10+ Pro-Lockdown Myths That Need To Be Debunked Once & For All (Updated)

As many of my supporters know, I put together an assiduous 5 hour presentation on this “pandemic” — which invariably resulted in me becoming an outspoken critic against these ridiculous lockdowns.

To date, I have not encountered one person who could use objective science (or even elementary logic) to prove to me why these lockdowns are justified and needed in their present form. Instead, what I have encountered time and time again, are what amount to mythological claims about these lockdowns from people who brilliantly pretend to know what they are talking about, but haven’t got the slightest clue. If people’s lives weren’t at risk, I’d find it comical and entertaining.

In this blog, I will help to equip you with the knowledge needed to deal with these bullshit artists, by exposing 10+ of the biggest pro-lockdown myths that need to be debunked and destroyed once and for all — and as always I will use that magical thing called verifiable evidence to do so.

MYTH #1: No Credible Scientist is Challenging These Lockdowns

lockdown dangerous quote michael levitt

A number of different high ranking scientists and doctors have actually been very outspoken against these lockdowns pretty much from the beginning. Several whose testimony I actually included in my presentation — namely Nobel Prize Winner, Michael Levitt, former Director General of Israel’s Health Ministry, Dr Yoram Lass, Professor Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Professor Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Professor Knut Witkowski, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr David Katz, the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, and perhaps the most prominent critic of them all — and one of the most highly cited scientists in history — Professor John Ioannidis.

Thousands of other scientists and doctors  have come forward and spoken out against these lockdowns too, but these are the most notable that I personally am familiar with.

MYTH #2: The Science Clearly Proves Lockdowns Work

I remember seeing this comment, that “thousands of years of science proves lockdowns work.” It was made by an absolute world class bullshitter that no one challenged. And I understand why — I mean “thousands of years of science” is pretty damn authoritative, right? How can anyone argue against something that sounds so legit??

Unfortunately for this person, I’ve actually looked into the research behind the “science” that supports lockdowns and not only is it barely a century old, it’s based almost entirely on theoretical modelling which is a poor substitute for concrete science.

Screenshot JAMA

This can be fact checked and verified by looking into a study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on the 8th of August 2006 entitled Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic“. 

The authors of the study note that their groundbreaking study,” along with others that supported their position, became the basis for the CDC’s pandemic response guidelines, so this is obviously a very important study for us to look into to learn a bit more about the actual science supporting these lockdown measures.

Well, what you will find word for word in the third paragraph of the “conclusions” section of their study is the following;

Most pandemic influenza policy makers agree that even the most rigorous nonpharmaceutical interventions are unlikely either to prevent a pandemic or change a population’s underlying biological susceptibility to the pandemic virus. However, a growing body of theoretical modeling research suggests that nonpharmaceutical interventions might play a salubrious role in delaying the temporal effect of a pandemic; reducing the overall and peak attack rate; and reducing the number of cumulative deaths.

The other study we need to look into and fact check — since this one specifically was used as the basis for these current COVID-19 lockdown measures — is entitled Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demandwhich was produced on March 16, 2020 by Imperial College London.

As the New York Times noted, this was the study that encouraged both Britain and the United States to change their policies and start their lockdowns. Obviously, it’s very important for us to take a closer look at this study, right?

Well, not only was this “study” likewise based on theoretical modelling, but its lead author, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, has a consistent history of bad terrible predictions and is a former paid consultant of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which is set to profit from the pandemic.

imperial college london conflicts of interest

Screenshot from Imperial College London’s official website.

In fact, at the time of that study, the Imperial College London were (and still are) in partnership with several major Vaccine producers that are set to profit from this pandemicincluding GSK— which represents an obvious conflict of interest.

gates foundation grant imperial college london

Screenshot from Gates Foundation’s official website

They also received a massive grant of $79,006,570 from the Gates Foundation that exact same month, which is another massive conflict of interest because the Gates Foundation also has huge investments in many of these Big Pharma/Vaccine companies that are set to profit from the “pandemic” — including GSK, which they have “donated” more than $65 million to over the years.

gates foundation investments gsk

This image and the investigation into the Gates Foundation’s “charitable grants” by the Nation can be accessed HERE

This is particularly concerning because GSK has an untenable record of bribing doctors whilst concealing their financial support, illegally promoting harmful products, and even unethical and dangerous experimentation on babies without proper consent.

Beyond these conspicuous concerns, however, this “study” was never even published in a scientific journal and it was never even peer-reviewed — which is simply mind blowing to say the least. Nonetheless, governments saw fit to kickstart these paradigm shifting lockdowns based largely on this ridiculous research. Unsurprisingly, other experts have since looked into Ferguson’s theoretical model and they claim that it’s “totally unreliable” and “impossible to read“.

Neil ferguson bad history

Source: Telegraph

That, my friends, encompasses much of the so called “evidence” we have that these lockdowns are legit.

MYTH #3: If We Didn’t Lockdown, 40 Million People Would Be Dead Right Now.

“These scenarios of 40 million deaths in the world, and 2+ million deaths in the US, by doing nothing, are science fiction at the moment. I cannot describe them in any other terms.”
— Professor John Ioannidis, Perspectives on the Pandemic, Journeyman Pictures, April 17th, 2020

This myth is connected to the previous one on this list, and the “impossible to read” non-peer reviewed research produced by Neil Ferguson that claimed ±40 million people could die without lockdown measures.

lockdown study never peer reviewed

Source: Business Insider

One person I engaged concerning how obviously dodgy the research justifying these lockdowns is, went so far in their desperate attempts to cling to their convoluted pro-lockdown worldview, as to claim that even though Ferguson’s research was not published in a scientific journal, or peer-reviewed — and even though other researchers have not been able to replicate his findings and said it was “totally unreliable” — the reason why there haven’t been millions and millions of deaths is because his model was followed, thereby making him a hero. Again, the ridiculous shit people will come up with in their efforts to either protect their fragile ego or defend their selfish narrow worldview, never ceases to amaze me.

Fortunately, Sweden did not follow Ferguson’s ridiculous theoretical model, and instead pursued their own policy. This is significant because inputs from Ferguson’s model were applied by researchers to Sweden, which projected them to have around 96,000 deaths by the end of June if they did not follow his lockdown orders, yet to this day Sweden has had less than 6,000 deaths in total.

96,000 COVID-19 deaths in Sweden

Source: Intervention strategies against COVID-19 and their estimated impact on Swedish healthcare capacity, 11 April 2020

MYTH #4: Lockdowns Eradicate Harmful Viruses & Diseases

This is another major myth, that the bullshitters in all their delusional glory love to cite and propagate — that lockdowns somehow magically eradicate viruses and diseases — but even the most dedicated supporters of lockdowns who are at least half way informed know this is simply untrue.

Again, I turn your attention to the “conclusions” section of the groundbreaking study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on the 8th of August 2006 entitled Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic;

Most pandemic influenza policy makers agree that even the most rigorous nonpharmaceutical interventions are unlikely either to prevent a pandemic or change a population’s underlying biological susceptibility to the pandemic virus. However, a growing body of theoretical modeling research suggests that nonpharmaceutical interventions might play a salubrious role in delaying the temporal effect of a pandemic; reducing the overall and peak attack rate; and reducing the number of cumulative deaths.

The potential benefit that a lockdown has to offer, is that it prolongs the spread of infection by keeping people apart. If you are alone, you obviously have a very low risk of getting infected by someone else, as opposed to if you were out and about and in contact with the rest of the population.

This is done so that the health care system of a particular society does not become overwhelmed where there are too many sick people to take care of and not enough hospital beds, doctors, nurses, etc. Nonetheless, people will get infected when they come out of self isolation or quarantine, but the intention behind the lockdown is to slow the rate of the infection spreading to make it more manageable.  This is known as “flattening the curve“.

what does flattening the curve mean

Image Credit

Whilst most illustrations from establishment gate keepers generally depict “flattening the curve” by showing lockdown measures in a favorable and gentle color such as blue, as pictured above, and without lockdown measures in a dangerous color like red, what’s left out of this important discussion, is that when you prolong a lockdown you also prolong things like unemployment, social isolation, and other major factors that we have an abundance of scientific evidence showing to be extremely dangerous and deadly.[1][2][3][4][5][6] We will touch on this particular topic in more detail momentarily.

In fact, just a few days ago, the WHO’s Special Envoy on Covid-19, Dr David Nabarro also commented on this in an interview with the Spectator;

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it. Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays. Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world… Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition…”


With that said, it needs to also be stated that there are reports of hospitals in different parts of the world actually being underwhelmed right now, such as the UK and U.S. In fact, in the U.S., emergency hospitals were set up but quickly closed down because they literally had no patients.

Are there places that have been overwhelmed in other parts of the world? Yes, absolutely — and it should be mentioned that this has been happening in different parts of the world before COVID-19 even came around — but the point here is simple, if the only truly legitimate justification for these lockdowns is to prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed, but what we find is evidence in some areas they they are underwhelmed, why continue the lockdowns in their present form in these locations?

Smells like some bullshit to me.

MYTH #5: Doctors & Scientists Would Never Lie To Us

Irrespective of title, human beings are obviously corruptible, that’s not some esoteric paradigm shifting revelation. But rather than relying on common sense to make my point, let’s explore a few real world examples that help align us with reality, rather than what is nothing more than a popular illusion.

Iowa State University professor Dong-Pyou Han, for example, is now sitting in jail for an AIDS vaccine fraud. Pioneering anesthesiologist Scott Reuben, who helped revolutionize orthopedic surgery, faked data in more than 20 studies, and German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, who won multiple awards for his work, falsified his research as well. Beyond that, Big Sugar, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma all have well documented histories of manipulating science, and paying respected experts to produce research that’s favors their agenda.

law requiring doctors wear sponsors like nascar drivers

MYTH #6: Opposing Lockdown is Anti-Science

It truly is amazing how hundreds of millions of people around the world right now have been led to believe that the objective science we have available actually supports these lockdowns as being the safer path to pursue. A true testament to the power of perception manipulation. I say this, because I have actually looked at both sides of this debate, and in reality it’s like comparing a sandy anthill to an immovable mountain. It’s not even remotely debatable.

We’ve already explored much of the proverbial anthill of “evidence” supporting lockdown measures, which is based almost entirely on theoretical modeling, so let’s now take a look at the immovable mountain of real world science — from multiple countries around the world — showing us that lockdown policies can be extremely deadly, because they accentuate the risk of things like anxiety, depression, PTSD, suicide — premature death from all causes — and even human trafficking amongst other things.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

social isolation deadly study

Source: Science Daily

That is why it comes as no surprise to me that reports of suicide ideation, anxiety and depression are skyrocketing around the world right now, or that the UN claims that human trafficking is projected to rise and the UN’s University projects that roughly half a BILLION people are being pushed into poverty because of these lockdown policies, and the WFP Executive Director claims as many as 130 million people are being pushed to starvation.

When we consider all of this sensibly, and from an objective scientific perspective, and then we consider that real world studies show that up to 81% of the population’s that were tested for the COVID-19 virus did not even know they had the disease because it was so weak and insipid — and of the available confirmed cases “99.6% are in mild condition” — imposing these lockdowns indiscriminately is absolutely indefensible and cannot be justified.

In fact, according to the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, children under the age of 15 are 6.83 to 20.07 times more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia than this coronavirus. According to peer reviewed research of Professor John Ioannidis on multiple countries during the earlier part of this “pandemic,” the risk of dying from COVID-19 for people under 65 is comparable to the likelihood of dying in a car accident whilst driving what would be considered a realistic distance of travel;

The COVID-19 mortality rate in people <65 years old during the period of fatalities from the epidemic was equivalent to the mortality rate from driving between 4 and 82 miles per day for 13 countries and 5 states, and was higher (equivalent to the mortality rate from driving 106–483 miles per day) for 8 other states and the UK.

MYTH #7: Opposing Lockdown is Inhumane

Yet another shocking and delusional belief of the pro-lockdown zealots is that supporting lockdown is humane, and opposing it is barbaric and cruel.

Unsurprisingly, the objective reality that extends beyond the subjective illusion inculcated by media propaganda and authoritarian fear mongering is quite the opposite.

As already mentioned, multiple peer reviewed studies spanning continents show how dangerous and deadly unemployment and social isolation are, a recent study from the United Nations’ University estimates that as many as half a billion people — or 8% of the total human population — are now being forced into poverty because of lockdown associated measures worldwide, and the Executive Director of the World Food Programme claims that the disruption associated with these lockdown measures has caused a hunger crisis of “biblical proportions” that could result in an additional 130 million people being pushed to starvation. Furthermore, reports of suicide and depression are spiking in different parts of the world. In Japan, for example, it was reported in November that more people committed suicide in the month of October alone, than had been killed during the entire “pandemic”. Supporting these lockdowns is to support human suffering on a scale that is, quite frankly, immeasurable and incompressible at this point in time.

It should be mentioned for the sake of integrity, that I have had multiple lockdown fanatics cite highly suspicious reports that have been spread by the media noting how suicide is declining in places like Canada. Aside from the fact that Canada represents just 0.5% of the entire world’s population, it should be noted that Japan likewise recorded an initial decline in suicides before they had an unprecedented spike.

This is fairly logical to understand, because temporary relief provided by more developed nations helps in the short term, but it’s still temporary relief. Invariably, a spike in suicides and premature deaths is inevitable. Again, we know this because we have multiple studies spanning multiple countries that show this pattern. And that’s what good science is all about, providing us with the invaluable objective insight about objective reality beyond emotional opinion and public speculation.

As I have said repeatedly, we can protect the small minority of vulnerable people without endangering hundreds of millions of people around the world through forced unemployment and social isolation guys, it’s really not rocket science.

MYTH #8: Poverty, Starvation and Suicide Can’t be Blamed on Lockdowns Because They’ve Always Existed.

I was hesitant to include this because it is so idiotic, and I say that objectively, but because it has emerged time and time again in my debates, I felt that I should include a screen shot of a simple reply I made to someone making this silly argument.

In other words, we have decades of peer reviewed literature that consistently show us social isolation and unemployment are extremely dangerous and even deadly. This is already manifesting in real time through numerous reports and warnings as already cited in throughout this blog.

Naturally, when you force billions of people into unemployment and social isolation, you create an unprecedented climate of danger — one that we will not fully be able to appreciate or quantify for many years to come.

MYTH #9: Mother Nature is Acting Out Because We’ve Abused Her

This is another narrow minded view I have encountered over and over again, with people who tend to take an interest in environmentalism and veganism. I myself do not eat animals because I find it to be extremely hypocritical, at least for myself, to advocate for the vulnerable and innocent, and then eat sentient beings that are innocent and rely largely on our mercy for their inborn right to autonomy.

Aside from a virologist, who won the 2008 Nobel Prize for discovering the HIV virus, claiming that COVID-19 was actually created in a lab (not saying I believe him), which is interesting to consider, what people don’t seem to realize is that the biggest dangers — as documented above — are coming from the lockdown policies, not Mother Nature or the virus itself.

Nonetheless, the media insists on blaming the coronavirus for the terrible unfolding’s taking place in society, as if it has a mind of it’s own. Headlines likeCoronavirus Threatens to Push Millions Into Starvation,” “Coronavirus-linked malnutrition is killing 10,000 more children a month, UN warns and Suicides rise after coronavirus puts squeeze on India’s middle classall help to reinforce the myth and illusion that Mother Nature is acting out against us.

Let me be very clear here guys, the coronavirus isn’t doing this crazy shit. Millions of people are not on the brink of starvation because COVID-19 and Mother Nature have decided to prevent them from gaining access to food, or prohibiting them from working and earning the money they need to feed themselves and their families — No — the authorities are the ones behind this insanity.

MYTH #10: No One Is Going To Profit From These Lockdowns

I’ve gotten this condescending question quite a few times, where people don’t see any sinister motive behind the implementation of these lockdowns and thus insinuate that anyone proposing such a possibility is nothing but a “conspiracy theorist”.

The Truth is, multiple groups and individuals stand to profit from these lockdowns. In fact, in September it was reported that 643 U.S. billionaires collectively saw their wealth grow by $845 billion. Human Rights Watch also reports how multiple governments are taking advantage of the “pandemic” and imposing more authoritarian laws that benefit them at the expense of the freedom of civilian population their people.

billionaires richer pandemic

Screenshot Business Insider

In relation to more obvious conflicts of interest that should concern us all, are the Big Pharma/Vaccine companies that are set to profit from the manufacture of drugs and vaccines that will be used to fight the virus. I say that we should be concerned, because these companies have a terrible history of bribery and corruption, and when you take the time out to sit down and actually do the research, what you find is that the World Health Organization, Imperial College London, dozens of high ranking doctors and scientists that are advising governments on COVID-19 around the world right now, major media outlets and Google, amongst others, can be financially linked to the Big Pharma/Vaccine industry. Again, I go into meticulous detail about all of this in the presentation with the use of verifiable sources and citations.

decoding covid-19 5 hour presentation

Illustration of the spiderweb of corruption and conflicts of interest that I go into in the presentation/Artist credit: Lubomir Arsov

Another character that has been at the forefront of this “pandemic,” who also stands to profit from the production of coronavirus vaccines and other complimentary drugs is Bill Gates, who has massive investments in the Big Pharma/Vaccine industry through his “non profit” foundation. (although the fact checkers falsely claim that there is “no evidence” he will)

So there are certainly groups and individuals that are verifiably set to profit from this pandemic.

MYTH #11: Fast-Tracking a Vaccine is Absolutely Needed & Completely Safe 

First and foremost, vaccines do not make us immune to diseases by themselves guys, there isn’t some magical ingredient in there that once injected turns us into immune superheroes and frees us from potentially getting sick. That’s another silly myth and testament to the ignorance that dominates our collective society.

Instead, vaccines imitate harmful pathogens and diseases, by containing very low levels of those infectious agents or organisms, hoping that by introducing these low levels into our bodies, it will trigger a natural immune response (sometimes called immunological memory) where the body learns to defend itself from future attacks.

In this way, vaccines are only considered to be absolutely essential when a disease is lethal, or extremely dangerous, and the threat of getting a natural infection could potentially be so harmful or deadly that it’s not worth the risk. So instead, a minor infection through vaccination is considered safer because it hopefully won’t overwhelm the immune system.

Well, as I already explained earlier, real world studies show that between 25% to 81% of the population that has been tested for the COVID-19 virus did not even know they had the disease because their symptoms were so weak — and of the available confirmed cases “99.6% are in mild condition“.

When we take that into consideration, and how the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity claim children under the age of 15 are 6.83 to 20.07 times more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia, than from this coronavirus — Or, as mentioned earlier from Professor John Ioannidis’ research, the risk of dying from COVID-19 for people under 65 was found to be comparable to dying in a car accident whilst driving what is a fairly realistic distance of travel —  to force a vaccine onto everyone indiscriminately is clearly unjustified and I welcome anyone on the face of this planet to prove me otherwise.

With all of that said, the danger of fast tracking a vaccine is well known. In fact, in 1976 there was a mandatory vaccine campaign which was fast tracked, that resulted in several hundred people getting something called Guillain-Barre syndrome and 53 dying.[14]

1976 vaccine deaths

Source: CNN

In other words, as even reported by CNN, the vaccine ended up being more deadly than the disease.[15] The Big Pharma/Vaccine companies, however, were legally exempt from responsibility and never had to pay for these deaths, and based upon reports, they will be exempt again.

This all becomes especially concerning when we consider that these “vaccines” are a new experimental technology that do not rely on the conventional method of imitating a virus to induce natural immunity, instead these “vaccines” contain a part of the virus’s genetic code to potentially stimulate an immune response. The possible long term side effects are completely unknown because this is a real time experiment.

Furthermore, as reported by the BBC, there is no evidence that proves that these vaccines can offer us lifetime immunity either. They might be able to offer us a few months or years of protection — which is precisely what other studies have shown people to be able to achieve through a natural infection [16][17] — So why, logically speaking, should people risk their health and wellbeing by taking a fast tracked experimental vaccine for a virus that the objective evidence (see myth #6) shows is not deadly for the overwhelming majority? This is especially true when we consider that it’s coming from an industry with a horrible human rights record and will likely have no legal liability. Simply put, it’s absurd.

Those who wish to take this experimental vaccine should absolutely be free to do so, but those who don’t want to take that risk, should not be forced either.

MYTH #12: If Everyone Wore a Facemask We Would All Be Safe

Undoubtedly one of the most persistent and irrational beliefs that the pro-lock zealots cling to is that if everyone simply wore a facemask then we would all be safe.

Aside from being painfully irrational and impractical, this is also demonstrably inhumane.

It’s irrational and impractical because all throughout history, even when people know beyond any controversy or doubt that they should behave in a certain way that is better for their health and the health society, they still behave in dangerous and foolish ways.

Consider cigarette smoking, for example. According to the World Health Organization, cigarettes and tobacco use reportedly kill more than 8 million people a year, 1.2 million of which are due to second hand smoke. In fact, just the other day I got in an argument with a young “woman” who was smoking while she was pregnant.

This same behavior can be applied to polluting the environment or drunk driving. Almost everyone agrees that these things are dangerous to society and yet millions of people still do them anyway.

So expecting everyone to wear a mask for a disease that the objective evidence shows is not deadly for the overwhelming majority of society is irrational and impractical. The fact that the authorities are demanding this and then inculcating such an irrational expectation in the minds of the masses is simply ridiculous.

Furthermore, forcing everyone to wear facemasks is also inhumane because millions and millions of people worldwide suffer from claustrophobia, which is the fear of feeling trapped and suffocated in certain settings, which can include being forced to wear a facemask against their will.

And let me be clear here, it’s not just because it makes them feel uncomfortable that it’s inhumane, it’s because (as I’ve repeatedly documented in this blog) fear and anxiety are dangerous and deadly. In fact, Researchers from the University of Edinburgh and the University College London studied data from 68,000 adults and found that even small amounts of stress and anxiety could lead to premature death. In other words, forcing these people to wear a facemask is putting them in danger.

When we consider the research of Professor Graham Davey, as cited by the Independent back in 2016, that between 5-7% of people around the world suffer from this debilitating condition — or the NHS’ estimate that 10% of people in the UK will suffer from Claustrophobia during their lives — that amounts to a possible figure of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. In fact, there have been reports of people having panic attacks during the lockdowns because they were forced to wear a facemask.

MYTH #13: The “Spanish Flu” Proves That Lockdowns Work

The 1918 influenza pandemic — better known as the “Spanish Flu” — is constantly taken out of context and misrepresented by the media in their efforts to establish the efficacy of lockdowns.

Unbeknown to most, due to what is undoubtedly lopsided media coverage, there were some communities and countries that defied social distancing orders and they managed to remain comparatively healthy. One such community, which was studied by the researchers mentioned from the University of Michigan, was the people of the small town of Fletcher, Vermont.

These folks held a large wedding for a soldier from Camp Devens, Massachusetts, which had been overwhelmed by the Spanish Flu with 28% of the the Camp’s population being infected and 757 deaths in that month alone. Based on the current narrative concerning social distancing this is the absolute worst course of action to take and could be likened to a death sentence. Nonetheless, the people of Vermont did not suffer a major outbreak and not one single death due to “Spanish Flu” was ever recorded.

Another interesting study we can look into that challenges the pro-lockdown mantra being mindlessly echoed throughout the world, was done on Denmark by researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the University of Aarhus.

denmark the lowest excess mortality spanish flu

What these researchers found was that there are no indications of public health interventions to reduce the impact of influenza in Denmark,” and yet they had the lowest excess mortality of any country during the Spanish Flu. How can the media make no mention of this?

Source: “Denmark: the lowest excess mortality during the influenza pandemic of 1918”, Pg 2, third paragraph of the “introduction” section.

A third study worth looking into, that likewise challenges the official narrative surrounding these lockdowns, is entitled “What Happened in China During the 1918 Influenza Pandemic” and was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases in March of 2007.

The researchers note that China had a lower death rate than the United States even though they did not employ any lockdown measures. What makes this all the more significant, is that China borders India, which was hit the hardest out of any country, suffering ±14 million deaths.

The researchers believed that “traditional Chinese medicine may have played an important role,” whilst other countries suffered much higher deaths partly because “modern medicine was undergoing its early phase of development, and a high mortality was expected in cases of viral infections affecting the lungs.”

Their theory is particularly intriguing when we consider that in 2009, Disease Infectious Specialist, Dr Karen Starko published an investigation on how the over-prescription of aspirin may partly be to blame for the high death rate during the Spanish Flu.

aspirin spanish flu high death rate

Screenshot credit: Science Daily

This appears to be further corroborated by multiple claims from different homeopaths of the time, who reported much lower death rates than conventional doctors in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, which they partly attributed to their avoiding aspirin;

homeopathy spanish fluhomeopathy pandemics

Source: Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, Volume 13, 1921, Pg 1038 (PDF available for download HERE)

As you can see, there is much more to the 1918 influenza than what we have been told about. But perhaps most alarming, at least based on the very limited narrative that we’ve all been fed, is that there is actually a well respected epidemiologist, professor Sunetra Gupta, who claims that the Spanish Flu was as deadly as it was because of conditions comparable to lockdowns as reported by the Telegraph;

“We weren’t globally connected then as we are now. Effectively we used to live in a state largely similar to lockdown 100 years ago, which created the conditions for the Spanish flu to come and kill 50 million people.”

Arm Yourself With Knowledge & Truth Because We Do Battle With Ignorance, Deception & Lies

We are in an information war my friends, where one side of this great battle insidiously intends to manipulate and control public perception — by weaponizing the impalpable power of ignorance and fear against the common people — whilst the other side intends to liberate and emancipate public perception — by arming and enlightening the common people with unadulterated Knowledge and verifiable Truth — which thus empowers us to not only defend ourselves from those who mean to do harm, but also equip us with the intangible weaponry needed to destroy the unwarranted encroachment of deception and lies.

I hope I have been able to help arm you in this great struggle my friend, and I salute your courage and integrity for standing up for Humanity and Truth.

If any other wild claims are made that you feel need to be addressed please feel free to comment or contact me, now is not the time for silence. We simply cannot allow fanatical groups that are being misguided by the intoxicating allure of ignorance, deception and impulsive emotion dictate the fate of the world.

If you are currently struggling with mental health problems during this challenging time, which is nothing to be ashamed of since any decent human being who is aware of what is unfolding around our world would be, I encourage you to read these blogs HERE and HERE.

*This blog was updated on 03/11/2021 to fact check the growing mythos of the dangerous pro-lockdown religion.

Written by Gavin Nascimento, Founder of aNewKindOfHuman.com 

Sign up for my email newsletter HERE

Find me also on;

Support my work on Patreon


  1. Nordt C, Warnke I, Seifritz E, Kawohl W. Modelling suicide and unemployment: a longitudinal analysis covering 63 countries 2000-2011. Lancet Psychiatry. (2015) 2:239–45. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00118-7
  2. Barr B, Taylor-Robinson D, Scott-Samuel A, McKee M, Stuckler D. Suicides associated with the 2008-2010 economic recession in England: time trend analysis. Br Med J. (2012) 345:5142. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5142
  3. Gerdtham U-G, Johannesson M. A note on the effect of unemployment on mortality. J Health Eco. (2003) 22:505–18. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00004-3
  4. Breuer C. Unemployment and suicide mortality: evidence from regional panel data in europe. Health Eco. (2015) 24:936–50. doi: 10.1002/hec.3073
  5. Unemployment associated with 50% higher risk of death in heart-failure patients. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2017;28(3):200.
  6. Gronewold J, Kropp R, Lehmann N on behalf of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study Investigative Group, et al Association of social relationships with incident cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality Heart 2020;106:1317-1323.
  7. Dan Brown & Elisabetta De Cao, 2017. “The Impact of Unemployment on Child Maltreatment in the United States,” Working Papers 106, “Carlo F. Dondena” Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
  8. Gillham B, Tanner G, Cheyne B, Freeman I, Rooney M, Lambie A. Unemployment rates, single parent density, and indices of child poverty: their relationship to different categories of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Negl. 1998;22(2):79-90. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(97)00134-8
  9. Madge, “Unemployment and its effects on children,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 311–319, 1983.
  10. Brooks, Sam & Webster, Rebecca & Smith, Louise & Woodland, Lisa & Wessely, Simon & Greenberg, Neil & Rubin, Gideon. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet. 395. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8.
  11. N. Christoffersen, “follow-up study of longterm effects of unemployment on children: loss of self-esteem and self-destructive behavior among adolescents,” Childhood, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 212–220, 1994.
  12. Moriel Zelikowsky, May Hui, Tomomi Karigo, Andrea Choe, Bin Yang, Mario R. Blanco, Keith Beadle, Viviana Gradinaru, Benjamin E. Deverman, David J. Anderson. The Neuropeptide Tac2 Controls a Distributed Brain State Induced by Chronic Social Isolation Stress. Cell, 2018; 173 (5): 1265 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.037
  13. Trafficking in Persons Report 2009, U.S. Department of State publication 11407 Office of the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs and Bureau of Public Affairs
  14. Miller ER, Moro PL, Cano M, Shimabukuro TT. Deaths following vaccination: What does the evidence show? Vaccine. 2015 Jun 26;33(29):3288-92. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.023. Epub 2015 May 23. PMID: 26004568; PMCID: PMC4599698.
  15. Abbie Boudreau and Scott Zamost (CNN Special Investigations Unit), April 30, 2009, CNN (Archived incase of deletion)
  16. Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020|
  17. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection|doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.13.21249642

Sign up newsletter