How I became a granny killer

A year ago, in January 2020, the city of Wuhan locked down as we all watched on in horror. Around the globe we were glued to our TV screens, watching footage of people falling to the ground. A novel virus, lethal and contagious, was on the loose.

Someone had eaten a bat in a wet market. Something about a pangolin. Humans were now spreading the virus, but we weren’t quite sure how. I was in suspended animation, confused and alarmed in equal measure.

I watched the TV with a furrowed brow, wondering why flights continued to leave a country that had closed off its own cities. A coach full of repatriated UK citizens was on the motorway, heading towards Merseyside. The driver seemed nonchalant. He wasn’t wearing a mask. What if this virus had arrived on our shores?

February 2020, picking up my children from school. ‘Will the virus come here?’ my seven-year-old daughter asked. ‘No,’ I replied, and meant it. ‘To London, maybe. But not to our village. We don’t have underground trains, we have lots of space and fresh air. We’ll be fine, don’t worry.’

On our TV screens, what felt like a slow-motion trainwreck continued to unfold. Now, we witnessed scenes in an Italian ICU. Medical staff were gowned up, as though in a scene from Contagion. Patients gasped for breath, spilling out into hallways. The health system was overwhelmed, there weren’t enough beds. Doctors had to play God and decide who to save.

March arrived and to our collective horror, the virus was now in the UK. It felt like a bizarre dream. We sneezed into our elbows and washed our hands whilst singing ‘Happy Birthday’ in our heads. Kids were packed off to school with hand sanitiser in their bags, if you could get hold of it.

After a weekend of being asked to distance ourselves from each other when outside of our own homes, the unthinkable happened and we were suddenly in lockdown.

Shock, and then adjustment. We were all in this together. Just a few weeks to flatten the curve.

The sun shone and I sowed vegetable seeds with enthusiasm, thinking about how this would all be over by the time I’d harvest them. We had ample stocks of toilet paper, but we had to buy different pasta and you couldn’t get hold of tinned tomatoes.

Booking an ASDA slot was like securing a concert ticket, and we shared tips on where to buy flour and yeast in WhatsApp groups. I worked, I Zoom called, I baked, I refereed the kids’ fights and swallowed down my guilt about their screen time. We discovered long, circular walks we could go on from our own front door, and my car battery slowly went flat.

When we encountered other people out walking, we did the polite dance of crossing the road to avoid inhaling each other’s exhaled air. We had lists of symptoms to look out for. Three coughs and you’re out.

The radio pumped out news and updates. They were developing tests, but the tests were inaccurate. The NHS was short on PPE, and normal people should emphatically not wear masks because masks don’t work (said the WHO and Dr Fauci over in the US).

Deaths, apparently, could be ascribed to COVID-19 even in the absence of tests. Even if the person died of something else, it was important that we didn’t miss a single Corona death. Autopsies were now unnecessary, cremations were fast-tracked. ‘That’s strange,’ I thought, and continued loading the dishwasher.

Deaths, deaths and more deaths blaring out of the radio and the TV. Newsreaders talked about deaths in care homes, and why were they not included in the data? The following week, newsreaders told us these deaths had now been added to the official figures. We became numb to these numbers, but each represented a human soul.

Not wanting to add to these deaths, we stayed in our gardens so as not to burden the NHS. On Thursdays, we clapped for the NHS. It never felt quite right, a bizarre ritual. My daughter had a medical issue, and the GP refused to see her. ‘What are all the GPs doing?’ I wondered.

We had a glimpse of normality in the summer, and life went on – albeit in a strange, curtailed form. Lockdown was lifted, until local restrictions started. The contact tracing app stalked my phone, appearing in the app store and on Facebook ads: ‘Download me to stop your family dying’.

I resurrected an old flip phone and bought a £1 SIM card, ready to pull out if asked about the app. For the first time in my life, suddenly suspicious of surveillance and protective of my privacy, I toggled off the location setting in the apps on my smartphone.

Masks were introduced: They did work, after all. They’re not for you, but for others, and we all wanted to keep each other safe and protect the NHS. After all, we could spread the virus any time, without knowing it. That was the nature of this strange, new virus.

Tests were developed and seemingly, these worked now too. They must have ironed out the kinks. These anomalies were filed away, with a sense of things not being right. It must be due to incompetence. Bloody Tories.

Fast-forward to September, and parents across the land finally exhaled. Children went back to school and parents sat in quiet houses for the first time in months, marvelling at the feeling of being able to think again. The dreamlike quality receded, a strange spell broken, and for the first time I started articulating the questions that had plagued me throughout the spring and summer.

It seemed that others were finally asking questions too.

I followed a couple of Facebook pages which talked about the Coronavirus crisis being a scam, and about freedom. These pages showed Facebook Live footage of huge freedom marches in London, police charging at people in riot gear. It felt like an electric shock to my brain, and I couldn’t quite process what I was seeing. Yet when I turned on the news, it was as if none of this had happened.

I started searching on Google, and was puzzled when things I searched for where nowhere to be found. I tried DuckDuckGo and a world of information opened up. Much of it seemed extreme, and didn’t make sense to me. Yet for every few posts I couldn’t relate to, the odd one would stop me in my tracks with a sense of recognition.

I read about a video of a German doctor called Heiko Schoning, who had been about to speak, during a freedom march – he was arrested and bundled into Wandsworth prison. I wanted to know what a doctor could possibly have to say that would be worth arresting him for.

I tracked down the video of this doctor speaking outside Wandsworth prison immediately after his release. I watched it, eyes wide and holding my breath. A light switched on. He talked about the 2008 financial crash, and the current intentions of the same players. This didn’t sound like a conspiracy theory, this sounded like economics.

As autumn progressed, my eyes opened as the chasm between what I knew was happening and what the BBC actually reported grew ever wider.

It seemed that we were being sorted into two groups.

On the one hand, you had the majority – they wore the masks, did the elbow-bumps, kept their distance, downloaded the app, and posted proudly on Facebook to say they were self-isolating.

On the other hand, you had… the Granny Killers.

As a then 40-year-old mum of two who had avoided controversy my whole life, I wouldn’t have expected to find myself in this much-maligned group. I was one of the good people, and I certainly didn’t want to kill Granny. I was worried about Granny: About isolation, loneliness, access to healthcare.

I kept quiet for some time, and my new hobby became searching down information and verifying it from official sources. As a former researcher, I felt equipped to do this. As a person who wanted to know the truth, however uncomfortable, it felt essential to do this.

I began asking lots of questions. Many of these had occurred to me way back during the dreamlike lockdown period, but I had pushed aside because I didn’t know what to do with them.

These are my questions:

Why did the WHO recommendations and global response to COVID-19 so often make things worse?

Why were flights allowed out of Wuhan after the city had locked down, when surely the virus should have been contained?

Following WHO advice, many countries started listing COVID-19 as a cause of death wherever anyone had tested positive – even for car accidents or suicides within weeks of a positive COVID-19 test. Why would we deliberately inflate the death statistics?

In the UK and the US, elderly COVID-19 patients were discharged from hospitals and straight into care homes, and they went on to infect vulnerable residents. Surely we could have predicted this outcome. Why were the most vulnerable people not protected?

Why did medical interventions so often cost lives rather than save them?

Hospitals in the US were incentivised to put people on ventilators, and it turned out the odds of surviving this intervention were low.

The cheap, well-established and safe treatments hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were shunned in favour of mass vaccination campaigns. A paper published in The Lancet suggested hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and could kill people (based on administering a dosage that far exceeded the correct dose), but this paper was later retracted due to being inaccurate.

Why would readily available treatments be discredited, rather than embraced?

Why are the basics of biology and immunology being rewritten?

Why do governments claim there is no level of population immunity to SARS-CoV-2, when there is evidence that T-cell immunity from previous infection with similar coronaviruses confers immunity to SARS-CoV-2? There are numerous coronaviruses present in the environment, and there is evidence that T-cell immunity may persist for over a decade following recovery from SARS.

Governments are equally committed to the narrative of asymptomatic transmission, but there is no hard evidence that asymptomatic transmission occurs at sufficiently high frequency to drive an outbreak.

The WHO changed the definition of herd immunity to imply it can only be achieved by vaccination (archived old definition here, new definition here). In fact, the revised definition quoted in the linked article is slightly different to what is currently on the WHO website, so it has perhaps been updated again to clarify that the WHO supports herd immunity through vaccination.

Why are governments and the WHO rewriting science and changing definitions?

Why can no one seem to find the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

Why do hundreds of freedom of information requests reveal that various government departments have no evidence of the virus having been isolated and purified where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (e.g. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells)?

Has the virus ever been genetically sequenced, or is our understanding of the virus reliant on computer models?

Why do all the tests and vaccines rely on sequences for a small number of spike proteins, rather than the full SARS-CoV-2 virus? Where did they get these spike protein sequences from, are they computer-generated?

Why are we told that the highly inaccurate PCR test is the gold standard?

The Corman-Drosten paper on PCR testing published in the journal Eurosurveillance on 23^rd January 2020, rapidly and with no peer review. Why, when a team of expert researchers critiqued this paper in November 2020 and exposed ten major flaws, did Eurosurveillance not retract it?

The cycle thresholds of PCR tests are not routinely reported but labs around the globe have been using cycle thresholds of 35 or higher, which may detect dead nucleotides as well as active viruses. PCR tests cannot be used to confirm infectiousness. Why are we not performing live/dead sampling verification for all positives?

If the issue of false positives was known by the UK government, why did they continue using PCR tests at undisclosed cycle thresholds? The WHO only admitted that PCR cycles of 40 and above lead to false positives in December 2020, and finally issued guidance to lower the cycle thresholds in January 2021.

In the UK tests are done in private Lighthouse Labs with inexperienced staff in some cases, leading to errors. Why did we not utilise the established network of NHS labs and trained staff, who could arguably have done the job more effectively.

Why are we bombarded with death statistics riddled with anomalies?

We are still accumulating 2021 COVID-19 deaths with 2020 deaths when for all other diseases, we count deaths within the year only. There is no running total on news sites of all deaths throughout history from tuberculosis or HIV.

Throughout the pandemic, a COVID-19 ‘case’ has not required diagnosis by a doctor, or even symptoms. Illness has never before been diagnosed purely by a test, without a doctor ever seeing a patient. Why did this change?

Patients in hospitals are tested repeatedly, and each positive result is counted as a separate ‘case’. Why are deaths ascribed to COVID-19 even when it is clearly not the cause of death?

Why are we expected to believe that the flu has disappeared because of lockdowns, masks and social distancing… when COVID-19 cases are high because no one is wearing masks and social distancing? That makes no sense when these viruses are spread through the same mechanism.

We have a year’s worth of real data to work with, and yet Government advisors persist with data modelling which has been shown to be wildly inaccurate. Why?

Why persist with lockdowns when they don’t work, and the cost is so high?

The data shows unequivocally that lockdowns do not work. We can look at infection curves for countries that locked down and countries that didn’t lock down: There is no difference. In fact, reducing the mobility of healthy people shifts the burden of infection onto the most vulnerable, which increases the number of deaths.

So why do we still even consider lockdowns?

Why did hospitals and GPs close their doors to non-COVID patients even during the summer of 2020, when COVID-19 cases were at their lowest levels and hospitals would have had capacity?

We have readily accepted an increase in mental health issues due to lockdowns, including self-harm and suicides – even in children and teenagers. Cancer patients have missed treatments. Poverty and homelessness have skyrocketed. Why do only COVID-19 deaths seem to matter?

Countries around the world have gone billions of pounds into debt, allowing all but the largest businesses to crumble – for a virus that the WHO says has an infection fatality rate similar to flu. In even the worst flu season, we have never closed down the world and wrecked global economies. Why are we doing so now?

Why are masks mandated when they don’t work and they cause harm?

Why are we told to wear masks when the scientific consensus, prior to 2019, was that masks are not effective at preventing viral transmission? We were told, even by Dr Fauci, that masks are ineffective, and yet suddenly the decision was reversed. Had the evidence changed?

A Danish randomised controlled trial of mask efficacy revealed that masks make no difference in transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Why were mask mandates not reversed at this point?

You can read on boxes of masks that they will not provide any protection against Covid-19 or any other viruses or contaminants.

Why are masks mandated when numerous instances of harm have been reported, from oxygen deprivation to an increase in bacterial pneumonia? There is a wealth of information available, with evidence supporting multiple positions – but it’s clear that masks are far from a benign intervention.

Why are we being coerced into taking rapidly-developed vaccines utilising new technologies, which only have temporary approval for emergency usage?

Anyone who questions vaccine safety and efficacy publicly is silenced, yet I have so many questions. Surely we should be able to ask questions before making a decision with consequences for our health? Surely an honest discussion would be beneficial to all of us?

A suite of coronavirus vaccines were developed in under a year, when it usually takes at least seven years to develop a vaccine. How can we possibly have long-term safety information, when the vaccines have not been studied over a long time period?

Clinical trials only measured severity of symptoms, and we now have vaccines which don’t stop people from catching the virus or passing it on. Given that the majority of people only experience mild symptoms and the vaccines don’t stop transmission, why is the stated aim to vaccinate everyone?

Vaccines are now being administered around the world at a rapid pace, but no one is being informed that clinical trials are ongoing for another two years. Does this meet the criteria for informed consent?

In previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines, huge numbers of animals died. Animals which initially tolerated vaccines well died on exposure to a wild coronavirus, due to Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) or pathogenic priming – which results in an extreme immune response that can be fatal. Why did we skip animal trials in 2020?

Why was Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr Mike Yeadon’s letter to the EU regulators, imploring them to stop the vaccine rollout until further research had taken place, ignored?

Why has the UK government commissioned an Artificial Intelligence ‘to process the expected high volume of COVID-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed’?

There are volumes of reported vaccine side effects, including extreme and sometimes fatal reactions. Introduction to the population without longitudinal trials is unprecedented. Why are we taking this risk, for an illness which the vast majority of people will easily survive?

Conflicts of interest and ignoring credible experts

Hugely credible scientists such as Professor Sunetra Gupta and other Great Barrington Declaration signatories, Mike Yeadon, former CSO and VP of Pfizer Allergy and Respiratory Research, Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, and many others are being ignored, censored and discredited.

The World Doctors’ Alliance, an independent non-profit alliance of doctors, nurses, healthcare professionals and staff around the world who have united in the wake of the COVID-19 response, is also being ignored, censored and discredited.

Why?

It is difficult to understand why such people would risk their careers to speak up, subjecting themselves to being shunned and smeared, other than a heartfelt belief in the message they are sharing. By contrast, many of the Government advisors we are told to trust implicitly have shares in pharmaceutical companies.

Why is it never disclosed to the public that Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson all have huge conflicts of interest – including shares in vaccine companies?

Why is the population being terrified, terrorised and harassed?

The SAGE SPI-B Behavioural Economics team has issued guidance on how to terrify the UK population into complying with social distancing, lockdown and other measures. Scroll down to Appendix B on Page 6 for an evaluation grid of various proposed measures.

Police are brutally attacking lockdown protestors, in the UK and around the world – through physical beating and the use of water cannons. Police are also harassing people for being outside of their home during lockdown (even when this is permitted), often very aggressively.

What has happened to the country I grew up in?

Why does the media only ever report one side of the story, with all debate stifled and key developments ignored?

Scientists, doctors and health organisations are being censored and deplatformed daily for speaking up against the official narrative.

The mainstream media has not covered the massive protests in Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia and many other countries – or has downplayed the numbers attending such protests.

There has been no coverage of Danish protestors managing to overturn their country’s Epidemic Act, which would have allowed forced vaccination, by banging pots and pans for several days and nights outside of the Danish Parliament.

Why are we only shown messages of death, fear, and salvation through vaccination?

Why do we never hear about the legal cases?

Michael O’Bernicia and his legal team are prosecuting UK Members of Parliament for fraud by false representation and non-disclosure.

The German/US attorney Dr Reiner Fuellmich is preparing a genocide case that has been dubbed the ‘new Nuremburg trials’.

There are numerous other legal cases around the globe, some of which have been successful already. Why don’t we ever hear about them?

Why are people branded conspiracy theorists for asking reasonable questions about publicly stated goals and publicly available information?

Why was the Wuhan Institute of Virology doing research on bat coronaviruses and their ability to infect humans? Where was their funding from, and what was Dr Fauci’s involvement?

Was Dr Christian Drosten (the German virologist who shared his protocol for PCR testing with the world in January 2020) conducting ‘gain of function’ research with bat coronaviruses in 2009 and 2018?  Gain of function research refers to altering the genetic makeup of viruses to increase their transmissibility to humans. It’s worth noting that in academic papers, the last author listed is the person who obtained the funding.

Why was the WHO definition of a pandemic loosened in 2009, so that a pandemic no longer had to cause ‘an enormous amount of deaths’ to trigger pandemic preparedness laws and agreements? This is an archive of the WHO pandemic definition in May 2009, and this is the WHO pandemic definition in September 2009. Does this definition make it easier to declare a pandemic, and why would the WHO want to do that?

Why did the Council of Europe investigate a manufactured Swine Flu hoax, as reported by Channel 4’s John Snow back in March 2010? Why did the former Chair of the Sub-committee on the Health of the Parliamentary Assembly, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, accuse the WHO of lowering the definition of a pandemic in order for pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders to make huge profits?

Why did global leaders and heads of industry gather on 18^th October 2019 to run through a pandemic preparedness planning exercise known as Event 201? Actors read from scripts, and pre-recorded news broadcasts were played. Scenarios were mapped out, and participants strategised their containment response for a respiratory virus pandemic starting in China.

Why does the World Economic Forum want to take advantage of the opportunity for change that a pandemic brings, in the form of a Great Reset?

Why are the World Economic Forum partners – the same global finance, health and technology giants who arguably have caused many of the world’s problems – only now calling for a different way?

How did Klaus Schwab, founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, manage to write, proofread and edit his book COVID-19: The Great Reset in just six months, to publish it in July 2020? What would it mean if he had worked on this book prior to the epidemic?

What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and what will the implications be for ordinary people? What is the Internet of Bodies? What is transhumanism?

What are the United Nations sustainable development goals, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030? People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership all sound very positive.  Could there be any negative consequences of these agendas? Can we achieve net zero carbon emissions with the population numbers we have today, or would these numbers have to be reduced – and how could this be achieved?

What is the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development document about? This copy is a little easier to read. Does the Lock Step scenario on Page 18, ‘A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback’ bear any resemblance to events of 2020?

 

You can fact-check my claims, and you should – it’s important not to blindly trust anyone (whether that’s the BBC, a friend, someone with a public profile, or a stranger on the internet). However, Google censors this topic heavily and you will need to use a different search engine such as DuckDuckGo or Ecosia to make any progress.

Due to their funding and purpose, the Fact Checker sites will always side with the official narrative. If you want to fact-check claims, you need to go to source material and make your own judgements rather than relying on Fact Checkers.