COVID 19 and The Charles Darwin Prize award.

London, United Kingdom - May 20 2018: Sir Charles Darwin English naturalist, geologist and biologist his statue situated at the main hall of The Natural History Museum in London

This prize is awarded to the people who have died or been sterilized as a result of particularly stupid behavior on their part for their contribution “to the overall improvement of the human gene pool” (Wikipedia) Official website here

Seriously, I think we’re not too bad for the Darwin Awards, but, unfortunately, this might be one of the last ceremonies.

Do you know the difference between a drug and a vaccine? A drug is a medicine given to a person who is suffering and may even die or have lifelong sequelae if it is not put into their body. Now, imagine we gather a million people who are suffering or are likely to die in the near future can be given a drug that will solve their problem. Also imagine, however, that statistics show that a random person will either be permanently disabled or die because of one of the drug’s side effects. One person in a million…. In my opinion, all the sick people will try the drug. The benefits are too great, and, without the drug, these people are all already condemned to die anyway.

With a vaccine, we are really walking on eggs because it is administered to people who are basically healthy. In their great wisdom, researchers and doctors have established much stricter rules and protocols for vaccines; vaccines take much longer to be tested and validated than drugs. Further, they are generally withdrawn as soon as there are more than 3 or 4 deaths worldwide. These same researchers and doctors have accepted that drugs, on the other hand, kill dozens of people each year. Because those who are prescribed drugs are already ill and perhaps even condemned, there is a benefit in taking a chance. Vaccines, however, can potentially degrade the health of able-bodied people, and this is so unacceptable that all doctors must take the Hippocratic oath the day they graduate: “Primum non nocere,” i.e. “first, do no harm.”

In the case of a vaccine, the number of people who will potentially die or have life-long sequelae in comparison with the number of lives saved by taking the vaccine will be balanced; it is obvious that the vast majority of current vaccines have an indisputable benefit and that they save more lives than they take. In its time, and in the face of an unavoidably fatal disease like rabies, it was obvious that things had to be tested much more quickly.

The history of medicine is full of stories where faced with extremely contagious and deadly diseases, shortcuts were taken, and millions of human lives were saved.

But in the case of COVID-19, this is not the case. People are not dropping dead in the street; reality is far, far from this. Fortunately, the survival rate of those infected with COVID-19 is exceptional, and, apart from purely political reasons, there are absolutely no justifications (especially scientific ones) for suddenly forgetting centuries of wisdom. Do you see the problem?

The problem is that the history of medicine is also littered with under-reported mistakes that have also costed millions of lives. Absolutely every year, there are drugs and vaccines that have passed all the tests and protocols which are later withdrawn because, in the long run, it was realized that they were ineffective. At worst, they killed tens of thousands of people per year. I’m not talking about the scandals that made the headlines; I’m talking about the life of a conventional drug.

Medicine, like all scientific disciplines, is made up of trials, failures, and successes.

Imagine a million healthy people between the ages of 20 and 50 are gathered. We asked them to be injected with an experimental vaccine in order to protect them from a possible disease which, like in the case of COVID-19, is neither serious nor fatal for them. Imagine that, according to statistical evidence, one of them is bound to have lifelong sequelae or even die. Even if the odds are one in a million, I’m not sure they’d want to try the vaccine because there’s a very little chance of them getting sick in the first place, and, even if they do get sick, there’s very little chance of them dying.

As far as the survival of the human race is concerned, putting so many people at risk with substances whose long-term effects we have no idea about and could possibly be dangerous is absolute nonsense. Charles Darwin must be turning in his grave.

Falling ill naturally and getting over it is beneficial too because this process generates very effective antibodies. By the way, where is the control group that doesn’t take the vaccine to see if it works well or not? How can I declare myself as part of the control group?

Concerning our immune system, which is supposedly perfect and that we just need to boost it with Zinc, vitamin C and sunshine and blah blah blah… Taking care of yourself helps you to deal with everyday viruses and bacteria, but not with major diseases like rabies, tetanus or polio. Even though governments have totally corrupted medicine for political purposes, we shouldn’t reject all of it. We are actually very fortunate to have effective medicines and vaccines that have been tested for decades on others. Being overconfident can also lead us to join the Darwin Awards. To finish this section about our immune systems, it is clear that we are not educated enough on the importance of taking care of ourselves all year round by doing simple things like living a healthy life and eating fresh seasonal food. Not getting sick is first and foremost about cultivating your health.

Now, I ask all of those who would like to impose this experimental vaccine on the whole world just to be able to go to a restaurant or on a holiday to look in the mirror and ask themself the following question: Knowing that putting vaccines on the market well before the 10 to 15 years necessary in these cases is a political decision and not a scientific one, knowing that the laboratories have all signed liability waivers because they know very well that their products are not finalized, knowing that life insurance does not work in cases of death by injection of experimental substances, and knowing that statistically healthy people may suffer lifelong sequelae or even die from the injection of this vaccine which is not even finalized and certainly poses more risks than a normal vaccine, why impose it?

Let’s say that you had the magic power to vaccinate the remaining people on this earth within 48 hours so that they could finally go on holiday but one healthy person had to die. What would you do? It’s a complicated question, don’t you think? Does the word “selfishness” come to mind?

How many lives of healthy people who do not risk much with this disease should we take to save how many fragile, sick, or even condemned people in the months to come?

With COVID-19, we are talking about a disease that takes 99% of either very old or very sick people. Seriously, what kind of person would make me take a risky vaccine just to be in solidarity with the pain of those who have lost an 85-year-old granny or a 35-year-old uncle who weighed 145Kg, was diabetic, and died of heart failure? As for the very few people in the prime of life and in good health who became very ill or even died from COVID-19, they certainly had an underlying health problem that was waiting to be revealed one day or another.

Now that some important questions have been asked, I would like to ask another one. In our very specific case, with an unfinished vaccine that we still hope will be the solution, shouldn’t we vaccinate, overprotect, and lockdown only the fragile people so as not to risk harming the able-bodied who can also make the economy work?

Vaccinating everyone, locking everyone down, stopping and killing the economy, creating hundreds of millions of unfortunate able-bodied people worldwide under the pretext of a kind of solidarity with fragile people whose life expectancy is limited is precisely the end of our species. But where are you, Charles Darwin?

Only totally insane politicians could take such decisions and, just as we have separated the clergy from the state, it would be good to separate medicine from the state to avoid this kind of madness.

Remember that, for the last twenty years and despite a growing population and a disproportionate tax burden, the French government has closed tens of thousands of hospital beds and hundreds of intensive care beds, even during the pandemic of COVID-19. I repeat: The government continued to close intensive care beds throughout the pandemic, and I am considered the AntiVaxx terrorist? Are you serious? All the solutions to prepare and manage this epidemic were already in place, and nothing was done. To hide its incompetence, the government is throwing us against each other. Open your eyes; don’t mistake the enemy. To help the sick and dying, it is necessary to open more reanimation beds, even if only temporarily, and that is within the reach of many governments if it had the will. France has all the financial means to open thousands of intensive care beds in a few weeks. If we get the army involved, it can be done in 5 minutes.

Take care of yourselves, friends

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.