1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Commentary
  4.  » The Backlash: Make or Break in 2022?

Above: Prof. Van Tam

Ian Fantom – Jan 6, 2022



  • Is PCR now being abandoned?
  • Omissions and Admissions
  • In The Truthseeker posted in just One Day (2021-12-30)
  • Masks and Hypothetical Maths
  • The Third Van Tam Lecture
  • New Year’s Eve: More Top Stories
  • A Positive Trend – and Hope for the New Year
  • And on New Year’s Day: Honours for the Elite
  • Post Script: Petitioning the Queen

I’ve been trying to finish off an article for the past few weeks, but developments are hitting us so fast now that it’s practically impossible to finish off anything without having to break off to deal with the latest breakthrough, or the ludicrosity in the present situation in which we find ourselves. My New Year’s Resolutions each year for the past quarter of a century or so have been to finish off what I’ve started. I hear Leonardo da Vinci had the same problem, so again I feel I’m in good company.

1. Is PCR now being abandoned?

Well it’s looking like that. Many of us, including scientists and medics, have been trying to sound the alarm over the PCR tests for some time. The guy who received a Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the test, Kary Mullis, sounded the alarm when PCR was being misused to detect HIV and AIDS. PCR will detect even trace amounts of RNA, by matching it with a ‘primer’ molecule, in a sequence of thermal cycles, in which the number of characteristic molecules is doubled with each cycle. It can only be used to detect the presence of the RNA molecules, not of a disease. A disease is the set of symptoms which may arise, but on the other hand may not arise, associated with the RNA molecules. The symptoms may be caused by the disease or by the immune system. If the immune system successfully fights off a toxin, then the person may have immunity from it. So the presence of the RNA molecule may indicate a disease, or it may indicate that the person had the disease and successfully fought the toxin off, and will probabably successfully fight off that toxin if it arises again. Kary Mullis himself came to the realisation that his PCR test was being misused when he questioned his own acceptance of what ‘everyone knew’ about HIV causing AIDS. He then saw the flaw in the research by Luc Montagnier, who had received a Nobel Prize for Chemistry for isolating the HIV virus as the cause of AIDS. Eventually, Luc Montagnier had to agree. He is now one of the leading campaigners in France against the so-called ‘science’ behind the whole COVID story.

In the UK, the traditional Royal Institution Lectures, which take place between Christmas and the New Year, are this year being given by Professor Jonathan Van Tam, who is the Government’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, and whose face is familiar to most people because of his frequent appearances in the Downing Street press conferences. These lectures are given by scientists from various disciplines, and are aimed at children. They include lots of practical demonstrations, involving the kids. In the first of his lectures he explained how the PCR test works, introducing the idea of exponential growth in detectable molecules with each thermal cycle. The mathematics was correct, but these explanations will mislead people if certain crucial information is missing, and such information was indeed missing. This is how I described it in one WhatsApp group:

Van Tam and his helpers demonstrated the principles on which viruses work, and how antibodies work. Then he explained the PCR test and how a given bit of RNA is matched and how the amount of it doubles with each thermal cycle. Then he changed the wording to detecting the disease [as distinct to the molecule], which PCR does not do. It only detects the presence of that bit of RNA. The immune system may well have fought the RNA off. It’s doing such things all the time, which is why we’re not ill all the time. Also, he omitted to say that after 25 cycles the PCR tests become unreliable because the signal to noise ratio is too low. After 35 cycles it is useless. They were initially going up to 40 cycles. Pfizer used up to 40 when they must have known all this. I asked them! Also, the RNA found could be a result of the immune system, messenger RNA known as exosomes, discovered around 1985. He also omitted to say that much of the theory of viruses had been controversion since the 1890s. Also that scientists have failed to show that Covid-19 is actually caused by a virus. It was all very entertaining, and would have fooled me when I was a kid.

I accept of course that one cannot go into too much detail in a lecture like that, but that is no excuse for avoiding presenting a balanced assessment, which is crucial in all science. But even Dr Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, made the point that using more than 35 cycles was useless. So what were Pfizer thinking of when they admitted to going up to 40 cycles in their testing of their mRNA vaccine? The only rational reason I can think of would be intentional fraud.

2. Omissions and Admissions

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is “one of the major operating components of the [US] Department of Health and Human Services”, according to their About page. On 2021-12-07 they issued a statement, aimed at an ‘audience’ of “Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing”. It was headed: ‘07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing’. Their opening paragraph stated:

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

In other words, they are withdrawing the PCR test, which has been used world wide, and has been considered the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosing Covid-19. They don’t explicitly say why, but they do say, “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”, and that can only mean that the PCR test as used so far, does not distinguish between Covid-19 and influenca. They recommend that clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. I shall not attempt to evaluate these alternatives, since there are specialists in this field who would do a far better job than I would.

I first came across this in a writeup in The Gateway Pundit, published on Dec 29, 2021. It was headed, ‘HUGE. CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flu and COVID Virus’. I don’t know about ‘finally’, since I’d never heard of that objection before; perhaps since the claim that the PCR test will diagnose a disease is false, it should come as no surprise that it can be associated by those people with another disease, too. This article also points out: “This explains the disappearance of Flu cases in the US in 2020. It also inflated the COVID cases as Dr. Fauci and the DC elites knew would happen”. Indeed, some of us had noticed that one.

I sent that report to The Truthseeker, who published it the following morning. They added a footnote: “Also see: Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year”. The article gives various graphs showing the decline of flu in the Americas and in Oceania. Their opening paragraph states:

Since the novel coronavirus began its global spread, influenza cases reported to the World Health Organization from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have dropped to minute levels. The reason, epidemiologists think, is that the public health measures taken to keep the coronavirus from spreading—notably mask wearing and social distancing—also stop the flu. Influenza viruses are transmitted in much the same way as SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and they are less effective at jumping from person to person.

In the light of the CDC’s statement, that looks very much like an excuse. The reality seems to be what many of us suspected in the first place, that cases of flu were being attributed to Covid-19. The statistics are of diagnoses rather than deaths, but they do state: “ ‘There’s just no flu circulating,’ says Greg Poland, who has studied the disease at the Mayo Clinic for decades. The U.S. saw about 700 deaths from influenza during the 2020–2021 season. In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there were approximately 22,000 U.S. deaths in the prior season and 34,000 deaths two seasons ago”. The let-out clause has been that they died ‘with’ Covid-19 rather that they died ‘of’ Covid-19.

Some people have suggested to me that this will not be reported in the Mainstream Media, and they are probably right. But what happens when they stop talking about PCR? More people will become suspicious, but not enough, unless we help them. Someone needs to get the message out to all ‘Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing’. Hopefully one of the medical campaigning groups will see fit to get that message out, perhaps with some publication or circular.

3. In The Truthseeker posted in just one Day (2021-12-30)

The same day several damning reports were presented in The Truthseeker. ‘Narrative is Collapsing! – Police Threaten Children! – Fauci ADMITS Jab Does NOTHING!’ ran one headline, and the intro ran: “In the beginning we were told that the vaccine would protect us. Then we were told we needed two jabs for total immunity. Now we are being told we need multiple “booster jabs” for complete protection. Where does it end?”. ‘Twitter Bans Dr. Robert Malone, The Inventor of mRNA Vaccine Technology’ ran another, with the explanation “Banned by Twitter after a ‘misinformation reporter’ accused Dr Malone of misleading people, when he claimed that the vaccines are failing against the Omicron variant”. ‘Covid Genocide: Dr. Zelenko Slays Globalists With Veritas Bombs’ runs another, explaining: “Dr. Vladimir Zelenko tells Stew Peters that children have a 99.99 percent chance of recovery from Covid ‘without treatment’. So why the hell are governments around the world busy with mass vaccination campaigns for children??”. And yet another: ‘CAUGHT RED-HANDED: Covid Tests Are Designed to Pick-Up “SARS-CoV-2 Proteins” . . . . which the mRNA Vaccines tell your body to produce!!!’, explaining “Self-Fulfilling ‘Outbreak’ and total fraud!”. And another: ‘A List Of People Who Had Their Leg Amputated Shortly After Receiving a COVID-19 Shot’, explaining: “Apart from heart failures, the Covid vaccine also seems to lead to blood clots, which in many cases has resulted in amputations”. And lastly on Covid: ‘Five Important Stories Mainstream Media Has Been Ignoring in Favor Covid Fear and Divide’, with an intro: “From dark and despicable to positive and uplifting: five stories that the MSM has ignored while it strives to foment fear over the ‘pandemic’”. And finally on Covid, ‘The Covid narrative is insane and illogical…and maybe that’s no accident’, with an intro: “In Orwell’s 1984 the heresy of heresies was common sense. Given the contradictory and often absurd nature of what we are told about Covid-19 we seem to be in exactly the same predicament”.

There are a couple of articles on Jewishness and antisemitism, though they are really about Zionism. ‘5 Jewish things to know about Boris Johnson’ runs a headline from The Times of Israel, which shows how he kowtows to Israel, but isn’t always consistent. And an article by Henry Makow: ‘Kol Nidre — Is the Truth Anti Semitic?’. He explains, “Fifty per cent of Jews are assimilated like myself and don’t want to be scapegoats for satanist megalomaniacs like the Rothschilds, who pretty much control the world”. Then there are a couple of stories about the military tensions between Russia and the US over Ukraine. The original sources are linked to at the bottom of each article, with the word ‘Source’.

All these main stories in one day! Though not every day is quite as dramatic as this one.

4. Masks and Hypothetical Maths

The previous evening I had listened to the second of the Royal Institution Lectures, in which Professor Van Tam explained the statistitics of how viruses can spread from person to person, and how masks can help reduce that spread. He showed how the spread initially can be exponential, but then eventually can trail off as people develop immunity. This is how I described it in one WhatsApp group:

The maths seemed OK but virtually everything was in the conditional. The efficiency of masks was based on the idea that airborne viruses are all in water droplets. And of course that the virus causes the disease in the first place. No consideration was given to the idea that an outbreak might be caused by everyone being subject to the same stresses, like cold weather. I haven’t done enough work on 5G, but it’s beginning to look like a possibility. Then there’s a question of the reuse of masks and its lifetime, which they ignored. I heard it’s 20 mins. And what about the cotton masks that some people wear? And if it’s loose-fitting, what about the fast air stream that will go around it, thus carrying an aerosol much farther? No evidenc presented to show that masks work.

The conditional is about what could happen, or what would happen, as distinct to what does happen. For that one would need experimental evidence. That is fundamental to all science.

5. The Third Van Tam Lecture

At this stage I broke off for lunch, followed by a family visit, but returned in time to watch the Royal Institution lecture. In the third and final one of the Royal Institution Lectures, Professor Van Tam and his professorial helpers talked about vaccines. He began by telling us about how the Chinese 500 years ago found a solution to smallpox, when they realised that people who had had smallpox would never get it again. So they tried taking the remaining poxes from sufferers who had recovered, grinding them up and inserting the resulting powder into the nostrils of patients, with the idea of transferring that immunity to them. By and large that worked, though 2% of the patients died, but it did stop epidemics of smallpox. Then they stated that in order to understand that you have to understand how viruses work. But hang on, whatever the truth is – and I’m not a medical professional – that explanation does not make sense. The function of the immune system, we are told, is to kill off the viruses, and so we would expect any viruses remaining in the poxes to be the dead remains of the viruses, amongst a lot of cells generated by the immune system, to kill off those viruses. So the argument that they were creating immunity in others by inserting old viruses is fundamentally flawed, when the explanation could be that the remaining immune system cells were responsible for building up the immune system of the subject. That explanation would seem to me to be perfectly rational, and probably more credible. I don’t know whether the Chinese 500 years ago had their own explanation of how this might work, but this apparently was before the theory of viruses was developed, so it would be quite credible to think that some of them would be thinking on the lines of transferring whatever was produced in the survivor’s body to give him immunity into the body of someone else, to see whether it would work there, too. This would still apply if the word ‘viruses’ were replace with ‘toxins’, and ‘kill off’ by ‘neutralise’. Yet this assumption of viruses formed the basis of the rest of the lecture. They continued by talking about the evolution of vaccines in the West, starting with Edward Jenner’s experiments, and ending up with the mRNA vaccines developed to combat Covid-19, emphasising how much the mRNA technology had speeded up the development of vaccines. They also said that this development had taken place over the past 20 years, yet my understanding is that the mRNA technique was invented by Robert Malone 40 years ago. Now Professor Malone is a persona non grata as regards the social media corporations, and was recently banned entirely from Twitter. He is vigorously saying that the mRNA technology is inappropriate for its present use. There was no mention of this in Professor Van Tam’s lecture. Then they went on to talk about the extraordinary immune systems of bats and llamas, but they didn’t explain the relevance of this. What I got out of that part was an observation of the curiosity of the two llamas they brought in, which were constantly looking around the lecture theatre, looking puzzled. I sympathised. Perhaps we weren’t the only ones. Professor Van Tam and his helpers didn’t really explain how mRNA works, nor did they talk about the testing of the mRNA vaccines. They relied on the reputation of conventional vaccines in stopping epidemics to carry them through in giving credibility to what they were saying about mRNA gene therapy. As I see it, that was a pretty standard technique of evasion. In the knowledge that there were known problems with the mRNA tests, as I have previously reported, I just have to wonder how many of the professors he brought on were themselves misled, and how many were there through vested interests. I don’t have much doubt about Professor Van Tam. Anyone who understood that point and was taking part in such deception is, in my opinion, guilty of child abuse, because they would be doing so in full knowledge of the fact that what the children were being told would be likely to make them more compliant in themselves accepting vaccination against Covid-19, using mRNA ‘vaccines’.

6. New Year’s Eve: More Top Stories

The following morning, New Year’s Eve, there was another collection of top stories in The Truthseeker, though not quite as dramatic, and not all about Covid. One that caught my eye in particular was headed ‘REVELATION: Only the “vaccinated” died during the 1918 Spanish Flu’. I’ve read bits and pieces about this over the past couple of years, but never really studied it, but here some references are provided. Parallels with the present Covid situation are pointed out. A couple more look to the future: ‘A Warning to the People of the UK’ and ‘Mike Stone – Take Back Your Life in 2022!’. Another way of keeping up-to-date with the news on a daily basis, if you have time, is to subscribe to the Free Newsletter of The Daily Sceptic, previously called Lockdown Sceptics. Note that in this context a ‘sceptic’ in the UK is a person who is sceptical of government propaganda, whereas a ‘skeptic’ is a person who is sceptical of the sceptics. The word was hijacked by The Skeptic magazine.

The item in The Daily Sceptic that caught my eye most was headed ‘Why Have Our Points Landed After All?’, and is best described by the editor’s intro:

We’re publishing a guest post today by Dr. David McGrogan, a Professor at Northumbria Law School, about why the consensus in favour of Covid Restrictions seems to have collapsed almost overnight. David wrote a piece last January entitled “The Failed Strategy of Lockdown Sceptics: We Appealed to Reason, Not Emotion” which gave rise to a long-running debate on the right-hand menu (“Why Have Our Points Failed to Land?”). But almost a year later, our points are landing like Allied troops on the beaches of Normandy. Or are they? Here is an extract.

I understand that he is an Associate Professor of human rights law and the law of contract. I’ve quoted some of the essential points below:

I can’t be alone in noticing that the public mood has quite radically shifted. … There is a benign resignation (“We’re all going to catch it eventually so we might as well get on with it”) where once there was anxiety. … First, a critical mass of people are not scared anymore. They’ve had three jabs, they know omicron causes mostly mild symptoms, and many of them have actually had Covid and discovered it’s not the end of the world. … Second, war weariness has set in. … What is perhaps a little galling about all of this to lockdown sceptics is that these reasons are all emotional, not rational. It’s not that anybody has been persuaded by our wonderful knockdown arguments. It’s that a different narrative – “the virus is never going away, so let’s just get on with our lives” – has set in.…

This ought not to be very surprising. It is almost exactly a year ago that I wrote a post on Lockdown Sceptics, making the claim that the most important reason why we sceptics were being ignored (or pilloried) was that the points that we were making simply did not accord with a particular ‘moral truth’. There was a prevailing social narrative which said, in essence, that lockdowns stop people dying. Our arguments, in going against this moral truth, were by definition immoral in the eyes of the vast majority of our compatriots, and highly unlikely to win popular support as a result. In other words, it doesn’t matter how well-reasoned one’s critique is, if what one is critiquing is perceived almost universally as being The Right Thing To Do.

Lockdown sceptics, in other words, probably haven’t been very persuasive or influential when it comes to the broad swathe of the population. But that hasn’t been the point. We’ve been keeping the alternative view alive, so that when eventually public opinion shifts, it is our ideas that they will pick up, and which will increasingly therefore begin to drive the agenda.

That is consistent with my own observations. I saw our role in Keep Talking exactly as Professor David McGrogan states, except that our scope was much wider than Covid, or even 9/11, which was the big issue which brought together the Truth movement in 2006. We still have an important role in doing that.

7. A Positive Trend – and Hope for the New Year

And now back to finishing my article that I broke off from. Recently I was working simultaneously on three articles, channeling incoming information constantly into the appropriate article. One was in English, and was published in The Truthseeker as ‘ “We’re all in this together” – and they’re right’, and the other two are in Esperanto. One of them was actually requested by the editor of Sennaciulo, which has just published my previous article, though there was a delay at the printers and it might not have been distributed yet. The other is about the Universal Esperanto Association having become a typical Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), in that it seems to be propagandising the members into supporting the UN’s Agenda 2030 rather than promoting the original aims of the movement. I’m more direct and outspoken in that article that I would have been if they had been open to criticicism within the organisation. But you can’t criticise a friend of George Soros, especially when he is the association’s Honorary President, unless you go outside the association. I no longer care whether or not they’re ‘offended’. I was also invited to write an article for Ondo de Esperanto, an international magazine pubished in Russia and not for the association. That article was headed ‘De kie fontos la nova movado?’ [What will be the source of the new movement?]. It followed on from a previous article by a Russian contributor, who had noticed that all the new activities and initiatives seemed to be coming from outside the Esperanto organisations. I recounted my own experiences, and how this had not come about by chance. At the end I described the protest movements active in many Western countries, including the UK, and concluded that if they win through, then the Esperanto idea will begin to make sense to people again, and that that will be the source of any new Esperanto movement, not the decadent associations. I was delighted that they would publish such an article, even though I have reservations because of the numbers of contributors who clearly have no sympathy with the idea of the Esperanto movement, even though they themselves use Esperanto to write articles. Yet I have to admit it is the best magazine of its sort, in many ways replacing the role of the ‘Esperanto’ magazine of the association.

This is compatible with Professor David McGrogan’s observations relating to Covid, as well as mine. I’ve noticed a massive movement recently towards humour in social media in relation to the Covid issue. That means we’re getting somewhere, and that was what was missing in the 9/11 campaign, and in the Esperanto campaign, too. But we’re getting there. It’s still just as important as ever to ‘Keep Talking’!

8. And on New Year’s Day: Honours for the Elite

And now, as I edit and begin translation work on this newsletter, the nation is being told that Johnathan Van Tam (listed as NGUYEN-VAN-TAM) is now a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), and his boss, the Government’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, is now a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB), and that their colleague, the Gover. (I’m just thinking how ridiculous these titles will sound when I’ve translated them!) Anyone writing in to complain to the Queen will no doubt be told by her secretary that Her Majesty “takes advice”. I would expect the Head of State to take advice, in the sense of asking for advice and listening to advice, but I would not expect a Head of State to necessarily ‘take advice’ in the sense of acting on that advice. The royal status separately conferred on Prince Charles’s present wife, as Royal Lady of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, announced on the Royal Family’s website, will be interpreted by many as preparing her to be Queen, which many people will object to.

Salt was rubbed into the wound by giving a making Tony Blair a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, as announced on the same Royal web page, and that will offend many. I’m sure that the vast majority of people, not only in the UK, regard Tony Blair as a war criminal. Given the knowledge that no war can be launched by the UK without the ‘Royal Prerogative’, I think that that puts the monarchy firmly on the side of very wealthy imperial warmongers, just as it was under Queen Victoria. Whatever happened to the ‘separation of powers’ that some constitutional ‘experts’ talk about? Evidently that is a myth. This raises deep questions about the monarchy and its future.

There will be deep concerns also over Charles becoming King, without first resolving issues over the death of Princess Diana, and of weapons expert Dr David Kelly, whose ‘suicide’ would have been impossible from the descriptions given.

Is Lord Rothschild still an advisor to the Queen, and to the Cabinet? What is the power that lies behind the throne? And how will that power react to the collapse of the Covid narative? Harold Wilson resigned as Prime Minister in 1976 to avoid a military coup headed by Lord Mountbatten, a cousin of the Queen. History doesn’t quite repeat itself, but it rhymes, yet the only thing we ever learn from history is that we never learn from history. A military coup is a real possibility, and we should do our utmost to avoid provoking one. A happy and free New Year, and do Keep Talking!

9. Post Script: Petitioning the Queen

On 2 January 2022 RT News reported in the UK: ‘Petition to strip Tony Blair of knighthood racks up 400,000 signatures: Queen Elizabeth’s decision to bestow one of the highest honors on the Iraq War PM has sparked fierce backlash’. The petition is hosted by Change.org. A similar one saying ‘Chris Whitty to be stripped of his New Years Honours Award’ only acquired 366 signatures, and I haven’t come across any petition over Jonathan Van-Tam. Before sending this newsletter out the petition on Tony Blair had already reached 780 369 signatures. Will it reach a million?