---

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick explains why people have concluded that covid was a plandemic.  It’s because people’s trust in authorities was broken due to the many lies and misinformation spread by the government and selected “experts” during the covid pandemic, he says.

“When people despair of so-called ‘conspiracy theories, or theorists, and why do they seem to be taking over the world.’ I say: You caused it, and your actions and denials of facts just make it worse. Do you think people don’t notice when you talk utter unscientific bollocks, or threaten to throw people in jail, or remove their license to practice medicine for stating verifiable facts? Actions have consequences,” he writes.  Now “a large number of people don’t believe anything you have to say.”

Why Do So Many Believe Covid Was a Plandemic?

By Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, 22 March 2025

This is primarily a matter of trust – and the lack of it.

If it looks like a conspiracy, and quacks like a conspiracy … or, to change focus slightly to Covid. If it looks like 1984, and quacks like 1984 – it’s probably 1984. What happened with Covid I found extraordinary and scary. Within a very short time, longstanding individual rights and freedoms which people fought and died for, over hundreds of years, had gone.

At the very start of the pandemic, I remember driving to work along deserted roads with no traffic at all. Which was actually rather nice. At one point, the only vehicles I recall seeing were police cars with policemen in the front, brooding, watching. Not quite the thought police, but you know, scary.

I was never pulled over. Perhaps they checked my registration plate, looked up owner details, and found out that I was Dr Malcolm Kendrick, tootling about to save patients. Perhaps not, I have no idea, I never stopped to ask.

As a natural-born rebel, I decided I would go out walking in the nearby countryside – when we were not allowed to. I was uncomfortably aware of being observed as I walked past farms in the Peak District, net curtains twitching? Maybe that was just my fevered imagination. Car parks in the middle of nowhere were closed off using “Police Do Not Enter” tape. The type they use for crime scenes.

My local golf club was closed. No one could play. You could walk across the golf course with friends and family, as many did, but swinging a golf club obviously stirred up the atmosphere, attracting the Covid virus towards you. Like midges in Scotland, or something.

Then there were the fact-checkers who sprang up out of nowhere. These titans who we suddenly found walking among us, bestriding the world like intellectual colossus(es)/colossi knowing that they, and only they, could determine what constitutes a fact.

They regularly stomped on anyone who dared raise their head above the parapet. Suggest, for example, that Ivermectin may actually have some benefit in Sars-Cov2, and watch the empurpled rage descend, along with the mockery.

Ahead of full US authorisation of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had a simple message for Americans contemplating using ivermectin, a medicine used to deworm livestock, instead of getting a covid shot.

 “You are not a horse,” it said. “You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

‘You are not a horse’: FDA tells Americans stop taking dewormer for Covid, The Guardian, 23 August 2021 

Well, thanks for the explanation that humans are not horses, or cows, with all the implied mockery that the public is so easily led and plain stupid. You know, many of us had been looking at the anti-viral properties of Ivermectin for a long time. When Sars-Cov2 came along it appeared promising – even in people, who are not cows. Who knew.

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro

We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2), with a single addition to Vero-hSLAM cells 2 h post infection with SARS-CoV-2 able to effect ~5000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 h. Ivermectin therefore warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans. 

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro – PubMed

Those of us, who actually look at research, find comments such as “Seriously, y’all. Stop it”to be just a teensy-weensy bit on the patronising side.  It was a phrase almost certainly created by someone who hasn’t a clue about medicine or science. “Aspirin was created to reduce pain and temperature, not to reduce the risk of heart disease. Seriously y’all, trying to use it in heart disease, just stop it y’all”

On a more serious note, I was threatened by the General Medical Council on a couple of occasions for criticising the lack of safety research on the new vaccines. There were widespread attacks going on, all over the place, to silence anyone questioning the official narrative.

Lord Sumption, once head of the Supreme Court in England, had this to say about it all:

The sheer scale on which the government has sought to govern by decree, creating new criminal offences, sometimes several times a week on the mere say-so of ministers, is in constitutional terms truly breathtaking.”

This is how freedom dies. When societies lose their liberty, it is not usually because some despot has crushed it under his boot. It is because people voluntarily surrendered their liberty out of fear of some external threat.

Sweden, alone amongst European countries, decided not to lockdown, or perhaps you could call what they did lockdown “lite.” Schools, restaurants and bars remained open. People travelled on public transport. This approach was universally condemned. It was said that Dr Anders Tegnell (chief epidemiologist) and Stefan Löfven (the prime minister), were …

“…playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population,” Carlsson said. “At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster…

“… Leading experts last week were fiercely critical of the Swedish public health authority in an email thread seen by state broadcaster SVT, accusing it of incompetence and lack of medical expertise.”

I went to speak at an anti-lockdown rally in Edinburgh in September 2020. It had been approved by the police. However, the organiser was dragged in for questioning and was told he could face up to five years in jail for endangering public health. Five years in prison… It did feel as if some totalitarian regime had taken over. It most certainly felt as though Big Brother was watching you, everywhere.

Although, from what I could see, most people seemed to welcome this with open arms. The State stepping in to take control and keep us all safe. Fellow doctors were very much of the “we should lock down harder, and longer and silence anyone who objects” brigade. And, by the way, make vaccination mandatory, for everyone.

I have always been more of a “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety.” Kind of a guy. Which appears to place me very firmly in the minority in the UK, and most of the Western World. And most certainly a minority of one within the medical profession. At least, it felt that way.

I found that, taken as a whole, the actions taken had the feel of “they,” whoever they may be, coming together to form some great all-powerful Oligarchy to rule us all. The great and the good gathering power around themselves. The WHO, the World Economic Forum, prime ministers and presidents, billionaires such as Bill Gates.

Of course, all of them fervently deny the “grabbing power” thing. “We were doing it for you own good, can’t you see?” Yes, the defence of coercive controllers since time immemorial. Democracy was suspended – perhaps indefinitely – and at times, “they” seemed to be getting a taste for it. The thin veneer of Western Liberal democracy stripped away to reveal what lies underneath. Usually, not nice.

So, I can see exactly why it all had the look and feel of some great worldwide conspiracy. And once you start to view the Covid pandemic through the conspiracy lens, all actions can seem sinister.

Bill Gates was trying to inject nanotechnology into us with the vaccines. 5G masts had been set up to control us all and activate the virus (I’m not sure I remember that right). Vaccines were designed to kill people and reduce the human population. The World Economic Forum was going to turn us into powerless economic units: “You will own nothing and be happy.’’

All nonsense those involved cry. True, I reply. Because I don’t believe there was a great conspiracy. Nothing could be that well planned or organised. People are generally pretty useless at such things.

Instead, I believe that the motivations behind (most) of those in charge were benign, if paternalistic.  “They” did not wish to defenestrate democracy around the world and transfer power to themselves. What we had was more of a: “We, the mighty leaders, are here to look after you. Only we know the great and complex plan. You, on the other hand, the lumpen proletariat, cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions, so do as we say.”

In essence, “they” will tell you what to do and what to think about the entire pandemic. This form of parent/child social interaction was best described by Eric Berne in his seminal book ‘Games People Play’. The theory of transactional analysis.

Here is a good description of this dynamic and the situation that can develop (in this case, within a company):

Whenever a paternalistic leadership style is enacted, an asymmetry is established. The leader (or superior of some sort) exhibits behaviour that resembles a parent while the subordinate exhibits behaviour that resembles a child. 

There is an entirely different interaction between the members of a leadership team. The ‘Parents’ (leaders) engage in truthful esoteric conversations with each other, discussions that are designed for them alone. They then pass down a filtered subset of exoteric knowledge, only that which is deemed suitable for ‘Children’s’ (subordinate’s) consumption. 

Thus, paternal leadership becomes a form of domination: it imposes the ‘Parent’s’ rationality upon the ‘Children’. The ‘Children’ are excluded from participating in the ‘Parent’s’ world. In this dynamic, both ‘Children’ and ‘Parents’ avoid Adult-to-Adult conversation. Paternalistic leaders effectively create a chasm between themselves and their infantilised employees. The employees are relegated to a ‘nursery’ where they can be seen but not heard. 

Dialogue over Paternalism, John Dobbin, 22 August 2021

Sound familiar in any way?

I always find it ironic that, as a doctor, I was taught about transactional analysis at medical school and warned to avoid a paternalistic approach. In retrospect, I think I must have remembered that wrong. “You will take on a paternalistic approach.”

But I diverge. The point I want to make here is that when you treat people like children, you can expect two results. One, people take shelter behind the parent figure, trusting in everything they are told, which is the result the authorities are hoping for. Two, people get angry and fight back. The truculent child.

I usually take on the truculent child position when people try to tell me what to do. Arms crossed, grumpy face. I always prefer adult/adult conversations, but this is often tricky when “experts” propound their truth, and “facts,” and will brook no dissent. “Do you not know who I am? I am an expert in [insert expertise here], and you are but a General Practitioner. You know nothing.”

The truculent child certainly takes over when it becomes clear that a great deal of what we are being told is nonsense. Or, as close to nonsense as makes no difference. The virus is spread through droplets, not aerosols. This was clearly nonsense from day one. Look up ferrets.

Or try this one. You can take masks off whilst eating in a restaurant, but you have to put them back on when standing up and walking in a restaurant. Take me through the evidence behind this again, slowly? I promise not to laugh this time. Cross my heart and hope to die.

At the very beginning, staff in hospitals and nursing homes were told that they could not wear masks or personal protective equipment (“PPE”) as it might upset the patients. Oh, yes, we remember that, or at least I certainly do. Then, once there actually were masks, and PPE, we were told we had to wear them, for our safety, and the protection of patients.  Four legs good, two legs bad became …

The first masks I received had a little sticker on them to inform me that they were in date until 2022. When I peeled back the, rather crudely applied, sticker, it revealed something else beneath. Information stating that the masks had gone out of date in 2017. Yes, we were sent out-of-date equipment. Which had been deliberately disguised to look as if it was still in date.

Personally, I wasn’t that bothered about the risk of out-of-date masks. I didn’t think the PPE we were given had the slightest effect, on anything. Certainly not surgical masks. The air comes in the side and goes out the side.  As far I was concerned, all that masks would ever achieve was to turn droplets into aerosols as you breathed in and out. Thus, increasing infection risk.

However, the sheer duplicity of changing the use-by dates on, supposedly, lifesaving equipment was outrageous. If they could do that … what else?