so much for taking the time to speak to us. We appreciate your thoughts. Before we let you go, we always have one final.

question, which is what is the one thing we're not talking about as a society that we really should be? So I'm a root cause expert, root cause guys. So what's the root cause of challenges in the modern world that doesn't get enough coverage? And the one that always occurs to me is the fusion of corporate and state. So corporates and government. I think that corporates, particularly the super big companies, and we talked about censorship. We need to be having the conversation about separating them from the instruments of

state and governments because it's always the last 10 or 20 years we have drifted very badly. And we know now that there's one pharma lobbyist, more than one pharma lobbyist for every member of Congress in Washington now. It's an industry. And the revolving door between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies of the top positions. And I could go on. That's a, That's the big issue, I think, is corporates can make money. I'm a capitalist. I'm a corporate guy. But they should be removed more from government than they've become.

And it's the same with banking and everything. I think that's the big issue, that if we dealt with that issue, and they all made all their money and dodged their tax and all had a good time, fine with that. But we were able to remove them from governments, sovereign governments. I think we'd solve a lot of problems coming down the road that are not even defined yet. Perfect. Iva, thanks so much for coming on. Where can people follow you? You've had a series of super viral videos with graphs, with detailed data, showing a lot of the stuff that we've been talking about in terms of the coronavirus and other things. Where can people follow you? Where

can they watch your stuff? What do you recommend people do? I just say Google Iver Commons and on the front page, well, unless I get some, censored. You get my YouTube and the fatemperor.com and that's my website and I'm on Twitter very active. But YouTube mainly, if you go down my timeline, the titles will give you an idea. I have a ton of videos out there and they're all for free. And a lot of them, the last six months, yes, I've covered all the nuances of what we talked about today. Thank you so much, Iva. And if you have enjoyed, oh, sorry, I've got to do it to the top. So thank you so much, Iva.

And if you have enjoyed the show, what am I talking about? I don't know where I went with this. He's got COVID and we're throwing him into a care home immediately. I talk so much. I think I've almost lulled you into a stupid. It's all right. He's got some kind of brain condition. We're going to throw him into a hospital.

Hopefully I never have to see him again. But in the meantime, if you've enjoyed the show, thank you for watching. Remember to hit subscribe, click like. share this video with others and we will see you very soon with another episode or a live stream all of them go out at 7 p.m. You pay time. See you soon. Don't say anything you can.