The Great VIRAL Debate: Dr Rancourt’s Closing Statement

Welcome to Closing Statements of The Great VIRAL Debate. Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section. Dr Piers Robinson is our chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition under debate is:

SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach

Dr Rancourt, arguing against the proposition, closes his argument:

These closing statements, following the openings and two rounds of debate, were submitted simultaneously, in parallel, without prior viewing.

Tim’s position is anchored in his beliefs that:

a. A new virus (“SARS-CoV-2”) has been discovered that is unlike any other viral respiratory disease virus.

b. The deaths assigned to have been caused by COVID-19 are due to the new virus.

I address these beliefs below.

On this basis, Tim advances his main thesis that a difference in “COVID deaths” between “neoliberal countries (UK, USA, Sweden, Brazil)” and “more independent countries (China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria)” is caused by decimated and badly managed medical systems in the West versus responsibly managed and values-based medical care in his list of non-neoliberal countries.

Tim is not deterred by differences between his two select groups of countries, which affect viral respiratory disease propagation and deaths. Repeating myself, the said differences are in three areas:

1. Absolute-humidity-dependence of aerosol stability in air (viral transmission)
2. Care-homes institutional structure, and populations in care homes (hot spots)
3. Closed space aerosol-exhaust ventilation dependence on climate and air-conditioning (climate)

For Tim, these differences, and decades of the underlying science, are my “two part theory”. Tim appears to be oblivious to the logical deconstruction of his main thesis, which I have made.

Likewise, Tim ignores analyses based on the (national and regional) hard numbers of all-cause mortality by time, and prefers “the reported COVID-19 death toll of almost 1.2 million” unscientifically collected and tabulated by the WHO.

Coming back to the debate question: Were extraordinary government-imposed measures warranted? Would business as usual have been preferable?

By the measure of accumulated science and established practice prior to 2020, this was not a pandemic. It was a massive propaganda campaign and social interference, in the normal presence of viral respiratory disease.

Such propaganda campaigns are regularly engineered by Big Pharma and its Finance collaborators to continually invent epidemics,[1] and this is allowed/enabled because there is globalization and geopolitical utility. Russia and China must go along with the West’s propaganda, as I explained in my Round 2 response.

In fact, “COVID-19” deaths occurred irrespective of “SARS-CoV-2”. Virtually any respiratory disease virus or collection of viruses in the viral ecology of our bodies would have served the same purpose. They all kill vulnerable, sick and weakened individuals in the same way; notwithstanding the industry of finding medical particularities of “SARS-CoV-2”. Influenza is similarly associated with a spectrum of relatively rare exotic medical complications.

In terms of deaths, the 2020 non-pandemic was a globally-instigated unprecedented assault against working and middle-class, largely institutionalized, elderly and socially/medically fragile populations.

The all-cause mortality shows sharp surges in deaths that followed the 11 March 2020 WHO global recommendation for hospital clearing as “pandemic” response, across the world, in those jurisdictions that sent hospitalised infected elderly persons into the community, including locked down care homes.[2][3][4][5]

The mechanism that made care homes and institutions for sick and elderly persons into killing fields includes the following elements:[2][3][4][5]

• infection seeding by hospital transfers into the care homes
• universal lockdowns of the care homes
• denied specialized medical treatment to the residents of the care homes
• reduced staffing and staff abandonment in the care homes, and negligence
• collateral effects of the universal lockdown of the care homes: extreme social isolation, psychological stress, reduced aerosol-exhaust ventilation, lost oversight of the institutions by family-members

This was a mass crime.[2] Tim prefers to make an ideological argument.

Tim is incorrect to suggest that I reject “preventive health measures”. I agree with the usual social and science-based practice of voluntarily staying at home when one has symptoms of a transmissive respiratory disease, as a way to slow the rate of transmission in the community at large. This practice includes being told to stay at home by colleagues and supervisors. It also includes voluntarily abstaining from visiting elderly parents and grandparents during one’s symptomatic period and prior to symptoms if another person in the nuclear family has symptoms. It is a case-by-case and contextual approach, adapted to particular needs and priorities.

A universal lockdown on care homes is an entirely different beast, and has not previously been globally imposed, nor is it scientifically demonstrated to give a net benefit. In fact, the experience of COVID-19 unambiguously demonstrates a massive harm from this protocol, especially when combined with infecting the cares homes using hospital transfers.

Likewise, I oppose universal lockdowns of the general population, universally enforced masking,[6][7] universal “social distancing”, and the universally imposed so-called “sanitary practices” of compulsive handwashing and surface cleaning. There is no demonstration of benefit from these laws and rules, which are an attack on society.

There wasn’t even a legitimate pandemic. My research suggests that if the extraordinary and universally applied measures had not been enacted, then no excess deaths would have occurred beyond those of a regular flu season. The post-March-11th “COVID-peaks” that I first identified in the all-cause mortality data for the USA and Europe would not have occurred.[3]

In the context of this debate, “herd/community immunity” refers to the business-as-usual natural coping of individuals and society constantly challenged by respiratory disease viruses, as has been the case for thousands of years. In technical terms, the concept of “herd immunity” was introduced by vaccine manufacturers as a pretext for universal vaccination programs, rather than individual personal-choice “protection”. After all, if a vaccine is effective, then it should protect the vaccinated individual. The idea is that sufficiently large vaccination coverage prevents rapid spread through a population, and reduces the likelihood that late pockets of vulnerable (not immune) individuals will be infected by the pathogen in question. Thus defined, “herd immunity” is a device to sell universal vaccination.

In my view, we have not entered a new area in which human health on the planet suddenly, after 4 billion years of animal co-evolution with viruses, depends on universal distribution of viral respiratory disease vaccines; nor have we entered a new scientific era in which the gargantuan vaccine industry has discovered how to make effective, beneficial, and safe viral respiratory disease vaccines. The industry is a wasteful cash cow, which causes much harm and deters away from real health and quality of life initiatives.

If you want to help vulnerable and oppressed populations and social classes, then stop structurally and directly attacking vulnerable and oppressed populations and social classes.

Click HERE to read Dr Anderson’s Final Statement.

Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section