Steve MacDonald: New research proves almost no one was in grave danger from COVID-19

The following commentary by Steve MacDonald has been republished with permission from GraniteGrok.

We’re always looking for ways to poke the COVID-response apologists in their rheumy third eye, and this is a doozy. A pile of global data has been crunched that proves the fearmongers wrong. Almost no one was in grave danger from COVID-19.

I did say almost.

Dr. Robert Malone shared the data on his Substack, which you can sift at your leisure, but this is the sweet spot. Here are your odds of dying from COVID-19 before the introduction of the alleged vaccine* – or (IFR) infection fatality rate.

  • 0.0003% at 0–19 years
  • 0.002% at 20–29 years
  • 0.011% at 30–39 years
  • 0.035% at 40–49 years
  • 0.123% at 50–59 years
  • 0.506% at 60–69 years
  • 0.034% for people aged 0–59 years people
  • .095% for those aged 0–69 years.

This says what many (ourselves included) began reporting in March and April 2020. The fear was overblown. Actual cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were not living up to the hype. Almost no one needed anything but time to recover.

Dr. Malone’s piece (worth the read) offers this research in the shadow of the first cause or patient zero of fearmongering and fraud that led the world to ignore what we were seeing once we had actual data. Neil “fearmonger” Ferguson, Ph.D. of Imperial College, with his flawed pandemic modeling

It is the Imperial College models that projected millions of deaths in the first year in the UK, if stringent lockdowns were not implemented. Once implemented, Ferguson and Imperial college quickly took credit for the “success” of lockdowns.

The estimate of 3.1 million lives saved by Dr. Ferguson was derived from a Thoroughly “ludicrous unscientific exercise, whereby they purported to validate their model by using their own hypothetical projections as a counterfactual of what would happen without lockdowns.” Other models and real world data have discredited Ferguson’s models, but the damage was done. Lockdowns, quarantines, masking, poorly-tested EUA products – such as experimental vaccines have taken their toll on all of us. In the end, what, if any of them were necessary?

Several of our writers had been questioning Ferguson’s projections (and political policy based on it) as the US and local data became available in late March to mid-April 2020. But once you go there (15 days to flatten the curve), it’s not easy coming back.

It became as many days as needed to flatten Trump, and the restrictions remained even after the summer riots, with no joy for you unless you were rioting, looting or burning for the current thing.

As for Ferguson, he still has his apologists. Those who believe lockdowns, masks, and distancing saved lives. But that’s a bit like saying people who’ve never been near the water were protected from the risk of drowning. The threat was always to those over 70, with few exceptions.

The largest burden of COVID-19 is carried by the elderly, and persons living in nursing homes are particularly vulnerable. However, 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years. The objective of this study was to accurately estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection.

In systematic searches in SeroTracker and PubMed (protocol:, we identified 40 eligible national seroprevalence studies covering 38 countries with pre-vaccination seroprevalence data. For 29 countries (24 high-income, 5 others), publicly available age-stratified COVID-19 death data and age-stratified seroprevalence information were available and were included in the primary analysis.

Scroll back up for another look at those numbers. Then consider that even knowing the elderly are more at risk from flu (they always are), they even screwed that up.

It’s hard to ignore how badly the politicians and public health experts handled the elderly in nursing homes and how they might have done better if those politicized ‘experts’ had stayed out of it. And that’s before we consider all the harm done by the policy decisions themselves (especially to younger people who were never at risk), including the damage still being done by the emergency authorized experimental vaccine*.

And here we are, post-holiday break, with schools masking kids and variant BB11XYZ(whatever)GFY making news and scaring people into the COVID pews.

Thankfully, here in New Hampshire, there’s not much of that, but if we had a Dem governor, they’d be trying, which means we’re always just one election away from more tyranny.

5 thoughts on “Steve MacDonald: New research proves almost no one was in grave danger from COVID-19

  1. The biggest losers in this big LIE are the agencies that perpetrated the lie, the political hacks who promoted the lie and the medical profession who went along with lie. Only the leftist lemmings will continue to have any faith in what the liars say in the future and the medical field is now hemorrhaging staff and docs as they no longer want to participate in Government lies. I fully read up on existing knowledge and decided the clot shot was not for me. I fortunately was able to get a Religious exemption to be able to keep my job. I hope that those who weren’t able do get to sue the liars and pharmaceutical companies into extinction. NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT..

  2. “Modeling” for any purpose has, at the core of its design, the biases of the one who fashions it. Whether it’s predicting the outcome of a pandemic or predicting the outcome of a weather event, the “modeler” manipulates the data to predict a certain desired outcome. Whether or not that outcome is accurate can only be determined after the fact. Some have become too dependent on modeling that may ignore or contradict proven science just because they’ve been duped into believing that computers can’t “lie”. Remember the old saying, “garbage in, garbage out”? A computer only does specifically what it’s instructed to do in each step of a programming code. Think about that the next time the outcome of a weather event or any other event isn’t what the computer “models” indicated.

  3. In addition to the initial faulty Covid response and panic, there is now evidence of scientific and regulatory fraud:

    “The mandate of the FDA as the industry regulator requires the agency to question and check such reckless disregard for safety testing. An honest regulator would have questioned the assertion by the manufacturer that major categories of safety studies were not applicable to their product. There is no question of incompetence. The agency is staffed with qualified and experienced pharmacology and toxicology professionals. At this point, with millions of adverse event reports accumulating rapidly in every public health database, neither the FDA, NIH, CDC, Pfizer nor other manufacturers can claim ignorance of these issues. The question of fraud and willful negligence by both the manufacturers and the regulators must be raised. ”


    Note this is an extremely technical and well researched article.

    It is hard to comprehend the disastrous effect of the complete failures of both the regulatory agencies as well as the manufacturer on the general population. This will fester for years to come.

Comments are closed.