Debunking Dr. Simone Gold and Other Anti-Vaxxers — By a Fellow Conservative Compatriot

1. Introduction

Dr. Simone Gold came to the fore recently during the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the official medical guidance on wearing masks, lockdowns and COVID vaccines. I first came across her on ‘Parler’, which is a social media platform for like-minded Conservatives. I happen to be a member. As members of Parler, we share similar views on politics, free enterprise, family values, small government, individual freedom, human rights and religious tradition. Where I depart from many of my fellow Conservative Compatriots on Parler, are their annoying scepticism of climate change and a very disturbing stance against government policies and the official medical guidelines on managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Simone believes that politics, fear-mongering, big pharma profits and medical corruption are guiding the COVID-19 policies.

Simone authored the book, ‘I Do Not Consent. My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture,’ and heads the organization, ‘America’s Frontline Doctors.’ She has delivered speeches, including her passionate speech in front of the Supreme Court in July 2020 with the support of the ‘Tea Party Patriots’. On 10th January 2021, she was arrested for participating in a pro-Trump protest on Capitol Hill after President Trump’s electoral defeat. Whilst Simone did express regret for joining the pro-Trump protesters, she should go further and express regret for misinformation about COVID vaccines and the role of HCQ in ‘curing’ COVID-19.

2. Simone Gold’s Recommendation To Examine All Evidence And Then Make An Informed Decision

Whilst I disagree with most of Simone’s arguments and claims, I agree to some extent with her recommendation that all evidence should be examined and then an informed decision be made. Readers of Simone’s books (including myself) are unlikely to delve into all studies that she cited. As I write this article, I am going through each of her 83 references.

Her claims of crimes against humanity, big profits etc. will be believed by her supporters. She expects readers and listeners to disbelieve governments, disbelieve the official medical bodies and believe her conspiracy theories without a challenge back. As a fellow Conservative compatriot on Parler, a fellow advocate of religious values (Simone is Jewish and I am Muslim), a fellow advocate of individual freedom; I am one such reader who will challenge her.

I am not a medic, but I have worked in the multinational/pharmaceutical arena for over 20 years. That does not qualify me by any means. There are medical practitioners who have done a great job to debunk some of the anti-vaccine myths, such as Dr. Zubin Damania (ZDoggMD on Youtube), Dr. Syra Madad, Dr. Christy Risinger etc. If I am not a medic and Simone is, then do I have a right to critique her claims? Absolutely. As mentioned above, I am pondering over her claims, examining her evidence and responding in kind. I am only following her recommendations to the readers. This article is directed to the laymen, but qualified healthcare professionals would find it interesting and informative, too.

3. A Conspiracy Theory Dancing On The Realm Of Acceptability

Before I delve into Simone’s arguments, let me state that I do not do ad hominems. It is not my style. I will listen to variant opinions, however outlandish they may seem, ponder, question, and then respond. Simone Gold has practiced medicine for two decades, she is committed to her patients and is sincere in her beliefs. I will give her that.

Let me explain why I titled this section the way I did. There is an outlandish conspiracy theory out there which states a correlation between COVID-19 and the use of 5G technology. I put this type of theory in the similar category to the 9/11 attacks being an inside job false flag operation or that the Moon landings were fake. There have been scientists who have questioned the official version of the 9/11 attacks and the Moon landings. For example, Prof. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University, believed that the collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001 was the result of thermite explosions rather than jet fuel after the planes had crashed into them. That is why lava-like compounds were seen after the collapse which would only have come from thermite (according to him), hence an inside job. He used science to back his claims and they would seem convincing to the layman. Enter Prof. Judy Wood. She does not see eye to eye with Steven Jones. She put forward another theory that a Directed Free Energy weapon had been created and tested out on the Twin Towers. She uses forensic analysis to support her claim that the Twin Towers did not collapse, they just vanished by turning into dust. Both Jones and Wood use science to back their contradictory claims. Any scientist could come up with a hypothesis, which is why a ‘peer review’ process is needed to examine the claims made. Both Steven Jones and Judy Wood would FAIL the peer review process. Likewise, the claimants of the 5G and COVID links theory would also fail a peer review. But thanks to the internet, the peer review process can be by-passed, and these sceptics would have their audiences and believers to lecture to, without being challenged because of their appeal to authority and use of scientific jargon.

Luckily, Simone Gold does not fall into this category of outlandish conspiracy theory. I have not heard her talk about the 5G-COVID link. Although I have used the term, ‘anti-vaxxers’ to describe her and her organisation’s stance, she did make it clear that she agrees with other vaccines. Her scepticism is limited to COVID-19 vaccines only. Hence my use of the term, ‘anti-vaxxer’ should be seen in this context. Her arguments are related to Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) which she believes is a cure for COVID-19 (with adjunct use of Zinc and Azithromycin) and her fierce scepticism of COVID vaccines and intentions of governments and big pharma. That is why I have made the time to write this article and give her the courtesy of pondering over her claims and responding. Hence, my title for this section.

It is a shame that Simone has been de-platformed on many social media platforms. I have found it difficult to find many of her speeches, luckily, I did find them through the Conservative media platforms that I am a member of, namely, Parler, Rumble and PragerU. I have also read her book, ‘I Do Not Consent.’ Simone’s arguments should be out there in open and not shut down, so that they can be understood, discussed and challenged.

4. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — A Panacea for COVID-19?

Simone and her colleagues strongly advocate the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19. HCQ would be used in conjunction with Zinc and Azithromycin and this treatment regime is seen as a cure for COVID-19. Simone and her team have continued to lambast lockdowns, masks and the vaccines and during one of her speeches, she used the term, ‘crime against humanity,’ to describe the Governments’ lockdown policies and vaccine roll-outs. Serious stuff!

In her book she cites many quotations of studies that had been conducted on HCQ in the treatment of SARS coronavirus infection. HCQ is a treatment that has been around since the 1950s and has been available to purchase at low cost mainly for prevention of Malaria, and would sometimes be found on the shelves next to vitamin pills. It is that safe. The main studies with HCQ have been observational studies or retrospective studies. What are needed are robust clinical trials. So far, the clinical trials on HCQ have not shown evidence of HCQ providing additional protection from COVID-19 versus a placebo. Once such trial is the ORCHID trial. This is what was quoted in the National Institutes of Health website (9th November 2020):

“Having a rigorously designed clinical trial that captured patient-centered, clinically meaningful outcomes was critical to reaching the unequivocal conclusions about the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. ORCHID shows that hydroxychloroquine does not improve clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said James P. Kiley, Ph.D., director, Division of Lung Diseases at NHLBI. “We hope this clear result will help practitioners make informed treatment decisions and researchers continue their efforts pursuing other possible safe and effective treatments for patients suffering with this disease.”

The WHO’s own ‘RECOVERY’ trial ended after restarting it after a short pause, because of the unverified Lancet article against HCQ. The RECOVERY trial showed that there was no clinical benefit for COVID patients in hospital.

HCQ has not been written off, there is still hope. Other trials of HCQ are under way such as the Oxford based ‘PRINCIPLE’ trial and the New York-based ‘HERO’ trial. There are no political conspiracies to stop these trials nor to manipulate the results. If the anti-HCQ lobby was so strong then it would have waved its magic wand and stop these trials.

It is unfortunate that HCQ has become politicised. Simone is correct when she points out that the British medical journal, The Lancet, had to retract an article in May 2020 that showed HCQ to be unsafe. She concluded that this retraction was evidence of secrecy and fraud. I beg to differ.

5. The Lancet’s Retraction of an Anti-HCQ Study — Proof of Fraud?

No. There was no secrecy because many media outlets covered this story. Furthermore, The Lancet did print an article about the lessons from the retraction and how the peer review process would be changed. What Simone missed in her interpretation of the retraction was that the lead authors of the studies in question, Mandeep Mehra and Amit Patel, requested the Lancet to make the retraction. Why? Because when a request was made for an independent review of the data collected by a third-party company, Surgisphere, this request was declined. Surgisphere argued rightly or wrongly that sharing of such data would compromise their clients’ sensitive data. Given this scenario, the authors themselves asked The Lancet for the retraction.

If anything, the authors of the study did exactly what they were supposed to do. Fraud doesn’t play a part in the retraction, transparency does.

This is not the first time the Lancet retracted study. In the UK, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a study 1998 which apparently linked the MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccine with Autism. This study was proven to be wrong and was subsequently retracted in 2010.

6. The Much-Vaunted Use of HCQ in Other Countries — A First Glaring Omission

Simone is right to point to the extensive usage of HCQ in other countries like India. In her book she references the Indian medical advice for the use of HCQ among its healthcare workers. At this point let me bring in Stella Immanuel. She is originally from Cameroon and practiced medicine in Nigeria before migrating to the US. She is also a pastor. She came to notoriety in mid-2020 because of President Trump’s support of her claims about the apparent COVID-19 cure with HCQ. I mentioned her in passing in my book, ‘United States of Anger’ about the woeful racist taunts against her because of her exotic beliefs. I recall watching Stella’s interview with the Black Conservative activist, Candace Owens. Stella stated that HCQ, along with Zinc and Azithromycin are extensively used in Africa to treat viral symptoms.

So, let’s take India and Africa. Let us assume that HCQ is widely used there. This is factually correct. 70% of the world’s HCQ is produced in India. The omission is this. Despite the manufacture and wide usage of HCQ in India, the Indian Government and Indian pharmaceutical companies are researching COVID vaccines. If the medical bodies thought that HCQ was enough as a treatment, then they would not waste time and money to develop vaccines and to import other vaccines from abroad. India came out with its own vaccine called, ‘Covaxin’. The Indian medical bodies and the Government realised that vaccines are needed, and Prime Minister Modi has issued directives for distribution of vaccines within its population of 1 billion people. It is also the main country to supply vaccines to Africa, Latin America, Asia, Canada and the UK. India is a positive force on the global stage in the fight against COVID. It doesn’t stop there. Other Indian pharmaceutical companies are trialling different vaccine candidates. According to the BBC News website, they are:

• ZyCov-Di, being developed by Ahmedabad-based Zydus-Cadila
• A vaccine being developed by Hyderabad-based Biological E, the first Indian private vaccine-making company, in collaboration with US-based Dynavax and Baylor College of Medicine
• HGCO19, India’s first mRNA vaccine made by Pune-based Genova in collaboration with Seattle-based HDT Biotech Corporation, using bits of genetic code to cause an immune response
• A nasal vaccine by Bharat BioTech
• The Sputnik V vaccine candidate developed by Dr Reddy’s Lab and Gamaleya National Centre in Russia
• A second vaccine being developed by Serum Institute of India and American vaccine development company Novavax

HCQ may have a formidable safety record but its effectiveness against COVID-19 is unproven. The vaccines that have been released have shown effectiveness as well as safety. That is why a high HCQ-usage country like India is full steam ahead with vaccine development and distribution.

Let’s take Nigeria, Stella Immanuel’s country of origin. Although its health ministry may support the use of HCQ, they too are importing vaccines. At the time of writing this article, four million doses of the Astra Zeneca vaccine were delivered to Nigeria in March 2021. Its National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA) distributed these vaccines to 35 states. Clearly, the HCQ-Zinc-Azithromycin treatment is not enough. On top of this, in early 2021, the African Union purchased over 600 million vaccines for distribution throughout its member states.

The governments and medical bodies in India, Nigeria and the rest of Africa understood the severity of the pandemic and took decisive action to develop and procure vaccines to combat COVID-19 despite its usage of HCQ. The silence from Simone Gold on this issue and like-minded anti-vaccine colleagues is deafening. A first glaring omission.

7. Simone Gold’s Praise for President Trump’s Promotion of HCQ — A Second Glaring Omission

One Trump supporter who protested at the Freedom Plaza on 5th January 2021, held a sign, ‘COVID 19 vaccination = Death.’

Simone is correct to state that President Trump had trumpeted the virtues of HCQ. He even retweeted some of Simone’s claims about HCQ. A glaring omission in Simone’s discourse about President Trump is that he understood the seriousness of the pandemic crisis when he confided with Bob Woodward that the virus was ‘deadly stuff’. That is why he and his team initiated ‘Operation Warp Speed’ where agreements were made with pharmaceutical companies to research and manufacture vaccines in record time. Clinical trials involve three phases, 1, 2 and 3. Phase 1 will have a very small cohort of healthy volunteers to test the safety of the experimental drug. Phase 2 will have around 100 volunteers to test the effectiveness of the drug. Phase 3 will have thousands of people taking part to test the effectiveness and safety of the experimental drug. This process can take a few years. Operation Warp Speed cut the time down to a few months. Despite Trump’s mistake in downplaying the severity of the pandemic in public and vaunting HCQ like a male model on the catwalk, he and his team still sought to support pharma companies to produce the vaccines. Simone, who is a Trump supporter, never bothered to ask why. The answer should be obvious. Hundreds of thousands of people had died worldwide during 2020 as the infection spread fast. Trump took the advice of the official medical body and Dr. Fauci (who is hated by the anti-vaccine lobby and many Conservatives) to activate Operation Warp Speed. Now we see the American-made vaccines rolled out to many countries as a result. Many lives have been saved and will be saved. I hope that President Biden takes this to a new level of accelerated vaccine distribution (at warp speed).

The silence from Simone Gold and like-minded anti-vaccine colleagues on this issue of Trump’s legacy of Operation Warp Speed, is deafening. A second glaring omission.

8. Big Pharma, Big Profits? More Glaring Omissions

Fire and fury tend to be directed towards pharmaceutical companies by the anti-vaccine lobby, because of the perceived colossal profits they would make from the vaccines. This view may be specific to pharma companies that are developing vaccines, or it may be reflective of a wider resistance against large companies generally because of their anti-Capitalist stance. The latter category does not believe in making profits. Given that Simone is a member of the same Conservative social media group that I am, we would be staunch supporters of free enterprise. Hence, she and her colleagues would fit the first criteria, that they are targeting vaccines because of an apparent conspiracy by these pharma companies, medical bodies and governments to stop the distribution of cheaper HCQ treatments and make money on their own vaccines.

A couple of things we need to unpack here.

A. Timing. If pharma companies already had vaccine trials under way or even manufactured COVID vaccines before the pandemic spread, then Simone may have had a case for her big pharma conspiracy idea where pharma companies would try to stop HCQ treatments from being rolled out in order to protect their vaccine business and recoup their investment. However, the timing is wrong. Pharma companies did not have a vaccine ready, neither did they have trials under way when COVID-19 first broke out in Wuhan in late 2019. Many governments, especially the US Government, had requested pharma companies to start trials and to get them released as quickly as possible. Pharma companies did not dictate to governments, it was the other way round. Because the pandemic was so serious and deadly, the Government-Medical Bodies-Pharma collaborated to fast track the vaccine development.

B. HCQ Pharma Manufacturers Make Profits Too. Pharma companies which have released their vaccines to market have not yet commercialised their distribution. They are fulfilling current government obligations before they start to commercialise. Once they commercialise (which won’t be anytime soon), then the argument could be had that profits would be made. But this is not specific to the COVID vaccines. Any pharma company that has released new medicines to market would recoup the investment made in developing these drugs (which can be tens of millions of dollars invested over 5–10 years) whilst benefitting from patent protection, and reinvesting some of that profit into new drug development (a point I once made to a cynical healthcare professional when she thought that all the profits went to shareholders). When the patent runs out, guess what? Other generic pharma companies would manufacture this drug at lower costs and sell at a lower price, and STILL MAKE A PROFIT. This is a magnificent selection bias demonstrated by Simone and her colleagues who chastise big pharma for their apparent big profits from COVID vaccines. An example will suffice. Enter Zydus Cadila.

The name may sound like a South American drugs baron, but is in fact a large Indian pharmaceutical company which manufactures HCQ among other products. In 2019/20 its net profit was $194M. The owner of Zydus Cadilla is Pankaj Patel, and his net worth is nearly $5BN. This is a success story. It is perfectly acceptable for HCQ manufacturers to make profits. Would Simone have a problem with this? What is most interesting about this company is this. As well as fulfilling its obligations to the Indian Government to produce HCQ, they partnered with Gilead to produce Remdesivir and it is also researching the development of a COVID-19 Vaccine.

I picked this HCQ manufacturer in India at random. I am sure that other pharma manufacturers of HCQ would have similar figures. Now, let’s take my country of origin, Bangladesh. Beximco Pharma is the largest pharmaceutical company in Bangladesh. They do produce HCQ, and they also produce Remdesivir. Their net profit in 2019–20 was nearly $42M. A great success story. Despite production of HCQ, they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indian Serum Institute to procure millions of vials of the Astra Zeneca vaccine on behalf of the Bangladesh Government. There is a clear need for the COVID vaccines despite the production and distribution of HCQ and Remdesivir. Why? Because the COVID pandemic presents a clear and present danger.

ALL pharma companies would make profits by producing medicines that would save lives and improve quality of life. Everyone wins, there are no losers. As well as reinvesting some of the profits for new drug developments, they also set some funds aside to help communities as part of their corporate responsibilities. When companies (pharma or otherwise) adhere to their own ethics, high standards and codes of conduct, they are a force for good in society.

Hence, for Simone’s accusation of big pharma conspiracy to shut down HCQ treatment in order to protect their own vaccine profits, is null and void.

The silence from Simone Gold on the issue of HCQ (pharma) manufacturers making profits and researching COVID vaccines, is deafening. A third glaring omission.

C. Private Hospitals and the Profit Motive — A Fourth Glaring Omission

Pharma companies are not the only companies that seek to make profit. ALL businesses do, including private hospitals. Simone had once worked for a private healthcare group known as ‘Providence St. Joseph Health’. In August 2020, they published an article on their website condemning Simone’s claims she made in front of the Supreme Court. They needed to distance themselves from her divergent and exaggerated claims.

If Simone had a problem with companies making profits, then she would not have worked for Providence. The financials for this group are quite strong. Although they do not use the term ‘profit’ in their financial statements, the phrase, ‘Excess Revenues Over Expenses’ is used. I consider this to be the same as profit. Whatever the nomenclature, their figures are strong. Their excess revenues over expenses were $1.358BN in 2019 and $740M in 2020. Nothing wrong with that, and they are a force for good in society providing quality healthcare and helping poorer communities. Providence is driven by Christian ethics as stated in their Mission, “As expressions of God’s healing love, witnessed through the ministry of Jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.”

A great mission and a great healthcare provider which has been successful. Simone clearly didn’t have an issue with this company having strong finances (let’s call it ‘profits’) when she worked with them, yet would seek to condemn the apparent profit motive of big pharma in relation to the COVID vaccines. A fourth glaring omission.

D. How Mega Profits Could Have Been Made During the Pandemic — A Fifth Glaring Omission

Simone suggested that big pharma wanted to make big profits, and that the medical bodies are corrupt and political bureaucracy had conspired to stop the use of cheap HCQ treatments for COVID. It’s all about money, except that it isn’t. If money or the economy was the driving factor then there would have been no lockdowns. Simple. Life would have been normal, all businesses would have remained open and people would have been getting on with their lives. Lockdowns have cost hundreds of billions of pounds and dollars across the world. Here in the UK, the Government had to borrow extra money to ensure that businesses remained afloat and minimised staff redundancies by introducing a ‘furlough scheme’. Because of COVID-related spending, the deficit rose by rose by £339bn during 2020/21. Why would the Government issue restrictions as well as localised and national lockdown knowing that this would cost hundreds of billions of pounds to the economy? Because there was something more important, which is life and health. If money was the motive behind Government policies, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO LOCKDOWNS. Simone Gold has made this fifth glaring omission.

What is interesting for me is to see two divergent views from doctors on the motives behind lockdowns. Simone believes there should have been no lockdowns because the effects of loss of jobs and earnings and lack of free mixing would have had a heavier toll than the effects of COVID. She would prefer governments to allow normal life to continue without lockdowns.

Enter Dr. Rachel Clarke. She is based in the UK and is also a writer. She appeared on a political programme known as BBC Question Time, in January 2021. She was a co-panellist with other participants, including the Vaccines Minister, Nadhim Zahawi. His official title is the ‘Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment.’ She was quite feisty in her criticism of Zahawi and the Conservative Government because of the apparent laxity in restrictions and lockdowns. She did make an incendiary comment that because the restrictions were too lax, that she would have a higher risk of catching COVID-19 and kill her husband through cross-infection. Nadhim did do the best he could in reassuring the public about doing everything they could to mitigate the spread of the virus. I was going to complain to the BBC about Rachel Clarke’s irresponsible statements, considering she is a doctor and commands some influence. I let it go, there are more important things at stake than a rogue statement made on TV. What was very irritating with Rachel’s comments was her assumption that having more severe lockdowns would not affect the workers and small business owners and self-employed. She was rightfully concerned about lives but not concerned about livelihoods. I thought to myself that at least in the UK (and other developed nations) the Finance Minister (Rishi Sunak) was able to procure funds to support small businesses so that they could keep their staff and mitigate redundancies. Western countries have the financial muscle. What about third world countries? This was going through my mind during that BBC Question Time programme, such as my country of origin, Bangladesh. I am sure that Nadhim must have thought about his country of origin, Iraq. These countries do not have the financial resources to support businesses and workers. Lockdowns would be fatal. Bangladesh did have a lockdown around April/May2020. Whilst many people had been protected from COVID-19 infections, workers who needed to earn hard cash through work, had been drastically affected. If people didn’t die of COVID, they would have died of starvation through poverty. These things went through my mind and my anger level was raised whilst listening to a very angry Rachel Clarke, who spoke from a position of middle-class privilege and Western privilege. However, since that discussion, the vaccine roll-out in the UK has been a success. At the time of writing this article, half of the UK adult population has been vaccinated.

The insight I draw from this is the very divergent medical opinions from these two doctors (Simone Gold and Rachel Clarke) and the dilemma any government would face if they received contradictory medical advice. Thankfully, Simone’s anti-Vaxxer movement is small in number. The opinions of the official medical and scientific bodies, which sift through hard data, should feed into governments’ decision-making, as well as the advice of the business community, where economic well-being is important.

E. Introducing Dr. Michael Yeadon’s Successful Firm — Ziarco. A Sixth Glaring Omission

Dr. Michael Yeadon was Head of Research at Pfizer before he left in 2011. Simone Gold made a few references to him (more on this later). Both Simone and Michael had engaged in precision bombing of pharmaceutical companies that are developing vaccines because these companies are in it to make massive profits. Their unconscious bias directed them to overlook other profit making ventures listed above. Another venture is Michael Yeadon’s Ziarco. This was a very successful spin-off research company which was set up by Michael and other ex-Pfizer scientists after Pfizer closed its research plant in Sandwich, Kent (UK). The website, ‘Pharmaphorum’ stated, “The financial details of this transaction are not disclosed, but estimates from earlier this year suggest the deal could be worth up to $1 billion through a combination of upfront payments, milestones and royalties.” (16th Dec 2016). Remember the quotes about stones and glass houses or the pot and the kettle?

9. The Wuhan Virus? Wrong.

In one of her speeches, Simone stated that the virus should be named according to its geographical origin, i.e. the Wuhan Virus. She charged the Communist Chinese dictatorship of changing the name of the Wuhan Virus to COVID-19. The decision to detach any new virus from its geographical origin was not dictated by the benevolent Chinese Communist Party in 2020, but by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2015.

Dr Keiji Fukuda, the WHO Assistant Director-General for Health Security, said of the guidelines in an online statement released by the WHO in 2015: “We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals.”

After the discovery and spread of the COVID-19 virus, there were racist attacks on the Chinese communities. So, the advice given by the WHO in 2015 is sound. The advice given by Simone is unsound.

10. Experimental Biological Agent? Wrong Again

Simone refuses to use the term ‘vaccine’ to describe the COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, she uses the term ‘Experimental Biological Agent’. She would repeat this mantra many times on different forums. Her claim is that the vaccines are still at experimental stage, hence cannot use the term ‘vaccine’.

As mentioned above, new drugs are taken through Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials before approval for marketing by the medical authorities. This process can take years. The US Government’s Operation Warp Speed cut the time down to a few months by sharing the financial risk. The vaccines that have come to market have gone through Phase 3 trials before getting emergency authorisation in many countries. They would only be authorised once the effectiveness and safety have been demonstrated. So, these are vaccines. Not experimental. It is normal for trials to continue or new trials established even after a drug has come to market. Amassing further clinical data is a good thing, not a bad one.

11. COVID Vaccines and Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)?

Without going into the hard science, Simone has claimed that antibodies that would be produced after a COVID vaccine would potentiate the virus itself, thus resulting in more COVID-positive test results in perpetuity for vaccinated patients. Hence, the virus would spread even further because of the vaccines.

The data shows the opposite. Here in the UK, lockdowns did slow down the spread of the virus but cases rose sharply around September 2020 onwards when lockdown was eased. Infection rates and deaths increased rapidly throughout November, December and January. In the UK the vaccines started to roll out from December 2020. As of March 2021 (at the time of writing this article) the infection rates and deaths have decelerated rapidly. The vaccine distribution in the UK has been formidable. At the peak of the pandemic, deaths were numbering over 1,000 a day. Now it is in double digit numbers and falling. If Simone was correct in her analysis that vaccines would potentiate the spread of the virus, then we would have seen an exponential increase in infection rates and deaths by now. We see the opposite. This inverse correlation between infection rates and vaccine roll-out can also be seen in Europe. The vaccine distribution in the European Union has been woefully slow, and as a result they are experiencing a third wave of the pandemic. It is a sad situation. Hence, the threat to the UK is still there despite its successful vaccination programme. As COVID-19 mutates into new variants, all the more reason why vaccine variants need to be produced quickly if the current vaccines have little effect.

In one of her speeches, Simone cited an example of why a vaccine would not be effective in controlling the spread of the virus. If a person had a vaccine, he would be protected, but he would still be a carrier and spread the virus to others. I did watch Dr. Anthony Fauci’s explanation about this issue in 2020. He is the Director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical advisor to the president. He said that if a vaccinated person did have the virus, the amount of virus that would be inside the back of the throat will be far less than without the vaccine, which means that the chance of spreading it to another person would be less. Divergent views from qualified doctors. It was unclear during 2020 whether the vaccines would stop the spread of COVID or not. Simone changed the uncertainty into a certainty, that the virus would still transmit from a vaccinated person. It was wrong to draw that conclusion then, and it is even more wrong to draw that conclusion now. New data from early March 2021 show that a COVID vaccine could prevent the spread of the virus. Again, the recent data shows the opposite of what Simone had claimed.

Even if Simone was correct about a vaccinated carrier being able to spread the virus, she still would have been wrong in her conclusion because she did not go further in her analogy. Let me do it for her. If a vaccinated carrier of COVID was able to transmit the virus to other recipients, then the spread of the virus would slow down if these recipients are vaccinated as well.

12. Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon and the Placenta

In their letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Dr. Michael Yeadon and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg called for clinical trials of the vaccine being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech to be stopped, citing concerns about female fertility. As mentioned above, Michael Yeadon was the Head of Research at Pfizer a few years ago before forming his own successful biotech company, Ziarco.

Yeadon and Wodarg claimed that the Pfizer vaccine trains the immune system to attack syncytin-1, a protein involved in placenta formation, which could lead to infertility in women for an unspecified duration. One health website quoted the authors as follows,

“The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.”

In reply, Pfizer’s Spokeswoman, Jerica Pitts stated,

“The key ingredient in Pfizer’s vaccine…is genetic material that instructs human cells to make a coronavirus protein called spike. The production of this protein teaches the body to fight off the coronavirus. There are no placental proteins, or genetic material that instructs the manufacture of placental proteins, in Pfizer’s vaccine.”

How would Simone and her colleagues respond to this? They are unlikely to take Jerica seriously as she is a Pfizer spokeswoman, and part of the evil profitmaking big pharma. Here is the interesting part. Simone would dismiss the Jerica as a Pfizer drone, and yet would give credence to Michael BECAUSE of his past connection with Pfizer. It seems that it is ok to believe Pfizer or ex-Pfizer colleagues as long as their statements are in line with Simone’s narrative.

Let’s dismiss Pfizer for now. Enter Stephanie Langel, an immunologist and expert in maternal and neonatal immunity at Duke University. She pointed out that coronavirus spike and the placental protein in question have almost nothing in common, making the vaccine highly unlikely to trigger a reaction to these delicate tissues. The two proteins share only a minuscule stretch of material. The analogy she used was that by mixing them up would be akin to mistaking a rhinoceros for a jaguar because they are wearing the same collar.

Simone’s utilisation of Michael’s claims against the use of COVID vaccines in women of child bearing age, is unwarranted.

13. Michael Yeadon Again, SAGE and the Claim of Depopulation

Michael Yeadon made another mistake. In October 2020, he wrote an article for the website, ‘Lockdown Sceptics’. The title of his article is, ‘What SAGE Has Got Wrong.’ SAGE stands for ‘Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’. It advises the UK Government. Michael stated,

“Crucially, I will show that because the proportion of the population remaining susceptible to the virus is now too low to sustain a growing outbreak at national scale, the pandemic is effectively over and can easily be handled by a properly functioning NHS. Accordingly, the country should immediately be permitted to get back to normal life.”

His conclusion above is drawn from his belief that SAGE assumptions were wrong, and that he didn’t trust modelling techniques that SAGE had relied on. Michael refers to is years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry. He stated,

“After nearly 35 years of work leading teams in new drug discovery, and trained in several biological disciplines, I like to think I’ve a good nose for spotting inconsistencies. I was once told by a very senior person who, at the time, was responsible for an R&D budget similar to the GDP of a small country that they’d noticed I did have an outstanding talent for “spotting faint patterns in sparse data, long before the competition did”. I’ll take that. Sometimes I spot inconsistencies in my own thinking (more commonly, it must be admitted, others do that for me); on other occasions it can be about others’ scientific work. This is an example of the latter — specifically, SAGE.”

I hope that my article will point out inconsistencies in his thinking (his view on the vaccine and the placenta has been inconsistent, as pointed above). Michael wrote his article in October 2020 and made some predictions which was compared to SAGE’s predictions. SAGE predicted that there would be a large number additional deaths, infections rates will resume in the capital and the speed of spread will proceed at a similar rate to Spring 2020. Michael argued the opposite and concluded with the phrase, ‘Endemic Equilibrium is imminent.’

The great thing about writing my article in March 2021 is the benefit of hindsight. Michael was so sure of the outcome of his prediction that he strongly recommended the suspension of vaccine trials because the end of the pandemic was imminent in September/October 2020. One thing he forgot to mention in his article is the reason behind the reduction in infection rates and deaths by September 2020. It was because of the prior lockdowns and restrictions. When the UK lockdown ended in September 2020 (localised restrictions were still in place), cases of infections and deaths started to rise thereafter at an alarming rate until we reached December when infection rates and death rates exceeded Spring 2020. Michael Yeadon was wrong and SAGE was right.

Me and Michael have something in common. We were both contemporaries at Pfizer at some point in the past. I never knew him as we worked in different divisions. So, armed with this rapport-building commonality, I decided to knock on his virtual door and ask him about his prediction that failed to materialise. When people get something wrong, especially if they are eminent (which Michael is), then the right thing to do is to admit an error and move on. But when reputations are at stake, then eminent people can go a bit doolally. I remain hopeful that this ex-Pfizer colleague will respond to my virtual knock, but unlikely.

Back to Simone Gold. She had mentioned Dr. Michael Yeadon to support her views. She must now admit that he was wrong. But again, she too, has a public image to uphold. On 25th March 2021, Simone’s AFLDS website published an exclusive interview with Michael Yeadon where he stated at the end, “For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it…It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.” As he was wrong about SAGE’s predictions, I believe he is wrong about the widescale depopulation strategy. This may be linked to the Georgia Stones which I learnt about in 2018. The Stones mention the need to reduce the human population level down to 500 million in order to balance with nature. A conspiracy theorist told me that there would be a massive depopulation conspiracy which would materialise in 2022 through the 5G technology. I am sure she believes that the vaccine initiative is a part of that strategy. When I came across Michael’s incendiary claims, I recalled this conspiracy theory. Simone has not claimed any mass depopulation conspiracy, so for her organisation to publish this wild claim by Michael Yeadon is irresponsible. If there was indeed a mass depopulation conspiracy, COVID-19 would be have been allowed to run riot throughout the world without any vaccine development. As discussed above, the approximate fatality rate among adults is 1%, then an estimated 40 million adults would have been allowed to die if governments and pharma companies didn’t develop vaccines. If this isn’t depopulation then what is?

14. To Mask or Not To Mask?

Simone has been very resolute against the use of the normal surgical masks to protect the wearer against COVID infection. In one of her speeches, she stated that the size of the COVID-19 particles were so small, they could pass through these masks. Hence, these masks were useless. This sounds plausible, except that it isn’t. If surgical masks were useless then healthcare professionals would not have been using them in hospitals.

Dr. Nancy Leung saves the day. She works at the University of Hong Kong and co-authored a study looking at the effectiveness of surgical masks. Her study was published in ‘Nature Medicine’ in April 2020. The title of her study is, ‘Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.’

The Abstract of the study states:

“We identified seasonal human coronaviruses, influenza viruses and rhinoviruses in exhaled breath and coughs of children and adults with acute respiratory illness. Surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of influenza virus RNA in respiratory droplets and coronavirus RNA in aerosols, with a trend toward reduced detection of coronavirus RNA in respiratory droplets. Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals.”

Need I say anymore? The answer to the question in the title of this section should be obvious.

15. The Double-Edged Sword of Racism

Simone made a very disturbing accusation of racism against Blacks and Browns, or ‘BAME’ as we call them in the UK (it stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic). In one of her speeches to a church audience she stated that there were attempts both overtly and covertly to push the vaccines on to Blacks and Browns. She linked this with racism.

This is scaremongering of the highest order. When the virus started to take hold in the UK in early 2020, it was very painful to see many BAME doctors and nurses dying from this virus. They were dropping like flies. They and the rest of the healthcare professionals are the frontline heroes. It is obvious that BAME folks would be more susceptible to the effects of COVID because of higher comorbidities. So, what does this mean in terms of a public policy? It means that BAME communities should be among the priority people. When the first vaccines were rolled out in the UK, there were priority levels, the first being elderly people in nursing homes, and then going down the age group and other younger people with underlying conditions. BAME folk, especially with underlying conditions, would be high on the priority list. Quite rightly so. If their higher comorbidities (which lead to higher risk of the effects of COVID) were not taken into consideration and they were lower in the priority ladder, THEN THAT WOULD BE RACIST. Hence, being prioritised for the vaccine compared to lower risk groups is exactly what public policy should be. To charge government bodies and official medical bodies of racism because they want to prioritise this high-risk group in order to save lives, is very disturbing indeed.

It is a shame how race has been politicised, and that is why I have titled this section the way I have. If the BAME communities were deliberately given lower priority considering they are at higher risk of COVID effects, there would have been a legitimate charge of racism. And rightly so. If you are an anti-COVID vaxxer and you think that the vaccines are dangerous, then you would think that there is a racist motive to prioritise this group and push these allegedly dangerous vaccines. Either way, the charge of racism would still find its way through the quagmire of confused, politicised medicine.

BAME readers of this article should take a stronger stand not to allow politically motivated people to take our communities for a ride by using the race card.

16. Who is Creating a Climate of Fear?

Simone and her colleagues blame governments and official medical bodies for instilling a climate of fear about the COVID pandemic. After reading the above, the reader should be able to determine who really has been instilling the following fears:

• Fear of an ‘unsafe’ vaccine because it is apparently experimental and that all recipients are guinea pigs.
• Fear of ‘crimes against humanity’ allegedly perpetrated by governments and big pharma
• Fear of the human DNA being changed by the mRNA vaccines (Simone has not made this claim but I have heard other sceptics state this)
• Fear of infertility in women of child-bearing age
• Fear of government control and abolition of freedom
• Fear of Communist influence because the virus is not called the ‘Wuhan Virus’
• Fear of the profit motive by corrupt medical bodies and big pharma
• Fear of racial injustice by forcing Blacks and Browns to have these vaccines

Who has really been instilling these unwarranted fears?

17. A Strange View of Normality and Prioritisation Criteria

Simone and her colleagues believe that there should not have been any restrictions nor lockdowns because the negative impact of such restrictions apparently outweigh the effects of COVID. Life should have continued normally.

The basis of this claim is that the fatality rate of COIVD-19 is around 1% (the figure will vary according to age and comorbidities). Let’s take the ballpark figure of 1% fatality rate. The world has a population of around 8 billion people. Let’s just focus on adults (as children are at lower risk of serious COVID symptoms) and assume that there are around 4 billion adults in the world. If every adult catches COVID-19 then we are looking at a death rate of 40 million people worldwide. Simone and her colleagues do not appear see anything wrong with this. So, when governments, medical bodies and pharma companies collaborate in order to mitigate millions of deaths and infections, they are seen to be by anti-Vaxxers to be perpetrating ‘crimes against humanity.’ This line of reasoning has major fault lines.

Simone did accommodate in the idea of a COVID-19 vaccine use among the most vulnerable, i.e. the elderly in nursing homes, not the young and healthy. I could be wrong, but I think there is a major fault line in thinking here. I had to think this through many times. If the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental biological agents which could be deemed as harmful for a myriad of reasons given by anti-Vaxxer medics, why on earth would you prioritise the most vulnerable group? They would be the first casualties of these dangerous biological agents. This is counterintuitive. But if the vaccines are shown to be effective and safe (which they are), then public policy to prioritise vulnerable elderly people in nursing homes and other settings, is the correct one.

18. Agreement in the Use of Religion as a Driving Force, But with Divergent Conclusions

I agree with Simone when she stated in her book, ‘I Do Not Consent,’ “What does God expect of me in this situation? It’s this emphasis on action that is essential to the Jewish faith, Trust in God, believe in yourself, and courageous conduct will follow.” (p.53).

I say ‘Amen’ to that. This principle is shared by Islam, Christianity and other religions. The Quran states, “O my son! Keep the prayer established, and enjoin goodness and forbid from evil, and be patient upon the calamity that befalls you; indeed these are acts of great courage.” (31:17. This is prophet Luqman’s advice to his son)

Simone is sincere in her belief that she is doing God’s work and standing up for truth and justice. There is no doubt in her sincerity, but the journey she and her colleagues have embarked on is pointed in the wrong direction. The conviction is there but the destination won’t be reached. Just as many medical professionals and politicians may disagree with each other in relation to COVID-19, so will religious people. They may follow the same sacred books and believe in the same God, but will have different conclusions on how to interpret the pandemic and devise possible solutions.

Let’s take Simone’s previous hospital she worked at, Providence St. Joseph Health. They are a Christian organisation and their health mission is based on a deeply religious foundation to heal. Their ‘Mission’ states, ‘As expressions of God’s healing love, witnessed through the ministry of Jesus, we are steadfast in serving all, especially those who are poor and vulnerable.’ The following are a list of their principles and the Bible verses they refer to,

Dignity: All people have been created in the image of God. –Genesis 1:27

Justice: Act with justice, love with kindness and walk humbly with your God. –Micah 6:8

Excellence: Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart. –Colossians 3:23

Integrity: Let us love not merely with words or speech but with actions in truth. –1 John 3:18

However, this healthcare organisation completely disowned Simone’s claims about COVID, as well as her organisation, ‘America’s Frontline Doctors.’ It is interesting to see how Simone (who is Jewish), Providence (which is Christian) and myself (who is Muslim) share the same religious principles of faith in God, courage and conviction; Simone and myself share the same political principles of Conservatism, yet myself and Providence are on the opposite side of Simone and her organisation. Fascinating (as Dr. Spock from Star Trek would say). I hope and pray that God helps us through the pandemic with scientific research of vaccines and their quick delivery worldwide.

19. A Satanic Influence? A Short Digression to Address Luciferase and Bill Gates’s Patented Technology 060606.

I am not aware of Simone discussing the connection between the enzyme Luciferase, COVID-19 vaccines and Satan. However, this is a conspiracy narrative I have come across in some circles in the Right wing media. Simone’s colleague, Stella Immanuel, did mention Luciferase. I also came across this during a discussion show on ‘Thrivetime Show’, a Right wing programme on Rumble. In one of the shows, the British doctor, Dr. Andrew Wakefield was interviewed. As mentioned above, in 1998 he published a study that linked the MMR vaccine with Autism, in the Lancet. There was controversy around this, and it was subsequently shown that he was wrong in his conclusions. The study was retracted by The Lancet in 2010.

What was very interesting was when the host stated that one of the enzymes used in the vaccines was Luciferase and that Bill Gates had patented a technology with the patent number 060606. A Satanic narrative was being built. Dr. Wakefield said he hadn’t come across Luciferase. He did not bother to challenge the host for further information about this, neither did he enquire about the relevance of Patent 060606. So, let me do the challenging for him.

Luciferase is an enzyme that produces bioluminescence, for example, in fireflies. The term was coined by Raphael Dubois in the 19th Century. Lucifer means ‘light bearer’ in Latin, and is connected to the planet Venus because it is seen as a morning star. In the Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradition, Lucifer (or Iblis in Arabic) refers to Satan. Raphael Dubois didn’t give a reason for coining the term ‘Luciferase’ but there is no evidence that he was a Satan worshipper. Furthermore, the term ‘Luciferase’ was coined in 1885, i.e. 135 years before COVID-19 became a thing. Given the connection to light, the term is befitting. What has this got to do with COVID-19? Research is being done to improve COVID-19 tests by using Luciferase. Because of its brightness, detection assays could be read earlier. However, this enzyme is not in the vaccines themselves (so what if it was?).

Regarding Bill Gates patented technology 060606, it is a cryptocurrency rewards system that uses body activity data. Conspiracy theorists suggested these were microchips that would be injected and transmit data. The patent does not mention microchips. It is very similar to a technology that is already in existence where some users have fitbits connected to their health insurer’s. If the required body activities are completed, then the insurers would give them points, which could turn into vouchers. Same principle with the Bill Gates patent.

Now, in the ‘Thrivetime’ programme, when Luciferase and Bill Gates Patent 060606 were mentioned in the same sentence, the listener would automatically make connection between COVID-19 policies and Satanic influence. Both Christianity and Islam do have the same concept of the Antichrist (‘Dajjal’ in Arabic) and the return of the Messiah (Jesus). In the New Testament, the final book, Revelation 13:17–18 mentions the number for the Beast/Antichrist, 666. Hence, enthusiastic Christians would connect Patent 060606 with the Beast. I know enough about Biblical and Quranic ‘End Times/Armageddon’ prophecies to know that Bill Gates is not the Beast 666/Antichrist/Dajjal, neither is Dr. Fauci and neither are COVID vaccine manufacturers. Many on the political Left would consider Donald Trump to be the personification of the Devil. Alas, he isn’t.

Although Andrew Wakefield and Simone Gold have not advocated any Satanic connection to current COVID-19 policies, they should have condemned this connection when they are made aware of it by their peers.

20. Next Steps — From Divergence to Convergence

The rifts and divergences that have appeared between the official medical bodies, governments, pharma and the anti (COVID-19)-vaxxers should not have happened. The danger of the pandemic is clear and present, and I would expect to see full cooperation across the board. Human lives are at stake.

Simone Gold has advised her listeners and readers to examine all evidence and draw their own conclusions. I have adhered to her advice and have gone further, I have challenged her back. How should readers of this article react? In the same way. Examine all evidence, ponder, question and CHALLENGE back AND THEN draw your conclusions.

My criticism of the anti-vaxxer groups should not be taken as a blind acceptance of policies that the governments and medical bodies have implemented. Valid criticisms can be levelled at governments for not doing enough to convey the severity of the COVID pandemic, problems with testing and tracing etc. Furthermore, I would question medical bodies in the West why they have not considered vaccines from Russia (Sputnik-V), India (Covaxin) and China (CoronaVac) as part of the armoury against COVID-19. Whilst work is being done by the WHO and Western governments to get the vaccines to poorer countries, more could be done to accelerate this distribution.

Those who know me will know that my approach in engaging with people with differing opinions is to participate in dialogue and debate whether it is politics, social issues or in this case medical politics; or more accurately, the politicisation of medicine. The advantage of an open mind over an entrenched mind is the ability to change one’s opinion when proven wrong. That’s how we learn and grow. The invitation to dialogue and debate with the anti-vaccine lobby, and specifically to Simone Gold stands. Ideally, I would like to see dialogue and robust debate between the medics who disagree with each other (e.g. Dr. Simone Gold and Dr. Zubin Damania). What is happening now is on one side we have the anti-Vaxxer doctors who preach to their own crowds of supporters promoting ideas that would fail the peer review tests, and on the other hand we have advocates from the official medical side also talking to the converted. There is no cross-fertilisation of ideas, no exchange of thought between medics with differing opinions. This type of engagement needs to take place fast.

As far as this article is concerned, I would expect medically trained readers, who have an inclination towards the anti-Vaxxer narrative, to respond to the arguments presented in my article. We can both learn something from each other rather than refine the art of the polemic.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -

Disclaimer: The views expressed are mine only and do not belong to the company I work for or the political party I belong to.

Author Biography

Hasan Ali Imam was born in Bangladesh in 1972 and brought up in the UK. He has engaged in respectful debate and dialogue with those which disagree with him, which culminated in his candidacy for the British Parliament in 2005. He continues to be involved with the UK Conservative Party in his spare time whilst working for a multinational corporation. Hasan has also been involved with the UK Government’s PREVENT counter terrorism strategy as a trainer to public servants on how to prevent young people from venturing into extremism. He also draws on his own experience of attempted recruitment by extremist groups in the 1990s. Hasan has authored three books.

Firstly, ‘United States of Anger — Why Linda Sarsour’s Rage and Far Left Violence Cannot Move Mountains.’ This book is a response to Linda Sarsour (an American Palestinian Socialist activist), and her far left compatriots who supported the violence and rampage that took hold in the US after the tragic killing of George Floyd.

Secondly, ‘BAME — Breaking Through Barriers.’ This book deals with the race space in the UK. It responds to critics who state that ethnic minorities have not progressed due to institutional racism. He tackles the issue head on and invites critics to dialogue and debate. This book was praised by the British Government.

Thirdly, ‘Aisha and Fatima — Ladies of Heavan. A Sunni Response to Shiaism.’ This is specific to the main Islamic sects of Sunni and Shia. The book captures dialogues that Hasan (a Sunni) had with Shia Muslims over the last 20 years.

A fourth book project is under way for publication in 2023, entitled, ‘Why the Far Right are Far Wrong.’ Yes, you guessed it. It includes responses to the Far Right and dialogue with some of its members.

Hasan has also written an article on ‘Medium.com’ to challenge the anti-vaccine narrative from his own Conservative side, including Dr. Simone Gold in the US, and has invited dialogue and debate with anti-vaxxers. He has also engaged in dialogue with and Israeli Jew and an anti-Israeli Muslim on the State of Israel and the importance of Jews, Christians and Muslims to unite under the Abrahamic brotherhood.