Screwtape's Ten Commandments of Our Pandemic Response

In the spirit of C. S. Lewis' classic, The Screwtape Letters, or Steve Deace's “A Nefarious Plot”

There is a lot of confusion out there – why are “the powers that be” throughout the first world acting the way they do, making the decisions that they make? I think this confusion is because people don’t know “the rules.” On the other hand, I haven’t seen anywhere that these rules guiding the first world’s pandemic response have been written out and explained – this must be the reason so many people are confused. It all makes sense if you understand the rules. And, as you will see, there are very good (or should I say, very bad) reasons they have not been written down – some things are too horrible to overtly acknowledge.

Rule #1 - the “One Rule to Rule Them All.”

It’s not about OUR HEALTH, it’s all about THEIR POWER AND WEALTH.

This rule has a number of corollaries:

It’s not about science, it’s about $¢i€₦¢€.

It’s about the interests of Wall Street, not Main Street.

If things about this pandemic don’t make SENSE to you, ask if they make CENTS ($) for someone else.

If their decision-making seems POOR to you, ask if it increases their POWER over you.

The pandemic policies prevailing throughout the first world, for the most part, seem designed (1) to enrich vaccine makers, and all of their many beneficiaries; (2) to increase the power of central governments and their bureaucracies at the expense of local autonomy, and the power of international agencies, and the wealth of multinational corporations at the expense of small business.

Therefore: Only expensive solutions can be promoted - solutions that can be patented - even if they don’t work. Vaccines in the beginning, Regeneron for early treatment (around $2000), Remdesivir (around $3000) for hospital treatment (which some nurses nick-named “Run-death-is-near”). Later we will get expensive, potentially dangerous pills for treatment from Merck and Pfizer, as the vaccines become less and less effective.

The money goes first to the drug cartels, then to a long list of recipients, from medical journals to academic institutions, to hospitals and doctors, to media, etc. etc., so that this rule can be enforced.

Look at all the new billionaires around, getting $ from the taxpayers (or to be precise in the US, piling a mountain of debt on our children, grandchildren, etc.).

Nick Hudson has expounded Rule #1 from his vantage point in South Africa.

Here is an expensive drug just approved to combat the body’s “cytokine storm,” which is what actually kills people – a little problem – it can cause blood clots, compounding what covid is also doing.

Here’s a comparison between the expensive, toxic, and relatively useless drug Remdesivir (“run-death-is-near”) with cheap, safe, effective Ivermectin.

The simplest proof that policy-makers are not acting in the public interest is all the mandates that those who have recovered from Covid-19 be vaccinated, even though the covid-recovered have an immunity many times better than what you get from being pfizered. We have the best immunity, but are mandated to risk death and serious disability, as well as harming our natural immunity.

This leads us to Rule 2:

Rule #2: Ignore what’s working elsewhere.

There is a reason that this article comes from an obscure magazine, from a part of the country where doctors are treating patients with success far, far above what is happening with “standard of care.” Exhibit A of “What’s working elsewhere” is the largest state in India, Uttar Pradesh (240 million population), where they established policies early on (August of 2020) that ignored the “One Rule to Rule Them All.” Their mortality? About 1/40th of ours in USA.

The success of Uttar Pradesh can also be seen in the first world, wherever doctors are treating patients, ignoring the advice of “experts,” administrators, academics and bureaucrats who don’t treat anybody.

An earlier article in the same journal, an interview with Dr. Brian Tyson, explains how they developed a protocol that’s achieved almost 100% success rate keeping patients from death and hospitalization. So he and his partner Dr. George Fareed must be ignored also. Or lied about (see Rule #3 below) when ignoring isn’t working. “Oh, they must have only young patients.” No, quite the opposite.

This graphic, from April 2021, compares mortality in their clinic in Imperial Valley, California (AVUC – “All Valley Urgent Care” –  with providers elsewhere nearby).

Studies on the use of Ivermectin are collected here. For Covid-19 treatment protocols using Ivermectin, Fluvoxamine, etc. see here.

Dr. Syed Haider, also in the US, has been treating acute patients at his clinic with a 100% success rate with a protocol which includes the cheap generics Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine.

Rule #3: When you can no longer ignore what’s working elsewhere, tell lies about why it’s working.

Lies I’ve read recently about Uttar Pradesh:

(1) “Their vaccination rate is higher than ours, that’s why they’re doing so well.” Remember the saying, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” This lie is based on comparing PRESENT rates, while Uttar Pradesh is far far behind USA in terms of total vaccinations - actually, Uttar Pradesh is very close to herd immunity with only about 10% fully vaccinated.

(2) They had a massive lockdown, that’s why their cases are so low. True, they locked down briefly in April, but that was because of a surge of infected people coming there from other parts of India when the disease was surging elsewhere in the country. The result of the surge was that their mortality went from 1/60th of ours to 1/40th. Their success preceded lockdown by many months.

Rule #4: When reality - the present situation - diverges from predictive models, stick with the models. It has worked (at least for a while) with global warming, so it should work for a while now, too. Models at the beginning of the pandemic grossly exaggerated how many would die, and that governed our response, and the world has been slooooooow to respond to reality, because of Rule #1, and the public’s ignorance of reality (it’s very clear that Rule #4 is very effective, the vast majority of people have a totally unrealistic view of covid danger - how many have died, how many are at risk - for the vast majority of people, especially young people).

A Professor of Clinical Psychology explains how this works: “Why do so many people still buy into the narrative?” It is a long and quite alarming interview describing mass psychosis with lots of historical references.

Rule #5 of our pandemic response:

Masks serve their purpose.

Their main purpose is to give you a quick and easy way to identify yourself as a good and caring person, so you don’t have to concern yourself with actually being a good and caring person. In other words, they let you pretend.

This works on the group level as well - government and corporate mask mandates signal to the world that you are good and care about them (the ultimate virtue signaling), while you endorse policies that are harmful and deadly to them (such as suppressing cheap and effective therapeutics which could save 90+% of people who have been infected, mandating that covid-recovered people get vaccinated, etc.).

And you can have endless discussions and studies on whether masks actually do any good, or do more harm than good, how to wear them, all the while distracting from more important issues.

The Greek word from which we get our word “hypocrite” comes from a Greek word which meant “actor,” or to be more precise, “pretender.” Actors were professional pretenders, and they wore masks. The word “actor/pretender” meant someone who interpreted from under [a mask].

The verbal form of the word is found in the Gospel of Luke 20:20 – people came to Jesus to test him, who “pretended to be righteous.”

So, it’s only fitting, that masks be the ultimate symbol of our pandemic response. They do serve their real purpose (which is not their stated purpose). Note – I’m not saying that masks that actually work (still a matter of debate what that means) shouldn’t have their place.

It would appear that few people care that one of the effects of our mask policies is to terrorize children, which certainly serves Satan’s purposes:

“If I take my mask off I might die . . . and I might kill my mother.”

Rule #6 of our pandemic response:

Natural Immunity? Forget about it.

Natural immunity only applies to chicken pox, measles, etc. Why? Because there is a “need” to vaccinate everyone – not for your health, but “for the greater good.” What is the “greater good?” Neglect of natural immunity is “good” for: (1) The drug cartels, and everyone for whom they make money; they need to keep the money rolling in, and keep the political and economic agenda going (Rule #1); (2) When the plague is finally gone (so they think), they can claim credit for vaccination if everyone is vaccinated (including those who don’t need it), and the villains will be heroes (see below for an explanation why this goal is not achievable with vaccination only); (3) Time is running out, until the public is fully awakened to the fact that the vaccines aren’t working and they are unsafe, and they can then let the drug cartels have their chance to make money with expensive drugs whose safety record is unknown and which are inferior to a combination of cheap generics and nutrients.

We must ignore natural immunity because it is much better than vaccine induced immunity. As explained by a Pfizer scientist himself – who did not know he was being recorded – the drug cartels’ “vaccines” are not based on the whole virus but rather on the tiny spikes sticking out of the “ball” of the virus – your body produces an immune response to the spike, which, as it turns out, has mutated so much that the vaccines have become less and less effective over time. The so-called “boosters” which are being given now are also based on the original virus, not the Delta version. But the immunity produced by your God-given immune system reacts to the whole virus, not just the tiny spike, giving your immune system a greater chance of fighting it, and giving you long lasting immunity. For comparison, people exposed to SARS-COV-1 around 15 years ago still have antibodies against it. People exposed to the so-called “Spanish flu” of a hundred years ago still had antibodies in old age, many decades later.

Here are a couple Johnson and Johnson employees caught on camera saying that children should not get their vaccine, but that unvaccinated adults need to be coerced and made to feel like second class citizens, etc. so that they will get the vaccines (watch the guy laugh while he says it, and note that when J & J mandated vaccination for their employees, he got Moderna, not J & J).

Another “problem.” People who have natural immunity won’t need boosters once or twice a year, and that’s a serious problem. Drug dealers need to get their customers hooked on their costly products. And if the public realizes how little the threat of this disease is to young people, and how unsafe the vaccines are to them, they might realize getting infected and recovering is a safer risk to their long term health, especially when considering how easily treatable the disease is. Senator Ron Johnson (WI) put out this press release responding to comments made by Fauci on CNN, Sept 9, 2021:

“When asked to comment on the effectiveness of natural immunity against the virus based on recent studies from Israel, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated he did not ‘have a real firm answer’ on that. Almost 20 months into the pandemic, it is shocking that the chief medical advisor to the president does not have a firm grasp on the effectiveness of natural immunity, but still promotes freedom-robbing vaccine mandates.”

The reality is, it is hard to imagine us reaching “herd immunity” without a good percentage of the community getting natural (covid-recovered) immunity, since the vaccines do not stop you from getting infected or passing the disease to others.

As Pieter Streicher explains, since the R0 value of the Delta variant is 5, it implies an 80% infection and recovery rate in order to achieve herd immunity. Whether one gets vaccinated or not, herd immunity will not be achieved until around 80% of the population is infected and recovers – since the vaccines do not stop the spread of Delta. In such a scenario, the best outcome is that the young and healthy go about their lives while the old and the vulnerable take the most precautions: “from this point onwards, the only way to save more lives is to maximize the number of vulnerable that never get infected” and “The only way to do this is to increase the infection differential between the young and healthy and the old and vulnerable.” (Note: I would add, of course, that more widespread use of effective therapeutics is also crucial in saving lives, especially of the most vulnerable).

Streicher also makes the point another way; contrary to “the narrative” which claims that it is the vaccinated who are protecting others, it is the covid-recovered, not the vaccinated, that are protecting others, since we are the only ones who can’t get the disease and pass it on (there is a less than 1% chance) – we who declined vaccination, risked infection, and are covid recovered deserve thanks for taking the risk. It is not going well in places which rely on vaccination only. I would add to this the point that the unvaccinated who have not been infected but who take effective prophylaxis, are also protecting others (flccc.net).

Rule #7 of our pandemic response:

Covid-19 is the only health issue that matters, and how our response to it impacts other issues (health, economic, or social) is to be ignored.

It is possible for people to enact mistaken policies out of good intentions – policies which actually make the problem being addressed worse. If these mistakes were in fact made out of good intentions, then, when the mistake becomes obvious, the bad policy would be changed. But if they fail to make a course correction even when it is evident that we are headed for a crash, then it becomes clear that their intentions are not good at all. They are acting in bad faith. In other words, their “stuck on stupid” is actually “stuck on wicked,” revealing that Rule #1 (“It’s not about our health, it’s all about their power and wealth”) is what is motivating their policies.

Age is the primary indicator of risk of mortality for Covid-19. Obesity is the second most important risk factor. We can’t do anything about our age, but we can do many things to improve our health. Of those many things, the statistically most important thing would be to avoid or correct obesity. If our public policy makers were acting in the public interest, they would be warning us constantly about the dangers of obesity and how to avoid it (not just eat less, but eat more healthily). This is especially true since it has become evident that lockdown policies enacted to control the virus have increased the prevalence of obesity, making the public more susceptible to death from covid, and even making the vaccines less effective against it (see link in comments).

A 225 page report on obesity from March of this year looks at the issue all around the world and shows the strong correlation. But there are other matters which illustrate Rule #7.

Pieter Streicher has an informative thread on this issue (which gave me the link to the document mentioned above), including the mention of how obesity reduces the efficacy of vaccination. Covid-19 death rates are 10 times higher in countries where more than half of the adult population is classified as overweight. If their primary interest was our well-being, this fact would be trumpeted everywhere, and we would not enact policies (i.e. lockdowns) that INCREASE obesity.

A look at overall mortality in Canada suggests that the consequences of lockdowns show the “cure is worse than the disease.” See gif in the thread that shows this in various places; compare to Sweden for overall mortality.

A lady on this Twitter thread says it is “terrifying” that 1 in 21 kids tested positive for Covid-19, without thinking about actual disease and symptoms. Dr. Brian Tyson responds with comparisons to other disease risks which are much higher for children. One might mention also the risks of vaccination itself, which is more dangerous to children than is the disease.

A Doctor describes a hospital rule that prevents treating asthmatic patients with an albuterol inhaler if they test positive for Covid-19, even if vaccinated and have no symptoms – which means they might die in the hospital from an asthma attack.

The Governor of Maine shows that Rule #7 flows out of Rule #1, saying, in effect, firing unvaccinated hospital workers takes priority over providing good health care to the public (note: the rationale for such policies has evaporated in light of the fact that the vaccinated workers can become infected and spread the disease as well or better than the unvaccinated).

In Manitoba there is a backlog of people waiting for other medical procedures essential to their health.

Since many cancers are kept in check by our immune system, and the initial effect of Covid-19 vaccination is to suppress our immune system for a few weeks, it is plausible that we could see an increase in cancer accompanying vaccination. Here is a long Twitter thread with many stories of cancers spreading more quickly after vaccination. And cancer is just one of many maladies kept in check by our immune system, that may be manifested after vaccination.

Rule #8 of our pandemic response:

When God providentially points you to a simple and cheap way out of the pandemic, feel free to ignore His providence because you have other priorities (Rule #1).

Some of the most important discoveries in history have been made by accident – someone noticed that a certain event was followed by an unexpected outcome. The discovery of the antibiotic penicillin is one such example – one for which I am particularly grateful, having survived pneumonia twice as a child. Accidents and coincidences have also led to some discoveries of cheap remedies early on in the Covid-19 pandemic as well – discoveries that, if followed up on, could have saved the vast majority of lives lost at very low cost.

The powers that be, however, have acted like the idol-makers of Ephesus who incited a riot against the Apostle Paul because their income from making idols of Artemis was threatened by the citizens accepting the free offer of the Gospel (Acts 19). Today, instead of the chant “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians,” it’s non-stop, “Great are the vaccines! Great are the vaccines!”

Ivermectin: In February 2020 there was an outbreak of scabies on the fourth floor of Valley View nursing home in Toronto. A single dose of Ivermectin was used to treat the affected patients. Patients on the fourth floor got a full dose, while the rest got less. The staff were not treated. It was noticed that, when Covid-19 cases started to be manifest, some of the staff got sick, but none of the patients treated with a full dose of Ivermectin got sick. This was perhaps the first confirmation that Ivermectin would work for Covid-19. In effect, it was a double blind study, skewed against Ivermectin because it was the elderly, the frail, the most likely to succumb to the virus, who did not get sick. The health authorities were not interested, however, no follow-up was done, and in Canada today a doctor may lose his license for prescribing Ivermectin to treat Covid-19. Doctors and hospitals in the US and elsewhere also face various forms of coercion not to prescribe Ivermectin. The story has not yet been taken down by YouTube.

Here was a two and a half hour discussion between two liberal scientists talking in close to theological terms about Ivermectin as “gift to us” that can “save us from this Hell,” and how opposition to it ranges “from the benign to the sinister,” inexplicable that this is not treated as good news, opposition from “the gods of knowledge and science.”  Again, it reminds one of Paul at Ephesus and the opposition from the idol worshipers and idol manufacturing industry (Acts 19) – the free offer of the gospel threatened the livelihood of the idol-makers so they whipped up the citizenry into a frenzy and started a riot. “Why should we [USA] be lagging the world in understanding this?” (good question – see Rule #1). This interview was taken down by YouTube (one of the beneficiaries of our pandemic Rule #1), for “violating community guidelines.”

Fluvoxamine: As reported in a “60 Minutes” episode March 2021, a “series of coincidences” led to the discovery that another cheap generic drug, Fluvoxamine, “a pill that costs 60 cents” used for 40 years as an anti-depressant, was an effective treatment for the virus. A small trial was done in 2020, and the doctor for workers at the “Golden Gate Fields” horse race heard about the study after workers at the track tested positive for Covid-19. The doctor offered Fluvoxamine to the infected staff; 65 took the medicine, 48 declined. Of those who took Fluvoxamine, none progressed to hospitalization, while 6 of the other group were hospitalized, and one died. Only a few trials have been conducted of Fluvoxamine, especially compared to Ivermectin, but the efficacy is comparable (c19fluvoxamine.com).

Lancet recently reported favorable results for Fluvoxamine from Oxford’s “Together” trial, but our public agencies have shown no interest, as they continue to dole out billions of $ for new, patented, experimental, potentially toxic treatments.

Rule #9 of our pandemic response:

“Anything but the vaccines.” This is in answer to the question, “What is causing all these heart attacks, especially in young and healthy athletes, and especially in men?” Note: this answer works just as well for any other post-vaccination side effects people are wondering about.

For heart attacks, at first you could just claim that there’s nothing out of the ordinary this past year, but as the year has progressed, and more and more people, and younger and younger age groups are being vaccinated (many under coercion), and more and more athletes are having heart attacks, and people are noticing, so the backup plan is to blame a host of other causes: depression, anxiety, poor diet, increased obesity, increased drug and alcohol use, lack of sex, women taking on extra roles, climate change (of course!). Some of these might have some plausibility, but are athletes likely to have poor diet, increased obesity, substance abuse, etc., compared to previous years? Staying fit and healthy is part of their job.

This leads to a bigger, more serious question: have the Covid-19 vaccines killed more people with side effects, than they have saved from Covid-19 death – at least for younger ages? If so, it would be hard to imagine a more catastrophic public health initiative, at least in modern times.

Rule #9 is a sort of mirror image of Rule #2 (ignore what’s working elsewhere) and Rule #3 (when you can no longer ignore what’s working elsewhere, tell lies about it). In Rule #9 we’ve got, in essence, “Ignore the harm from the vaccines, and when you can no longer ignore it, tell lies about it.” And again, Rule #9, like the others, supports the “one rule to rule them all,” namely, “It’s not about our health, it’s about their power and wealth.”

For heart attacks, let’s focus on Pfizer, since, of the three approved vaccines in the US, it is the least harmful.

Here is a handy flow chart describing Pfizer’s 6 month Phase 3 trial for safety and efficacy. Both the placebo group and the vaccine group numbered about 22,000. Of these, there was 1 Covid-19 death in the vaccine group, 2 in the placebo group. Not very impressive, statistically – 2 out of 22,000 doesn’t sound much more scary than 1 out of 22,000. If it was 4 to 1 that’s still not that scary, but it would be more statistically significant, right?

Well, there is a 4 to 1 in that last row – 4 deaths by “cardiac arrest” in the vaccine group, just 1 in the placebo group. At the time of the trials it was not known (at least such knowledge had not become public) that the vaccines had a rare side effect, heart attacks in young healthy males. That connection was made a few months ago, however, so just looking at that study suggests the possibility that the answer is yes, the vaccines could be killing more people with side effects than they are saving from Covid, especially for younger age groups, which is relevant, not because a young person’s life is more valuable than an older person’s, but because covid mortality is heavily skewed towards old people – young healthy people are at little risk from covid.

Here’s a substack post by Steve Kirsch looking at the issue of increased heart attacks this year (partly public, partly for subscribers – just $5 a month).

The above article by Steve has a link to a report about a German news article – there’s an error in the headline. The article describes 75 heart attacks in athletes since June, not 75 deaths. The chrome browser does a decent job translating it.

An Israeli study of heart attack deaths of professional soccer players found 108 deaths (conservative estimate) so far this year from a league (FIFA) of around 25,000 players. Note that in Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial noted above, the placebo group and the vaccinated group were comparable in size to the FIFA league. There were only 2 Covid-19 deaths from the placebo group, 1 in the group that received the vaccine. But 108 deaths of young, healthy athletes, most likely from the vaccines. It certainly doesn’t make moral sense, but it makes cents for the drug cartels.

The BBC did a report on heart attacks in teens, they want us to know it’s more common than you think. Were they running interference for the drug cartels so you don’t ask inconvenient questions?

Rule 10: The WWSD rule.

When you find yourself confused, can’t remember the above rules or how to apply them in a particular situation, or are tempted to act in a way that is actually beneficial towards mankind, just look at the WWSD bracelet on your left wrist and ask yourself, “What would Satan do?” in this situation, then go thou and do likewise.

If you don’t believe in the existence of Satan, perhaps recent events should cause you to reconsider?

Interesting coincidence: there is an enzyme called “luciferase” involved in the production of Moderna’s C-19 vaccine. “Lucifer” as a name for the devil comes from the Latin translation of Isaiah 14:12, part of an oracle addressed to an unnamed king of Babylon. I would identify this king as Sennacherib, since, even though he is better known as a king of Assyria, he also had himself crowned as king of Babylon, which he conquered, and the oracle abruptly shifts from speaking of Babylon to predicting the demise of Assyria (Isaiah 14:24).

It is easy to see Sennacherib as an earthly figurehead for the devil, as the oracle seems to transcend the earthly king as object, to a supernatural power behind him: “You said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven, I will raise my throne above the stars of God . . . I will make myself like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:13-14). Verse 12 says “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn.” “Star” here is more literally, “shining one,” and the Latin uses “lucifer,” “light bearer,” to so translate it. Sennacherib never fell from heaven, but he can be seen as a figurehead for the one who does (cf. Luke 10:18; Revelation 12:9).

So, interesting coincidence going along with our Rule #10: “One more thing: the new COVID-19 antibody test is called SATiN and it uses Luciferase.”