Doctors For Covid Ethics - The 12 Lies

This analysis most pertains to the first recorded wave

Lethality

Theater utilized in propaganda coming from China to illustrate scenario where citizens commonly collapse in public and begin convulsing while bleeding from their mouth.
IFR was estimated at around 3-6%, depending on sources
Now recognized in the range of 0.1% - 0.3%
This is arguably more lethal than the average seasonal influenza, but not significantly so
It's always expected that estimates start high and reduce, but not only were early representations of lethality maximized, they were done at a time when it was suggested to only reduce social contact for 2 weeks. As it became apparent that the lethality was less than first estimated, restrictions continued and became more severe. We are now accustomed to restrictions regardless of the degree of lethality, rationalized by complex reasoning of administrative categorization (risk of high threshold occupancy - a rather opaque figure)
Current estimates still ~ 0.15%

There was clear evidence of pre-existing T-cell immunity.
Further evidence of immunity from previously SARS-CoV1 convalescent (outbreak 16-17 years prior)
Additional research have demonstrated SARS-CoV2 was circulating far earlier than initially determined (April 2019 or earlier)
Many examples of research showing existing immunity
50% of blood from 2015-2018 specimen collection displayed T-cell reactivity
Studies showing T-cell reactivity in seronegative blood donours

A rather stupid idea, which makes ambiguous the effort to protect those who are most vulnerable. Several orders of magnitude of difference in lethality for different cohorts.
IL-6 and obesity. Brown adipose tissue has high concentration of ACE-2 receptors

The most important assumption upon which to predicate lockdowns.
Meta-analyses show that transmission occurring in households consists entirely of symptomatic transmission, with asymptomatic representing a statistically insignificant proportion.
To base complete transformation of society on the basis of epidemiologically irrelevant prevalence is harmful policy which likely increases loss of years lived by several orders of magnitude greater than that brought about by any reduction of disease.

No effort to determine operational false positive
PCR produces positive results even if there is no virus in the community
These culminate into isolation and delays in the operations and mechanisms of people's lives, affecting familes and society as a whole
No standard cycle threshold
No standard set of primers
Known problems with primers identified by the Corman Drosten protocol, the original PCR standard applied to the pandemic, which included easily correctable errors that were never addressed
Completely disregards the fact that one can be postive for infection without any symptoms of illness, and that this doesn't necessarily lead to any illness later
WHO recommended against mass testing, but it continued regardless
The person responsible for the original standard test was also instrumental in propagating the idea of asymptomatic transmission
Fenton lectures show how mass testing asymptomatics drives up the proportion of false positives

Surgical masks do not stop respiratory virus transmission
Cloth masks definitely don't stop any transmission, and likely increase risk of lung infections and other incidental infections
Oral infections, gum disease, caries, etc are all going to be exacerbated by mask use
No evidence that transmission is caused by droplets, but catching droplets in a mask and continuously breathing through it effectively aerosolizes the droplet
Plenty of transmission occurs in hospital wards, where mask adherence is sought in its most strictest form

Reducing transmission by reducing social contact is a flawed concept, because it assumes asymptomatic transmission
Isolating, reducing social contact, and applying hierarchical stress in a social hierarchy is well known to negatively affect life expectancy: this suggests that lockdowns increase the environment for disease to take place
Meta-analysis from John Hopkins shows no detectable impact on reducing cases, hospitalization or death
Lockdowns were never used before because this information is not new
All member states already knew that masks, lockdowns and border restrictions are effectively useless for reducing transmission, and have made no effort to ascertain the negative impact, either in real time or across longer temporal scales, where negative effects are compounded

A policy of mass murder
Theraputic value of treatment was already known by 2020, based on SARS-CoV2 data alone
Theraputic value of treatment could have easily been extrapolated from SARS-CoV1, which is known to cause far more severe disease
Mechanical ventilation is inappropriate for disease which are not predicated on obstructive airways, but was considered the only means of treatment
Reducing antibiotic prescription to 50% of average was a mass killer as well, as it was easily deduced that bacterial co-infection leading to pneumonia was prevalent among those with the worst symptoms of disease
Intracellular zinc is known to suppress viral replication
Zinc ionophores are widely available, and have never been recommended or discussed
Hydroxychloroquine study was eagerly championed to silence any discussion of treatment, and was later retracted as due to the discovery that the data was fraudulent (in LANCET)
No attempt to use safe agents for experimental purposes, something which has been commonly sought before 2019