It looks like healthy people younger then 60 have little to fear but fear itself. But fear is addictive and it looks like panic,
including panic buying had spread in the USA, fueled by irresponsible and often evil MSM fearmongering.
Fauci and friends comletly failed us: he was unable or unwilling to provide relevant information about the virus. Also highly
questionable was his role in gain of function experiments, which put him is a very dangerous position of biological war criminal.
Please not that information about so called "vaping
epidemic" was suppressed and genome of the pathogen that couse it, if such exists, was never sequenced.
CDC attributed it to E-cigatettes, but there were cases when a single time users got the disease. X-ray picture is suspiciously
common with COVID-19.[ CDC ]
Chinese did some research and published X-ray pictures of waping patients were attributed to COVID-19 my the supercomputer running a
spcial program of images recognition and classification. That does not prove anything, but it increases the plausibility of
the hypothesis that waping epidemic in the USA in August 2019 has some relations to COVID the epidemic of 2020 and might be its
precursor, with early, less contagious, mutation of the same virus.
Statistic reported about COVID-19 was distorted by MSM to induce fearmongering and increase profits (MSM provide positive
feedback loop in such cases and their role probably is negative not positive as they provoke overreaction). The only reliable
statistics about COVID-19 epidemics are so called "excessive deaths" statistics and it shows that 2020 is not that different from
2019.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
The coronavirus killed tens of thousands in the United States during the pandemic’s first months, but it also left a lesser-known
toll: thousands more deaths than would have been expected from heart disease and a handful of other medical conditions, according
to an
analysis of federal data by The Washington Post.
Fr example, reporting
deaths from the virus neoliberal MSM do not split it by age groups as this would decrease the level of fear in the population ( and
their profits ). Also reporting just the number of death from the virus, not the deviation form the average number of deaths for a
week or a month or so artificially increases panic.
Reporting deaths from the virus neoliberal MSM do not split it by age groups as this would decrease the
level of fear in the population ( and their profits ). Also reporting just the number of death from the virus, not
the deviation form the average
number of deaths for a week or a month or so artificially increases panic.
Panic and fear artificially incited by neoliberal MSM and cowardice
to face the risks immanent in any epidemics (as well as driving the car) is doing more damage than the disease itself.
They provoked the wave of panic hoarding in the USA which started in February with isopropyl alcohol and hand sanitizer
(which in early March reached $60 fro 8 ounces bottle on Amazon ;-) but spread starting from March 10 to many other products categories
including paper towels, bathroom tissue, all types of sanitizers and non perishable food.
Sometime media coverage looks like a complete 100% departure from reality.
More people will die in Yemen and Syria each day going forward, and no one cares. Many old people will serious chronic condition who
are die from coronavirus induced pneumonia would die from flu induced bakterial pneumonia the same year as they are too weak to resist even
flu. Winter is a very bad season for such people in any case.
Of course, another extreme is fatalism as expressed
by Paul Bogdanich in his post at
moonofalabama.org (Mar 11 2020 )
I should have clarified, I'm an American living in the United States. That said, it bothers me. The absolute lack of any detectable
level of courage or fortitude in the face of diversity (hard times) is just stunning. Old people die. Everyone dies over time.
Viruses like the flu or SARS, or COVID-19 accelerate that process from time to time. It's just what viruses do. There is no
cure for either death or viruses. If you want, the biblical "Ye shall surely die."
Even in advanced age life has meaning and is exciting when you're solving concrete problems heling your family or community,
or humanity as a whole. Many outstanding achievements were made people over 70 year old (Verdi wrote Otello at 74 and
Falstaff (1893) being 80) People over 70 now dominate presidential
race in the USA ;-) And unlike
fatalists thinking, we do not need to apply to our life the moral metrics which are appropriate only to communities who live on a verge of survival. Loosing some part of annual national income to save lives via quarantine
is affordable. Mass testing is a sure way to improve cost efficiency of quarantines and similar measures during virus epidemics. Retired
people can and should stay home and avoid situation where they can catch the infection. Reckless behaviour during virus
epidemics is a crime and need to be punished appropriately.
But it is true that the panic can do more damage than the virus itself. And that we need an objective perspective to access the
level of threat inherent in this virus epidemics. In the USA a reasonable threshold for classifying the treat as serious are probably events that exceed car fatalities. In
2016 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) registered 37,461 killed, an average of 102 per day.
In the USA a reasonable threshold for classifying the treat as serious are probably events that exceed car
fatalities. Which means around 40K people killed per year with the average
over 100 per day. The society accepts this level of fatalities as normal, so why this virus epidemics should be treated differently
? Nobody stops driving cars because of this level of risk.
We are still in single digits of victims per day with COVID-19. It did proved high infectious. But there is highly infectious and
highly deadly pathogens are two distinct group that do not mix. It is as if viruses need to make choice between high mortality
and high transmission: viruses that kill their host, before the host infects others, die with the host and this can't kill many
hosts without eliminating themselves as well.
With this coronavirus, there seems to be a larger then usual window (aka incubation period) during which a person can be infected
and transmitting the virus, without having symptoms. In a way this is a rather "clever" virus. But long incubation period does not eliminates
biological reason why highly infectious viruses should evolve to become less deadly in order to succeed.
While the US government of Mar 13 declared the coronavirus a US national emergency and offered $50 billion for support of
state and local governments to fight the virus with FEMA, additional measures will not have an immediate effect. But
they will definitely slow down the spread of virus "flattening" the epidemics curve and this allowing more paciet to survive.
The current dynamic of epidemic in the USA and the world so far is exponential growth of cases with most infections clustered in just half-dozen
countries. Which is typical for an early stage of virus epidemic. Excluding China which now is past its peak and is in decline, the other
fastest growing hotspots are Italy, Iran, Spain and France. As of Mar 10, 2020 in the USA -- only three states -- Washington State, New York,
and California have over 100 cases:
Confirmed cases for the past 10 days for countries and U.S. states with >100 new confirmed cases as of March 10:
A a typical flu epidemic in the USA infects tens of million people and cause approx
20-50K fatalities per year (somewhere
between 0.1% and 1%) but does not create any headlines in neoliberal MSM. According to the CDC’s weekly US flu report of
February 22, 2020,
“So far this season there have been at least 32 million flu illnesses, 310,000 hospitalizations and 18,000 deaths from flu.”
For comparison the mortality rate in South Korea, where more than 1,100 tests have been administered per million residents, comes
out to just 0.6% and concentrated in the old and/or with chronic conditions. In view of USA media hysteria about Coronavirus COVID-19,
we need to concentrate on facts, not fears. Here is
Craig Murray comparison with the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968/9:
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968/9 was the last really serious flu pandemic to sweep the UK. They do seem extraordinarily regular
– 1919, 1969 and 2020. Flu epidemics have much better punctuality than the trains (though I cheated a bit there and left out the
1958 “Asian flu”). Nowadays “Hong Kong flu” is known as H3N2. Estimates for deaths it caused worldwide vary from 1 to 4 million.
In the UK it killed an estimated 80,000 people.
If the current coronavirus had appeared in 1968, it would simply have been called “flu”, probably “Wuhan flu”. COVID-19 may not
be nowadays classified as such, but in my youth flu is definitely what we would have called it. The Hong Kong flu was very similar
to the current outbreak in being extremely contagious but with a fairly low mortality rate. 30% of the UK population is estimated
to have been infected in the Hong Kong flu pandemic. The death rate was about 0.5%, mostly elderly or with underlying health conditions.
But there was no massive panic, no second by second media hysteria, over Hong Kong flu. Let me start being unpopular. “Man
in his 80’s already not very well from previous conditions, dies of flu” is not and should not be a news headline. The coverage is
prurient, intrusive, unbalanced and designed to cause hysteria.
Diamond Princess liner represents the perfect environment for the spread of the virus. Thousands of people jammed in a small place serviced by a single ventilation system…..it’s virus heaven. Surely
all on board are dead by now? Well no.
The reality is that most of the deceased presented with existing pathologies, for example, chronic lung disease (often due to
smoking), impaired immune response, pre-existing age related illness and disability, latent infections (esp. TB), use of
pharmaceutical product (whether prescribed or not), other infection types, poor nutrition (never, ever underestimate the deleterious
effects of junk food), etc. Not all the patients were tested for the corona virus either - so how do we even begin to think we know
what they had going on?
As Trump tweeted ‘So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing
is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about
that!’
He made a fair point, but that does not excuse him sleeping for two months and not preparing to the epidemics. Several
factors determined the USA response:
CDC huge blunder with tests. This was a very expensive blunder which made the USA epidemic much larger, as it disallow
following the early cases and shut the spread on the virus via tracing contacts.
Trump administration blunder with protective equipment (face masks, suits, etc) and disinfectants such as hand sanitizer.
Especially painful was Trump administration incompetence with masks. Two month is enough to buy equipotent and start producing
them locally. That was not done. So recommendation not to wear them followed (with the idea of reserving them for medical
personnel), which increased the number of infections in highly populated places like NYC dramatically. Also the country with one
trillion military budget proved to be completely unprepared for flu-like epidemic. Even military does not have enough protection
equipment. To say nothing about US medics
Due to MSM scaremongering ventilators hoarding process started in full force ins state with NY as a clear leader.
Governer Cuomo bravely declared that NY need 40K ventilators when the total number of hospitalized with coronavirus infection
nationwide were less then that.
Hoarding epidemic quickly emptied the shelfs of supermarkets.
Privatized healthcare is about profits not about safety of personnel. Many hospitals operated with substandard set
of protective measures and that resulted in unnecessary additional infections among medical personnel.
Complete blunder to secure retirement homes. It is was creal from the very beginning that retirement home represent
a local community bond, that it just waiting for ignition. Nothing was none to prevent infection of inhabitants and personnel
and epidemics in nurcing homes followed. No masks, no obligatory usage of hand sanitizer, no UV lamps, nothing. In other
words no aven elementary hygienic measusres.
Grocery store personnel was left completely exposed to the virus. No government supply of masks to them and first
repondents. Priovite inductee scrooges like Bezos while spending extraordinary amounts on his pet space projects failed to
secure masks and sanitizer in Amazon warehouses and several of them experienced outbreaks of virus. One was closed.
New York Post
Neoliberalism with it cult of profits at any costs, promotion of unhealthy competition, outsourcing of manufacturing, long
supply chains, and the rule of financial oligarchy proved to be far from the best social system to face the epidemic and it
show. Outsourcing of manufacturing hit the country were it hurt: in such areas as protective suits for medics,
drugs, and even such low technology item as face masks.
Banks again were caught "swimming naked". It is unknown how many overplayed their hand with derivatives, but again
they required bailout at taxpayer expense. Under neoliberalism nationalization of most crooked entities and wiping out
shareholders is not an option. Wall Street scum remains parasitic scum: they did not help the country one bit.
All in all it is clear the that US administration do not have any plan and improvised as infection unfold. Here we can mention a
highly negative, unprofessional role of National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony
Fauci. It looks like he is one trick poly, an advocate of vaccinations (does he hold stocks related to vaccination is unknown) . In
context of this epidemic after sleeping two months, he started advocating taking drastic measure in order to "flatten the curve"
without providing any data that can convince us that such a flattening is needed (The
Last Refuge ):
The concept of “flattening” the virus curve; the presumptive reason for social
distancing; is based on a theory to extend the spread of COVID-19 to a lesser incident rate over a longer
duration, thereby lessening the burden on the U.S. healthcare system. Hence, ‘flatten’ the spike in
infections.
Put another way: “Flattening” means the same number of people eventually contract
the virus, only they do so over a longer period of time, and the healthcare system can treat everyone because
the numbers do not rise to level where the system is overloaded. In theory that seems to make sense.
However, no-one is asking: what is the current stress level on the healthcare
system right now? Where are we in that capacity?… and what is normal capacity level during a high-level flu
outbreak?… and Where are we when compared against that baseline?
Again, Dr. Fauci slept like the rest of Trump administration for two months and suddenly in mid March started to give alarmist interviews,
several a day, provoking overreaction. Later he admitted that his based on zero facts fearmongering "worst case
scenario" about
several million victims was wrong and was exaggerated at least ten times, but it was too late.
A SHOCKING CORRECTION Dr. Fauci Went from a Possible 1.7 Million US Deaths Due to Coronavirus to a Possible 200,000 US Deaths.
In reality, there probably will be less then 60K deaths in the USA. The
damage tot he economy was already done. Instead of establishing in January a mission in Korea and studying the disease, he was
caught without pants.
The reaction of neoliberal MSM seems to be utterly and totally disproportionate to the risk. When all
official information sources march in lock-step you can reasonably assume some sort of mind-fuck is underway.
But how high risk and what kind of risk could COVID-19 represent? I can only speculate but a few possibilities present
themselves. (Remember I’m referring to the reaction here, not the virus itself).
For a start the economic impact of the panic will be considerable. Stocks and bonds will crash precipitously. Millions of
investors will be ruined. Nobody knows how far the drop can go.
Wealthy investors could end up buying assets for a fraction of their true worth. It’s happened before on multiple occasions. Then
there’s Big Pharma which is sitting on a potential gold mine
MSM dirty dance around human mortality is very annoing. Risk is clearly tolerated less these days, safety measures are
everywhere. But life of ordinary people under neoliberalism is not valued. BS jobs, junk food, subprime and expensive healthcare,
crude “entertainment”.
Also significant percentage of those who will die from COVID-19 would die from flu too.
60,000 people die every month in Italy. Many of them old. Now we have 1,000 reported dead due to the
Covid-19. Most of them old. Many of them would have died anyway from some cold or flu that would further
aggravate their poor state of health. This year Covid-19 got there first.
After sober analysis, extensive reading, and careful
assessment of each and every fact either directly or indirectly related to COVID19, I am now fully convinced of the following:
– The virus was deliberately created by aliens from the
Betelgeuse solar system, who have been secretly spying on our planet for the last 200 years.
– The Betelgeusians have developed a supremely accurate quantum computer model (“It’s Quantum!”) of our species, which predicts what
various factions of humanity will do given any set of specific circumstances and inputs.
– The Betelgeusians, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to re-balance various factions of humanity here on earth, depending on
their projected threat to other populations and the planet in general.
– After running various scenarios through their quantum computer (“It’s Quantum!”), the results for advancing an optimal future
became obvious.
– The COVID19 was created specifically to attack Italians, Iranians, and Han Chinese.
– In their computer simulation (“It’s Quantum!”), those three groups were considered most egregiously able to perpetrate negative
effects on the rest of humanity in the future.
– Therefore, the Betelgeusians made the onerous decision to create and release the virus.
– Various intended consequences were also the result of the simulation (“It’s Quantum!”); these include vituperation and blowback on
the US Deep State embedded for lo! these many years.
– A popular mass uprising will take effect against the Derp State, and leftism/progressivism will finally be tossed out on its
collective ear all over Western Civilization. It will be so thoroughly maligned, that it will finally end up on the ash heap of
history, never to return.
– The Betelgeusians will surreptitiously introduce an antidote into the ecosphere, thereby eradicating all further related
susceptibility and deaths.
– The Betelgeusians will look down on their handiwork with benign satisfaction.
– Western Civilization will again have a chance to flourish like never before, entering a new Renaissance, and everybody will live
happily ever after.
There… don’t you like my story much better than all the other
nonsense you’ve been pummeled with lately? (You can thank me later.)
"... If there's any demographic that isn't at risk, it's children. Children were never an issue when it came to COVID. Their caseload was never the majority, the plurality, or even a fraction that you could call 'significant.' ..."
"... If they do contract COVID, it's usually not a bad case. A child's survival rate is a whopping 99.995 percent when it comes to infection. They're virtually bulletproof. ..."
"... Since the start of the pandemic, only 335 kids under the age of 18 have died from COVID. Is one too many? Of course. It's tragic but hardly cause for a national panic. By this logic, we can no longer drive automobiles. Too much death. ..."
"... Schools have also never been a source of super spread. The schools in Irvine, California reopened in September of 2020. A report last March noted at the time, that of the 23,000 students in the Irvine School District, just 17 contracted COVID. How many of the 3,000 employees? Only three. And this was when the vaccine was not readily available. ..."
"... Should people still be careful? Sure, but this isn't a 'Apocalypse Now' mentality. ..."
They have nowhere to go. The liberal media and the experts see another avenue to lock us
down -- and they're going full bore. The Delta variant, which doesn't make you sicker nor is it
more lethal, is a problem for the unvaccinated. But we're not locking down again. No way.
There's a midterm election coming up, so no -- not even Joe Biden is going to back such a move.
It's the same reason why there will be no mandatory vaccination protocol. There's an election
coming up. If this were a national emergency, politics be damned -- everyone gets a shot,
right? They're readily available to everyone who can get them. That should be the mindset. It's
not. Why? Because obviously, it's not a do-or-die situation. If a mandatory vaccination mandate
is being kept in the desk until after an election, it's all politics. We've known this for
months.
And now, they're trying to gaslight us on children and COVID. Fellas, I have bad news. We've
been paying attention. If there's any demographic that isn't at risk, it's children.
Children were never an issue when it came to COVID. Their caseload was never the majority, the
plurality, or even a fraction that you could call 'significant.' This notion that children
are under threat is science fiction and it doesn't help that a hyper-partisan Surgeon General,
Vivek Murthy, who was not shy about wanting to declare gun violence a national health issue, is
peddling this fearmongering.
The science is clear. Children generally do not get it or spread it. If they do contract
COVID, it's usually not a bad case. A child's survival rate is a whopping 99.995 percent when
it comes to infection. They're virtually bulletproof.
Since the start of the pandemic, only 335 kids under the age of 18 have died from COVID.
Is one too many? Of course. It's tragic but hardly cause for a national panic. By this logic,
we can no longer drive automobiles. Too much death.
Schools have also never been a source of super spread. The schools in Irvine, California
reopened in September of 2020. A report last March noted at the time, that of the 23,000
students in the Irvine School District,
just 17 contracted COVID. How many of the 3,000 employees? Only three. And this was when
the vaccine was not readily available.
The vaccines right now are not available for kids under the age of 12. They're not at-risk.
They're not carriers. Should people still be careful? Sure, but this isn't a 'Apocalypse
Now' mentality. Also, the store-bought masks that people, like Fauci, are saying kids
under three should wear don't stop the spread of COVID. Fauci mentioned
that in his emails .
America is winning the battle against COVID-19. But you wouldn't know it by listening to our
politicians and public health authorities.
President Joe Biden
has said he will still wear a mask after vaccination -- even when outside or gathering indoors
with other vaccinated individuals -- calling it a "patriotic responsibility." Days earlier,
Biden's chief medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci , insisted that children
should still wear masks while playing outside, even though outdoor transmission is virtually
impossible.
They're hardly the only doomsayers. Vaccines are rolling out quickly...
... ... ...
It's true that we may never get all the way to zero. But we don't have to. Expecting zero
transmission is both unrealistic and unnecessary. We accept all manner of risks as the price of
going about our daily lives. The flu kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. Car
accidents claim about 40,000 lives annually. But most people don't shun social contact each flu
season or refuse to drive.
Fear-mongering can be lucrative. Bad news grabs readers' attention and enables
testing companies to reap unprecedented profits -- but only if context is not allowed to
dampen enthusiasm for accentuating the negative. For example, even if U.S. deaths due to PIC
top 400,000 in 2020, whether COVID-19 without serious comorbidities caused the vast majority of
those deaths or only the largest portion, those deaths should be considered in the context of
the size of the U.S. population (about
328 million ) and the number of deaths otherwise expected this year (about
2.8 million ). In the context of those denominators, PIC deaths are a real concern, but
they are not catastrophic. As put by Michael
Barone ,
the 1957-58 Asian flu killed between 75,000 and 116,000 people in the United States,
between 0.04% and 0.07% of the nation's population then. The 1968-69 Hong Kong flu killed
about 100,000, 0.05% of the population.
The current [Covid-19] death toll of 185,000 is 0.055% of the current population. It will
go higher, but it's about the same magnitude as those two flu outbreaks and less deadly for
those under 65. Yet, there were no statewide lockdowns, no massive school closings, no closed
office buildings and factories, restaurants, and museums. No one even considered shutting
down Woodstock.
As of 2018, about
700,000 people have died from HIV/AIDS, and about 655,000 people die from heart disease while
about 140,000 die from
stroke each year in the United States. Even though stroke and heart disease are not
contagious, their combined 795,000 deaths will swamp reasonable projections for COVID-19 deaths
– but still, the effect of deaths from stroke, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS has not been
catastrophic because combating those illnesses has not entailed policies that cause massive
unemployment, divert
health care from other lethal illnesses , and raise the specter of economic collapse. Three
hundred and twenty eight million is a big denominator.
Given a concerning-but-not-catastrophic PIC pandemic, public health responses also need to
be kept in proper perspective. Wrong context is even worse than no context. Erring on the side
of caution, the CDC decided to advise more stringent strategies than might have been
appropriate – identifying and isolating patients, requiring social distancing, economic
and social lockdowns, compulsory mask wearing, maybe even tracing contacts, et cetera -- many
of the strategies that helped defeat Ebola
virus epidemics .
Sounds good, but there are two problems. The first is feasibility of enforcement. China's
government has the power over its provinces and people to enforce lockdowns and quarantine
major cities like Wuhan (11 million people). The United States is not that "united." We have
states' rights. Even states whose governors try to isolate their state from other states find
that their policies have more holes than a sieve. A country that champions "Give me liberty, or
give me death" and "Live free or die" cannot enforce strictures that could work in theory.
Feasibility of enforcement aside, there is an epidemiological hitch that cannot be overcome
even in theory. Compared to coronaviruses ( common cold , COVID-19) and
influenza viruses (flu), Ebola is super-lethal. Super-lethal means that victims do not live
long enough to become asymptomatic long-term carriers. But with COVID-19 we have asymptomatic
regular-spreaders,
silent spreaders , and super-spreaders
. So when new cases and deaths decrease below pandemic levels in areas where CDC
recommendations have been largely observed, and those areas begin to "open up" in response,
non-immune people who come out of lockdown are at high risk of being infected by a plethora of
highly mobile carriers. This phenomenon drives what is often called a "second wave" of Covid-19
(per the second bump in Figures 1 and 3). The term "second wave" can be misleading. The virus
does not do anything new
"... Federal officials concentrated their resources on quickly developing vaccines, with success. However, a relative dearth of drug research focused on coronaviruses, despite previous outbreaks, held back a fast response on treatments ..."
"... Red Texas btw had 1,387 new cases today. A state with 30 million people. 5 (yes that's five) deaths. The fourth straight day new cases fell. Weird how those stats aren't making it into the fear-mongering articles. ..."
"... Israel is struggling with a fourth wave of infections, and the Israeli Health Ministry announced at that Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant there. People who have had Covid and recovered are not being reinfected at a high rate. ..."
"... Time to stop the fear-mongering and hysteria. There is risk to everything in life, and you can't hide under the bed for the rest of your lives because something might happen. Let's get back to normal and stop being held prisoner by confused people like Fauci who don't understand their 15 minutes of fame are long over. ..."
Federal officials concentrated their resources on quickly developing vaccines, with
success. However, a relative dearth of drug research focused on coronaviruses, despite previous
outbreaks, held back a fast response on treatments . Scattered U.S. clinical trials
competed against each other for patients. When effective yet hard-to-administer drugs were
developed, a fragmented American healthcare system struggled to deliver them to patients.
Covid-19 cases, and the need for treatments, are continuing. U.S. hospitals are bracing for
new surges of cases with the
Delta variant spreading
... The Biden administration recently said it would
spend $3.2 billion to support the development of Covid-19 antiviral pills.
... ... ...
A lack of knowledge among healthcare providers has made it difficult to get even the
available treatments. When Bob Bellin of Austin, Texas, tested positive for Covid-19 last
December, he remembered that then-President Donald Trump had
taken a monoclonal antibody treatment from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Suffering from a mild cough and a headache, the retiree was worried about his chances of
developing a bad case of the virus because he has a compromised immune system condition. He
says he called a telemedicine provider to inquire about antibody treatment, but the physician
assistant on the call initially didn't know about it. After some pleading, the healthcare
worker agreed to research the drug's availability, he says.
Several minutes later, she got back to him with the names of sites where he could get the
antibody treatment. The next week, Mr. Bellin received the infusion over a three-hour visit. A
week later, he started his regular running routine again.
... ... ...
Remdesivir, first authorized by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2020 and later
granted full approval, is now given to roughly half of all hospitalized patients. Yet patients
often recover slowly regardless of whether they receive the treatment or not, doctors say.
"The effect of remdesivir is something a statistician can show you in a trial of 1,000
people, but it's not something where you really can see a day-to-day impact on your patients,"
says Dr. Griffin of ProHealth.
... ... ...
The Recovery study, which has examined at least 12 drugs so far, found the most effective of
all Covid-19 treatments for hospitalized patients to date, dexamethasone, which cut the risk of
death in patients on ventilators by a third. The Oxford scientists
reported the results in June 2020 , less than three months after they first began
evaluating it.
... ... ...
Last November, the FDA authorized the first drugs designed specifically to target Covid-19
in people who weren't hospitalized based on preliminary trial results. These monoclonal
antibodies were modeled after the natural antibodies people produce to fight the new
coronavirus.
Researchers at companies including Regeneron and Eli Lilly & Co. developed these monoclonal
antibody therapies in less than a year, compared with the decade or longer it usually takes to
bring a drug to market. The work was sped by earlier research by Regeneron and others to
develop antibodies for the MERS virus. The new drugs worked well in early Covid-19 patients,
reducing the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in trials.
Yet of the nearly one million doses shipped to hospitals and clinics from November through
early May, just 49% were used by patients over the period.
One factor in their limited use was the fact that influential panels that issue Covid-19
treatment guidelines balked at endorsing them before full clinical trial data was available.
The NIH and the Infectious Diseases Society of America didn't recommend using the drugs until
February and March, respectively, after Lilly provided results from a Phase 3 study.
... ... ...
The hospital treated 1,469 patients with the drugs through early July, and as many as 30
people a day at the peak, says Jonathan Parsons, a pulmonologist and executive vice chair of
clinical operations for Wexner's internal medicine department.
Of the patients treated so far, 4.8% have gone on to be hospitalized, compared with an
estimated 8% to 9% for similar patients not infused with the drug, he says.
Looking ahead, the best solution would be an antiviral that can be taken early in the
disease as a pill, doctors say.
Finding highly effective treatments with tolerable side effects is likely to take years and
require more coordination between government, universities and industry...
The posts below are sad - Trump, Trump, Trump. A man who's been gone for eight months. I
guess that's better than dealing with Biden's endless problems. I suppose letting in
thousands of illegals, many with covid, still isn't an issue?
Love the constant blaming of "delta" on unvaxxed Trump supporters. Sure, it's mostly red
states, but the enormous fact that keeps getting ignored is the fact over 60% of whites have
vaxxed. African Americans? 9%. Yes 9%. That means millions of adult AAs who can get shots,
won't.
Not surprising is AAs make up a large portion of the current hospital load (which still
isn't bad). Of course all the media and the people making this political want to say
is...it's "red states". I guess they don't want to offend Biden's voting base?
Red Texas btw had 1,387 new cases today. A state with 30 million people. 5 (yes that's
five) deaths. The fourth straight day new cases fell. Weird how those stats aren't making it
into the fear-mongering articles.
jack Canzonetta SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
FDA, CDC, FAUCI all downplayed Regeneron's treatment--a super treatment --I also asked my
about DR above Regeneron's treatment .. We were discussing a plan in case I contracted the
Wuhan lab virus, he didn't say much Regeneron - I also found out the outlets to receive it
were limited and they had produced many of product.. Fauci was singing only one note--Moderna
--
Catherine G Attara-Fink SUBSCRIBER 27 minutes ago
How about we need treatment for those who have been vaccinated and get Covid after the
fact???
thomas barloon SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Today I saw a 50 year old man with active pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) . Each time he coughs,
he releases millions of tuberculosis organisms into to the air and fills the rooms he enters
with infectious active bacteria. Should our patient with active tuberculosis be allowed to go
when and where he wants? Would you enter a cafe where he is eating or enter a room where he
is living? Of course, most would hope the man with active TB stays home and takes medication
to treat his active infection. Now, in many states, people with active COVID are allowed to
enter cafes and stores. Who are those with acitive COVID? One does not know until one tests
and traces and isolates. And an effective vaccine is also available and monoclonal antibodies
are available to all. Why do doctors not use HCQ and Invermectin and zinc? Simple. These and
many other medications do not work. Yes, the results are available for all to read for free
in NEJM, JAMA, Nature. Follow facts not fantasy.
William Lamb SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I guessed face mask might not be in this picture, since there are those who claimed it is
ineffective and covered one smile. Beside, it is their constutional rights to infect others
and care less for their fellow American, when they see that it is good to share the same
misery to others.
Dick Motley SUBSCRIBER 56 minutes ago
What an ironic post. You DO realize the vaccines are also categorized as emergency use
because they're also considered experimental right? And you HAVE heard about adverse
reactions to the vaccines, right? And you HAVE heard about "breakthrough" cases (reinfection)
among the vaccinated, right?
Sorry, did I say "ironic"? I meant "moronic".
Jamilla Graves SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
It would be irresponsible for the WSJ to spread propaganda about drugs that have been
disproven as treatments against and to prevent COVID-19.
jes merrell SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
Agreed. It is equally irresponsible for the layman poster to spread propaganda such as "tens
of thousands" of doctors are doing what?
If the poster is a physician, virologist or immunologist, offer your credentials along with
your medical advice. It will then have credibility, your opinions have none.
Mikey Metz SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
"Fragmented health care" is correct. When will Congress and at least 60 percent of Americans
wake up and realize health care in a capitalized society does not work like Target Corp. or
any business that works in a competitive environment. And to read how little money is spent
in this area is horrible. The world has dealt with terrible viruses forever--and the feet
dragging continues.
We are not in Russia or China where the state mandates what to do. with your thinking it has
to be difficult for you to be in a country where there is freedom of choice.
Who are you to tell 50% of the population of the country what to do? Who are you to mandate
to get an experimental vaccine? This is everyone's individual decision. If you are vaccinated
you are safe. Didn't Biden say you are 100% safe?
Richard Dole SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago
Let's see, all the Science (actual peer reviewed studies) indicate that those who have
recovered from COVID (naturally vaccinated) or been jabbed are good to go, have broad
immunity. So why worry about others if you are protected........
J Domingo SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago (Edited)
So why worry about others if you are protected........
Because this is not about protecting people.
It is about controlling people.
That is the only explanation for why Covid survivors are put on the BAD list. If they
don't line up and demonstrate their servility, they are in trouble.
T
Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary based on how
an individual's antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were generated: over the course of a naturally
acquired infection or from a COVID-19 vaccine. The new evidence shows that protective
antibodies generated in response to an mRNA vaccine will target a broader range of SARS-CoV-2
variants carrying "single letter" changes in a key portion of their spike protein compared to
antibodies acquired from an infection. These results add to evidence that people with
acquired immunity may have differing levels of protection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
More importantly, the data provide further documentation that those who've had and recovered
from a COVID-19 infection still stand to benefit from getting vaccinated.
J Domingo SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago (Edited)
Israel is struggling with a fourth wave of infections, and the Israeli Health Ministry
announced at that Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective against the Delta variant there.
People who have had Covid and recovered are not being reinfected at a high rate.
Now, a new NIH-supported study shows that the answer to this question will vary...
Quoting a study that is not yet published provides little useful information,
and cannot be used to conclude vaccination is superior to recovery from natural infection.
Thomas Erb SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
you missed a part of the Israeli quote
The two-dose vaccine still works very well in preventing people from getting seriously
sick, demonstrating 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against
severe illness, according to the Israeli data.
David Richardson SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
Because I still have about a 20% chance of getting the Delta virus if I am in direct contact
with unvaccinated and unmasked people. I then have a 10% chance of getting seriously ill.
But, the many people who post exactly the same question know this data. It is reported daily
by outlets ranging from the MSM to Fox. You just don't like it . It cuts your argument that
unvaccinated people are not a concern or threat to vaccinated people to shreds Man up. Or, at
least, shut up. If you or others decide not to get vaccinated you are materially raising the
immediate risk to others and--perhaps even worse--the odds that you will bread an even worse
variant.
Hersh Goel SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
you do not have a 20% chance of getting Delta virus from unvaccinated pople - dont shake
hands, dont hug or kiss. dont get in crowded places like elevators. wear an eye shield and
mask - your risk is essentially zero. The evidence is the thousands of unvaccinated health
care workers who took care of covid 19 cases for over a year.
But if you want to have 'direct contact' with people, thats a choice you make.
T Swan SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
This from India news, July 1, 2021
'Not a long-drawn process': Bharat Biotech expecting WHO approval soon As several European
countries are accepting WHO-listed Covishield, Covaxin too is expected to receive WHO
approval soon.
Stephen Carroll SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago
The highest rates of unvaccinated people live in the inner cities. In order to get support
from liberals the Democrats have neglected these inner city people so it would not disprove
their narrative that it is suburban conservatives that are failing to get vaccinated.
Nikola Sizgorich SUBSCRIBER 6 hours ago
Time to stop the fear-mongering and hysteria. There is risk to everything in life, and
you can't hide under the bed for the rest of your lives because something might happen. Let's
get back to normal and stop being held prisoner by confused people like Fauci who don't
understand their 15 minutes of fame are long over.
K Baker SUBSCRIBER 4 hours ago
Everybody knows a person can still get covid even if a person is fully vaccinated and spread
it to other people. Except JD. He will Spin that a 1000 different ways to try to confuse
people. He is talking to himself.
J Domingo SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Everybody knows a person can still get covid even if a person is fully vaccinated...
That's truly funny.
"You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." Joe Biden, speaking
at the CNN Town Hall in Cincinnati, OH, July 21, 2021
K Baker, and most D's don't even know what their confused leader believes and is
saying publicly about the vaccine.
Without misinformation, the Left would be bereft of information.
Always follow the money...... Every. Single. Time. Looks like Pfizer is the biggest donor of
this Academy. From twits: "AAP child-masking directive has zero citations to support its masking
recommendations, but it does have a citation for their support to send *even more* federal $$$ to
all schools, even schools that are closed: it's a teachers union lobbying document."
The American Academy of Pediatrics is demanding that all children over the age of 2 years
old wear face masks at schools and nurseries, a suggestion that goes further than any previous
restrictions.
@txsalth2o · Jul 19 The American Academy
of Pediatrics wants all kids masked until vaccinated?!? Let's go to their website and see
who the biggest donor is....
The group, which has 67,000 members in primary care,
announced that even if kids have been vaccinated they should still be forced to wear masks,
suggesting that "Combining layers of protection that include vaccinations, masking and
clean-hands hygiene will make in-person learning safe and possible for everyone."
The group also claims that "masking is proven to reduce transmission of the virus and to
protect those who are not vaccinated."
The group's statement also claims universal masking is "the most effective strategy to create
consistent messages and expectations among students without the added burden of needing to
monitor everyone's vaccination status."
The demand goes further than that of the CDC, which
has said that children and adults who work in schools who are fully vaccinated don't need to
wear masks.
The AAP is echoing Anthony Fauci, who last week called for all children older than 2 to be
forced to wear masks:
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you
to sign up for our free newsletter here . Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without
the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here .
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.472.0_en.html#goog_1547962665 Wall Street
Bounces, After Selloff Fed Boosts Liquidity SoftBank Said to Plan $14 Billion Sale of Alibaba
Shares NOW PLAYING China's Companies Have Worst Quarter on Record, Beige Book Says U.S.-Saudi
Oil Alliance Under Consideration, Brouillette Says ETF Volumes Surge in Current Market
Environment Investors Have Given Up on a V-Shaped Recovery, BNY's Young Cautions
The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a
half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans -- typically, a
person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far more catastrophic,
was a moral panic that swept the nation's guiding institutions.
Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance,
journalism, academic freedom -- and, worst of all, science. They misled the public about the
origins of the virus and the true risk that it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared
plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with
terrible collateral damage. As evidence of their mistakes mounted, they stifled debate by
vilifying dissenters, censoring criticism, and suppressing scientific research.
If, as seems increasingly plausible, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 leaked out of a
laboratory in Wuhan, it is the costliest blunder ever committed by scientists. Whatever the
pandemic's origin, the response to it is the worst mistake in the history of the public-health
profession. We still have no convincing evidence that the lockdowns saved lives, but lots of
evidence that they have already cost lives and will prove deadlier in
the long run than the virus itself.
One in three people worldwide lost a job or a business during the lockdowns, and half saw
their earnings drop, according to a
Gallup poll . Children, never at risk from the virus, in many places essentially lost a
year of school. The economic and health consequences were felt most acutely
among the less affluent in America and in the rest of the world, where the
World Bank estimates that more than 100 million have been pushed into extreme poverty.
The leaders responsible for these disasters continue to pretend that their policies worked
and assume that they can keep fooling the public. They've promised to deploy these strategies
again in the future, and they might even succeed in doing so -- unless we begin to understand
what went wrong.
The panic was started, as usual, by journalists. As the virus spread early last year, they
highlighted the most alarming statistics and the scariest images: the estimates of a fatality
rate ten to 50 times higher than the flu, the chaotic scenes at hospitals in Italy and New York
City, the predictions that national health-care systems were about to collapse.
The full-scale panic was set off by the
release in March 2020 of a computer model at the Imperial College in London , which
projected that -- unless drastic measures were taken -- intensive-care units would have 30
Covid patients for every available bed and that America would see 2.2 million deaths by the end
of the summer. The British researchers announced that the "only viable strategy" was to impose
draconian restrictions on businesses, schools, and social gatherings until a vaccine
arrived.
This extraordinary project was swiftly declared the "consensus" among public-health
officials, politicians, journalists, and academics. Anthony Fauci, director of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, endorsed it and became the unassailable authority
for those purporting to "follow the science." What had originally been a limited lockdown --
"15 days to slow the spread" -- became long-term policy across much of the United States and
the world. A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended
lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness that had been rejected in previous plans
for a pandemic. It was a dangerous experiment being conducted without knowing the answer to the
most basic question: Just how lethal is this virus?
The most prominent early critic was John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford, who
published an
essay for STAT headlined "A Fiasco in the Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold,
We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data." While a short-term lockdown made sense, he
argued, an extended lockdown could prove worse than the disease, and scientists needed to do
more intensive testing to determine the risk. The article offered common-sense advice from one
of the world's most frequently cited authorities on the credibility of medical research, but it
provoked a furious backlash on Twitter from scientists and journalists.
The fury intensified in April 2020, when Ioannidis followed his own advice by joining with
Jay Bhattacharya and other colleagues from Stanford to gauge the spread of Covid in the
surrounding area, Santa Clara County. After testing for Covid antibodies in the blood of
several thousand volunteers, they estimated that the fatality rate among the infected in the
county was about 0.2 percent, twice as high as for the flu but considerably lower than the
assumptions of public-health officials and computer modelers. The researchers acknowledged that
the fatality rate could be substantially higher in other places where the virus spread
extensively in nursing homes (which hadn't yet occurred in the Santa Clara area). But merely by
reporting data that didn't fit the official panic narrative, they became targets.
Other scientists lambasted the researchers and claimed that methodological weaknesses in the
study made the results meaningless. A statistician at Columbia wrote that the researchers "owe
us all an apology." A biologist at the University of North Carolina said that the study was
"horrible science." A Rutgers chemist called Ioannidis a "mediocrity" who "cannot even
formulate a simulacrum of a coherent, rational argument." A year later, Ioannidis still marvels
at the attacks on the study (which was eventually published in a leading
epidemiology journal). "Scientists whom I respect started acting like warriors who had to
subvert the enemy," he says. "Every paper I've written has errors -- I'm a scientist, not the
pope -- but the main conclusions of this one were correct and have withstood the
criticism."
Mainstream journalists piled on with hit pieces quoting critics and accusing the researchers
of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns. The Nation called the research a "black mark"
for Stanford. The cheapest shots came from BuzzFeed, which devoted thousands of words to a
series of trivial objections and baseless accusations. The article that got the most attention
was BuzzFeed's breathless
revelation that an airline executive opposed to lockdowns had contributed $5,000 -- yes,
five thousand dollars! -- to an anonymized fund at Stanford that had helped finance the Santa
Clara fieldwork.
The notion that a team of prominent academics, who were not paid for their work in the
study, would risk their reputations by skewing results for the sake of a $5,000 donation was
absurd on its face -- and even more ludicrous, given that Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, and the lead
investigator, Eran Bendavid, said that they weren't even aware of the donation while conducting
the study. But Stanford University was so cowed by the online uproar that it subjected the
researchers to a two-month fact-finding inquiry by an outside legal firm. The inquiry found no
evidence of conflict of interest, but the smear campaign succeeded in sending a clear message
to scientists everywhere: Don't question the lockdown narrative.
In a brief interlude of journalistic competence, two veteran science writers, Jeanne Lenzer
and Shannon Brownlee, published an article in Scientific
American decrying the politicization of Covid research. They defended the integrity and
methodology of the Stanford researchers, noting that some subsequent studies had found similar
rates of fatality among the infected. (In his latest review of the literature ,
Ioannidis now estimates that the average fatality rate in Europe and the Americas is 0.3 to 0.4
percent and about 0.2 percent among people not living in institutions.) Lenzer and Brownlee
lamented that the unjust criticism and ad hominem vitriol had suppressed a legitimate debate by
intimidating the scientific community. Their editors then proceeded to prove their point.
Responding to more online fury, Scientific American repented by publishing an
editor's note that essentially repudiated its own article. The editors printed BuzzFeed's
accusations as the final word on the matter, refusing to publish a rebuttal from the article's authors
or a supporting letter from Jeffrey Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School. Scientific
American , long the most venerable publication in its field, now bowed to the scientific
authority of BuzzFeed.
Editors of research journals fell into line, too. When Thomas Benfield, one of the
researchers in Denmark conducting the first large randomized controlled trial of mask efficacy
against Covid, was asked why they were taking so long to publish the much-anticipated findings,
he promised them as "as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper." After being
rejected by The Lancet , The New England Journal of Medicine , and JAMA , the study finally
appeared in the
Annals of Internal Medicine , and the reason for the editors' reluctance became clear: the
study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers
for Disease Control and other health authorities.
Stefan Baral, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins with 350 publications to his name,
submitted a critique of lockdowns to more than ten journals and finally gave up -- the "first
time in my career that I could not get a piece placed anywhere," he said. Martin Kulldorff, an
epidemiologist at Harvard, had a similar experience with his article, early in the pandemic,
arguing that resources should be focused on protecting the elderly. "Just as in war," Kulldorff
wrote, "we must exploit the characteristics of the enemy in order to defeat it with the minimum
number of casualties. Since Covid-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter
measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost." It was a
tragically accurate prophecy from one of the leading experts on infectious disease, but
Kulldorff couldn't find a scientific journal or media outlet to accept the article, so he ended
up
posting it on his own LinkedIn page. "There's always a certain amount of herd thinking in
science," Kulldorff says, "but I've never seen it reach this level. Most of the epidemiologists
and other scientists I've spoken to in private are against lockdowns, but they're afraid to
speak up."
To break the silence, Kulldorff joined with Stanford's Bhattacharya and Sunetra Gupta of
Oxford to issue a plea for "focused protection," called the Great Barrington Declaration . They urged officials to divert
more resources to shield the elderly, such as doing more tests of the staff at nursing homes
and hospitals, while reopening business and schools for younger people, which would ultimately
protect the vulnerable as herd immunity grew among the low-risk population.
They managed to attract attention but not the kind they hoped for. Though tens of thousands
of other scientists and doctors went on to sign the declaration, the press caricatured it as a
deadly "let it rip" strategy and an "ethical nightmare" from "Covid deniers" and "agents of
misinformation." Google initially shadow-banned
it so that the first page of search results for "Great Barrington Declaration" showed only
criticism of it (like an article calling it "the work of a climate denial network") but not the
declaration itself. Facebook shut
down the scientists' page for a week for violating unspecified "community standards."
The most reviled heretic was Scott Atlas, a medical doctor and health-policy analyst at
Stanford's Hoover Institution. He, too,
urged focused protection on nursing homes and
calculated that the medical, social, and economic disruptions of the lockdowns would cost
more years of life than the coronavirus. When he joined the White House coronavirus task force,
Bill Gates
derided him as "this Stanford guy with no background" promoting "crackpot theories." Nearly
100 members of Stanford's faculty signed a letter
denouncing his "falsehoods and misrepresentations of science," and an editorial in the
Stanford Daily
urged the university to sever its ties to Hoover.
The Stanford faculty senate overwhelmingly
voted to condemn Atlas's actions as "anathema to our community, our values and our belief
that we should use knowledge for good." Several professors from Stanford's medical school
demanded further punishment in a JAMA article, "When Physicians Engage in Practices That
Threaten the Nation's Health." The article, which misrepresented Atlas's views as well
as the evidence on the efficacy of lockdowns, urged professional medical societies and
medical-licensing boards to take action against Atlas on the grounds that it was "ethically
inappropriate for physicians to publicly recommend behaviors or interventions that are not
scientifically well grounded."
But if it was unethical to recommend "interventions that are not scientifically well
grounded," how could anyone condone the lockdowns? "It was utterly immoral to conduct this
society-wide intervention without the evidence to justify it," Bhattacharya says. "The
immediate results have been disastrous, especially for the poor, and the long-term effect will
be to fundamentally undermine trust in public health and science." The traditional strategy for
dealing with pandemics was to isolate the infected and protect the most vulnerable, just as
Atlas and the Great Barrington scientists recommended. The CDC's pre-pandemic planning scenarios
didn't recommend extended school closures or any shutdown of businesses even during a plague as
deadly as the 1918 Spanish flu. Yet Fauci
dismissed the focused-protection strategy as "total nonsense" to "anybody who has any
experience in epidemiology and infectious diseases," and his verdict became "the science" to
leaders in America and elsewhere.
Fortunately, a few leaders followed the science in a different way. Instead of blindly
trusting Fauci, they listened to his critics and adopted the focused-protection strategy --
most notably, in Florida. Its governor, Ron DeSantis, began to doubt the public-health
establishment early in the pandemic, when computer models projected that Covid patients would
greatly outnumber hospital beds in many states. Governors in New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Michigan were so alarmed and so determined to free up hospital beds that they
directed nursing homes and other facilities to admit or readmit Covid patients -- with deadly
results.
But DeSantis was skeptical of the hospital projections -- for good reason, as
no state actually ran out of beds -- and more worried about the risk of Covid spreading in
nursing homes. He forbade long-term-care centers to admit anyone infected with Covid and
ordered frequent testing of the staff at senior-care centers. After locking down last spring,
he reopened businesses, schools, and restaurants early, rejected mask mandates, and ignored
protests from the press and the state's Democratic leaders. Fauci
warned that Florida was "asking for trouble," but DeSantis went on seeking and heeding
advice from Atlas and the Great Barrington scientists, who were astonished to speak with a
politician already familiar with just about every study they mentioned to him.
"DeSantis was an incredible outlier," Atlas says. "He dug up the data and read the
scientific papers and analyzed it all himself. In our discussions, he'd bounce ideas off me,
but he was already on top of the details of everything. He always had the perspective to see
the larger harms of lockdowns and the need to concentrate testing and other resources on the
elderly. And he has been proven correct."
If Florida had simply done no worse than the rest of the country during the pandemic, that
would have been enough to discredit the lockdown strategy. The state effectively served as the
control group in a natural experiment, and no medical treatment with dangerous side effects
would be approved if the control group fared no differently from the treatment group. But the
outcome of this experiment was even more damning.
Florida's mortality rate from Covid is lower than the national average among those over 65
and also among younger people, so that the state's age-adjusted Covid
mortality rate is lower than that of all but ten other states. And by the most important
measure, the overall rate of " excess mortality " (the number of deaths above
normal), Florida has also done better than the national average. Its rate of excess mortality
is significantly lower than that of the most restrictive state, California, particularly among
younger adults, many of whom died not from Covid but from causes related to the lockdowns:
cancer screenings and treatments were delayed, and there were sharp increases in deaths from
drug overdoses and from heart attacks not treated promptly.
Chart by Jamie Meggas
If the treatment group in a clinical trial were dying off faster than the control group, an
ethical researcher would halt the experiment. But the lockdown proponents were undeterred by
the numbers in Florida, or by similar
results elsewhere, including a comparable natural experiment involving European countries
with the least restrictive policies. Sweden, Finland, and Norway rejected mask mandates and
extended lockdowns, and they have each suffered
significantly less excess mortality than most other European countries during the
pandemic.
A nationwide analysis in Sweden showed that keeping schools open
throughout the pandemic, without masks or social distancing, had little effect on the spread of
Covid, but school closures and mask mandates for students continued elsewhere. Another Swedish
researcher, Jonas Ludvigsson, reported that not a single schoolchild
in the country died from Covid in Sweden and that their teachers' risk of serious illness was
lower than for the rest of the workforce -- but these findings provoked so many online attacks
and threats that Ludvigsson decided to stop researching or discussing
Covid.
Social-media platforms continued censoring scientists and journalists who questioned
lockdowns and mask mandates. YouTube
removed a video discussion between DeSantis and the Great Barrington scientists, on the
grounds that it "contradicts the consensus" on the efficacy of masks, and also took
down the Hoover Institution's interview with Atlas. Twitter locked out Atlas and Kulldorff
for scientifically accurate challenges to mask orthodoxy. A peer-reviewed German study reporting
harms to children from mask-wearing was suppressed on Facebook (which labeled
my City Journal article "Partly
False" because it cited the study) and also at ResearchGate, one of the most widely used
websites for scientists to post their papers. ResearchGate refused to explain the censorship to
the German scientists, telling them only that the paper was removed from the website in
response to "reports from the community about the subject-matter."
The social-media censors and scientific establishment, aided by the Chinese government,
succeeded for a year in suppressing the lab-leak theory, depriving vaccine developers of
potentially valuable insights into the virus's evolution. It's understandable, if deplorable,
that the researchers and officials involved in supporting the Wuhan lab research would cover up
the possibility that they'd unleashed a Frankenstein on the world. What's harder to explain is
why journalists and the rest of the scientific community so eagerly bought that story, along
with the rest of the Covid narrative.
Why the elite panic? Why did so many go so wrong for so long? When journalists and
scientists finally faced up to their mistake in ruling out the lab-leak theory, they blamed
their favorite villain: Donald Trump. He had espoused the theory, so they assumed it must be
wrong. And since he disagreed at times with Fauci about the danger of the virus and the need
for lockdowns, then Fauci must be right, and this was such a deadly plague that the norms of
journalism and science must be suspended. Millions would die unless Fauci was obeyed and
dissenters were silenced.
But neither the plague nor Trump explains the panic. Yes, the virus was deadly, and Trump's
erratic pronouncements contributed to the confusion and partisanship, but the panic was due to
two preexisting pathologies that afflicted other countries, too. The first is what I have
called the Crisis Crisis, the incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and
politicians. It's a longstanding problem -- humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century
by the "population crisis" and the "energy crisis" -- that has dramatically worsened with the
cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets. To keep audiences frightened
around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering:
politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity,
prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.
Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry
can't resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Early in the 1980s
AIDS epidemic, the New York Times reported the terrifying
possibility that the virus could spread to children through "routine close contact" --
quoting from a study by Anthony Fauci. Life magazine wildly exaggerated the number of
infections in a cover
story , headlined "Now No One Is Safe from AIDS." It cited a study by Robert Redfield, the
future leader of the CDC during the Covid pandemic,
predicting that AIDS would soon spread as rapidly among heterosexuals as among homosexuals.
Both scientists were absolutely wrong, of course, but the false alarms didn't harm their
careers or their credibility.
Journalists and politicians extend professional courtesy to fellow crisis-mongers by
ignoring their mistakes, such as the previous
predictions by Neil Ferguson. His team at Imperial College projected
up to 65,000 deaths in the United Kingdom from swine flu and 200 million deaths worldwide from
bird flu. The death toll each time was in the hundreds, but never mind: when Ferguson's team
projected millions of American deaths from Covid, that was considered reason enough to follow
its recommendation for extended lockdowns. And when the modelers' assumption about the fatality
rate proved too high, that mistake was ignored, too.
Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They
needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded. For Americans under 70, the
probability of surviving a Covid infection was about 99.9 percent , but fear of the
virus
was higher among the young than among the elderly, and polls showed that people of all ages
vastly
overestimated the risk of being hospitalized or dying.
The second pathology underlying the elite's Covid panic is the politicization of research --
what I have termed the Left's war on science ,
another long-standing problem that has gotten much worse. Just as the progressives a century
ago yearned for a nation directed by "expert social engineers" -- scientific high priests
unconstrained by voters and public opinion -- today's progressives want sweeping new powers for
politicians and bureaucrats who "believe in science," meaning that they use the Left's version
of science to justify their edicts. Now that so many elite institutions are political
monocultures, progressives have more power than ever to enforce groupthink and suppress debate.
Well before the pandemic, they had mastered the tactics for demonizing and silencing scientists
whose findings challenged progressive orthodoxy on issues such as IQ, sex differences, race,
family structure, transgenderism, and climate change.
And then along came Covid -- "God's gift to the Left," in Jane Fonda's words. Exaggerating
the danger and deflecting blame from China to Trump offered not only short-term political
benefits, damaging his reelection prospects, but also an extraordinary opportunity to empower
social engineers in Washington and state capitals. Early in the pandemic, Fauci expressed
doubt that it was politically possible to lock down American cities, but he underestimated
the effectiveness of the crisis industry's scaremongering. Americans were so frightened that
they surrendered their freedoms to work, study, worship, dine, play, socialize, or even leave
their homes. Progressives celebrated this "paradigm shift," calling it a "blueprint" for
dealing with climate change.
This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume
that the media's version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists
and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow "the
science" to know what they're talking about. Science is a process of discovery and debate, not
a faith to profess or a dogma to live by. It provides a description of the world, not a
prescription for public policy, and specialists in one discipline do not have the knowledge or
perspective to guide society. They're biased by their own narrow focus and self-interest. Fauci
and Deborah Birx, the physician who allied with him against Atlas on the White House task
force, had to answer for the daily Covid death toll -- that ever-present chyron at the bottom
of the television screen -- so they focused on one disease instead of the collateral damage of
their panic-driven policies.
"The Fauci-Birx lockdowns were a sinful, unconscionable, heinous mistake, and they will
never admit they were wrong," Atlas says. Neither will the journalists and politicians who
panicked along with them. They're still portraying lockdowns as not just a success but also a
precedent -- proof that Americans can sacrifice for the common good when directed by wise
scientists and benevolent autocrats. But the sacrifice did far more harm than good, and the
burden was not shared equally. The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the
poorest countries of the world. Students from disadvantaged families suffered the most from
school closures, and children everywhere spent a year wearing masks solely to assuage the
neurotic fears of adults. The less educated lost jobs so that professionals at minimal risk
could feel safer as they kept working at home on their laptops. Silicon Valley (and its
censors) prospered from lockdowns that bankrupted local businesses.
Luminaries united on Zoom and YouTube to assure the public that "we're all in this
together." But we weren't. When the panic infected the nation's elite -- the modern gentry who
profess such concern for the downtrodden -- it turned out that they weren't so different from
aristocrats of the past. They were in it for themselves.
RasinResin 54 minutes ago
Vive la France! The French just burnt down several vaccination clinics. Your turn
America.
KnitDame 51 minutes ago
They've had enough.
Lore 35 minutes ago
The entire Big Pharma Industial Complex needs to be shut down. Tens if not hundreds of
thousands of medical professionals and media mouthpieces and other enablers need to face
Nuremberg panels for crimes against humanity, with execution for all those convicted.
Yes, the virus was deadly
That is the great shortcoming of this article. "The virus" was no more dangerous than
the common cold or seasonal flu. Even this author is reluctant to call this thing out
for,what it really was: the virological equivalent of 1938 War Of The Worlds, essentially a
saturation-marketed exercise in mass hysteria.
Going forward, an even greater crime is being committed with these clot shots. That
atrocity is still unfolding.
Virgil Krenshaw PREMIUM 44 minutes ago
The Stanford faculty senate overwhelmingly
voted to condemn Atlas's actions as "anathema to our community, our values and our
belief that we should use knowledge for good."
Is it not the peak of irony that "scientists" now use the word "anathema," the same
language the Catholic Church would use in an excommunication?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: COVID has mutated into a suicide cult .
Lockdowns and vaccines are the Kool Aid.
11th_Harmonic 51 minutes ago remove link
The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and
a half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans --
typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far
more catastrophic, was a moral panic that swept the nation's guiding institutions.
First point: false . There was no viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans.
It was the typical flu season. Where did the flu go ?
Second point: false . There was nothing 'moral' about the panic.
Po0h Bear 15 minutes ago (Edited)
All children over 2 should wear masks at school, regardless of vaccination status,
pediatrician group says
They orgasm over suffering. Especially the suffering of innocent children.
Most of the people who died were fat. Really fat. Obese.
Did the MSM mention that? Did they highlight that fact? Did they show hospital beds
filled with the bubberous dying? No, of course not.
That would be fat shaming. A sin so unpardonable, it is far better to let people die and
wreck a planet's economy.
And they wonder why so few people now take anything the MSM says seriously. Clowns, all
of them. Get back into your clown cars and stay there ... silently.
Kiev Connie of the MugMeddin 1 hour ago
Science is science. It's not political, it's not sensational journalism, and it's not
Business. It's science, applied to medicine. There was no need to fabricate profit out of
Covid-19.
I Write Code 14 minutes ago
Panic. And greed. And incompetence. And fascism.
The four donkeymen of the Pandemolypse.
19331510 35 minutes ago remove link
Dr. David Martin Ends covid, Fauci, DOJ, politicians -in one interview
The first was a viral pandemic that financially incentivised medical personnel to
massively inflate death rates pretending that the virus alone killed about one in 500
Americans, whereas realistically, many deaths were mainly due to other causes .
Neoliberal MSM now are trying to swipe under the carpet the bankruptcy of the idea or achieving "herd immunity"
via mass vaccination campaign. Which was sent to its grave by Delta variant.
The fact that CDC does not track mild cases does not prevent estimate them from other statistics relying of percentage of
hospitalization cases to total cases and deaths to total cases. If we use death state for the USA (624746 death for 34994151
cases), then for 1063 death of vaccinated people we will have around 60K infected. Of we assume that death of vaccinated is
ten time less probable then for non vaccinated the number will 600K. As such cases are concentrated in a few big cities
they probably ensure the spread of the virus even in totally vaccinated population. Then the question arise: was the gain from
this mass campaign ? And high level medical bureaucrats already failed us with the lockdown and quarantine which did not have
any noticeable effect of epidemic and then made all sacrifices a joke by riots in major cities.
As CDC admits: "The findings in this report are subject to at
least two limitations. First, the number of reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases is likely a substantial undercount of all
SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons. The national surveillance system relies on passive and voluntary reporting,
and data might not be complete or representative. Many persons with vaccine breakthrough infections, especially those who are
asymptomatic or who experience mild illness, might not seek testing. Second, SARS-CoV-2 sequence data are available for only a small
proportion of the reported cases."
Fauci and other high level medical bureaucrats, who put all eggs into vaccination basket made a very risky move. They knew
that there were no successful vaccine against coronaviruses, because they constantly mutated, and still put them whole country into
questionable path of "total immunization"
Notable quotes:
"... The COVID-19 vaccines are extremely effective, but a few vaccinated people have gotten sick. ..."
"... "Breakthrough" infections are typically mild and might be less contagious than other cases. ..."
"... Out of more than 157 million fully vaccinated Americans, only 733 people had died of COVID-19 as of July 6, according to CDC data . At least 3,554 people had been hospitalized and survived. The CDC is no longer tracking mild breakthrough cases. ..."
The COVID-19 vaccines are extremely effective, but a few vaccinated people have
gotten sick.
"Breakthrough" infections are typically mild and might be less contagious than other
cases.
... ... ...
The COVID-19 vaccines have been extremely successful at preventing serious illnesses that
could lead to hospitalizations and deaths. But no vaccine is 100% effective at preventing
infection, Dr. Lisa V. Adams, an associate dean for global health at Dartmouth College, told
Insider.
"We know there are and will be some breakthrough infections in individuals who are
vaccinated - at least until we get to a point where there is very little virus circulating,"
Adams said. "The good news is that their illness should be very mild."
The vaccines
are designed to prevent hospitalizations and deaths
In early July, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention,
said new data indicated that 99.5% of COVID-19 deaths in the US were in unvaccinated
people.
Out of more than 157 million fully vaccinated
Americans, only 733 people had died of COVID-19 as of July 6, according to CDC
data . At least 3,554 people had been hospitalized and survived. The CDC is no longer
tracking mild breakthrough cases.
About 75% of breakthrough infections occurred in people 65 and older. That included cases in
nursing homes ,
whose residents and staff members were among the first Americans to get vaccinated.
Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia, told Insider that even with a smattering of breakthrough infections taken into
account, the vaccines had met the goal of protecting most people from severe illness.
"The goal of these vaccines is to keep you out of the hospital and keep you out of the ICU
and keep you from dying. If you have a mild infection where you're PCR positive and have
essentially an asymptomatic infection, that's fine," Offit said, referring to a type of
COVID-19 test.
'Breakthrough' cases might cause some symptoms, but they're usually mild
Emerging data suggests many breakthrough infections are so mild that they might as well be
asymptomatic.
A
recent analysis of breakthrough infections in the UK indicated that the top symptoms of
Delta-variant COVID-19 were a runny nose and a headache, largely because most people mingling
and exposed to the virus were younger or fully vaccinated.
"Certainly, immunity decreases over time...the question is how much time," one doctor told
CNBC during an interview Monday morning.
Before Delta arrived in Israel, some believed the country had reached "herd immunity". But
as Dr. Scott Gottlieb and others have pointed out, COVID is now endemic in the human
population, and reaching "COVID zero", a standard that Israel is aiming at, simply might not be
possible . Israeli officials have already acknowledged that with the large percentage of
Israeli's vaccinated, deaths and hospitalizations associated with COVID will likely continue to
decline, even if the number of new cases does rise.
Serologic Testing of US Blood Donations to Identify Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–Reactive Antibodies: December 2019–January 2020
Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72, Issue 12, 15 June 2021, Pages
e1004–e1009, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1785
Published: 30 November 2020
Abstract
Background
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December
2019, with subsequent worldwide spread. The first US cases were identified in January
2020.
Methods
To determine if SARS-CoV-2–reactive antibodies were present in sera prior to the
first identified case in the United States on 19 January 2020, residual archived samples
from 7389 routine blood donations collected by the American Red Cross from 13 December 2019
to 17 January 2020 from donors resident in 9 states (California, Connecticut, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin) were tested at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
Specimens reactive by pan-immunoglobulin (pan-Ig) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
against the full spike protein were tested by IgG and IgM ELISAs, microneutralization test,
Ortho total Ig S1 ELISA, and receptor-binding domain/ACE2 blocking activity assay.
Results
Of the 7389 samples, 106 were reactive by pan-Ig. Of these 106 specimens, 90 were
available for further testing. Eighty-four of 90 had neutralizing activity, 1 had S1
binding activity, and 1 had receptor-binding domain/ACE2 blocking activity >50%,
suggesting the presence of anti–SARS-CoV-2–reactive antibodies. Donations with
reactivity occurred in all 9 states.
Conclusions
These findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may have been introduced into the United States
prior to 19 January 2020.
My calculation is based on the statistical extrapolation of 106 out of 7389 samples over
331 million people in the USA. That gives 4.75 million cases of sars-cov-2 infection having
gone "silent" in the USA prior to the report of the outbreak in China.
The unwillingness and secrecy of the USA government in the initial phase of the official
arrival of corona in the USA, the strange and unexplained outbreak of the still mysterious
EVALI disease in the summer of 2019 (that in hindsight shared oddly many symptoms with
COVID), the bad flu season that suddenly disappeared when corona appeared in the USA: it all
points to Fort Detrick.
"My calculation is based on the statistical extrapolation of 106 out of 7389 samples over
331 million people in the USA."
You can't make that extrapolation, the sample size is too small, and the total population
too heterogenic. The cases might reflect an out break in just one state, or even one area.
And we don't know the characteristics of the virus strain found – for all we know what
happened in Wuhan could very well be that the virus mutated in a way that made it more
contagious. Among other things; after all it's just a hundred positives.
But the article clearly shows that there are still questions to be answered about where
the virus came from – if I'm not mistaken there has been pre jan 2020 cases found in
Italy as well.
Well yes I can and I did. I was completely open about it being a statistical extrapolation.
It is IMHO a relevant estimate, because even if the extrapolation is off by an order of
magnitude, it would still imply almost half a million cases - or almost 50 million ,
if the error was to the other side.
In both cases, it paints the origins of the pandemic in a dramatically different
light.
Hell, even if my estimate was off by two orders of magnitude - 50,000 cases - that would
still be a huge number of cases and make an entirely new investigation of the WHO on USA
territory an evident priority - if these organiztions were independent, objective and free
from political pressure.
the sample size is too small, and the total population too heterogenic. The cases might
reflect an out break in just one state, or even one area.
While 7389 samples is not a huge sample size, it is not ridiculously small either. The
samples were from 9 states, clearly not from a single cluster. Read the article, mkay? If the
statistical foundations were really that bad, it would not have been published in the journal
Clinical Infectious Diseases.
And we don't know the characteristics of the virus strain found – for all we know
what happened in Wuhan could very well be that the virus mutated in a way that made it more
contagious.
Oh come on, you're really pushing things here. None of the strains identified thus far differ
by an order of magnitude in infectiousness or transmissibility. The assumptions that you are
trying to introduce are far more shaky than any of my statistical broadstrokes.
" Of these 106 specimens, 90 were available for further testing. Eighty-four of 90 had
neutralizing activity, 1 had S1 binding activity, and 1 had receptor-binding domain/ACE2
blocking activity >50%, suggesting the presence of anti–SARS-CoV-2–reactive
antibodies."
As with all diseases, some people will have a natural immunity to SARA-Cov_2 virus. How
can natural or innate immunity be differentiated from acquired immunity?
In the Netherlands, the big early cluster was in an otherwise agricultural backwater area
that just happens to be the location of Volkel Air Base , the Dutch site where
the USA stores nuclear weapons (in the latter half of 2019, they had been very busy
modernizing said nukes, causing a lot of extra traffic to and from the USA).
Contributors to this site from Spain and possibly Italy (from memory - reports were made
early 2020) made similar observations about the geographical peculiarities of early corona
clusters in their localities.
What about the 2019 Wuhan Military World Games and the noteworthy competitive results (or
should I say absense thereof) of the USA athletes, who were too sick to perform and were
medevac'ed back to the USA? The Wuhan International Hotel that the USA team stayed in was
closer to the infamous wet market than any Biolabs. The Chinese authorities were quick to
point out the hotel as a much more prominent source of infections than the market, but
western media never picked up on those pesky details.
This article is a US hit piece on China but it also shows the military games may have been
the world superspreader event.
At the outbreak of covid, US military refused to have their athletes tested, but the article
looks at many other teams that become ill around the time they were returning from the games.
Absolutely nothing on the US team other than they only came in 35th place, deligation
included seven "senior leaders" and two dept of state people https://prospect.org/coronavirus/did-the-military-world-games-spread-covid-19/
Lurk, quite interesting post @45 On the allergies, symptoms range from mild to severe.
Hives are mild, choking to death severe.
anaphylaxis I refers to those that are severe as in face or throat swelling resulting in
death.
Long covid, and other virus that can take a long tome to recover from I believe trigger
inflammation of the myelin sheath that insulates the nerves.
So Fauci push toward "herd immunity" was meaningless from the very beginning. In Israel 50%
(which has 85% of adults fully vaccinated with Phizer vaccine) of infected with Delta were
vaccinated.
Both South African variant and the Delta variant (also known as B.1.617.2) changed the
picture of "herd immunity". Official figure is that Two doses of Pfizer's vaccine are still 88
percent effective at preventing symptomatic Delta infections. You can probably cut this figure by
half to get more realistic estimate based on Israel experience with Pfizer vaccine. Israel has
fully vaccinated about 85 percent of adults
Worryingly, a recent study documented several cases during India's spring surge in which
health-care workers who were fully vaccinated with AstraZeneca's vaccine were infected by Delta
and passed it on.
Now there is talk about that vaccinated people
might need booster shots . Which essentally mean re-vaccination with the newer version of
vaccine.
When breakthrough cases do arise, it's not always clear why. The trio of vaccines now
circulating in the United States were all designed around the original coronavirus variant, and
seem to be a bit less effective against some newer versions of the virus. These troublesome
variants have yet to render any of our current vaccines obsolete. But "the more variants there
are, the more concern you have for breakthrough cases," Saad Omer, a vaccine expert at Yale,
told me. The circumstances of exposure to any version of the coronavirus will also make
a difference. If vaccinated people are spending time with groups of unvaccinated people in
places where the virus is running rampant, that still raises their chance of getting sick.
Large doses of the virus can overwhelm the sturdiest of immune defenses, if given the
chance.
The human side of the equation matters, too. Immunity is not a monolith, and the degree of
defense roused by an infection or a vaccine will differ from person to person, even
between identical twins . Some people might have underlying conditions that hamstring their
immune system's response to vaccination; others might simply, by chance, churn out fewer or
less potent antibodies and T cells that can nip a coronavirus infection in the bud.
The effects of vaccination are best considered along a spectrum, says Ali Ellebedy, an
immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis. An ideal response to vaccination might
create an arsenal of immune molecules and cells that can instantaneously squelch the virus,
leaving no time for symptoms to appear. But sometimes that front line of fighters is relatively
sparse. Should the virus make it through, "it becomes a race [against] time," Ellebedy told me.
The pathogen rushes to copy itself, and the immune system recruits more defenders. The longer
the tussle drags on, the more likely the disease is to manifest.The range of vaccine
responses "isn't a variation of two- to threefold; it's thousands," Ellebedy told me.
"Being vaccinated doesn't mean you are immune. It means you have a better chance of
protection."
For these reasons and more, Viviana Simon, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at
Mount Sinai, in New York, dislikes the term breakthrough case , which evokes a barrier
walling humans off from disease. "It's very misleading," she told me. "It's like the virus
'punches' through our defenses."
Vaccination is actually more like a single variable in a dynamic playing field -- a
layer of protection, like an umbrella, that might guard better in some situations than
others. It could keep a lucky traveler relatively dry in a light drizzle, but in a windy
maelstrom that's whipping heavy droplets every which way, another person might be overwhelmed.
And under many circumstances, vaccines are still best paired with safeguards such as masks and
distancing -- just as rain boots and jackets would help buffer someone in a storm.
In some ways, the shots' staggering success in trials -- where
breakthrough cases were also observed, causing appropriately minimal stir -- may have
papered over the inevitability of post-vaccination infections in more natural settings. "The
vaccines exceeded expectations," Luciana Borio, a former acting chief scientist at the FDA,
told me. Now, as we exit what Borio calls the "honeymoon phase" of our relationship with the
jabs, we need to temper our enthusiasm with the right amount of realism, especially as more
data on the shots' strength and longevity accumulate. Even excellent vaccines aren't foolproof,
and they shouldn't be criticized when they're not. "We can't expect it's going to be perfect,
on day one, always," Borio said.
A team at the CDC is tracking breakthroughs and will soon start reporting case counts, as
well as any patterns related to where, or in whom, these infections are occurring, Martha
Sharan, a CDC spokesperson, told me. Details like those matter. They can help experts figure
out why post-vaccination infections happen, and how they might be stopped. "The reassuring part
is, these cases will not go unnoticed," Omer told me.
Most of the time, vaccines are far more likely to offer some help than none. Serious
disease, hospitalization, and even death
will still occur , as will less well-studied outcomes, such as the long-term symptoms that
often arise from less severe disease. But should post-vaccination infections climb to
unexpectedly high rates, backup plans will quickly kick into gear. Some shot recipients might
get second or third shots to bolster their immune response; others might be administered a
tweaked vaccine recipe to account for a new viral variant.
There's something a touch counterintuitive about breakthrough cases: The more people we
vaccinate, the more such cases there will be, in absolute numbers. But the rate at which they
appear will also decline, as rising levels of population immunity cut the conduits that the
virus needs to travel. People with lackluster responses to vaccines -- as well as those who
can't get their jabs -- will receive protection from the many millions in whom the shots
did work. In a crowd of people holding umbrellas, even those who are empty-handed will
stay more dry.
Katherine J. Wuis a staff writer
atThe Atlantic,where she covers science.
Might be uptick might be statistical noise. The differences are stillsmall... in Israel the
Delta variant is infecting vaccinated people, who represent as many as 50% of new cases
If vaccines don't cover everyone, we need to know why and how we can fix it. Fauci is one
trick pony who made all bets of the success of the vaccines, decpite that fact that there were no
any sucessful coronavirus vaccine developered before COVID-19 epidemic.
Notable quotes:
"... Most Covid-19 patients in the Mercy hospital in Springfield are unvaccinated, though there have been a few cases among people who were vaccinated, Dr. Sistrunk said. ..."
The variant, which is about
40% to 60% more contagious than the previous dominant variant, is sending more people to
hospitals in the northern and southwestern parts of the state, health officials say.
In Springfield, Mo., Mercy Hospital had 90 Covid-19 patients on a recent day, up from 10
seven weeks ago, said William Sistrunk, lead infectious-disease doctor for Mercy, a multistate
hospital system with several facilities in Missouri. Almost all had the Delta variant, and most
were unvaccinated, he said. The hospital's caseload peaked at about 120 in late December.
Officials say the patients being admitted are younger, ages 30 to 60, a change from the last
two waves of infection. "It ramped up a lot faster than it did last fall when we had that
wave," Dr. Sistrunk said. "What's happening in Springfield may be an early warning for other
communities. This variant, we need to take this seriously."
The number of people in the hospital with Covid-19 in Missouri has started to climb in
recent weeks. The latest seven-day average is 864, up from 668 a month prior, according to the
state health department. During the winter surge in Covid-19 cases in 2020 and 2021,
hospitalizations topped 2,700 several times. Missouri has a population of 6.1 million.
... In Missouri, 55% of adults have received at least one vaccination shot, 11 percentage
points below the national rate, according to the CDC. Most Covid-19 patients in the Mercy
hospital in Springfield are unvaccinated, though there have been a few cases among people who
were vaccinated, Dr. Sistrunk said.
I had covid last summer, for me was like a bad flu, 3-4 days of severe symptoms then I
recovered, never went to hospital. There is zero evidence that those that previously had
covid get reinfected, none at all, we have developed natural immunity. Inspite of this
everyone is pushing me to get DNA altering vaccines, everyone, even my Dr., who should know
better.
What I find ammusing in all of this is that the same people pushing this vaccine on me
and others are the same people who won't even eat a GMO banana, paying 5 times more for
"organic" bananas...
Sono 2 hours ago
Yesterday a friend of mine who works in major hospital said she had a patient whom is 34
male, no prior health complications was put through surgery to remove a major blood clot.
It's unclear what damage was done at least as of yesterday. Chart says he received the
Pfizer vaccine April 19th and may 6th. Did the vaccine cause this? Anybody guess. But
hospital staff noted how unusual his case is.
rejectnumbskull 3 hours ago (Edited)
It is beyond sad when the so-called medical industry feels it has the authority to label
Americans into these 2 categories. Kick Fauci out now! The sick-care mafia has no business
dictating any type of domestic policy.
SaulAzzHoleSky 3 hours ago
Study out of England shows HIGHER emergency room and death rates (2x-8x) among
vaccinated people older than 50 compared to those unvaccinated older than 50. See pages
13-14.
Those below 50 had lower rates but shouldn't they be completely immune??
The 'vaccines' were accepted for emergency use on the basis that they slightly reduced
the severity of symptoms in slight cases of disease. Joe and Jane Public think the
'vaccine' gives them immunity. MSM has not been correcting the misunderstanding
Twox2 3 hours ago (Edited)
"If you are vaccinated, you diminish dramatically your risk of getting infected and even
more dramatically your risk of getting seriously ill. If you are not vaccinated, you are at
considerable risk," Fauci once again repeated.
"Mr. Science" seems to have another agenda entirely, since he clearly makes it up as he
goes along. I used the Covid risk calculator (from Oxford University...which many consider
the number one rated university in the world) and it showed my risk of death at 4 in 10,000
and risk of hospitalization at 1 in 732...during the three-month peak of the pandemic.
As one in his 7th decade, with 3 stents, this is my purported "considerable risk".
How does this guy retain any credibility at all?
White Domestic Tourist 3 hours ago
Vaxxes would be deadly to people with vascular conditions i think.
11b40 3 hours ago
Yep....73 yr old cancer survivor (Agent Orange Lymphoma). Never took flu shots, never
got the flu. No plans to get one of these jabs, either, as like you, I did my own research.
I'm fit and lead a healthy lifestyle. Also believe in Ivermectin & HCQ regimens if I
happen to get infected with something serious. Took HCQ malaria pills, like so many other
soldiers, with no side effects. Everybody took them when told the other option was malaria.
Since the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, I have been watching my government lie to me, and
this has felt like one big con job since the beginning. There is no doubt in my mind now
that long term, the results of these shots will not be good for us.
Authorities doe not telling truth: people who already have COVID do not need to be
vaccinated. Also if Delta varient can infect vaccineted in conserable quantities how any resobale
person can maintain this goal of "herg immunity". How it can be achieved if a vaccinated person
can be infected and thus spread the disease both amoung vaccinated cohort and among the
unvaccinated cohort. The fact the vaccinated people are infected with Delta changes the game and
here Senator Paul is wrong.
Pushing vaccination on chidren in such curcumstances changes nothing is became a very
questionable move both from scientific an from ethical perspective.
America's favourite Chinese lab funding coronavirus doomonger doctor Anthony Fauci announced
Tuesday that there are now two Americas, a vaccinated America and an unvaccinated America.
As Senator Rand Paul noted
earlier this week , there is a boat load of misinformation on the matter coming from a
government that is indiscriminately pushing vaccinations:
There are now two Americas. One that's retarded. And one that wants Fauci on a
lamppost.
liberty2 1 hour ago (Edited)
Note that the officials said there's no such thing as "herd immunity" last year. Now
this year they keep saying that we can reach "herd immunity" if we are 70% vaxxed! Terms
are used if it fits their narrative.
Ride_the_kali_yuga 3 hours ago (Edited)
In the Covidian Cult, there is true believers in one side and heretics on the other
side. Vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Divide and rule strategy, as always. Do not undurestimate the ratio of retarded people
among the population, it has been growing like a cancer for decades. It amazes me how
perfectly coordinated those MSM Covidian propaganda events appears worldwide.
In here France, 2 days ago, most MSM have all simultaneously gone full berserk (without
any reason) blaming the reluctant ones. One of them on TV said something like : "if it was
me, i will use police to drag those who refuse these "vaccines" from their home and force
it on them"
This was priceless, this little man has morbid obesity. We now officialy all live on the
twilight zone on steroids. Land whales dictate how people should consider their own health.
This ride seems to never end.
We now have officialy entered the dehumanization phase of the unvaxxed. The sanitary
gulag is not far from here.
NIRP-BTFD 1 hour ago
There are 2 Americas. The 0.01% (the rulers that own everything) and the serfs.
DemandSider 1 hour ago
Exactly, parasite and host. Fauci would be the former, obviously.
The key unanswered question is: what benefits for 12 years old vaccine provides. I do not see
any, while risks are real and unknown. At this point we already know that vaccine cause serious
heart problems in some vaccinated young people (say below 30 yours old)
Twelve year-old Maddie was enrolled in the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial. She's now in a
wheelchair, has an NG tube, and is suffering from severe memory loss, along with many other
issues.
I am SO sorry for this girl. She relied on her parents, their job, to protect their minor
children. They failed.
I am very sorry for what's happened, but lady that is exactly what you get by disregarding your
fellow citizens &
relying on the government for your truth. Its been obvious to all those with open minds, that
this entire pandemic is
a huge scam, the worst scam in human history. The old saying comes to mind, "and if the
government told you to go jump
off the roof, would you?" Sadly leftists answer, "how many times?" Karen
The only way I would I "consider" allowing my child to sign up to be a guinea pig in any
clinical trial is if they had a life threating incurable disease and the trial was specific to
their disease & participation was a "chance" to save their life. I worked in a clinical
trial office, you agree to being the guinea pig when you agree that you will never know if
you're injected with
1. a placebo OR
2. the "drug" its self.
You're also informed in advance of how many visits (minimal # of visits) the trial will require
of you to fully participate as it usually requires regularly scheduled bi weekly or monthly
visits. It's in a office setting & your mandated to keep the doctor informed of everything,
even an emergency, because theres a written script "behind the scenes" of what to do along the
way if "this" or "that" happens. That way you collect better data of adverse reactions. Plus
there are the very important (to the medical side anyway) non disclosure agreements.
I noticed here it seems the family reached out to "emercency" facilities when things started
going wrong.
Are these "trials" being conducted standard procedure or not. MAJOR DANGER
What sort of parent would give their kid an untested, un-needed vaccine? There is NO excuse.
None. Zero. Mother should be in tears. 100% well deserved.
Deplored
" in healthcare" means nothing anymore. I've been in healthcare for 25 years and it blows my
mind how many 500,000$ plus educations lined up for the "vax" AND do not know the simple
definition of a vaccine. I watched 1st hand as practically overnight medicine went from being
science based to political weapon. We used to have to have an evidence based system where
doctors would look at the published studies and make decisions based on the best info
available. That's all gone now. You can't even trust the medical journals anymore that at one
time were the pinnacles of scientific medical discovery. The hospital I've worked in for 25
years is going to mandate the vax as soon as the FDA approves it,which means I'm out. 15% of us
are unvaxed and they have plans to get rid of us. The medical tyranny STARTED w the mandating
of the flu shot years ago for HC workers and now it's covid. It's not going to end ,just wait
til the next shit show released on us. Next time they will have the ballz to say ur locked in
ur home until u comply. Then when u can't pay ur property taxes because u cant leave the house
to work u find out who actually owns ur home. Peetoonya
The US "Healthcare" INDUSTRY ranks 37th in the world. John Hopkins put out a report that the
3rd leading cause of death is going to your doctor and doing what he/she says! I remember in
the 90's they ran off or bought out most of the private practices especially in the rural areas
with malpractice claims if they didn't sell out. But these days you can make up to $50,000 a
year just sending people the bill for your inflicted genocide. Medical Billing Specialist
Salary in the United States https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/medical-billing-specialist-salary
All the cowardly doctors will do as they are told for fear of losing their license. PS The
profession that has the highest rate of suicide is Doctors! I haven't been to a doctor in 21
years. Riseliberty
This is not a vaccine. Do you understand? It is experimental gene therapy. You cannot
compare this with any FDA approved vaccine you've had in the past. Hehe62
Before watching one clip I suggest you watch the entire press conference. ALL of the
participants explained they are pro science and pro vaccine up front.
They have been harmed-most likely permanently by this *vaccine* and as you can see by the
twitter disclaimer they have been silenced, told they are suffering from anxiety versus a
vaccine side effect and our medical community has done NOTHING to follow up on what is going
on.
As an NP who has been thrust into covid from the get go I now daily see covid 19 vaccine
injuries albeit less than those suffered from these victims; depending on how you see it.
Type 1 diabetes in a perfectly healthy 16 year old athletic boy with healthy family members
now requiring insulin for the rest of his life-happened right after 2nd pfizer. Tons of
shingles and herpes viruses, and regular colds that have taken out staff members for 3-4 weeks
versus 2-3 days in the past.
As an NP that started in the military and has all vaccines and vaccinated all my children
and seeing and living in the medical community throughout this I personally will NEVER get
another vaccine the government suggests or requires ever again. I will NEVER go see a
mainstream medical provider ever again unless I'm taken against my will or knowledge.
Sure, tons of people have gotten the vax without issue, but YOU are the phase III clinical
trial for this thing, it has only been about 6 months. Long term effects who knows. I have a
feeling it isn't going to get better. And the fact that these people have been completely
silenced, questioned, and "debunked" by mainstream media and the public as a whole that
suddenly seems to have 100% confidence in their government???? is EXTREMELY concerning. Ron
God bless Maddie and her family. For context, I'd like to know how many children have had
the Pfizer vaccine without serious side effects. We shouldn't fall into the left wing tactics
of using anecdotal emotional cases to distort reality to make a larger point. The fact is that
vaccines have saved millions of lives and prevented millions of crippling side effects from
polio, smallpox, yellow fever, mumps, measles, hepatitis, HPV . Regretfully, some of the
vaccinated have suffered side effects, but the benefit greatly outweighs the risk.
JedWSmith
For perspective, this "vaccine" has caused more deaths than all the other vaccines given
over the last century. Maybe caution is warranted. This little child had an almost ZERO chance
of any complications from the China virus. There's ZERO reason for someone who's had the China
virus and recovered, having natural antibodies, to get the vaccine. The therapeutics work. They
were demonized only because a sitting president, hated by the fake media, big pharma, and the
DC deep state, promoted them. Dillard
Offering up your child for experiments, was it for $$$$$$$?
Remember the Canadian govt with pop up vaccination sites offering children ice cream if they
got the jab, and they did it WITHOUT PARENTS CONSENT? Think about that one. The govt rolls up
and opens a vaccine tent near your home, your child sees FREE ICE CREAM and goes to get free
ice cream and gets injected without your knowledge. That is some real evil there. William
Walker
I'm terribly sorry for the young girl, but I'm inflamed with anger that the stupid parents
put not one, but THREE children through clinical trials giving them the vaccine–all the
while touting the science (oh, the science!) which completely contradicts the claims that young
people are in any way threatened by Covid as a demographic. This is tragic, this is moronic
liberalism, and this is a direct result of the parents swilling all the false idiocy from CNN
and MSNBC without questioning the actual empirical data and science. PALydia
"Trials" are done to determine outcome. The word "trial" is synonymous with the word
"experiment." I.e. you are playing Russian Roulette when you enroll your child in ANY trial.
That IS science. You should NEVER assume something is safe and harmless when it is still in
"trial" phase .never mind these vaccines bypassed animal trials and all previous mRNA vaccines
failed animal trials. My heart breaks for this child but it's criminal for any parent to
subject their child to this. LiberalsRPinworms
Was waiting for the "but we still think you should vaccinate your kids too "
I find it interesting that all these cult members keep saying they're pro science. However,
scientific experiments are based on hypotheses, not already known facts. Why is she upset? Her
kid wanted to provide data to this experiment and did just that. Too bad she wasn't an outlier
considering, if she were, she could probably still eat food on her own. Thanks for your
contribution to the science folks! navi282
I am very sorry about what has happened to Maddie, but the responsibility lies with the
parents who believe in the false religion of "scientism" and have opted into the con-game that
vaccinations are genuine healing methodologies. As an engineer Maddie's mother should have
studied logic and the philosophy of science and then discerned that the politicization of the
medical field in recent years created confirmation bias, poor SPC (statistical process
control), and question-begging fallacies from those who should have known better. Complicity or
Ignorance -- take your pick. Matt Walters
Being pro-science means you base decisions on data. There is not yet a data set for the
short and long-term risks, benefits, and side effects of this vaccine that would allow a
science-based decision to take it or not. Those who are pro science wait for reliable data
before considering taking an experimental vaccine that is not approved by the FDA. constitution
rules
For USA children ages 5 to 18:
Population: ~57,000,000
Covid deaths: 263
Chance: < 1 in 200,000 Para Bellum
I notice a common trend among these child abuser parents .they go online to complain how
their kids were maimed by the experimental mRNA, but then they always have to preface it by
saying "oh but we're pro vaccine and pro science"
Well, I am anti-vaccine and I'm anti-mRNA. Have some conviction you retard. No wonder you
find yourselves in the position you're in.
I sincerely feel bad for your kids. You stole their lives from them and they will never be
the same and while the fallen man part of me wants to say "just deserts", the Catholic part of
me prays the rosary for you and your kids every single night. solome
' .we are pro-vaccine and pro-science'
.these parents make a great case that academia does not necessarily convey common sense it
can convey a buttload of chutzpah ..we know that because Washington DC is full of it excessive
hubris, too and, in turn, they can make decisions that prove disastrous for the future of We
the People Christina
This is a terrible tragedy for this family. I hope this beautiful young girl will eventualy
recover fully. I hope her parents will recover as well.
As for her parents, however, who are obviously very intelligent, did they miss the reams and
reams of scientific studies, white papers, and patent applications available to the public
before they permitted their child to get this not yet approved, experimental gene therapy
injection?
Did they not watch the hours and hours of video interviews and presentations by doctors,
virologists, epidemiologists, etc., who warned, warned, warned us to NOT TAKE IT?
Even after big tech started censoring and scrubbing most of this information off the net and
everywhere else, even before the massive pro-vax propaganda machine cranked up, millions of
people informed themselves about what it really is and thus decided to not be part of the human
trials.
Most of us had our flu shots and regular real vaccines as well, real vaccines are not the
issue, here.
I'm really sorry to tell you this, Mom, but you either ignored the real science or you, too,
were caught up in the propaganda that caused so many people to automatically reject any thing
people on the other side of the debate had to say.
One more red flag when it comes to politics and propaganda: DID YOU NOT QUESTION WHY SO MANY
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO TRIED TO WARN US HAD THEIR INFORMATION SCRUBBED, CENSORED, LOST THEIR
JOBS, AND RECEIVED DEATH THREATS SIMPLY FOR DOING DUE DILIGENCE AND ENGAGING IN THE ALWAYS
REQUIRED DEBATES AMONG MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS BEFORE APPROVING VACCINES? AND THEN WARNING THE
PUBLIC BEFORE THE POLITIAL CAMPAIGN BEGAN.
This is a very, very sad day in America. It's a very, very sad day for this family.
But maybe other parents will think twice, now, before they sign their children up for
potentailly horrific experiences related to the gene therapy injections. Maria
"Twelve year-old Maddie was enrolled in the Pfizer vaccine clinical trial."
The complete blame belongs on the parents. The tearful mother, an electrical engineer, said
she and her husband were pro-vaccine. If they were so smart, why in the hell would they enroll
their CHILD in a clinical trial for a fast-tracked vaccine, especially when children are not in
a high-risk group, and Covid-19 survival is 99.8 percent? I am furious with these highly
educated people. THEY WERE DUMBER THAN DOORKNOBS TO SACRIFICE THAT GIRL TO THE
GOVERNMENT/PHARMA COMPLEX. Libby ChickenLittle
When I was a 12 year old girl, I didn't even know what a clinical trial was. But then again,
I grew up at time when kids were allowed to be just kids and not political pawns by their
brainwashed parents. Sorry mom – I know comments are going to be harsh – but you
deserve EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. smith. jane smith.
Q. How does a government make a pro-vaccine person turn into an anti-vaccine person?
A. Give them a vaccine that makes them sicker than they were before they got the vaccine,
sicker with the very thing the vaccine was supposed to prevent.
I was told to go get a flu shot by my commander. Being a good USAF airman, I did so. I was
just a kid following orders. Two days later I was in the hospital, so sick with the flu until I
could not take 4 steps without getting so dizzy that I had to stop moving to keep from throwing
up. And it took 5 days before I was able to walk down a hallway without getting dizzy!
That was the last time I ever had a flu shot. Or the flu.
And that was over 35 years ago.
If the vaccine is such a good idea, then why does everybody have to get it in order for it
to work?
How about those who get the vaccine just leave those alone who choose not to get it?
And after what has happened to this lady's kid(s) .
Why the heck is she still PRO‐vaccine ???? 58
I blame the Fauci, Government, and the MSM for brainwashing fear amongst the masses. If you
are repeatedly gaslighted about almost every issue, you begin to believe the lies. You can add
schools also as they indoctrinate instead of teaching critical thinking.
This is a fiasco for Fauci "herd immunity" campaign. It means that vaccinated people can
become infected and spread the virus much like unvaccinated people.
Cases of the Delta variant of coronavirus have almost doubled in a week
with 73 people now confirmed to have died after testing positive for the variant, 26 of whom
had had both vaccine doses.
Public Health England (PHE) said that as of Monday, the UK has seen 75,953 confirmed cases
of the Delta variant first identified in India, up 33,630 - or 79% - from the previous
week.
While just 26 people died more than two weeks after their second COVID-19 vaccine dose from
the Delta variant, more than 30.6 million in the UK have had both jabs, according to the
latest
government figures .
PHE said a total of 806 people in England have been admitted to hospital with the Delta
variant as of 14 June, a rise of 423 on the previous week.
So we have real problems with vaccines as Delta mutation puts the end of Fauci and company
fake dream about herd immunity -- it infects vaccinated people, but we can't discuss that the US medical establishment is corrupt,
in bed with Big Pharma and failed us.
This "medical bolshevism" should better be stopped.
Notable quotes:
"... Johnson said Sheryl Ruettgers will detail "severe neurological reactions that still inhibit her ability to live a normal life, including muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia" that she experienced after getting the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this month. ..."
Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson announced plans to hold a news conference to
discuss adverse reactions related to the COVID-19 vaccine, drawing backlash from health care
experts who view the move as "dangerous" and a way to promote misinformation.
In a statement Friday, Johnson said he plans to give a platform to six people from across
the country who claim to have had negative health reactions after receiving the coronavirus
jab. Johnson said the conference will take place Monday to allow the individuals to tell their
stories and discuss issues that have been "repeatedly ignored" by the medical community,
according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The Republican senator, who has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and has previously
advocated for alternative and unproven drug treatments to COVID-19, faced immediate backlash
from critics who feel the event will be a platform for spreading misinformation about the
safety of vaccines.
Dr. Jeff Huebner, a doctor in Madison, Wisconsin, said that Johnson was "promoting dangerous
and unfounded claims" about the vaccine that contradict medical research and analysis.
"As a member of the Wisconsin medical community I'm gravely concerned about the impact his
event and remarks will have on our ability to return to normal and protect Wisconsinites from
COVID-19.," Huebner said in a statement, the Journal Sentinel reported .
Joanna Bisgrove, a Wisconsin primary care doctor, told FOX6 that Johnson's statements and
event are "putting people at risk and already hurting people."
Tony Evers, the state's Democratic governor, added Friday that Johnson was being "reckless
and irresponsible" and said the event was "jeopardizing the health and safety" of the state's
vaccine rollout and economic recovery.
.@SenRonJohnson, you're being reckless and irresponsible. The #COVID19 vaccine is safe and
effective and based on years of science and research. Every time you suggest otherwise,
you're jeopardizing the health and safety of the people of our state and our economic
recovery.
-- Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) June 25, 2021
In defense, Johnson said Friday that he is "just asking questions" and isn't against the
vaccine.
"We're all supporters of vaccines. As I've repeatedly said, I'm glad that hundreds of
millions of Americans have been vaccinated, but I don't think authorities can ignore and censor
some of the issues," Johnson said in a tweet responding to Evers. "On Monday, we'll bring light
to stories that deserve to be seen, heard & believed."
Monday's event in Milwaukee will include statements from former Green Bay Packers player Ken
Ruettgers and his wife, Sheryl.
Johnson said Sheryl Ruettgers will detail "severe neurological reactions that still inhibit
her ability to live a normal life, including muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia"
that she experienced after getting the COVID-19 vaccine earlier this month.
Additional testimonies will be heard from individuals from Ohio, Missouri, Utah, Michigan
and Tennessee.
The medical community has long stressed that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine far
outweigh the risks of possible side effects. Earlier this week, top U.S. health officials, medical agencies, laboratory and hospital
associations issued a statement reiterating the benefits by stating that getting vaccinated is
the "best way to protect yourself, your loved ones, your community, and to return to a more
normal lifestyle safely and quickly."
Newsweek contacted Johnson for additional comment, but did not hear back in time for
publication.
Newsweek, in partnership with NewsGuard, is dedicated to providing accurate and
verifiable vaccine and health information. With NewsGuard's HealthGuard browser extension,
users can verify if a website is a trustworthy source of health information. Visit the Newsweek
VaxFacts website to learn more and to download the HealthGuard browser extension.
I have been fighting for the last few months to convince my son and his family to not get
vaxed. They live near Seattle. They have a 15 yr old, and all of his friends point at and
bully that kid because he is NOT vaccinated. My son and his wife both have jobs, have to wear
masks at all times, and have lost the friendship of co-worker. The pressure in really bad,
but they are hanging tuff.
We can go back to normal when we get the vaccine .
The vaccine is safe and effective, but you must remain locked down, social distance, and
wear three masks.
When does this end? Why must this go on? They cannot and will not answer because this is not
about a virus. Yet when we are told we must lockdown again, especially when
the triple
mutant variants arise
The Justice Centre for Constitutional
Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the
University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon .
Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities
effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of
September 2021.
There is a recording of Dr.
Christian's meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine
at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical
Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of
Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.
In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint
that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of
Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent
of Covid vaccines for children.
Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in
2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and
Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also
the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.
On June 17, Dr. Christian
released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the
Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent
any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan.
"I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being."
Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a
patient should always be "fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of
the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention."
"This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in
humans"¦ before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must
know the risks of m-RNA vaccines," he wrote.
Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across "a single vaccinated child or
parent who has been adequately informed" about Covid vaccines for children.
Among his points, he stated that:
The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and
are in fact under "interim authorization" in Canada and "emergency use authorization" in
the US. He noted that "full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety
considerations "" this has not happened."
That in order to qualify for "emergency use authorization" there must be an emergency.
While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health
care workers, he said, "Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of
Covid is less than 0.003% "" this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu.
There is no emergency in children."
Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.
M-RNA vaccines have been "associated with several thousand deaths" in the Vaccine
Adverse Reporting System in the US. "These appear to be unusual, compared to the total
number of vaccines administered." He called it a "strong signal that should not be
ignored."
He noted that vaccines have already caused "serious medical problems for kids"
worldwide, including "a real and significantly increased risk" of myocarditis, inflammation
of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the
German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the
vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.
The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on
June 21, 2021, alleging that they had "received information that you are engaging in activities
designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination
contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian
public health authorities."
Dr. Christian's concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him. The
US Centre for Disease Control had an "emergency meeting" today to discuss the growing cases of
myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.
The CDC released
new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times
the expected rate in 12 "" 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued
public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.
The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which
contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that " Children should not be
vaccinated for the moment ." Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new
guidance was posted which stated that "Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of
age."
Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing "network of ethical, moral physicians and
scientists" who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed
consent. He said, physicians must "always put their patients and humanity first."
Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality
in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP
Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle
expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.
Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship
of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid.
"We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very
esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science
and medicine," says Mr. Cameron.
The Justice Centre
represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary
proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote
in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided
submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn's behalf, defending the right of physicians to
express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is
entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms "" including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting
to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of
public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the
government.
Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public
health policies, as he was removed from his
position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health
Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr.
Strang as the province's Chief Medical Officer.
"Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is
arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific", states Mr. Cameron.
"Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent
on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only
regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College
of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns," Mr. Cameron concludes.
Mr. Apotheosis 4 hours ago
These mother f'ers are seriously evil. To the bone evil.
high5mail 3 hours ago
I'm Canadian and the sooner they throw Trudeau and Manitoba's Pallister out of office
won't be too soon.
It is effen ridiculous what this country turned into. Makes California appear to be a
free place compared to here and that is saying something.
I am jealous of people living in Florida, Texas and South Dakota. They don't know how
lucky they are that some people in power there are not only intelligent but have
cajones...
No_Pretzel_Logic 2 hours ago
The Davos crowd is clutching most of the Western countries by the short hairs.
Yank....how does that feel, plebe?
Who needs a bio-weapon when changing a few words in the WHO's definition of "pandemic" and
"herd immunity" will have the desired effect?
If you asked most people to define what a pandemic is. They would probably tell you that
it is disease which kills enormous numbers of people around the world. I would have said the
same thing myself but we would be wrong. In recent years, WHO changed the definition of
pandemic, serology and herd immunity which made our present state of emergency a near
certainty.
According to WHO, prior to 2009, a pandemic would involve enormous numbers of deaths. In
the public mind, such a pandemic, with enormous numbers of deaths, would justify the
government declaring a state of emergency requiring lock-downs,masks, social distancing, etc,
and possibly, even promoting a trial vaccine if the number of fatalities were enormous. Not
so anymore. Now a virulent flu can be called a pandemic. And herd immunity ain't what it used
to be either. Now the WHO definition of herd immunity is grotesquely skewed towards
vaccination. Who would have guessed?
When is a pandemic not a pandemic?
Since 2003, the top of the WHO Pandemic Preparedness homepage has contained the following
statement: "An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the
human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with
enormous numbers of deaths and illness."
However, on 4May 2009, scarcely one month before the H1N1 pandemic was declared, the web
page was altered in response to a query from a CNN reporter. The phrase "enormous numbers of
deaths and illness" had been removed and the revised web page simply read as follows: "An
influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human
population has no immunity." Months later, the Council of Europe would cite this alteration
as evidence that WHO changed its definition of pandemic influenza to en-able it to declare a
pandemic without having to demonstrate the intensity of the disease caused by the H1N1
virus.
Source: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-086173.pdf
9June2020 WHO website, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology.
Definition of Herd Immunity:
Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a
population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous
infection. This means that even people who haven't been infected, or in whom an infection
hasn't triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are
immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person. The threshold for establishing
herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear.
Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology
13Nov2020 WHO website, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology, antibodies and
immunity.
Definition of Herd Immunity:
'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is a concept used for vaccination, in
which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is
reached.
Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.
Read the Director-General's 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.
Vaccines train our immune systems to develop antibodies, just as might happen when we are
exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick.
Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question. Visit our webpage on
COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.
As more people in a community get vaccinated, fewer people remain vulnerable, and there is
less possibility for passing the pathogen on from person to person. Lowering the possibility
for a pathogen to circulate in the community protects those who cannot be vaccinated due to
other serious health conditions from the disease targeted by the vaccine. This is called
'herd immunity'.
'Herd immunity' exists when a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, making it
difficult for infectious diseases to spread, because there are not many people who can be
infected. Read our Q&A on vaccines and immunization for more information.
The percentage of people who need to have antibodies in order to achieve herd immunity
against a particular disease varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against
measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be
protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio,
the threshold is about 80%.
Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves
lives.
These are topics which should have been discussed openly if we had an independent media
and a government which did not take its instructions from WHO, the UN et al. Without the
"pandemic" and the government and media collusion, could a state of emergency ever have been
declared?
@John Fisher o much baggage that I can't help wondering whether it, too, hasn't been
weaponized.
Why can't it be a bacterial infection?
I thought that quite a lot of controversy surrounding the so-called Spanish flu concerned
the issue of whether the millions of deaths really were caused by the virus, or by a
secondary bacterial infection.
In the case of covid-19, too, there is now considerable speculation that the real damage
(second and third phases as described by practicing physicians) is caused by the spike
proteins, not the virus itself.
The new definition seems to prime the public to accept increasing demonization of viruses
and draconian social control measures to combat the new "enemy" -- a virus, fer
chrissakes.
Eric Clapton shares his feelings candidly about the past year of Covid lockdown, in
this 25 min YT (06/14/21):
He talks about the flip-flops in policies and actions of British political and public
health officials throughout the the entire pandemic that frequently set off his "bullshit
radar", and:
-How he has been surprised to have been attacked/labeled a Trump supporter (within England
?!) for his public statements during the the pandemic.
-Talks about his own frightening symptoms after receiving the two-jab, AstraZeneca spike
protein-coding DNA-adenovector type experimental gene therapy vaccine agent.
"... Gainesville parents in Florida concerned about the harm caused to their children wearing face masks all day at school in 90 °F weather sent out six masks""five that were worn by children ages 6 to 11 for five to eight hours at school, and one worn by an adult""to be analyzed for contaminants at the University of Florida's Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center. ..."
"... Five of the masks were found to be contaminated with parasites, fungi, and bacteria, according to Rational Ground . Only one mask was found to contain a virus that can cause a fatal systemic disease in cattle and deer. Other less harmful pathogens that can cause ulcers, acne, and strep throat were also detected. ..."
"... None of the controls were contaminated with pathogens, while "samples from the front top and bottom of the t-shirt found proteins that are commonly found in skin and hair, along with some commonly found in soil." ..."
"... The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that kids should continue to wear masks and social distance until they are able to get vaccinated, despite data showing that children are minimally affected by COVID-19 and are not super-spreaders of the virus. ..."
A laboratory at the University of Florida that recently analyzed a small sample of face masks, detected the presence of 11 dangerous
pathogens that included bacterias that cause diphtheria, pneumonia, and meningitis.
Gainesville parents in Florida concerned about the harm caused to their children wearing face masks all day at school in 90 °F
weather sent out six masks""five that were worn by children ages 6 to 11 for five to eight hours at school, and one worn by an adult""to
be analyzed for contaminants at the University of Florida's Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center.
Of the six masks, three were surgical, two cotton, and a poly gaiter. Masks that have not been worn and a t-shirt worn at school
acted as the control samples.
Five of the masks were found to be contaminated with parasites, fungi, and bacteria, according to
Rational Ground . Only
one mask was found to contain a virus that can cause a fatal systemic disease in cattle and deer. Other less harmful pathogens that
can cause ulcers, acne, and strep throat were also detected.
None of the controls were contaminated with pathogens, while "samples from the front top and bottom of the t-shirt found proteins
that are commonly found in skin and hair, along with some commonly found in soil."
Amanda Donoho, a mother of three elementary school children, teamed up with other parents to send the masks to the lab because
her sons broke out in rashes from prolonged mask-wearing.
"Our kids have been in masks all day, seven hours a day in school ," Donoho told Fox & Friends on June 17. " The only break
that they get is to eat or drink. "
Donoho said that while students do not have to wear a mask outside at school since April 2021, masks were still required when
they were within six to eight feet of each other. Masks must also be worn on school buses.
Further research is needed to better understand what is being put on children's faces, says Donoho.
Superintendent Carlee Simon at the Alachua County Public Schools (ACPS) in Gainesville, Fla. did not respond to a request for
comment.
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that kids should
continue to wear masks and social distance until they are able to get vaccinated, despite data showing that children are minimally
affected by COVID-19 and are not super-spreaders of the virus.
Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed an executive
order on May 3, suspending all COVID-19 emergency restrictions, including mask-wearing. However, certain school districts like
ACPS kept their mask policy in place for the remainder of the school year, while masks were optional within the community.
ACPS says masks will be optional for the 2021""22 school year but would continue to be required on school buses until mid-September
unless the federal transportation regulation changes.
The CDC says masks are still required on planes, trains, buses, and at airports.
In an updated June 17 guidance
, masks are no longer required in "outdoor areas of a conveyance (like a ferry or the top deck of a bus)" and fully vaccinated
individuals may resume everyday activities that were done prior to the pandemic without mask-wearing or physically distancing unless
required by federal or state law.
People are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second shot of a messenger RNA vaccine or after a single-dose Johnson
& Johnson vaccine.
The CDC did not give guidance for people who've recovered from COVID-19 and have natural immunity.
The Epoch Times has contacted the CDC for comment. 25,737 134 NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY
TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In 1954, annual births first topped four million and did not drop below that figure until
1965, when four out of ten Americans were under the age of 20. Mid-20th century baby boom -
Wikipedia
Early in the pandemic, I had been furiously writing articles about lockdowns. My phone rang
with a call from a man named Dr. Rajeev Venkayya. He is the head of a vaccine company but
introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.
Replay Unmute Duration 0:22 / Current Time 0:22
Loaded : 100.00% Fullscreen Up Next Replay the list
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.464.0_en.html#goog_652049397 The World Now
Officially Has Five Oceans UP NEXT Kevin Connolly and girlfriend welcome daughter Edge Of The
World: Going Up River Political leaders arrive in Cornwall for G7 summit French president
Emmanuel Macron slapped in face during visit to town The G7 summit: What you need to know
Awake: Gina Rodriguez On What Drew Her To The Film Awake: Lucius Hoya On How He Prepared For
His Role NOW PLAYING
I did not know it then, but I've since learned from Michael Lewis's (mostly terrible) book
The Premonition that Venkayya was, in fact, the founding father of lockdowns. While working for
George W. Bush's White House in 2005, he headed a bioterrorism study group. From his perch of
influence "" serving an apocalyptic president" he was the driving force for a dramatic change
in U.S. policy during pandemics.
He literally unleashed hell.
That was 15 years ago. At the time, I wrote about the changes I was witnessing, worrying
that new White House guidelines (never voted on by Congress) allowed the government to put
Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and churches shuttered, all in
the name of disease containment.
I never believed it would happen in real life; surely there would be public revolt. Little
did I know, we were in for a wild ride"¦
The Man Who Lit the Match
Last year, Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument.
He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was
wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only
choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called
brutal. So on it went.
The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting
his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?
The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people
(along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.
There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya's voice. He saw the awesome thing
he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was
trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.
This is how it has been for the better part of the last 15 months, with social media and
YouTube deleting videos that dissent from lockdowns. It's been censorship from the
beginning.
For all the problems with Lewis's book, and there are plenty, he gets this whole backstory
right. Bush came to his bioterrorism people and demanded some huge plan to deal with some
imagined calamity. When Bush saw the conventional plan" make a threat assessment, distribute
therapeutics, work toward a vaccine" he was furious.
"This is bulls**t," the president yelled.
"We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And
travel? And commerce?"
Hey, if the president wants a plan, he'll get a plan.
"We want to use all instruments of national power to confront this threat," Venkayya
reports having told colleagues.
"We were going to invent pandemic planning."
This was October 2005, the birth of the lockdown idea.
Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent
of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to
help. They were too smart to buy into it. He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator
working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico.
Cranks, Computers, and Cooties
His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less
knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his
14-year-old daughter was working on.
She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space
themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick.
Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders,
travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.
Crazy right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this
convinced Glass even more. I asked myself, "Why didn't these epidemiologists figure it out?"
They didn't figure it out because they didn't have tools that were focused on the problem. They
had tools to understand the movement of infectious diseases without the purpose of trying to
stop them.
Genius, right? Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public
health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some
people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became
Glass's apostle.
Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis's book: "If you got
everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn't let them talk to anyone, you
would not have any disease."
At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease" and human life as we know it too! As
preposterous and terrifying as this is "" a whole society not only in jail but solitary
confinement" it sums up the whole of Mecher's view of disease. It's also completely wrong.
Pathogens are part of our world; they are generated by human contact. We pass them onto each
other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them.
That's 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn't have a clue.
Fanatics Win the Day
Jump forward to March 12, 2020. Who exercised the major influence over the decision to close
schools, even though it was known at that time that SARS-CoV-2 posed almost risk to people
under the age of 20? There was even evidence that they did not spread COVID-19 to adults in any
serious way.
Didn't matter. Mecher's models" developed with Glass and others" kept spitting out a
conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I've read his memos
from this period" some of them still not public" and what you observe is not science but
ideological fanaticism in play.
Based on the timestamp and length of the emails, he was clearly not sleeping much.
Essentially he was Lenin on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution. How did he get his way?
There were three key elements: public fear, media and expert acquiescence, and the baked-in
reality that school closures had been part of "pandemic planning" for the better part of 15
years. Essentially, the lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition.
Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism
prevailed.
Figuring out how our expectations for normal life were so violently foiled, how our happy
lives were brutally crushed, will consume serious intellectuals for many years. But at least we
now have a first draft of history.
As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause
prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of
vengeance will burn very hot.
The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane
people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.
Will insurance companies charge higher life insurance premiums to those who were
vaccinated?
Kelley 28 minutes ago (Edited)
It's the CDC's version of the Plunge Protection Team.
If anyone assumes the 'emergency' is about protecting the public, this is my message to
you: harharharharhar!
Divide_And_Conquer 38 minutes ago remove link
Satanists must be eliminated at all costs
Just a Little Froth in the Market 6 minutes ago
"Another 1,260 were reported in people 65 or older through claims data from Medicare
claims data. Neither number raised safety signals, Steve Anderson, director of the FDA's
Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology said."
Of course there were no safety signals. Nothing's more important than Joetard reaching
his July 4th goal
on target 34 minutes ago
Why is the CDC even recommending this vaccine for the young, the immune, and those with
antibodies. Unethical. Unscientific. No bang for buck. Why wait a week. Why not meet
tomorrow. Answer--it takes a week to get their cover stories together. Zero confidence now
in the CDC and anything they say. It is all political Science.
According to the risk calculator of university of oxford i have a 0.00015% chance to die
from covid. (If sars-cov-2 is even real lol) I'm not going to risk my health with any of this
experimental stuff.
Gain of function experiments were a backdoor to the development of biological weapon despite
the convention for the prohibition of bioweapons. That makes Fauci a really sinister figure. And that also partially explains
overreaction of most governments to the second rate threat -- they suspected the worst.
The mood of the US public, if we judge it from WSL comments now is rather unfavorable for the
government as a whole and Fauci personally.
Notable quotes:
"... James Freeman is the co-author of "The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival." ..."
"... He's a two-faced political animal who acts in the best interests of keeping his job through multiple administrations. ..."
"... As far as his scientific principles...well, those walked out the door years ago ..."
"... he just went along with whatever helped him avoid accountability. ..."
"... Basically he was, and is, a coward unwilling to be honest and forthright. Instead he longs for the limelight and the adoration of a public that was lead down some 'rabbit hole' through his dishonest proclamations. ..."
"... Nuremberg type trials need to be convened for Fauci, Andersen, Barric, Daszak, the Bat Lady and other CCP Wuhan scientists. Fauci clearly lied-video proof is readily available. Fauci and the CCP are guilty of crimes against humanity. I hope I live to see such a trial. I remember the German trials on black and white TV. ..."
"... The broad lockdown was a national disaster ..."
"... It seems that Dr. Fauci may have colluded with other scientists to dismiss and coverup the possibility of a lab origin. ..."
Highly skilled in the ways of Washington, Dr. Anthony Fauci persuaded a reluctant President
Donald Trump to
endorse shutting down much of the U.S. economy in the spring of 2020. After Mr. Trump turned
against the idea, many governors continued to mandate shutdowns, supported by bleak
pronouncements from Dr. Fauci and his adoring media fan base. The broad lockdown was a national
disaster, yielding questionable public-health benefits and a mountain of new federal debt that
America's children will spend many years trying to finance. Prior to selling Mr. Trump on this
radical therapy to address Covid-19, did Dr. Fauci disclose everything he knew about the
possibility that a Chinese lab partly funded by his own institute might be the source of the
pandemic?
Publicly, Dr. Fauci played down this possibility in 2020. But a trove of his emails obtained
by two media outlets suggests that early in the pandemic, he had reason to take this potential
scenario very seriously.
In our bizarre media age, since the two outlets are generally pro-Fauci and anti-Trump, it's
not easy to find the news they've uncovered, even in their own reports. Instead, Dr. Fauci is
cast as a tireless and dedicated public servant who""don't laugh""is uncomfortable in the media
spotlight...
... ... ...
Since the two outlets (WaPo and BuzzFeed -- editor) that did so much to promote the Russia
collusion hoax are still reluctant to let go of any anti-Trump narratives, news consumers may
need to rely on other publications to tell them what the Post and Buzzfeed found. Nicholas
Jensen takes a
crack in the Australian:
America's top medical adviser Anthony Fauci was informed as early as February 2020 that
Covid-19 exhibited unusual viral characteristics which could have potentially been engineered
in a lab, according to emails published.
A trove of private correspondence, obtained by The Washington Post and Buzzfeed, reveal some
of the crucial moments leading up to the pandemic in early 2020 when Dr Fauci, the director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, sought urgent information
regarding the nature and origins of Covid-19... In one email from Kristian Andersen, a
virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California, Dr Fauci was told that Dr
Andersen and his fellow scientists had to "look really closely at all the sequences to see
that some of the features (potentially) look engineered".
The email dated February 1, 2020 said Mr Andersen and three other respected colleagues had
discovered a genome "inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory".
The truth will most likely never be known with any certainty. Bejing will not cooperate.
Biden will sweep it away as no longer relevant in his 90 day report. The progressive media
have too much invested in their early narrative to dig deep enough outside the official
channels.
DeWitt Payne
SUBSCRIBER 50 minutes ago
I saw Fauci on the news today saying he was "cautiously optimistic" about an HIV/AIDS
vaccine.
*sigh*
This is a virus that has never been cleared from a patient by the human immune system
alone. Before drug regimens were developed to lower viral load to undetectable and other
drugs introduced to prevent infection in the first place, the Infection Fatality Rate was
100%. A vaccine fools the immune system into thinking there was an infection and develop
antibodies, B and T cells that will clear or prevent an infection. But infection itself has
been shown to not develop immunity. Any rational analysis would conclude that a vaccine was
extremely unlikely, if not impossible to develop. Fauci clearly isn't rational.
Stephen Phillips
SUBSCRIBER 55 minutes ago (Edited)
It is absolutely sickening that Fauci was able to get away pedaling his false narrative on
the American people. What is worse is, due to crack mainstream media, most Americans will
never learn the truth about this guy. And the damage this guy did as our elected leaders at
all levels, Federal, State & Local, just played along.
At least there are some red states out there that saw the light and opened up way sooner
versus later. Travel to a blue state - and you will wonder what country you are living in...
and those blue state citizens just take it.
If you want the definition of someone who way over stayed their welcome, Fauci is your
man.
Tom Dillon
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
"...the allegedly publicity-shy government official needs to share everything he knows
about the U.S. taxpayer money that went into Wuhan and the global horror that came out of
it."
Don't hold your breath. Government bureaucrats know the first lesson of
bureaucracy - always cover your rear end. The Swamp is inculcated with the second lesson -
never give up one of our own. Washington insiders love to throw around the term
"accountable", as in, "that person should be held accountable", or, we need to hold "them"
accountable. When you hear that word, just know, no one will be "held accountable" or pay any
price for their malfeasance.
David Pearlman
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
He's a two-faced political animal who acts in the best interests of keeping his job through multiple administrations.
As far as his scientific principles...well, those walked out the door years ago.
Gregory Hansen
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
In the beginning Fauci was just an obscure bureaucrat whose thoughts and ideas didn't really
have any serious percussions. Then he is thrown into the spotlight and his ruminations
suddenly have consequences. At that point he becomes a 'weather vane' pointing himself in
what ever direction the wind is blowing.
He was afraid to go against the accepted orthodoxy so he just went along with whatever
helped him avoid accountability. And with whatever would continue to bolster him in the eyes
of the media and an adoring public.
Basically he was, and is, a coward unwilling to be honest and forthright. Instead he longs
for the limelight and the adoration of a public that was lead down some 'rabbit hole' through
his dishonest proclamations.
EDWARD HUGHES
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
Nuremberg type trials need to be convened for Fauci, Andersen, Barric, Daszak, the Bat Lady
and other CCP Wuhan scientists. Fauci clearly lied-video proof is readily available. Fauci
and the CCP are guilty of crimes against humanity. I hope I live to see such a trial. I
remember the German trials on black and white TV.
Ray Woodcock
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
The broad lockdown was a national disaster
That was entirely predictable. Fortunately, some officials understood that and
didn't go along with it.
Tom Motley
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Looks to me that .Deborah Birx was the smartest person in the room. She got out of Dodge
before it hit the fan while Fauci made the TV circuit"¦.. and wrote a book to boot.
Alan Veenstra SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago (Edited)
Fauci is going down in flames. Sadly the MSM will likely escape a similar fate, thereby
encouraging them to take even bolder steps as the propaganda arm of the DNC.
The MSM should be ashamed and apologetic. They should take a fresh new look at all the
other controversial issues since 2016, including the Steele dossier, Russian collusion,
Hunter Biden and both impeachment fiascos. While these issues may be fully explored and
revealed, it will be with their complete opposition however.
David Remmler
SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago (Edited)
It seems that Dr. Fauci may have colluded with other scientists to dismiss and coverup the
possibility of a lab origin. The emails are at odds with his public pronouncements lauding
China as "transparent" and later dismissing the possibility of a lab leak origin as highly
unlikely. He made the statements despite China's obvious dishonesty, silencing of
whistleblowers and obstruction of investigations into the origins of the pandemic. This seems
to fit a pattern of serious dishonesty or mistakes on his part. This is the same man who
called the threat of Covid "minuscule" in February of last year and flipped his opinion on
masks. His dishonesty was misleading and gave many people, including this physician, a false
impression about the threat early in the pandemic.
From the git-go, the MSM coverage of this whole thing was shrill doom ****. Fantasies of widespread transmission and almost
universal infection were the only stories allowed. The narrative repeated the he didn't believe and then he got it story, expert
opinion about the end of the human race, and brave front line heroes otherwise known as underpaid nurses.
Even the government (billionaire) conspiracy facts aren't connected to the credulity such as it is. The panic was almost entirely
by the MSM, for the MSM, and still the policy of the MSM. And yes, it's accurate to call it policy.
The USA vaccination efforts were badly thought out and badly implemented, resulting in dramatic economic losses for non-existent
public health gains. Looks like governments suspected that "the genie is out of the bottle" -- pathogen escaped from biolab in
the USA or China and badly overreacted, creating unnecessary economic losses and mass unemployment comparable with the Great
Depression.
There is no need to vaccinate people who already have had COVID-19. Natural immunity is much better than a vaccine that was rushed through the FDA.
Also many people are naturally immune to COVID-19 due tot he fact that they have previous coronavirus infection. This issue is
completely ignored in neoliberal MSM/
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and government statistics. ..."
"... So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus ..."
"... This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview. ..."
Dr. Adrian Burrowes, Family Medicine Physician &CFP Physicians Group CEO, joined Yahoo Finance to discuss the latest on covid-19.
Thomas 2 hours ago
I had Covid twice. Once in 2020 and once this year. The first time I had it I coughed for two whole months. I had a fever off
and on and I had to sleep with an extra pillow. I was miserable but I thought it was the flu because we didn't know the virus
was here yet. It was only after I was tested for antibodies several months later did I learn that I had it.
This past January, I got it again after some co-workers came down with it and we all were tested. I was quarantined for 10
days. During this 10 day period, I was only sick for 1 day with a slight stomach ache and diarrhea.
The rest of the time I was out doing yard work and cutting dead limbs out of my trees.
I told my wife that if my T-Cells had that good of memory to protect me that well, I probably won't get the shot. After all,
what can the shot do for me that the virus hasn't already.
Mike -> Thomas 38 minutes ago
Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of
us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and
government statistics.
With the time, I hope enough Americans will develop the same herd immunity to propaganda masquerading as news, unhealthy "guidance"
from government health agencies and corrupt intelligent agencies' deceptions that serve self-centered bureaucrats and political
operatives, not the country. G-d Bless!
Ed 3 hours ago
So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe
them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus, and did not have a vaccine. and yet you hear nothing
about it, could it be that people gained immunity and so it is not a horrible thing as this engineered virus. and remember that
SARS started in the same area of the world as this covid 19.
AB 3 hours ago
This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer
is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview.
The USA vaccination efforts were badly thought out and badly implemented, resulting in dramatic economic losses for non-existent
public health gains. Looks like governments suspected that "the genie is out of the bottle" -- pathogen escaped from biolab in
the USA or China and badly overreacted, creating unnecessary economic losses and mass unemployment comparable with the Great
Depression.
There is no need to vaccinate people who already have had COVID-19. Natural immunity is much better than a vaccine that was rushed through the FDA.
Also many people are naturally immune to COVID-19 due tot he fact that they have previous coronavirus infection. This issue is
completely ignored in neoliberal MSM/
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and government statistics. ..."
"... So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus ..."
"... This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview. ..."
Dr. Adrian Burrowes, Family Medicine Physician &CFP Physicians Group CEO, joined Yahoo Finance to discuss the latest on covid-19.
Thomas 2 hours ago
I had Covid twice. Once in 2020 and once this year. The first time I had it I coughed for two whole months. I had a fever off
and on and I had to sleep with an extra pillow. I was miserable but I thought it was the flu because we didn't know the virus
was here yet. It was only after I was tested for antibodies several months later did I learn that I had it.
This past January, I got it again after some co-workers came down with it and we all were tested. I was quarantined for 10
days. During this 10 day period, I was only sick for 1 day with a slight stomach ache and diarrhea.
The rest of the time I was out doing yard work and cutting dead limbs out of my trees.
I told my wife that if my T-Cells had that good of memory to protect me that well, I probably won't get the shot. After all,
what can the shot do for me that the virus hasn't already.
Mike -> Thomas 38 minutes ago
Obviously, you not only got immune to the Wuhan virus, but also to the globalist/collectivist and state propaganda. Those of
us who lived in Soviet socialist "paradise" get it back in the USSR while protecting our mind and soul from state propaganda and
government statistics.
With the time, I hope enough Americans will develop the same herd immunity to propaganda masquerading as news, unhealthy "guidance"
from government health agencies and corrupt intelligent agencies' deceptions that serve self-centered bureaucrats and political
operatives, not the country. G-d Bless!
Ed 3 hours ago
So more of the lies are being exposed, the lies that some who want to be in control have told are so bad, and yet some believe
them. Why was SARS not a continuing pandemic, if it is the same base virus, and did not have a vaccine. and yet you hear nothing
about it, could it be that people gained immunity and so it is not a horrible thing as this engineered virus. and remember that
SARS started in the same area of the world as this covid 19.
AB 3 hours ago
This is too funny. So at some point is anyone going to ask why this report is being featured on yahoo FINANCE? The answer
is in the reference to the publicly-traded, pharmaceutical companies named in the Dr.'s interview.
Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic. Tuesday, August 19, 2008.
Implications for Future Pandemic Planning
The majority of deaths during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 were not caused by the influenza virus acting alone, report
researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health.
Instead, most victims succumbed to bacterial pneumonia following influenza virus infection. The pneumonia was caused when bacteria
that normally inhabit the nose and throat invaded the lungs along a pathway created when the virus destroyed the cells that line
the bronchial tubes and lungs.
The work presents complementary lines of evidence from the fields of pathology and history of medicine to support this conclusion.
"The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario
in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths," says co-author NIAID Director 🐍Anthony
S. Fauci, M.D.🐍. "In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch."
The lockdowns implemented to curb the transmission of COVID-19 in the United States and
across the globe have not only been a "heinous abuse of power," but they have also failed to
protect the elderly and vulnerable, according to former White House COVID-19 adviser Dr.
Scott Atlas .
In an interview for Epoch TV's "
American Thought Leaders ," Atlas, a public health policy expert, suggested that the
consequences of lockdowns, which he believes have been largely fear-driven, will be felt in the
country for decades to come.
"We will have a massive price to pay for what was done in the United States," said
Atlas.
"The consequences of the lockdowns have been enormously harmful and they will last for
decades after this pandemic is completely finished."
In November 2020 Atlas resigned as former President Donald Trump's special adviser on the
White House pandemic task force. He is a senior fellow for the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
A large failure on the part of public health experts, Atlas said, has been the approach to
stop COVID-19, the disease caused by the
CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus , at all costs, disregarding the consequences of the
policies that were implemented in an attempt to do so.
And while he believes that imposing initial lockdowns during the onset of the pandemic last
spring was an "appropriate" response, that was only because the world was reacting to extremely
"imperfect knowledge," including an estimated fatality rate that was higher than what the world
knows now.
Further, the restriction of movement orders implemented last year as the virus began to
spread across the country were initially pushed as short-term measures to prevent the
overcrowding of hospitals and health care facilities, he said.
Fear
Soon, Atlas said, rational thinking and critical thinking disappeared, and lockdown measures were driven by
fear. No longer was the goal to prevent the overcrowding of hospitals, but it gradually shifted
to stopping COVID-19 cases altogether.
"Fear is very powerful, and it was really shown how powerful fear is during this pandemic.
They [Americans] bought into it because it was temporary, because [people] thought that would
be a very small price to pay to get things sort of under control, and have some handle on how
to proceed," Atlas said.
The public health policy expert suggested that a "frenzy" took over out of fear, out of a
lack of leadership by the faces of public health to put things into context and perspective,
and to recognize immediately what the consequences of these lockdowns would be.
"There's a big reason why lockdowns were never recommended in prior pandemics," Atlas
added.
"And those rules, those simple rational logical assessments, were thrown out the
window."
Protecting the Elderly, Vulnerable
Lockdowns have ultimately failed, Atlas said, as they failed to protect the elderly and
high-risk individuals in the early months of the pandemic last year. Meanwhile, countless
others have suffered due to diversions of medical resources.
"We saw even in March, April, May [2020], the lockdown policies were number one, failing
to protect the high risk people""people were dying, they were elderly. The nursing home
deaths made up 40 to 50 percent of all deaths," Atlas explained.
"And it was through many of our states; at one point in Minnesota, 80 percent of the
deaths were [in] nursing homes."
Americans were also skipping chemotherapy treatments, while people who had suffered acute
strokes and heart attacks were too afraid to call an ambulance as they didn't want to be in a
medical setting, and the majority of live organ transplants weren't conducted during the onset
of the pandemic, Atlas said.
Meanwhile, child abuse and domestic abuse skyrocketed, opioid deaths and suicides surged,
and there has been a dramatic rise in young people suffering from depression and anxiety, he
added.
"I think that it is still somehow held by many people that OK, the lockdowns are an economic
harm, but we're saving lives. No, you're destroying families, you're destroying lives, and
you're literally killing people with the lockdowns," Atlas said.
Citing
June 2020 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlas said that
one in four young adults contemplated suicide.
"The lockdowns failed, they still failed to protect the people who are high risk, and the
lockdowns destroyed and killed," Atlas said.
"Many other people destroyed families, sacrificed our children out of fear for
adults""even though the children do not have significant risk. And we didn't care as a
country. We kept them out of school."
He added: "It's a disgrace. It's a heinous abuse of the power of public health experts to do
what was done."
play_arrow
yerfej 4 hours ago
Funny how 78% of those who were hospitalized or died of "covid" were obese, and everyone
else was old or comorbid. BUT the progressive lunatics in government demanded schools be
shutdown...
NIRP-BTFD 4 hours ago
He added: "It's a disgrace. It's a heinous abuse of the power of public health experts
to do what was done."
Atlas should replace Fauci asap!
Dabooda 47 minutes ago
Actually, keeping the kids out of government schools is probably the best thing that you
could do for them, unless you really WANT them to turn into brain-dead propagandized drones
of indeterminate sex. Homeschool them for about
$200 (for a full 12 year curriculum.
chunga 3 hours ago
The facility where my wife works as an RN has not seen much of a pandemic materialize
over the last year and a half. Dystopia Virus was not the leading cause of death or
sickness but the staff spends a huge amount of time (almost all) on that at the expense of
everyone else. She tells me just as many died from extreme "treatment" for Dystopia Virus
and that they are not doing that anymore. One was a last ditch cancer treatment.
Of all the science not followed, the medical community has earned a great share of
this.
TightLiner 3 hours ago remove link
Guy I know is an ICU nurse. They quit using ventilators when 80% of people on them died.
He said, once you're on a ventilator you're not coming off alive.
chunga 3 hours ago remove link
All the ingredients for a pandemic are there, except the pandemic itself. Where my wife
works they are still occupying themselves largely with meetings and filling out Dystopia
forms. Corporate management is trying to bribe the staff to get the experimental injections
with bonuses and perks. That figure is right around 50/50 who've refused.
The reptilian viciousness of hospital administrators is on full display for all staff to
see. Nobody would forget opening their front door and finding a saltwater crocodile.
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against Use of COVID Vaccine in Children
The case will challenge the EUAs for the injections on several counts, based on the law
and scientific evidence that the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be
revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential
to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and that numerous
laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and foisting these injections
on the American people.
Portal 4 hours ago remove link
Covid is a Trojan horse that brought Fascism to the western world. Just like Hitler,
"emergency powers" become permanent fascism.
When the Saints start getting dragged to jail you know your country is turning fascist.
"3rd Canadian pastor arrested for holding worship services violating COVID-19 orders"
jammyjo 3 hours ago
Atlas was pilloried, but he was the man we needed instead of Fauci. Atlas had a more
balance perspective. Fauci was scared of his own shadow, and maybe even corrupt since he
was a life long government hack.
strych10 2 hours ago remove link
The only reason such power was granted is because the country is chock-full of obese,
poorly educated morons who were easily frightened into ludicrously unworkable "solutions"
by a profit driven media and idiotic, power hungry politicians.
NoPension 2 hours ago remove link
Still the best.....
Local TV reporter addressing a group of Amish leaders..." Why hasn't covid seemed to
affect the Amish?"
"... may have contained downstream effects of some endothelial changes that would give rise to the hypercoagulable state that is characteristic of the disease ..."
"... We suggest that, in part, the presence of spike protein in circulation may contribute to the hypercoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients and may cause severe impairment of fibrinolysis. Such lytic impairment may be the direct cause of the large microclots we have noted here ..."
The researchers examined the fluorescent amyloid signals in abnormal clots and in healthy
platelet-poor plasma (PPP) with or without spike protein.
This showed a marked increase in dense abnormal amyloid clots, called amyloid deposits, in
PPP to which spike was added, with or without thrombin. Thrombin alone also created an
extensive fibrin clot. However, there was a significant increase in the percentage area of
amyloid deposits.
The greatest change followed the addition of both spike and thrombin.
Platelet
activation
When whole blood was exposed to spike protein even at low concentrations, the erythrocytes
showed agglutination, hyperactivated platelets were seen, with membrane spreading and the
formation of platelet-derived microparticles.
In all samples, spontaneous amyloid deposits formed after exposure to the spike protein
without the need for thrombin exposure.
Clotting in microfluidics channels
Microfluidics systems were set up to simulate extensive endothelial damage, with resulting
hypercoagulability. This showed that COVID-19 produced changes in the clotting profile of the
PPP.
Clot formation in healthy PPP occurred slowly and gradually, to a moderate size, and with
orderly clot layers that allowed blood flow to occur through the channel's center. These clots
were easily removed by flushing the channel at 1 mL/min.
The PPP from COVID-19 patients showed large disorderly clots that often projected into the
channel's center and obstructed the flow. These clots were impossible to dislodge at the
earlier flow rate or even at a higher flow.
Again, large clots formed in PPP from COVID-19 patients when it was exposed to thrombin in
about 90 seconds. However, most of the clotting happened in one burst, with not much
propagation of the clot thereafter, indicating rapid consumption of the thrombin.
This was not the case with PPP exposed to spike protein, where a fibrous laminar clot was
combined with a chaotic clot. Moderate flow disruption was also observed. These clots could
also be removed with similar ease. This intermediate state could be due to the absence of
multiple other biological factors that may have hindered the formation of the characteristic
clots seen in COVID-19 patients.
Mass spectrometry
The results of mass spectrometry of the healthy PPP with spike protein showed changes in the
structure of the beta and gamma fibrin(ogen) proteins, together with complement 3 and
prothrombin. These proteins showed resistance to degradation by trypsin, a powerful proteolytic
enzyme, in the presence of spike protein.
What are the implications?
The researchers show that the spike S1 not only interacts directly with both platelets and
with the key clotting protein fibrinogen and its activated form, fibrin, causing changes in the
protein that, in turn, alter the way blood clots.
In PPP, the addition of thrombin was found to induce fibrinogen's polymerization into a
fibrin mesh. Exposure to spike protein was shown to precipitate dense clots.
When spikes and thrombin were added to healthy PPP, the formation of abnormal amyloid
deposits was increased. These also showed significant changes in the blood cells'
ultrastructure, including the red cells and platelets.
The presence of extensive spontaneous fibrin networks following the addition of the spike
protein to whole blood matches the ultrastructural appearance seen on COVID-19-positive blood
smears. Here again, the primary features were anomalous clotting, amyloid in the clots, and
spontaneous fibrin network formation.
The study also shows that it may alter blood flow in COVID-19. The microfluidics simulation
showed that the PPP from COVID-19 patients, which is almost pure fibrinogen, formed large
obstructing clots. The PPP " may have contained downstream effects of some endothelial
changes that would give rise to the hypercoagulable state that is characteristic of the
disease ."
" We suggest that, in part, the presence of spike protein in circulation may
contribute to the hypercoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients and may cause severe
impairment of fibrinolysis. Such lytic impairment may be the direct cause of the large
microclots we have noted here ."
Thus, the free S1 subunit has harmful effects on the host even without direct infection of
the cells themselves. This strengthens the case for targeting the spike protein via antibodies
and vaccines.
*Important Notice
medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and,
therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related
behavior, or treated as established information.
Dr. Marty Makary made the comments during a recent interview, noting that "natural immunity works" and it is wrong to vilify those
who don't want the vaccine because they have already recovered from the virus.
Makary criticised "the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history" for not clearly communicating the scientific
facts about natural immunity compared to the kind of immunity developed through vaccines.
" There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,"
Makary emphasised.
"We are not seeing reinfections, and when they do happen, they're rare. Their symptoms are mild or are asymptomatic," the professor
added.
"Please, ignore the CDC guidance," he urged, adding "Live a normal life, unless you are unvaccinated and did not have the infection,
in which case you need to be careful."
"We've got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them," Makary further asserted.
The professor's comments come amid a plethora of
media generated propaganda suggesting that natural immunity isn't enough, and that those who do not choose to take the vaccine
should be socially ostracisedJustus D. Barnes 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
I would not call it a hoax as some people do get sick and die.
However. Some people are allergic to peanuts. So lets force everyone to get vaccinated against peanuts?
I think of this whole thing as $#IT politicians shoving their $#IT policies down stupid peoples throats. In a free America
any thoughtful person would asses the danger that corona or a peanut would present to them personally and then take the action
they thought best. IMHO If your state does not let you make the choice for yourself then you join a class action lawsuit against
your state or move.
FurnitureFireSale 4 hours ago remove link
And that's the problem in that what America has become: a bunch of thoughtless sheep that do what their idols tell them to
do; what the commercials tell them to do; what the brainwashing convinces them to do. There are many, many of them and a good
amount of thoughtful ones (us)too. It is the latter having these discussions about these therapies, no matter how much the MSM
and FAANG's try to supress it. Many highly intelligent people I know have gone ahead and gotten their shots. Several in my circle
have not- never will. The have nots understand just what is going on. The liberal states that are pushing this agenda need to
be reeled in via a class action. One should not be forced to move based upon their vaccination status. It's as arbitrary as saying
"move to a state where they don't serve peanuts". You're exactly right.
sun tzu 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Deaths from purely from covid was probably in the 25,000 range in the past 14 months, which is less than half of 5 months of
flu deaths each year. Some died due to pneumonia or cytokine storm. Others died when the spike proteins got into their blood and
caused clots. The vast majority died with covid, either real or thru a false positives. Probably 25-50K were murdered on ventilators.
philipat 1 hour ago remove link
As I have written about previously, the CDC/WHO are playing (political) games with science and their actions only discredit
themselves and raise other obvious questions which challenge the official explanation(s) of events, in summary as follows:
The definition of Herd Immunity has been changed (including in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) to EXCLUDE natural immunity
as a contributing factor. This is scientifically false because naturally acquired immunity is the best type of immunity because
it is a complete immune response which conveys long-lasting immunity and prevents transmission of any virus. This is NOT true
for the "vaccines" whose manufacturers only claim a reduction in the severity of any symptoms. The obvious conclusion based
on the science is that naturally immune people have a stronger claim on "Vaccine Passports" than the vaccinated.
Not only is it unnecessary for naturally immune people to be vaccinated, there are potential dangers in doing so. Based
again on scientific knowledge from earlier attempts to develop vaccines for CoVs, there is a very real risk of ADE (Antibody
Dependent Enhancement), also described as Pathogenic Priming from occurring when people with non-neutralizing antibodies are
exposed to further challenge from either a live virus or high concentrations of viral antigen. This can potentially occur in
both vaccinated people (we will know during the next "Flu" season) and in naturally immune people exposed to high concentrations
of viral antigen which triggers non-neutralizing antibodies. The subsequent autoimmune reaction can result from a triggered
"cytokine storm" which can result in the shutdown of vital organs and death,
Ironically, this MIGHT explain some of the many AEs being seen with the "vaccines" where an autoimmune effect is seen.
The only possible reason for the above denials 1-2) of the science is so as to comply with the official narrative that everyone
needs vaccination "" presumably for reasons other than science and public health.
The CDC still recommends the RT-qPCR test to diagnose "new cases" at a cycle threshold (Ct) of >35 cycles, typically run
at 35-45 or even 50 cycles. This despite the fact they fully understand that at these high cycle counts, the numbers of "false
positives" are high (up to 95% in some labs). However, in coming to terms with "a few breakthrough cases" of disease in vaccinated
people, CDC has been running trials to sequence the virus (in the hope of blaming new variants) obtained from such people.
However, to be included, only samples from patients confirmed positive with a PCR test run at a Ct of <28 cycles are allowed.
Why the difference?
The dilemma for CDC here is obvious. If they recommend that for reasons of accuracy, ALL PCR tests are run at a Ct of <28,
they will not be able to find many "new cases" (a/k/a false positives) to inflate the case numbers and have ample material
to blame "Covid deaths" on. If they run the trials on "breakthrough infections" at a Ct of >35 (as recommended for general
use) they will "confirm" (by their own definition) thousands of such " extremely rare breakthrough cases". This clearly demonstrates
duplicity on the part of CDC and destroys their credibility, which has been built on science not politics.
The Virus origin dilemma. The Overton window has allowed two, and only two, "explanations" for the origin of the virus.
Setting aside the fact that whenever the Establishment presents a limited number of explanations for anything, they are always
all wrong (and in this case there are other explanations surrounding the Military Games, held in Wuhan at around the time the
first patients were recorded) it is now obvious that the desired conclusion is a "leak" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology
(WIV). That means we must also set aside the fact that Bio Safety Level 4 labs don't just "leak" "" I can attest to this from
personal experience of BSL training.
The dilemma for the Authorities with this explanation, not yet widely recognised, is that if indeed this is the explanation,
it means that wild SARS-CoV-2 virus (and other man made variants in the "gain of function" research, was being experimented
with in WIV so as to infect the respiratory system of those "infected". Other bodily contamination transported out of the lab
is entirely impossible due to the security features built-in at BSL-4 facilities (Pressure gradients, UV exit lighting, 3 changes
of clothing involving showers with various chemical components etc. "" these are SERIOUS safety precautions)
That being the case, why then has it not been possible to isolate and purify said virus (and its variants) for the purposes
of confirming its existence and for use in more accurate tests and diagnostics plus for use in making natural (real) vaccines?
konputa 4 hours ago
The CDC are vaccine pushers and owners of numerous vaccine patents. It seems to me they are doing their job as intended, it's
just that the public misunderstands their purpose. Their mission isn't public health.
CheapBastard 5 hours ago (Edited)
That's exactly what my doc told me. Stay healthy and take the relevant supplements like Vitamin D. Most likely have immunity
from previous Flu infections with cross-over protection.
Problem is for the CDC and Big Pharma is their Fear **** can't be promoted and they can't make mind-numbing profits from natural
immunity.
What a mess_man 4 hours ago
We knew this last spring with the Diamond Princess.
... here are some key ingredients in the CDC's recipe
for dystopian summer fun:
Two-layer masks should be worn at all times "" indoors and out ""except for eating,
drinking and swimming
Don't allow close-contact games and sports
Avoid sharing of objects such as toys, games and art supplies
Separate children on buses by skipping rows
Divide children into "cohorts" and then keep them away from other cohorts
Children should stay three feet away from kids in their cohort and six feet away from
those outside their cohort; campers and staff should stay six feet from each other, as
should fellow staff members
While eating and drinking, stay six feet away from everybody""even your own cohort
UpTo11 4 hours ago remove link
Just went to a high school graduation ceremony in Texas. 1 student had a mask. No one
else in the stadium of 400. Not sure who wears masks anymore at all.
ChargingHandle 3 hours ago remove link
Come to oregon and you will see all species of sheeple wearing masks even when
completely by themselves.
GunnerySgtHartman 2 hours ago
I still see people wearing masks while driving their cars ... with nobody else in the
cars ... talk about sheeple.
pods 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Is your summer camp following these ridiculous guidelines?
Well my kid won't attend.
Simple.
These guidelines may prevent some kids getting pooned by a counselor, so there is an
upside.
strych10 2 hours ago
Pooning isn't a concern. Dicking is the issue.
Reaper 4 hours ago
Obedience is the beginning of modern slavery.
high5mail 4 hours ago remove link
Scotty Beam me up
I am tired of woke, chinese flu, fauci, biden, trudeau and most of all, the people who
don't question the insanity and go along with it.
They have succeeded in taking the pleasure out of living. We are nothing more than
cattle with no rights, chipped and monitored.
Life was not meant to be like this....
Mike Rotsch 4 hours ago
If the summer camp follows the CDC, it's the wrong camp.
play_arrow
GoodyGumdrops 4 hours ago (Edited)
Anyone who allows their child to be indoctrinated into this fear cult is seriously
messed up. How can anyone justify treating children this way?
It sickens me to think that these kids are being taught to sacrifice their health for a
bunch of narcissistic hypochondriacs acting like frightened children instead of behaving
like normal, mentally healthy adults.
"... A ten-year-old boy absolutely humiliated a school board in Florida as he spoke passionately in requesting the council to stop the unscientific and ridiculous mask mandate for the district at the school. ..."
A ten-year-old boy absolutely humiliated a
school board in Florida as he spoke passionately in requesting the council to stop the unscientific
and ridiculous mask mandate for the district at the school.
"Based on the lack of a rational explanation for the actions of the WHO, Merck, FDA and Unitaid, we conclude that they result
from an active disinformation campaign ... "
Thank you for the latest release from FLCCC. When you find the time to comment, you always supply powerful material - I am
extraordinarily grateful for this.
I just spent the time to read the release, and I was absorbed from beginning to end. Of course, there's some unavoidable scientific
terminology, but very little, and most of the document stands as a revolutionary manifesto, a call to action, a call to resist
the misinformation and the disinformation permeating the COVID-19 pandemic.
The document illustrates in a verifiable and succinct charge how the WHO has loaded the dice against the use of ivermectin
as both a prophylactic and a treatment for COVID-19, in order to argue against its adoption - and this, in a world that is increasingly
adopting its use because it quite simply works.
It works, and the results from all over the world are recorded by doctors, showing that it works up to a 90% effectiveness
in the main and close to 100% in some cases, and it does this with negligible collateral harm demonstrated across billions of
doses and many decades - and the WHO, despite that in 2018 it formally lauded its safety, now says that it doesn't work and that
it may be dangerous.
~~
So what is the Why of the WHO?
This release from FLCCC explains why and describes the underlying, systemic rottenness in the western medical system, how it
has been tainted for decades by corporations and large funding sources - and how the common doctors, fighting to do no harm and
to save lives, are up against a wall of opposition during this pandemic that is breathtakingly huge.
The FLCCC press release goes beyond the medical science and explains also the corporate tactics that have demolished scientific
method. It presents a call to action, and sketches the only tools we have to resist. It says much that we already know - but these
are doctors and awarded researchers telling us all the things that are so obviously fishy in the institutional responses
to the pandemic.
Big Pharma, Big Science, Big Media, Big Tech, Big Government, Big Foundations - all in collusion, all following the trail originally
blazed by Big Tobacco.
See, we know how it works because we've watched it for decades. The FLCCC release does us the service of reminding us and enumerating
the instances when corporate venality (my word, not theirs) has destroyed the truth simply to make money.
What CDC knows what we do know to issue such draconian guidelines? This looks like is a
concentration camp not summer camp...
Notable quotes:
"... Two-layer masks should be worn at all times "" indoors and out ""except for eating, drinking and swimming ..."
"... Don't allow close-contact games and sports ..."
"... Avoid sharing of objects such as toys, games and art supplies ..."
"... Separate children on buses by skipping rows ..."
"... Divide children into "cohorts" and then keep them away from other cohorts ..."
"... Children should stay three feet away from kids in their cohort and six feet away from those outside their cohort; campers and staff should stay six feet from each other, as should fellow staff members ..."
"... While eating and drinking, stay six feet away from everybody, even your own cohort ..."
In April, the CDC published guidance
for operating youth camps that was the latest eye-rolling example of CDC maximalism that
conflicts with what we've learned about Covid-19.
Before we examine the CDC guidance, let's review some of the key things that we now know
about Covid-19 that we didn't in March 2020:
Covid-19 presents little risk at all to children. According to CDC data, only
295 children age 0-17 have died with Covid-19. Compare that to the CDC's estimation
that 600
died of the flu during the 2017-18 season.
Outdoor transmission pretty much never happens. An Irish
study of more than 232,000 Covid-19 cases found only 0.1% of cases were transmitted
outside.
Surface transmission isn't a material source of spread. The CDC has
declared the risk of contracting the virus by touching surfaces or objects is low, and
that rather than cleaning with disinfectant, "soap and water is enough to reduce risk"
(unless there's a known or suspected Covid-19 case in a community setting).
Vaccines are abundantly available. According to the CDC's vaccination data , 60.5% of U.S.
adults have have received at least one vaccine dose, and 48.4% are fully vaccinated. Gone
are the days when finding the vaccine was a challenge; today, anyone who wants the vaccine
can readily find it.
Covid-19 cases and deaths are in a free fall. The 7-day averages for cases and deaths
have respectively fallen 89% and 83% from
their peaks. On Sunday, the entire state of Texas
reported not a single death from the virus. Today, San Francisco General Hospital has
no Covid-19 patients for the first time
since March 2020.
With that knowledge in mind, here are some key ingredients in the CDC's recipe
for dystopian summer fun:
Two-layer masks should be worn at all times "" indoors and out ""except for eating,
drinking and swimming
Don't allow close-contact games and sports
Avoid sharing of objects such as toys, games and art supplies
Separate children on buses by skipping rows
Divide children into "cohorts" and then keep them away from other cohorts
Children should stay three feet away from kids in their cohort and six feet away
from those outside their cohort; campers and staff should stay six feet from each other, as
should fellow staff members
While eating and drinking, stay six feet away from everybody, even your own
cohort
Who exactly are these draconian, fun-killing guidelines meant to protect? The children
aren't in any meaningful danger"" the number of children who typically drown in a given
year is more than double the number of child Covid deaths we've observed in 15 months .
Meanwhile, against a backdrop of rapidly-vanishing Covid-19 infections across the country,
camp staff will have had more than ample opportunity to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19
before the first kids arrive.
We're told to "follow the science," but what is the CDC following? The agency's guidelines
read like they were written during the early dark ages of the Covid outbreak, when the peril
was still filled with overwhelming mystery, and "erring on the side of caution" still had a
trace of credibility.
As Columbia University pediatric immunologist Mark Gorelik told
New York Magazine , " We know that the risk of outdoor infection is very low. We know risks
of children becoming seriously ill or even ill at all is vanishingly small. And most of the
vulnerable population is already vaccinated. I am supportive of effective measures to restrain
the spread of illness. However, the CDC's recommendations cross the line into excess and are,
frankly, senseless. Children cannot be running around outside in 90-degree weather wearing a
mask. Period. "
Who cares what the CDC says? They have ZERO credibility and should be charged with fraud and
"Crimes Against Humanity"
UpTo11 4 hours ago remove link
Just went to a high school graduation ceremony in Texas. 1 student had a mask. No one else
in the stadium of 400. Not sure who wears masks anymore at all.
ChargingHandle 3 hours ago remove link
Come to oregon and you will see all species of sheeple wearing masks even when completely
by themselves.
GunnerySgtHartman 2 hours ago
I still see people wearing masks while driving their cars ... with nobody else in the cars
... talk about sheeple.
Snakerockhiker 3 hours ago
The CDC guidance has nothing to do with Covid-19 and everything to do with maintaining and
increasing fear, breaking down societal relationships, and ensuring people are following
operant conditioning protocols like Pavlov's dogs. A gang of criminals are running America's
medical heirarchy. We need to eliminate them.
"Ultimately, the point of life is not about avoiding diseases and meeting arbitrary
standards of health. Society has its necessary functions and its priorities that exist
regardless of the recommendation of public health experts. It's about time the CDC understood
that." ~ Ethan Yang
n May 16, 2021, the CDC updated its
guidance , stating that fully vaccinated people could resume their lives as normal,
including not wearing a mask. It goes without saying that not only was the CDC's initial
position that vaccinated people still have to practice all the same precautions as those that
are unvaccinated ridiculous, it's also way behind what some states have been doing. Citing the
success of places like Florida and Texas as completely open states flouting every overly
protectionist measure put out by the CDC would be beating a dead horse at this point. Of
course, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky clarified that in
regards to the new guidance on vaccinated persons not having to wear masks,
"Not everybody has to rip off their mask because our guidance changed," she said. "If you
are concerned, please do consult your physician before you take off your mask."
CNN also cited its own medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen, who criticized the CDC for being
overly cautious on mask-wearing for vaccinated individuals. This is of course the same CDC that
at the beginning of the pandemic lied to the public
about how people should not wear masks in an attempt to prevent a shortage. Eventually, of
course, the narrative changed to the current regime of masks being the one thing that will save
humanity. As we know this is also a ridiculous policy, as the overwhelming evidence points out
that masks are not the
silver bullet to stopping infectious disease and only help in specific contexts. Jenin
Younes writes on this subject when she notes ,
"On June 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a paper stating that "widespread
use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality
or direct scientific evidence and there are other potential benefits and harms to
consider."
Throughout the entire pandemic, the CDC has been the arbiter of comically cautious guidance,
arbitrary and unethical recommendations, and it contradicted itself so many times that it would
be a decent question to ask if anyone really listens at this point. Perhaps this would be a
good thing in a way as states and communities chart their own course towards voluntary
solutions based on their own contexts. Although it is certainly great to see people taking
matters into their own hands and living their lives based on reason and responsible behavior,
if we are going to have a CDC it would be best that it does its job well and not act as a
detriment to society sowing confusion and fear.
The CDC's Less Than Stellar Track
Record
It is worth mentioning that the CDC is credited with leading the eradication of smallpox
and credit should be given where credit is due. However, we should not let that distract us
from the fact that the CDC has always had a track
record of being overly cautious to the point that their guidelines are unrealistic,
trigger-happy on issuing guidance that would later be retracted, and especially as of recently
being absolutely disconnected from society.
Let's go back to the very beginning of the pandemic before the lockdowns. The CDC was
already starting off on the wrong foot when it came to procuring test kits. Reason
Magazinewrites
,
"A far more consequential error also occurred in February, when the agency botched the
development of the first batch of test kits that states were supposed to use to begin the
testing process. The CDC had already declined to use a German test
backed by the World Health Organization, preferring to create its own, as is typical for the
agency. This cost several weeks during the time when the virus was just beginning to spread
in the U.S. And when the CDC did send out test kits to states, the
majority of those kits delivered faulty results."
This issue with test kits was only resolved once development was turned over to the private
sector. An article in The Atlantic points out that in May the CDC was conflating viral and antibody tests.
Viral tests detect active Covid cases while antibody tests detect past infections, and
conflating the two paints a very different picture for the severity of active caseloads.
Of course, nobody can forget that the CDC endorsed the use of lockdown policies as if it was
common sense science, which not only failed to stop the virus but proceeded to throw the entire
country into disarray. An article published by AIER back in June of 2020 recounts these absurd
policies by noting
,
"In particular, two unprecedented and massively destructive physical distancing policies
were implemented: (1) quarantining an entire population (i.e., "stay-at-home" orders), and
(2) shutting down entire industries and significantly altering the operations of other
industries that were "permitted" to continue to operate. This includes educational
establishments, such as day care facilities, primary and secondary schools, and religious
institutions, which provide important educational and recreational services for
children."
At one point Dr. Fauci stated in a CNN interview that he was confused on why
every single state in the country wasn't implementing a stay-at-home order. Despite mounting
evidence for the tremendous collateral damage lockdowns were causing with little benefit to
show, the CDC continued to advocate for the use of lockdown policies.
Finally, we should never forget the blatant
political pandering to the teachers' unions when it came to school closures. Keeping
schools open isn't even a controversial topic; in fact, closing schools is largely considered a
fringe position in the scientific community, and even President Biden was advocating for the
opening of schools. It is clear that closing schools are massively harmful not only to children
but to the parents who now have unexpected child care burdens. At the same time, children are
not a significant source of transmission and are not vulnerable to the virus.
If there wasn't already enough said, the CDC even issued an unconstitutional nationwide
moratorium on evictions as if it had not meddled enough with the economy and the constitutional
order. Fortunately, there is now a
class-action lawsuit against the CDC for this offense.
Key takeaway
The CDC has always been out of touch and overly cautious when it comes to advising the
country on issues of public health. In a way that is understandable, as one could argue they
are simply trying to present the safest and healthiest way to live. Even then, those
recommendations could be overturned by new developments as in the case of drinking while
pregnant , which we now know isn't an issue if done in moderation. Even then, there is
absolutely no excuse for advocating lockdown policies which go beyond an abundance of caution
into the realm of recklessness and neglect. Ultimately, the point of life is not about avoiding
diseases and meeting arbitrary standards of health. Society has its necessary functions and its
priorities that exist regardless of the recommendation of public health experts. It's about
time the CDC understood that.
In reaction to Covid-19, the CDC really took things to a whole new level of absurdity. The
amount of hubris, ignorance, and condescension exhibited by our public health leaders truly
soared to new heights. Not only that but it had real consequences not just for the people who
had to live under the CDC's recommendations but for its own credibility. It would be fair to
say the CDC needs a wakeup call because they truly have tested our patience for what's becoming
far too long.
This video provides one of the most erudite and
informative looks at Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. It was remarkable this week to watch as it appeared on
YouTube and was forcibly taken down only 2 hours after posting. The copy below is hosted on LBRY, a blockchain video
application. In a year of fantastic educational content, this is one of the best we've seen.
Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory
Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist,
obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.
Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome
Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants
including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the
first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.
Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for
the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for
target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines
and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.
Under his leadership the research unit
invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis
and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the
licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.
Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original
research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis,
Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.
My original training was a first-class honours
degree in biochemistry and toxicology. Followed by a research-based PhD into respiratory pharmacology; and after that
I've worked my entire life, uh, on the research side of the pharmaceutical industry – both big pharma and also biotech.
My specific focus has been inflammation, immunology, allergy in the context of respiratory diseases (so the lung, but
also the skin). So I would say I'm a kind of a deeply experienced inflammation, immunology, pulmonology kind of research
person.
I initially became concerned about, the, our
response to the coronavirus pandemic towards the middle or back end of April as early as that. It had become clear that
if you look at the number of daily deaths versus the date the pandemic had turned. Really, pleasingly, already the wave
was fundamentally over, and we would just watch it fall for a number of months – which is what it did. And so I became
very perturbed about increasing restrictions on the behavior and movement of people in my country and I could see no
reason for it then and I still don't.
Government's response to emergencies is guided
by the scientific group who sit together under the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies or
SAGE
.
So they should provide scientific advice to the government about what's appropriate to do. SAGE has got several things
wrong, and that has led to advice that's inappropriate and – uh, not only has had horrible economic effects, but has had
continuing medical effects in that people are no longer being treated properly.
SAGE took the view that since SARS-CoV-2 was a
new virus that they believed there wouldn't be any immunity at all in the population. So, I think that's the first
thing. I remember hearing that and I puzzled, because I already knew – because I read the scientific literature that
SARS-CoV-2 was 80% similar to another virus you may have heard of called SARS that moved around the world a bit in 2003,
and more than that: it's quite similar, in pieces of it, to common cold-causing coronaviruses.
So, when I heard that there was this
coronavirus moving across the world I wasn't as worried as perhaps other people were, because I figured that since there
are four common cold-causing coronaviruses, I figured that quite a lot of the population we've been exposed to one of
those viruses, and would probably have a perhaps substantial protective immunity. And just to explain why I was so
confident everybody knows the story of Edward Jenner and vaccination, and the story of cowpox and smallpox. And that the
old story was that milkmaids had very, uh, clear complexions: they never suffered from things like smallpox, that if it
didn't kill you would leave your skin permanently scarred. And the reason that they had the protection was that they
were exposed to a more benign, related virus called cowpox.
Edward Jenner came up with the idea that if
it's cowpox that saves the fair maid – he reasoned that if he could give another person an exposure to the cowpox, he
would be able to protect them from smallpox. Now, he did an experiment that you can't do now – and he never should have
done it – but apocryphally, or really, or maybe you're ill, we're not sure. Edward Jenner acquired some of the liquid
from a person infected with cowpox. Relatively mild pustules that then go away. And he got some of this and he – he
scraped it into the skin of a small boy and a few weeks later, he obtained some liquid from some poor person that was
dying of smallpox and infected the boy. And, lo and behold, the boy did not get ill and that gave birth to the whole
field of what's called vaccination. And vax, the vaccine's "vac." It comes from "vaccus," the Latin name for cow. So, we
are really familiar with the principle of cross immunization.
I've thought quite a lot about, you know, the
vulnerable people in in care homes and there's an awareness that, even though people really careful using PPE and so on,
but that's only going to go so far in a kind of, hot house environment where people are pretty close together in a care
home. So the question I've had all year is: once one or two people, you know, got the virus in a care home, why wouldn't
almost everyone get infected? And of course the truth is, they didn't. And one interpretation of that distinction is
that a large proportion of people in the care homes had prior immunity.
At this time of year, about 1 in 30 people
have a cold, caused by one of these coronaviruses. And just like the protection against smallpox provided by previous
exposure to cowpox, so people exposed to having had a cold caused by one of these coronaviruses they're now immune to
SARS-CoV-2. So, 30% of the population was protected before the start. SAGE said it was
zero
–
and
I don't understand how they could possibly have justified that. There's a second, and equally
fatal
,
unaccountable error that they have made in their model. The percentage of the population that SAGE asserts have been
infected to date by the virus is about seven percent. I know that that's what they believe and you can see it in a
document they published in September called "Non-pharmaceutical interventions" and it says sadly more than 90% of the
population is still vulnerable.
It's unbelievably wrong. And I'm just going to
explain why: they've based their number on the percentage of people in the country who have antibodies in their blood.
And only the people who became most ill needed to actually develop and release antibodies around their body. So, it is
certainly true that the people who have lots of antibodies were infected. But a very large number of people had milder
symptoms, and even more people had none at all. And the best estimates that we can arrive at is that those people either
made no antibodies, or so low amounts that they will have faded from now.
A recent publication on the percentage of care
home residents who have antibodies to the virus very, very interesting. This time they were using high sensitivity tests
for antibodies and they carefully picked out residents that never were PCR-positive: these are people who never got
infected. And they found that 65% of them had antibodies to the virus; they never got infected. So I believe there was
high prevalence of immunity in that population prior to the virus arriving. Big story in the media, recently, was that
the percentage of people with antibodies against the virus in their blood was falling. Now, this was cast as a concern
that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 doesn't last very long. Well, you know, anyone with knowledge of immunity would – would just
simply reject that. It's not the way immunity to virus works – that would be T-cells. So, if the antibodies are falling
gradually over time – which they have – from spring to present, the only plausible explanation is that the prevalence of
the virus in the population is falling, and that's why the antibody production gradually subsides.
Less than 40% of the population are
susceptible. Even theoretical epidemiologists would tell you that that's too small a number to support a consolidated
and growing outbreak, community immunity, herd immunity. So, SAGE says that we're not even close, and I'm telling you
that the best science, by the best scientists in the world, published in the top peer-reviewed journals, says they're
wrong: that more than 60 of the population are now immune, and it's simply not possible to have a large and growing
pandemic.
Really good news, genuine good news, to hear
that there's data emerging from the vaccine clinical trials, and we are seeing vaccines that raise not just antibodies –
but they're also producing T-cell responses. This is great; back to proper science, proper immunology. That's how
immunity to viruses works. So, my surprise though, and it's just annoying that when we're talking about, uh, the
percentage of the population that's still susceptible we only talk about antibodies, like seven percent from SAGE. Why
are we not talking about the 50% that have got T-cell immunity?
And so you might be thinking if Mike – and Dr
Mike Yeadon is telling you these things – or how come the pandemic isn't over? Well, this may come as a surprise to
you, but I believe fundamentally it is over. The country has experienced almost a complete cycle now of the virus
sweeping through the land, and we are at the end of it. London was –was horribly affected in the spring, and somewhere
in early April they were experiencing several hundred deaths per day from people dying with similar symptoms in
respiratory failure and, uh, inflammation. And at the moment the number of people dying of SARS-CoV-2 in the capital is
less than 10. So it's down by 98, or something like that. And, the reason it's down, is because there are now too few
people in London susceptible to allow the virus to magnify, to amplify, to get an epidemic. And, and they would have
been hit by now, because they were the first place hit in the spring. And I think what we're seeing now in the Northeast
and the Northwest would be the dying embers of the spreading out of this virus. And I'm very sorry that it is still
true, that a small number of people are catching it, getting ill, and dying.
So why aren't the media telling us that the
pandemic is over? It's not over because SAGE says it's not. So SAGE consists of very many scientists, from a range of
disciplines – mathematicians and clinicians – and there are multiple committees. But I found to my surprise – and I'm
actually going to use the word –
horror
,
that
in the spring, all the way through the spring and summer, SAGE did not have on their committee someone who I would call
a card-carrying immunologist; a clinical immunologist. I have to say I think that in the spring and summer SAGE was
deficient in the expertise it had. They should have armed themselves, you know, with – around the table all the people
required to to understand what was happening, and they didn't do that. People asked me then, "Well Mike, if it's, you
know, if it's fundamentally over, why are we still getting hundreds of deaths a day from SARS-CoV-2?" And I've thought a
lot about this. There is a test that's performed where people have their noses and tonsils swabbed, and then a test
(called a PCR test) is performed on that. And what they're looking for isn't the virus – you might think it's looking
for the virus, but it's not. What they're looking for is a small piece of genetic sequence; it's called RNA.
Unfortunately, that bit of RNA will be found in people's tonsils and nose not if they've just caught the virus, and
they're about to get ill, or they're already ill. It's also going to be found if they were infected
previously
weeks
– or even, sometimes, a small number of months ago. Let me just explain why that is.
If you've been infected, and you've fought off
the virus (which most people do), you'll have broken, dead bits of virus. These are tiny things smaller than your cells,
perhaps spread all the way through your airway, embedded in bits of mucus, maybe inside an airway lining cell. And so
over a period of weeks or months you bring up cells that contain broken, dead pieces of the virus that you have
conquered and killed. However, the PCR test is not able to detect whether the viral RNA has come from a living virus or
a dead one (as I've just described). So I think a large proportion of the so-called positives are, in fact, what I call
"cold" positives: they're correctly identifying that there is some viral RNA in the sample – but it's from a dead virus.
It can't hurt them, they're not going to get ill, they can't transmit it to anybody else. So they're not infectious. So
that accounts for a large number of the so-called positive cases. These are people who've beaten the virus. Why are we
using this test that cannot distinguish between active infection and people who've conquered the virus?
This test has never been used in this way –
and I've worked in this field. It's not a suitable technique it's a – it's the kind of technique you would use for
forensic purposes, if you were trying to do a DNA test to establish whether or not a person was at the scene of a crime.
You would not be doing these tests by a windy, supermarket car parking; what looks like plastic marquee tents; on picnic
tables. It's not suitable at all – and it definitely shouldn't be done in the way it's been done. It's subject to many
mechanical errors, should we say, handling errors. If this was a test being used for legal purposes, for forensic
purposes like a DNA identity test, the judge would throw out this evidence; would say it's not admissible. It produces
positives even when there's no virus there at all. We call that a false positive.
As we've increased the number of tests done
per day, so we've had to recruit less and less experienced laboratory staff – and now we're using people who've never
worked professionally in this area. What that does is it increases the frequency of mistakes, and the effect of this is
that the false positive rate rises and rises. So, if you had a false positive rate of one percent – which Mr. Matt
Hancock [British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care] told us was roughly the number they had in the summer –
then if you tested a thousand people that had no virus ten of them would be positive, astonishingly. If the prevalence
of the virus was only one in a thousand, that's 0.1% – as the
Office
for National Statistics
told us it was through the summer – then if you use the PCR test only one of them will be
positive and genuinely so. But if the false positive rate is as low as one percent, you'll also get 10 positives that
are false.
Some people did say to me, "Well, there'll be
a higher percentage of people coming forward for testing in the community," so-called "Pillar 2" testing, because
they've been instructed only to come if they've got symptoms. But I call B.S. on that one. I don't think that's true. I
know lots of friends and relatives who've been told by an employer, "Well, you've sat near someone who's tested
positive, and I don't want you to come back to work until you've got a negative test." I've seen information from many
towns in the North – certainly Birmingham was one; Manchester was another; Bolton – where councils (and I really think
they were trying to be helpful) were out leafleting the people of their cities saying, "We're going to come round and
swab you all because we want to track down this virus." Now once you start testing people, more or less randomly,
instead of [those] having symptoms you get the same amount of virus in the population as the Office of National
Statistics found which is, at the time was, one in a thousand. And I've just told you Matt Hancock confirmed during the
summer they had a false positive rate of about one percent. So that means out of a thousand people 10 would test
positive, and it would be a false result, and only one would test positive and it was correct.
This test is monstrously unsuitable for
detecting who has live virus in their airway. It's subject to multiple distortions that are worsening as we get into the
winter. As the number of tests done per day increase[s], the number of errors made by these overworked, not very
experienced lab staff increase[s]. I think it's not unreasonable to say a best guess of the false positive rate at the
moment – what's called the operational false positive rate is about five percent. Five percent of 300,000 is 15,000
positives. I think some of those positives are real; I don't think it's very many. Now, the problem with this false
positive issue [is] it doesn't just stop it at "cases": it extends to people who are unwell and go to hospital. So
people who go to hospital having tested positive – and it could be a false positive, and I think most of them are at the
moment – if you go to hospital and you've tested positive previously, or you test positive in hospital, you'll be
counted now as a Covid admission.
Although there are more people in hospital now
than a month ago, this is normal for autumn. Regrettably, people catch respiratory viruses and become ill, and some will
die. I just don't believe it's got anything to do with Covid-19 anymore. There are more people in intensive care beds
now than there were a month or so ago. That's entirely normal as we move through late autumn into the early winter:
those beds become used. But there aren't more people than is normal for the time of year, and we're not about to run out
of capacity, certainly at a national level. But I think you know it is going now: if you should now die, you'll be
counted as a Covid death. But that's not correct; these are people who might have – have gone to hospital having had a
broken leg, for example, but they'll – three percent of them will still test positive, and they're not, they haven't got
the virus. It's a – it's a false positive, and if they die they'll be called a Covid death – and they are not. They've
died of something else.
One of the most troubling things I've heard
this year was Mr. Johnson telling us about the "Moonshot" testing everybody often, maybe every day, is the way out of
this problem. I'm telling you it's the way to keep us in this problem: that number of tests is orders of magnitude
higher than we're already testing now, and the false positive rate (however low it is) will be far too large to accept.
It will produce an enormous number of false positives.
What we should do is stop mass testing. Not
only is it an affront to your liberty, it will not help at all: it will be immensely expensive and it will be a
pathology all of its own. We'll be fighting off stupid people – mostly government ministers – I'm sorry to say, who are
not numerate, and do not understand statistics. If you test a million people a day with a test that produces one percent
false positives, 10 000 people a day will wrongly be told they've got the virus. If the prevalence of the virus was say
0.1%, like the Office of National Statistics said it was in summer, then only a tenth of that number, uh, 1,000 would
correctly be identified. But you can't distinguish amongst the 11,000 who have genuinely got the virus and who are false
positives. Moonshot, I think, will have a worse false positive rate. It's not fixable, and it's not necessary either.
The pandemic – having passed through the population not only of, of the UK, but of all of Europe – and probably all of
the world quite soon – it won't return. Why won't it return? Well, they've got T-cell immunity. We know this. It's been
studied by the best cellular immunologists in the world.
Sometimes people will say, "Well, it looks
like the immunity is starting to fade." You'll sometimes see [statements] like that, and when I saw the first headline
like this I remember being really quite confused, because that's not the way immunology works. Just think about it for a
moment. If that was how it worked it could kill you. When you had to fight it off, and if you had successfully done
that, it somehow didn't leave a mark in your body. Well, it does leave a mark on your body. The way you fought it off
involved certain pattern recognition receptors, and has left you with – as it were – memory cells that remember what it
was they fought off. And if they see that thing again it's very easy for them to get those cells to work again in
minutes or hours, and they will protect you. So the most likely explanation is it'll last a long time.
So I read a bit more about this so-called
tailing off of immunity – and I realized they were talking about antibodies. Just incorrect to – to think that
antibodies, and how long they stay up, is a measure of immune protection against viruses. I mean you can tell I'm – I
don't agree with this. It says there have been some classic experiments done on people who have inborn errors in parts
of their immune system, and some of them have inborn arrows that means they can't make antibodies, and guess what: they
– they are able to handle respiratory viruses the same as you and me. So, I don't think it's harmful to have antibodies,
although some people are worried about the potential for amplifying inflammation from antibodies, but – but my view is
that they're – they're probably neutral, and you definitely should not believe the story that because the antibody falls
away you've lost immunity. Again, that's just not the way the human immune system works.
The most likely duration of immunity to a
respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept
through parts of the world 17 years ago called SARS, and remember SARS-CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that's
the best comparison that anyone can provide. The evidence is clear. These very clever cellular immunologists studied all
the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether
they responded or not to the original SARS, and they all did. They all have perfectly normal, robust T-cell memory. They
are actually also protected against SARS-CoV-2 because it's so similar, it's cross-immunity. So, I would say the best
data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it's entirely possible that it is
lifelong. The style of the responses of these people's T-cells were the same as if you've been vaccinated and then you
come back years later to see, has that immunity been retained? And so I think the evidence is really strong that the
duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.
There have been but a tiny handful of people
who appear to have been infected twice – now they're very interesting, we need to know who they are and understand them
very well, they've probably got certain rare immune deficiency syndromes. So I'm not pretending no one ever gets
reinfected, but I am pointing out that it's literally five people (or maybe 50 people), but the World Health
Organization estimated some weeks ago that 750 million people have been infected so far by SARS-CoV-2. That means most
people are not being reinfected, and I can tell you why that is: it's normal. It's what happens with viruses,
respiratory viruses. Some people have – have called for "zero Covid" as if it's some political slogan. And there are
some people I've heard calling for it almost every day; they're completely unqualified to tell you anything.
Something that's really important to know is
that SARS-CoV-2 – it's an unpleasant virus. There's no question about it, but it's not what you were told in spring. We
were originally told that it would kill perhaps three percent of people it infected – which is horrifying. That's 30
times worse than flu. We always overestimate the lethality of new infectious diseases when we're in the eye of the
storm. I believe the true infection fatality ratio of Covid-19, the true threat to life is, the same as seasonal flu.
So there's no reason why you would want to try
and drive Covid to zero. It's a nonsense – that's just not how biology is. And all the means I have heard, uh, proposed,
as ways to get us there are much more damaging and pathological, I would say, than than the virus itself. It's simply
not possible to get rid of every single copy of the Covid-19 virus, and the means to get you there would destroy
society. Forget the cost – although it would be huge – it would destroy your liberty, you would need to not go out until
you've been tested and have your result back. And I have described how the false positive rate would just destroy it
from a statistical perspective. I don't believe it can be done: it's not scientifically realistic, it's not medically
realistic, and it's not what we have ever done.
As the virus swept towards the UK in the – in
the late winter and early spring I too was concerned, because at the time we were told perhaps three percent might die.
So when the Prime Minister called for a lockdown I wasn't pleased about it, but I understood that we should try this.
But it's important that you understand, that when we look at the profile of the pandemic as it passed through the
population, that it was clear that the number of infections every day was falling. We'd passed the peak quite a long
time before lockdown started. So we took all that pain, that locked down pain which was multiple weeks – I don't
remember exactly how many multiple weeks – we took it for nothing. If there was a really important effect of lockdown on
the number of people who died, or the rate of it, you should at least be able to order them. Like, these people had
locked down, and these didn't – and you cannot. All heavily infected countries' shapes are the same, whether they had
locked down or not. They don't work. I don't know why anyone is allowing you, know you, to be pushed into this corner.
I don't think we entirely know why it is that
some countries were hit harder than others, but I have to say I think scientifically the smart money is on a mixture of
forces. One would be this cross immunity. Although China had an awful time in Wuhan, in Hubei province, it didn't spread
elsewhere in the country, and I suspect that meant because a lot of them had this cross immunity. And I think nearby
countries, in the main, had lots of cross immunity. So that's one possibility. The other one, though, is in terms of the
severity of what did the virus do to a particular population. We've seen devastating effects in countries like UK and in
Belgium, uh, France, and maybe even in Sweden, and much smaller numbers of deaths in other countries like – like Greece
and in Germany. And you might think, "Well, was that was it something that they did?" And I wish it was true, because if
it was something we did we could learn from it and do it and it would work in the future. But there's no evidence
whatsoever that it was anything humans did. The passage of this virus through the human population is an entirely
natural process that completely ignored our puny efforts to control it.
So there is this theory – I don't like the
name very much – but it's called "dry tinder." If people in a country who are vulnerable for to dying in the winter
(usually of respiratory viruses), if you have a very mild winter season, like UK did – we had a very mild seasonal flu
last year and the year before and so did Sweden – then what happens is there are larger number of very vulnerable people
who are even older than usual, and – and I think that's why we suffered a rather large number of deaths. It was still
only 0.06% of the population, equivalent to about four weeks of normal mortality. But countries that had very severe
winters recently, and Greece and Germany certainly had very lethal winter flus in the last two years. I think then, they
had a smaller population of very vulnerable people, and that is the main reason why they lost fewer people. It's not to
do with locking down, it's not to do with testing, or tracking, or tracing. I personally don't think any of those
measures have made any difference at all. So Belgium and UK and Sweden were particularly vulnerable, whereas adjacent
Nordic countries – I – I get fed up with hearing about this, uh, idea that they locked down and that's why it saved them
and afraid the other Nordic countries had normal flu epidemics the last two or three years. Sweden, like UK, had very
mild epidemics: you can just go and look at the number of deaths, it's sub-normal for UK and Sweden. And now we've got a
supra-normal, a larger-than-normal, number of deaths from Covid.
Now there may be other reasons, I'm not saying
there are not but I think those two main forces – the amount of prior immunity and the so-called "dry tinder," what
vulnerable fraction of the population did you have as a result of seasonal flu being intense or not – I think that
accounts for most of it. And it's – it's just hubristic and kind of silly that our government and advisors tell you that
doing things that have never worked in the past, like lockdown are going to make any difference to the transfer of
respiratory viruses. I don't believe it for a moment. There's no scientific evidence behind it and there are much
stronger scientific hypotheses that do explain it. You might think that in terms of numbers of deaths – excess deaths –
that Covid has produced such a large number that this will be an awful year for excess deaths, but surprisingly not.
2020 is lining up to be about eighth in a list since 1993.
Roughly 620,000 people die every year in this
country (UK). They say in life we are also in death – and it's true, it's been awful for those who have been personally
affected by illness and death, but it's not particularly unusual in terms of the
number
of
people who've died. So one of the things I've noticed has happened in – in recent years is that we almost seem to be
moving, uh, you know post-science, post-fact as if – as if facts don't matter. For someone who's qualified and practiced
as a professional scientist for 35 years I think it's deeply distressing that, I don't think you should listen to me if
I talked about – I don't know, the design of motorways or something – like, I don't know anything about motorways or –
or how to grow trees better, I don't know anything about that. But I do know quite a lot about immunology, infection,
inflammation, and the way infectious organisms move through a population.
I've no other reason for giving this interview
other than I really care what happens to my country – and we have to pull ourselves out of this. And I personally
believe the way forward is twofold, it's not difficult. One, we should cease mass testing of the mostly-well in the
community
immediately –
it only provides misleading and grey information, and
yet we're driving policy almost completely based on it. It's definitely wrong, we should not do it. Use the tests in
hospital – I'm not saying don't test – don't continue mass testing, and for God's sake, don't increase the number of
tests. It is a pathology all of its own which must be stamped out by right thinking people. And I'm afraid the people on
SAGE, who have provided the modeling, the predictions, the – the measures that should be taken, that their work is so
badly, and obviously flawed – lethally incompetent, that you should have no more to do with these people. They should be
fired immediately. And the effect of that advice has been to – have cost lots of innocent people their lives from
non-Covid causes, they should be dismissed and reconstituted using an appropriate group of skilled individuals –
especially avoiding any who might even have the
suggestion
of a conflict of
interest. I think we're right at the edge of the precipice. I really hope that we can pull back.
Founded in 1933,
the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is one of the oldest and most respected nonpartisan
economic research and advocacy organizations in the country. With a global reach and influence, AIER is
dedicated to developing and promoting the ideas of pure freedom and private governance by
combining
advanced economic research with accessible media outreach and educational programming
to cultivate a
better, broader understanding of the fundamental principles that enable peace and prosperity around the
world.
Get notified of new articles from AIER Staff and AIER.
SUBSCRIBE
RELATED ARTICLES – CRISIS, VIDEO
Jordan
Schachtel
–
May 20, 2021
How Team Biden Ended Covid Mania Overnight
READ MORE
AIER is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit
registered in the US under EIN: 04-2121305
AIER would like to update you with the latest economic research, articles, and news .
Allow
Cancel
On Monday more than 30million Britons will be under Tier Two and Three restrictions.
We will then have days – a few weeks at best – until the inevitable total
lockdown.
While Boris Johnson will be the person announcing that catastrophic decision, the measures
are being dictated by a small group of scientists who, in my view, have repeatedly got things
terribly wrong.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) has made three incorrect assumptions
which have had, and continue to have, disastrous consequences for people's lives and the
economy.
Firstly, Sage assumes that the vast majority of the population is vulnerable to infection;
second, that only 7 per cent of the population has been infected so far; and third, that the
virus causing Covid-19 has a mortality rate of about 1 per cent.
+5
Many individuals who've been infected by other coronaviruses have immunity to closely
related ones such as the Covid-19 virus, argues Dr Mike Yeardon PM Boris Johnson considering
placing England under national lockdown Loaded : 0% Progress : 0% 0:00 Previous Play Skip Mute
Current Time 0:00 / Duration Time 0:53 Fullscreen Need Text
+5
According to Cambridge University the Covid-19 mortality rate is at 1.4% , followed by
Imperial College London with 1.2% and an Australian study with 0.75% Dr Yeardon cites the
Stanford study, saying: 'After extensive world wide surveys, pre-eminent scientists such as
John Ioannidis, professor of epidemiology at Stanford University in California, have concluded
that the mortality rate is closer to 0.2 per cent.'
In the absence of further action, Sage concludes that a very high number of deaths will
occur.
If these assumptions were based on fact, then I might have some sympathy with their
position.
After all, if 93 per cent of the country – as they claim – was still potentially
vulnerable to a virus that kills one in 100 people who are infected, I too would want to use
any means necessary to suppress infection until a vaccine comes along, no matter the cost.
The reality, though, is rather different.
Firstly, while the Covid-19 virus is new, other coronaviruses are not.
We have experience of SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2012, while in the UK there are at least four
known strains of coronavirus which cause the common cold.
Many individuals who've been infected by other coronaviruses have immunity to closely
related ones such as the Covid-19 virus.
Multiple research groups in Europe and the US have shown that around 30 per cent of the
population was likely already immune to Covid-19 before the virus arrived – something
which Sage continues to ignore.
+5 +5
Sage has similarly failed to accurately revise down its estimated mortality rate for the
virus.
Early in the epidemic Sage modelled a mortality rate of around 1 per cent and, from what I
understand, they may now be working with a number closer to 0.7, which is still far too
high.
After extensive world wide surveys, pre-eminent scientists such as John Ioannidis, professor
of epidemiology at Stanford University in California, have concluded that the mortality rate is
closer to 0.2 per cent.
That figure means one in 500 people infected die.
When applied to the total number of Covid deaths in the UK (around 45,000), this would imply
that approximately 22.5million people have been infected.
That is 33.5 per cent of our population – not Sage's 7 per cent calculation.
Sage reached its conclusion by assessing the prevalence of Covid-19 antibodies in national
blood surveys.
Yet we know that not every infected individual produces antibodies.
Indeed, the immune systems of most healthy people bypass the complex and energy-intensive
process of making antibodies because the virus can be overcome by other means.
The human immune system has several lines of defence.
These include innate immunity which is comprised of the body's physical barriers to
infection and protective secretions (the skin and its oils, the cough reflex, tears etc); its
inflammatory response (to localise and minimise infection and injury), and the production of
non-specific cells (phagocytes) that target an invading virus/bacterium.
In addition, the immune system produces antibodies that protect against a specific virus or
bacterium (and confer immunity) and T-cells (a type of white blood cell) that are also
specific.
Covid-19 immunity may only last for a few months Loaded : 0% Progress : 0% 0:00
Previous Play Skip Mute Current Time 0:00 / Duration Time 1:27 Fullscreen Need Text RELATED
ARTICLES
It is the T-cells that are crucial in our body's response to respiratory viruses such as
Covid-19.
Studies show that while not all individuals infected by the Covid-19 viruses have
antibodies, they do have T-cells that can respond to the virus and therefore have immunity.
I am persuaded of this because, of the 750million people the World Health Organisation says
have been infected by the virus to date, almost none have been reinfected.
Yes, there have been a handful of cases but they are anomalies, a tiny number among three
quarters of a billion people.
The fact is that people don't get reinfected. That is how the immune system works and if it
didn't, humanity would not have survived.
+5
Percentage change in coronavirus cases across London in the week to October 25. Dr Yeardon
writes:' Ministers and some parts of the media present the pandemic as the biggest public
health emergency in decades, when in fact mortality in 2020 so far ranks eighth out of the last
27 years.'
So, if some 33.5 per cent of our population have already been infected by the virus this
year (and are now immune) – and a further 30 per cent were already immune before we even
heard of Covid-19, then once you also factor in that a tenth of the UK population is aged ten
or under and therefore largely invulnerable (children are rarely made ill by the virus), that
leaves about 26.5 per cent of people who are actually susceptible to being infected.
That's a far cry from Sage's current prediction of 93 per cent.
It is also worth contextualising the UK death toll.
Ministers and some parts of the media present the pandemic as the biggest public health
emergency in decades, when in fact mortality in 2020 so far ranks eighth out of the last 27
years.
The death rate at present is also normal for the time of year – the number of
respiratory deaths is actually low for late October.
In other words, not only is the virus less dangerous than we are being led to believe, with
almost three quarters of the population at no risk of infection, we're actually very close to
achieving herd immunity.
Which is why I am convinced this so-called second wave of rising infections and, sadly,
deaths will fizzle out without overwhelming the NHS.
On that basis, the nation should immediately be allowed to resume normal life – at the
very least we should be avoiding a second national lockdown at all costs.
I believe that Sage has been appallingly negligent and its incompetence has cost the lives
of thousands of people from avoidable, non-coronavirus causes while simultaneously decimating
our economy and today I implore ministers to start listening to a broader scientific view.
My argument against the need for lockdown isn't too dissimilar to the Great Barrington
Declaration, co-authored by three professors from Oxford, Harvard and Stanford universities
– laughably dismissed as 'emphatically false' by Health Secretary Matt Hancock who has no
scientific qualifications – and signed by more then 44,000 scientists, public health
experts and clinicians so far, including Nobel Prize winner Dr Michael Levitt.
In my opinion, this government is ignoring a formidable collective of respected scientific
opinion and relying instead on its body of deified, yet incompetent advisers.
I have no confidence in Sage – and neither should you – and I fear that, yet
again, they're about to force further decisions that we will look back on with deep regret.
If we are to take one thing from 2020, it is that we should demand more honesty and
competence from those appointed to look after us. Share or comment on this article:DR MIKE YEADON:Three facts
Money quote: "I think the PCR test at present is throwing up so many false positives that in
fact we're misdiagnosing the cause of the deaths that are being reported. The number of deaths at
the moment is normal for the time of year. So if I'm right and the pandemic is fundamentally
over, what's going on? And I think quite simply it's not over because SAGE says it's not!"
Notable quotes:
"... You also don't set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn't been extensively tested on human subjects." ..."
Michael Yeadon has voiced [his concerns about government policies regarding COVID-19] and it
has left everyone shocked. As Pfizer pharmaceuticals breaks news for
bringing corona virus vaccine , a former vice president and chief scientists of the company
Michael Yeadon said that there is no need for any vaccine to end the ongoing pandemic.
According to a report published in the Lockdown Sceptics, Yeadon wrote: "There is absolutely
no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. You do not vaccinate people who aren't at risk
from the disease. You also don't set about
planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn't been
extensively tested on human subjects." Yeadon made the comment on the vaccine development
while criticizing the role played by the Scientific Advisory
Group for Emergencies (SAGE), a government agency of the UK.
SAGE is tasked with a role to determine public lockdown policies; in the UK, as a response
to the COVID-19 virus. He added, "SAGE says everyone was susceptible and only 7 per cent have
been infected. They have ignored all precedent in the field of immunology memory against
respiratory viruses. They have either not seen or disregarded excellent quality work from
numerous world-leading clinical immunologists; which show that around 30 per cent of the
population had prior immunity."
Michael Yeadon wrote "They should also have excluded from 'susceptible' a large subset; of
the youngest children, who appear not to become infected biology; means their cells express
less of the spike protein receptor, called ACE2. I have not assumed all young children don't
participate in transmission, but believe a two-thirds value is very conservative. It's not
material anyway. So SAGE is demonstrably wrong in one really crucial variable, they assumed no
prior immunity, whereas the evidence clearly points; to a value of around 30 per cent (and
nearly 40 per cent if you include some young children, who technically are 'resistant' rather
than 'immune')."
He concluded that the pandemic is effectively over and; can easily be handled by a properly
functioning NHS (National Health Service).
They have total control of the narrative and if there is any push back by anybody they are
censored or scapegoated. The journey into Informational Dystopia took less than 18
months.
Dr. Samantha Bailey; Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown;
Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr. Peter Doshi; Dr. Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr.
Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff; Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph
Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits; Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr.
Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Michael Yeadon, wasn't just any scientist. The 60-year-old is a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an
allergy and respiratory researcher. He later co-founded a biotech firm that the Swiss drugmaker Novartis purchased for at least $325
million.
This is amazing interview for a scientist who really knows his staff... His warning is
essentially a very powerful warning against Lysenkoism in science.
I disagree with him on some minor points like wearing masks in closed spaces as well as the spectrum of applicability of
vaccines (I think that healthcare workers, teachers and other people who systematically interact with a lot of (possibly infected)
people might benefit from vaccination, which should in any case be strocly voluntary. But I agree that vaccinating people who
already have had COVID-19 and children s very questionable and probably indefensible practice -- flavor of Lysenkoism which is
called Fauchism. Also stress of vaccines and downgrading therapy is also Faucism, or worse.
I also disagree with his statement that vaccine should be effective against all strains. Now we know that htis not the case. For
exampe South afrecan mutation successfully infects people vaccinated wit the the first generation vaccines.
He is against medicines which are used with violation of safety protocols. He is anti unsafe
medicines, no matter what they are.
We never have such an absurd attribution of death to COVID, when that fact the diseased is
false positive serve as the key reason of death
Lockdowns were political hysteria. Witch hunt against witches which never arrived. They were
unscientific and fradulent. Lockdown were never used before because they are ineffective. Instead
in the past guaranteed the sick. Mass testing of people without symptoms is Lysenkoism and defies
common sense.
Non-symptomatic people will not infect you. That's faucism and new flavor of Lysenkoism.
Asymptomatic transmission is bunk. It can happen but this never exceed fraction of one
percent.
It is all about increasing of the level of fear and increasing political control as in famous
quote. The only open question to what end this control will used for.
PCR technology is similar to technology used in forensic investigation using genetic
material. They just ignore false positives. Nobody in the world releases the percentage of false
positive of PcR test and dependence of the number of false positive on the number of
amplification.
I never expected to be writing something like this. I am an ordinary person, recently semi-retired from a career in the
pharmaceutical industry and biotech, where I spent over 30 years trying to solve problems of disease understanding and seek new
treatments for allergic and inflammatory disorders of lung and skin. I've always been interested in problem solving, so when
anything biological comes along, my attention is drawn to it. Come 2020, came SARS-CoV-2. I've written
about the pandemic as objectively as I could. The scientific method never leaves a person who trained and worked as a
professional scientist. Please do read that piece. My co-authors & I will submit it to the normal rigours of peer review, but that
process is slow and many pieces of new science this year have come to attention through pre-print servers and other less
conventional outlets.
While paying close attention to data, we all initially focused on the sad matter of deaths. I found it remarkable that, in
discussing the COVID-19 related deaths, most people I spoke to had no idea of large numbers. Asked approximately how many people a
year die in the UK in the ordinary course of events, each a personal tragedy, They usually didn't know. I had to inform them it is
around 620,000, sometimes less if we had a mild winter, sometimes quite a bit higher if we had a severe 'flu season. I mention this
number because we know that around 42,000 people have died with or of COVID-19. While it's a huge number of people, its 'only' 0.06%
of the UK population. Its not a coincidence that this is almost the same proportion who have died with or of COVID-19 in each of the
heavily infected European countries – for example, Sweden. The annual all-causes mortality of 620,000 amounts to 1,700 per day,
lower in summer and higher in winter. That has always been the lot of humans in the temperate zones. So for context, 42,000 is about
~24 days worth of normal mortality. Please know I am not minimising it, just trying to get some perspective on it. Deaths of this
magnitude are not uncommon, and can occur in the more severe flu seasons. Flu vaccines help a little, but on only three occasions in
the last decade did vaccination reach 50% effectiveness. They're good, but they've never been magic bullets for respiratory viruses.
Instead, we have learned to live with such viruses, ranging from numerous common colds all the way to pneumonias which can kill.
Medicines and human caring do their best.
So, to this article. Its about the testing we do with something called PCR, an amplification technique, better known to biologists
as a research tool used in our labs, when trying to unpick mechanisms of disease. I was frankly astonished to realise they're
sometimes used in population screening for diseases – astonished because it is a very exacting technique, prone to invisible errors
and it's quite a tall order to get reliable information out of it, especially because of the prodigious amounts of amplification
involved in attempting to pick up a strand of viral genetic code. The test cannot distinguish between a living virus and a short
strand of RNA from a virus which broke into pieces weeks or months ago.
I believe I have identified a serious, really a fatal flaw in the PCR test used in what is called by the UK Government the Pillar 2
screening – that is, testing many people out in their communities. I'm going to go through this with care and in detail because I'm
a scientist and dislike where this investigation takes me. I'm not particularly political and my preference is for competent, honest
administration over the actual policies chosen. We're a reasonable lot in UK and not much given to extremes. What I'm particularly
reluctant about is that, by following the evidence, I have no choice but to show that the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, misled the
House of Commons and also made misleading statements in a radio interview. Those are serious accusations. I know that. I'm not a
ruthless person. But I'm writing this anyway, because what I have uncovered is of monumental importance to the health and wellbeing
of all the people living in the nation I have always called home.
Back to the story, and then to the evidence. When the first (and I think, only) wave of COVID-19 hit the UK, I was with almost
everyone else in being very afraid. I'm 60 and in reasonable health, but on learning that I had about a 1% additional risk of
perishing if I caught the virus, I discovered I was far from ready to go. So, I wasn't surprised or angry when the first lockdown
arrived. It must have been a very difficult thing to decide. However, before the first three-week period was over, I'd begun to
develop an understanding of what was happening. The rate of infection, which has been calculated to have infected well over 100,000
new people every day around the peak, began to fall, and was declining before lockdown. Infection continued to spread out, at an
ever-reducing rate and we saw this in the turning point of daily deaths, at a grim press conference each afternoon. We now know that
lockdown made no difference at all to the spread of the virus. We can tell this because the interval between catching the virus and,
in those who don't make it, their death is longer than the interval between lockdown and peak daily deaths. There isn't any
controversy about this fact, easily demonstrated, but I'm aware some people like to pretend it was lockdown that turned the
pandemic, perhaps to justify the extraordinary price we have all paid to do it. That price wasn't just economic. It involved
avoidable deaths from diseases other than COVID-19, as medical services were restricted, in order to focus on the virus. Some say
that lockdown, directly and indirectly, killed as many as the virus. I don't know. Its not something I've sought to learn. But I
mention because interventions in all our lives should not be made lightly. Its not only inconvenience, but real suffering, loss of
livelihoods, friendships, anchors of huge importance to us all, that are severed by such acts. We need to be certain that the prize
is worth the price. While it is uncertain it was, even for the first lockdown, I too supported it, because we did not know what we
faced, and frankly, almost everyone else did it, except Sweden. I am now resolutely against further interventions in what I have
become convinced is a fruitless attempt to 'control the virus'. We are, in my opinion – shared by others, some of whom are well
placed to assess the situation – closer to the end of the pandemic in terms of deaths, than we are to its middle. I believe we
should provide the best protection we can for any vulnerable people, and otherwise cautiously get on with our lives. I think we are
all going to get a little more Swedish over time.
In recent weeks, though, it cannot have escaped anyone's attention that there has been a drum beat which feels for all the world
like a prelude to yet more fruitless and damaging restrictions. Think back to mid-summer. We were newly out of lockdown and despite
concerns for crowded beaches, large demonstrations, opening of shops and pubs, the main item on the news in relation to COVID-19 was
the reassuring and relentless fall in daily deaths. I noticed that, as compared to the slopes of the declining death tolls in many
nearby countries, that our slope was too flat. I even mentioned to scientist friends that inferred the presence of some fixed signal
that was being mixed up with genuine COVID-19 deaths. Imagine how gratifying it was when the definition of a COVID-19 death was
changed to line up with that in other countries and in a heartbeat our declining death toll line became matched with that elsewhere.
I was sure it would: what we have experienced and witnessed is a terrible kind of equilibrium. A virus that kills few, then leaves
survivors who are almost certainly immune – a virus to which perhaps 30-50% were already immune because it has relatives and some of
us have already encountered them – accounts for the whole terrible but also fascinating biological process. There was a very interesting
piece in the BMJ in
recent days that offers potential support for this contention.
Now we have learned some of the unusual characteristics of the new virus, better treatments (anti-inflammatory steroids,
anti-coagulants and in particular, oxygen masks and not ventilators in the main) the 'case fatality rate' even for the most hard-hit
individuals is far lower now than it was six months ago.
As there is no foundational, medical or scientific literature which tells us to expect a 'second wave', I began to pay more
attention to the phrase as it appeared on TV, radio and print media – all on the same day – and has been relentlessly repeated ever
since. I was interviewed
recently by Julia Hartley-Brewer on her talkRADIO show and on that occasion I called on the Government to disclose to us the
evidence upon which they were relying to predict this second wave. Surely they have some evidence? I don't think they do. I searched
and am very qualified to do so, drawing on academic friends, and we were all surprised to find that there is nothing at all. The
last two novel coronaviruses, Sar (2003) and MERS (2012), were of one wave each. Even the WW1 flu 'waves' were almost certainly a
series of single waves involving more than one virus. I believe any second wave talk is pure speculation. Or perhaps it is in a
model somewhere, disconnected from the world of evidence to me? It would be reasonable to expect some limited 'resurgence' of a
virus given we don't mix like cordial in a glass of water, but in a more lumpy, human fashion. You're most in contact with family,
friends and workmates and they are the people with whom you generally exchange colds.
A long period of imposed restrictions, in addition to those of our ordinary lives did prevent the final few percent of virus mixing
with the population. With the movements of holidays, new jobs, visiting distant relatives, starting new terms at universities and
schools, that final mixing is under way. It should not be a terrifying process. It happens with every new virus, flu included. It's
just that we've never before in our history chased it around the countryside with a technique more suited to the biology lab than to
a supermarket car park.
A very long prelude, but necessary. Part of the 'project fear' that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the
daily count of 'cases'. Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I've spoken to, the word
'case' has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms
(things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much
talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they
have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don't doubt
there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I'm confident it is not important.
That all said, Government decided to call a person a 'case' if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is
measured in PCR. A person's sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they've
had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It's faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses,
which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it's unclear to me if it does.
But there's a final setting in which a person can be positive and that's a random process. This may have multiple causes, such as
the amplification technique not being perfect and so amplifying the 'bait' sequences placed in with the sample, with the aim of
marrying up with related SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. There will be many other contributions to such positives. These are what are called
false positives.
Think of any diagnostic test a doctor might use on you. The ideal diagnostic test correctly confirms all who have the disease and
never wrongly indicates that healthy people have the disease. There is no such test. All tests have some degree of weakness in
generating false positives. The important thing is to know how often this happens, and this is called the false positive rate. If 1
in 100 disease-free samples are wrongly coming up positive, the disease is not present, we call that a 1% false positive rate. The
actual or operational false positive rate differs, sometimes substantially, under different settings, technical operators, detection
methods and equipment. I'm focusing solely on the false positive rate in Pillar 2, because most people do not have the virus
(recently around 1 in 1000 people and earlier in summer it was around 1 in 2000 people). It is when the amount of disease, its
so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. This problem can be so severe that
unless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it. In this case, the test in Pillar 2 was and
remains charged with the job of identifying people with the virus, yet as I will show, it is unable to do so.
Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2
since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE,
but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about
ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.
Let me take you through this, though if you're able to read Prof Carl Heneghan's clearly
written piece first, I'm more confident that I'll be successful in explaining this dramatic conclusion to you. (Here is a link to
the record of numbers of tests, combining Pillar 1 (hospital) and Pillar 2 (community).)
Imagine 10,000 people getting tested using those swabs you see on TV. We have a good estimate of the general prevalence of the virus
from the ONS, who are wholly independent (from Pillar 2 testing) and are testing only a few people a day, around one per cent of the
numbers recently tested in Pillar 2. It is reasonable to assume that most of the time, those being tested do not have symptoms.
People were asked to only seek a test if they have symptoms. However, we know from TV news and stories on social media from sampling
staff, from stern guidance from the Health Minister and the surprising fact that in numerous locations around the country, the local
council is leafleting people's houses, street by street to come and get tested.
The bottom line is that it is reasonable to expect the prevalence of the virus to be close to the number found by ONS, because they
sample randomly, and would pick up symptomatic and asymptomatic people in proportion to their presence in the community. As of the
most recent ONS survey, to a first approximation, the virus was found in 1 in every 1000 people. This can also be written as 0.1%.
So when all these 10,000 people are tested in Pillar 2, you'd expect 10 true positives to be found (false negatives can be an issue
when the virus is very common, but in this community setting, it is statistically unimportant and so I have chosen to ignore it,
better to focus only on false positives).
So, what is the false positive rate of testing in Pillar 2? For months, this has been a concern. It appears that it isn't known,
even though as I've mentioned, you absolutely need to know it in order to work out whether the diagnostic test has any value! What
do we know about the false positive rate? Well, we do know that the Government's own scientists were very concerned about it, and a report on
this problem was sent to SAGE dated June 3rd 2020. I quote: "Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK's
RT-PCR testing system, we risk over-estimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace and the extent of asymptomatic
infection". In that same report, the authors helpfully listed the lowest to highest false positive rate of dozens of tests using the
same technology. The lowest value for false positive rate was 0.8%.
Allow me to explain the impact of a false positive rate of 0.8% on Pillar 2. We return to our 10,000 people who've volunteered to
get tested, and the expected ten with virus (0.1% prevalence or 1:1000) have been identified by the PCR test. But now we've to
calculate how many false positives are to accompanying them. The shocking answer is 80. 80 is 0.8% of 10,000. That's how many false
positives you'd get every time you were to use a Pillar 2 test on a group of that size.
The effect of this is, in this example, where 10,000 people have been tested in Pillar 2, could be summarised in a headline like
this: "90 new cases were identified today" (10 real positive cases and 80 false positives). But we know this is wildly incorrect.
Unknown to the poor technician, there were in this example, only 10 real cases. 80 did not even have a piece of viral RNA in their
sample. They are really false positives.
I'm going to explain how bad this is another way, back to diagnostics. If you'd submitted to a test and it was positive, you'd
expect the doctor to tell you that you had a disease, whatever it was testing for. Usually, though, they'll answer a slightly
different question: "If the patient is positive in this test, what is the probability they have the disease?" Typically, for a good
diagnostic test, the doctor will be able to say something like 95% and you and they can live with that. You might take a different,
confirmatory test, if the result was very serious, like cancer. But in our Pillar 2 example, what is the probability a person
testing positive in Pillar 2 actually has COVID-19? The awful answer is 11% (10 divided by 80 + 10). The test exaggerates the number
of covid-19 cases by almost ten-fold (90 divided by 10). Scared yet? That daily picture they show you, with the 'cases' climbing up
on the right-hand side? Its horribly exaggerated. Its not a mistake, as I shall show.
Earlier in the summer, the ONS showed the virus prevalence was a little lower, 1 in 2000 or 0.05%. That doesn't sound much of a
difference, but it is. Now the Pillar 2 test will find half as many real cases from our notional 10,000 volunteers, so 5 real cases.
But the flaw in the test means it will still find 80 false positives (0.8% of 10,000). So its even worse. The headline would be "85
new cases identified today". But now the probability a person testing positive has the virus is an absurdly low 6% (5 divided by 80
+ 5). Earlier in the summer, this same test exaggerated the number of COVID-19 cases by 17-fold (85 divided by 5). Its so easy to
generate an apparently large epidemic this way. Just ignore the problem of false positives. Pretend its zero. But it is never zero.
This test is fatally flawed and MUST immediately be withdrawn and never used again in this setting unless shown to be fixed. The
examples I gave are very close to what is actually happening every day as you read this.
I'm bound to ask, did Mr Hancock know of this fatal flaw? Did he know of the effect it would inevitably have, and is still having,
not only on the reported case load, but the nation's state of anxiety. I'd love to believe it is all an innocent mistake. If it was,
though, he'd have to resign over sheer incompetence. But is it? We know that internal scientists wrote to SAGE, in terms, and,
surely, this short but shocking warning document would have been drawn to the Health Secretary's attention? If that was the only bit
of evidence, you might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the evidence grows more damning.
Recently, I published with my co-authors a short Position Paper. I don't think by then, a month ago or so, the penny had quite
dropped with me. And I'm an experienced biomedical research scientist, used to dealing with complex datasets and probabilities.
On September 11th 2020, I was a guest on Julia Hartley-Brewer's talkRADIO
show. Among other things, I called upon Mr Hancock to release the evidence underscoring his confidence in and planning for 'the
second wave'. This evidence has not yet been shown to the public by anyone. I also demanded he disclose the operational false
positive rate in Pillar 2 testing.
On September 16th, I was back on Julia's show and this time focused on the false positive rate issue (1m 45s – 2min 30s). I had read
Carl Heneghan's analysis showing that even if the false positive rate was as low as 0.1%, 8 times lower than any similar test, it
still yields a majority of false positives. So, my critique doesn't fall if the actual false positive rate is lower than my assumed
0.8%.
On September 18th, Mr Hancock again appeared, as often he does, on Julia Hartley-Brewer's show. Julia asked
him directly (1min 50s – on) what the false positive rate in Pillar 2 is. Mr Hancock said "It's under 1%". Julia again asked him
exactly what it was, and did he even know it? He didn't answer that, but then said "it means that, for all the positive cases, the
likelihood of one being a false positive is very small".
That is a seriously misleading statement as it is incorrect. The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is
between 89-94%, or near-certainty. Of note, even when ONS was recording its lowest-ever prevalence, the positive rate in Pillar 2
testing never fell below 0.8%.
It gets worse for the Health Secretary. On September the 17th, I believe, Mr Hancock took a question from
Sir Desmond Swayne about false positives. It is clear that Sir Desmond is asking about Pillar 2.
Mr Hancock replied: "I like my right honourable friend very much and I wish it were true. The reason we have surveillance testing,
done by ONS, is to ensure that we're constantly looking at a nationally representative sample at what the case rate is. The latest
ONS survey, published on Friday, does show a rise consummate (sic) with the increased number of tests that have come back positive."
He did not answer Sir Desmond's question, but instead answered a question of his choosing. Did the Health Secretary knowingly
mislead the House? By referring only to ONS and not even mentioning the false positive rate of the test in Pillar 2 he was, as it
were, stealing the garb of ONS's more careful work which has a lower false positive rate, in order to smuggle through the hidden and
very much higher, false positive rate in Pillar 2. The reader will have to decide for themselves.
Pillar 2 testing has been ongoing since May but it's only in recent weeks that it has reached several hundreds of thousands of tests
per day. The effect of the day by day climb in the number of people that are being described as 'cases' cannot be overstated. I know
it is inducing fear, anxiety and concern for the possibility of new and unjustified restrictions, including lockdowns. I have no
idea what Mr Hancock's motivations are. But he has and continues to use the hugely inflated output from a fatally flawed Pillar 2
test and appears often on media, gravely intoning the need for additional interventions (none of which, I repeat, are proven to be
effective).
You will be very familiar with the cases plot which is shown on most TV broadcasts at the moment. It purports to show the numbers of
cases which rose then fell in the spring, and the recent rise in cases. This graph is always accompanied by the headline that "so
many thousands of new cases were detected in the last 24 hours".
You should know that there are two major deceptions, in that picture, which combined are very likely both to mislead and to induce
anxiety. Its ubiquity indicates that it is a deliberate choice.
Firstly, it is very misleading in relation to the spring peak of cases. This is because we had no community screening capacity at
that time. A colleague has adjusted the plot to show the number of cases we would have detected, had there been a well-behaved
community test capability available. The effect is to greatly increase the size of the spring cases peak, because there are very
many cases for each hospitalisation and many hospitalisations for every death.
Secondly, as I hope I have shown and persuaded you, the cases in summer and at present, generated by seriously flawed Pillar 2
tests, should be corrected downwards by around ten-fold.
I do believe genuine cases are rising somewhat. This is, however, also true for flu, which we neither measure daily nor report on
every news bulletin. If we did, you would appreciate that, going forward, it is quite likely that flu is a greater risk to public
health than COVID-19. The corrected cases plot (above) does, I believe, put the recent rises in incidence of COVID-19 in a much more
reasonable context. I thought you should see that difference before arriving at your own verdict on this sorry tale.
There are very serious consequences arising from grotesque over-estimation of so-called cases in Pillar 2 community testing, which I
believe was put in place knowingly. Perhaps Mr Hancock believes his own copy about the level of risk now faced by the general
public? Its not for me to deduce. What this huge over-estimation has done is to have slowed the normalisation of the NHS. We are all
aware that access to medical services is, to varying degrees, restricted. Many specialities were greatly curtailed in spring and
after some recovery, some are still between a third and a half below their normal capacities. This has led both to continuing delays
and growth of waiting lists for numerous operations and treatments. I am not qualified to assess the damage to the nation's and
individuals' health as a direct consequence of this extended wait for a second wave. Going into winter with this configuration will,
on top of the already restricted access for six months, lead inevitably to a large number of avoidable, non-Covid deaths. That is
already a serious enough charge. Less obvious but, in aggregate, additional impacts arise from fear of the virus, inappropriately
heightened in my view, which include: damage to or even destruction of large numbers of businesses, especially small businesses,
with attendant loss of livelihoods, loss of educational opportunities, strains on family relationships, eating disorders, increasing
alcoholism and domestic abuse and even suicides, to name but a few.
In closing, I wish to note that in the last 40 years alone the UK has had seven official epidemics/pandemics; AIDS, Swine flu, CJD,
SARS, MERS, Bird flu as well as annual, seasonal flu. All were very worrying but schools remained open and the NHS treated everybody
and most of the population were unaffected. The country would rarely have been open if it had been shut down every time.
I have explained how a hopelessly-performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease but,
it seems, solely to create fear.
This misuse of power must cease. All the above costs are on the ledger, too, when weighing up the residual risks to society from
COVID-19 and the appropriate actions to take, if any. Whatever else happens, the test used in Pillar 2 must be immediately withdrawn
as it provides no useful information. In the absence of vastly inflated case numbers arising from this test, the pandemic would be
seen and felt to be almost over.
Dr Mike Yeadon is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco
Pharma Ltd.
Its both...its fear porn and also shedding...according to researchers.
The National Vaccine Information Center published an important document relevant to this
topic titled "The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain
Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission." Pages 34-36 in the section on "Measles, Mumps,
Rubella Viruses and Live Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses" discuss evidence that
the MMR vaccine can lead to measles infection and transmission.
New policies will artificially deflate "breakthrough infections" in the vaccinated, while
the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and
testing for "Covid19" in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy "vaccines" are
effective at preventing the alleged disease.
They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late
April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the
change).
The trick is in their reporting of what they call "breakthrough infections" – that is
people who are fully "vaccinated" against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.
Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention –
to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition
of "Covid case", used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a
"Covid19 case", even if they never experienced any symptoms .
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all , and
now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated
people.
Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected "breakthrough
infections".
From the CDC's instructions for state health authorities on handling "possible breakthrough
infections" (uploaded to their website in late April):
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct
value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)
Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the
world going into the 40s.
18 play_arrow
Just a Little Froth in the Market 15 hours ago
They are manipulating the numbers to make it look like only the unvaxxed get infected.
That is fraud, and this rogue agency needs to be stopped.
Enraged 1 hour ago remove link
The CDC is not an independent government agency, but is actually a subsidiary of Big
Pharma.
The CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year
in vaccination sales.
There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, HIV,
Anthrax, Rabies, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Group A Strep, Pneumococcal disease,
Meningococcal disease, RSV, Gastroenteritis, Japanese encephalitis, SARS, Rift Valley Fever,
and chlamydophila pneumoniae.
People might be starting to get the impression that the federal regime, which owns the
media, judiciary, academia, bureaucracy, and big tech, are attempting to manipulate
information to increase their power and wealth. The elites have confiscated almost ALL the
commoners wealth and now they want the rest of the money and complete and total control. Mao
or Stalin would be proud of these fascists.
LetThemEatRand 17 hours ago
Imagine living under the rule of a globalist oligarchy that controls the Press. That.
JakeIsNotFake 14 hours ago remove link
What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?
Well, before 3/20, this would have been a FELONY. Each time a lab provided a patient with
KNOWINGLY FALSE test results, the lab and the doctor would have been subject to a 16 month
term in the state penitentiary. For each instance.
Can you imagine getting a positive, terminal prognosis, committing a well deserved murder,
and then not dying?
Oopsie! My bad.
gregga777 14 hours ago
Government, and that especially includes the so-called "Scientists" in government service,
are Corrupt, Incompetent, Unaccountable and Untrustworthy. The Government's so-called
"Scientists," including those funded by Government contracts, are no more trustworthy than
politicians.
PeterLong 14 hours ago
Sometimes you have no choice. We had to undergo surgical procedures in a hospital and had
to get tested a few days before. Whether they use the same parameters for these type cases as
for others I don't know. Perhaps they are reluctant to turn away or delay surgical cases for
BS reasons and therefore possibly use more realistic standards , but my opinion of the entire
medical industry has become so low that I could believe anything. I still wonder about
hospital and other medical practices finances concenring this scam. Have they continued to
profit somehow despite being shut down in some ways?
Beebee 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Same here, Peter. Hubby's mother broke her elbow last year. And we had to bring her to
tests to do surgery. She was negative. But, afterwards, suddenly, developed lymphoma. Now, I
wonder about these tests! The cancer chemo was delayed due to all this stuff. She had so many
Covid tests, all negative, and just now completed the chemo rounds. It's not necessary and
they do make a profit. She is the only reason we stay here, otherwise we would moved from NY.
She's a mess, and I resent the fact the hold-ups are due to testing.
fewer 36 minutes ago
Hospitals made tons of money on this. Uncle Sugar pays so much, and the administrators
always slice & dice the budget/reports so they seem on the edge of bankruptcy no matter
what. Naturally all of this is "debunked" by (((the usual sources))).
Here's one fact that the "debunkers" deliberately ignore: the feds pay for all the
treatment of uninsured C19 patients... including illegals . Normally if an illegal comes to
the ED and needs to be admitted, the hospital can't refuse to do that and instead has to eat
the cost (well, they pass the cost on to hardworking, insurance having people like you and
me, but bear with me).
If they admit the person for a reason *other* than C19, then the hospital still eats the
cost. Now, tell me, what's the incentive here if an illegal comes in with a bunch of
comorbidities and needs admission to manage those? What should be recorded as the admitting
diagnosis/problem if they can get swabbed for a high Ct PCR test (a meaningless positive
result)?
lasvegaspersona 7 hours ago
After more than 50 years in medicine, I tell friends and family, 'stay away from us if you
can'. Modern medicine is a rats nest of false positive testing and chasing trivial
abnormalities on imaging studies.
The sad part is patients feel relieved when they are told 'nothing was finally
found'....this after great expense of time and money.
spiff 54 minutes ago
Caught Red-Handed
Yes, define "Caught". I have a feeling life will continue without consequences for the
perpetrator of this fraud, or even your average person knowing about it.
_triplesix_ 14 hours ago
CDC, FBI, CIA, DHS, NIH, EPA, DOE...shall I go on?
Drater 6 hours ago
FAA, TSA, SEC, FCC, NHTSA, DOJ
JakeIsNotFake 13 hours ago
CDC is .gov. As an NGO, (funded by 99% .gov and 1% phony donations), the CDC can legally,
(not honestly), claim they are just an advisory body.
While noteing the distinction, please pay attention to the language: Mask mandate,
guidelines, advisories are NOT laws. Just like travel advisories, protocols, and best
practice. These are all weasel words. And totally unenforceable.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Everything is rigged, this plandemic, elections, markets you name it because when there's
currency to be made you'll always have someone more than willing to do it. Big pharma is
making a killing literally in this case and tax slaves paid for the gene therapy shots
creation. And all the rubes who took the shot will pay much more than just currency for their
naivety.
archipusz 11 hours ago
We can speculate all we want about what the agenda is of the CDC.
But what we know is that it has nothing to do with the truth or our health.
Enraged 1 hour ago remove link
The CDC is not an independent government agency, but is actually a subsidiary of Big
Pharma.
The CDC owns patents on at least 57 different vaccines, and profits $4.1 billion per year
in vaccination sales.
There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for Flu, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A, HIV,
Anthrax, Rabies, Dengue fever, West Nile virus, Group A Strep, Pneumococcal disease,
Meningococcal disease, RSV, Gastroenteritis, Japanese encephalitis, SARS, Rift Valley Fever,
and chlamydophila pneumoniae.
amazing they do not even try to hide the deception.
but reporting on such deception will have one labeled a "conspiracy theorist", and the FBI
classifies "conspiracy theorists" as "domestic terrorists".
That's right, re-stating publicly available comments and policies of government agencies
and officials will have you branded as a domestic terrorist.
And the "intellectuals" in the media, academia, and "think-tanks" have abandoned all logic
and common sense to serve their masters in the government and big pharma.
history will not forget.
smacker 12 hours ago
Very good article which rightly exposes the CDC and all those around it for being utterly
corrupt and are perpetrating a fake pandemic with sinister objectives.
crazzziecanuck 11 hours ago
You realize, it's Putin's fault. Putin can rig a presidential election, it's child's play
for him to manipulate the CDC to do his evil bidding.
Everything is Putin's fault: Trump, COVID, 737 Max crashes, slavery, crucifixion of
Christ, the end of the dinosaurs, and so on.
archipusz 13 hours ago
Notice how Rand Paul will argue with Fauci about policy over when we should wear a mask,
BUT WILL NOT DARE ASK THEM WHY THEY HAVE, AND ARE, COMMITTING CRIMINAL FRAUD WITH THE PCR
TESTING?
Demystified 2 hours ago
It's a rigged game, a scam. These people are so dishonest, and intent on falsifying Covid
test results by applying different standards for vaccinated and unvaccinated people? They are
perpetuating a fraud on the people.
You have to be brain dead to not see what they are doing.
Robert De Zero 3 hours ago remove link
This is so evil. Medicalized dictatorship, supported by propaganda media, is here.
Alien 851 4 hours ago
This is NEWS??? Are you kidding?
It was March 2020 when they changed the rules on reporting of Covid deaths to run the
count as high as possible. It is still used in fear headlines today! How about wildly
fluctuation "new cases" that seem to totally respect state borders...?
For God's sake, wake the hell up!!!!
In March, the CDC redefined what is to be reported by Medical Examiners in the US. One
of them gave examples of Covid Death cases reporting criteria:
"The case definition is very simplistic," Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of Illinois
Department of Public Health, explains. "It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID
positive diagnosis. That means, that if you were in hospice and had already been given a
few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a
COVID death. It means, technically even if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had
COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death."
In any given year during the past decade in the United States, more than 2.5 million
Americans have died - from all causes.
The number has grown in recent years, climbing from 2.59 million in 2013 to 2.85 million in
2019. This has been due partially to the US's aging population, and also due to rising obesity
levels and drug overdoses . In fact, since 2010, growth rates in total deaths has exceeded
population growth in every year.
In 2020, preliminary numbers suggest a jump of more than 17 percent in all-cause total
deaths, rising from 2.85 million in 2019 to 3.35 million in 2020.
The increase was not all due to covid. At least one-quarter to
one-third appear to be from other causes. In some cases, more than half of "excess deaths"
were attributed to "underlying causes " other than covid. But whether due to untreated
medical conditions (thanks to covid lockdowns), or drug overdoses, or homicides, total death
increased in 2020. In other words, total excess mortality is a partial proxy for covid deaths.
Whatever proportion of total deaths covid cases may comprise, it stands to reason that if total
deaths decline, then covid deaths are declining also. Moreover, looking at total deaths helps
cut through any controversies over whether or not deaths are properly attributed to covid.
What has been the trend with these "excess deaths" in recent months?
Well, according
to data through mid-March reported by Our World in Data and by the Human Mortality
Database, excess mortality began to plummet in early January and is now back to levels below
the 2015-2019 average:
Excess mortality peaked the week of January 3 and then it began to collapse, dropping back
to summer 2020 levels by mid February. By March 14, excess mortality was at 1 percent above the
2015-2019 average. All this occurred even as very few Americans were vaccinated. When excess
deaths began to drop, less than one percent of
Americans had been fully vaccinated . At the end of January, less than tw o percent of
Americans had been fully vaccinated. By the end of March, when excess mortality returned to
2019 levels, 15 percent of the population had been fully vaccinated.
Yet, as of the week of March 22 -- excess mortality was below both the 2015-2019 average and
below the total for the last year before the official beginning of the covid pandemic
(2019).
It's likely these facts won't stop "public health" bureaucrats from continuing to insist
that another "wave" of covid deaths and cases is right around the corner. These activists have
many strategies for pushing vaccine passports, mask mandates, and even continual precautionary
business closures. They'll tell us that new covid variants are sweeping the globe. This is what
they were saying in January, for instance, when Vox
was telling us it was too dangerous to even visit the grocery store . At least one expert
in late January warned us that the coming weeks would be "
the darkest weeks of the pandemic ."
It's now clear such predictions were spectacularly wrong. By late January, totals deaths
were already in precipitous decline.
But what about the lag in data? We're only looking at data up to mid-March because it tends
to take several weeks for estimates of total deaths to become reasonably reliable. Yes, that
data shows a big drop off. But what about the numbers for April and May? Should we expect those
death totals to surge again with a promised "fourth wave" of new covid death?
If we consider the more recent case and death totals attributed to covid, we see few signs
of a new surge.
Although Anthony Fauci and other government employed technocrats
have been unable to provide any explanation at all for it , the fact remains that months
after Texas and Florida and Georgia have either abolished or greatly scaled back all
social-distancing and mask mandates, cases and deaths are generally declining, and total deaths
per million (attributed to covid) remain below what we've seen in states with severe
lockdowns.
Notably, it's only in recent weeks that "CDC guidelines" are beginning to admit the reality.
It wasn't until April 26 that the CDC
declared that fully vaccinated Americans are allowed to venture outside without masks on .
The CDC states these "recommendations" unironically as if it weren't the case that most
Americans -- outside of true-believer hotspots like San Francisco and Chicago -- stopped
wearing masks outside a long time ago. The hermetically sealed world of government employees
and corporate journalists appears unaware that at least half the country pretty much went back
to normal last fall.
So now what?
The technocrats know that they need to keep pressing hard for more de facto vaccine mandates
-- pushed mostly by corporate America for low-risk younger populations. Most Americans can
already see that covid numbers are already in decline in spite of months of Americans flouting
mask mandates and social distancing guidelines. People can see that children -- an increasing
number of whom are returning to schools -- aren't a significant factor in the spread of
disease. So it will be important for the regime to push vaccines for children more aggressively
before people stop listening to the "experts" completely.
Don't expect the regime to admit it has been wrong about anything. If anything, it will
double down on the usual narrative. It's worked pretty well so far.
man_hammer 2 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
What excess death rate ?
2020 8.9 1.19 %
2019 8.8 1.29 %
2018 8.7 1.35 %
2017 8.6 1.37 %
2016 8.5 1.31 %
2015 8.4 1.21 %
2014 8.3 1.02 %
2013 8.2 0.82 %
2012 8.1 0.54 %
Net increase of deaths is zero
alexcojones 1 hour ago remove link
Covidiots (noun)
So-called experts, pseudo scientists, and fake media pundits were on TV, comparing
Covid-19 to the Spanish Flu of 1918 when the lockdowns began. Compare:
The so-called Spanish Flu of 1918: Went from February 1918 to April 1920 or 26 months. It
killed an estimated 50 million war-weakened people in a world with a then population of 1.8
billion.
If we adjusted for the world population increase and for Covid-19 to be as deadly as the
Spanish Flu, C-19 would have killed roughly 216 million people (50 million x 4.3 to offset
for the increase of population = 216 million).
At present and using population increase it appears that Covid-19 is only 1% as deadly as the
Spanish Flu. Even if not adjusting for the massive population increase its still only about
4.2% as deadly as the Spanish Flu.
Plandemic or Scamdemic, you choose
JaxPavan 1 hour ago
Take a look at the CDC total death figures for 2020. It's the only year they publish CDC
"predictions" instead of what the states actually reported. That's right, CDC is "predicting"
the past in 2020. Fact is the real overall mortality probably didn't budge much in 2020.
Lying sacks of excrement.
2thelastman 8 minutes ago
I wouldn't believe anything "science" tells us any longer. Throw all the charts at me you
want to, you've lied so often about so much so completely that you have zero credibility
left. None, nada, nicto.
Wuhan
Where I keep a bio lab
Next to wet markets
That's how we do
But this time
Something just escaped
And I just wanted to
Just I thought you'd wanna know
Oops my bad
I swear I never meant for this
I never meant
Don't look at me that way
It was a Chinese mistake
Don't look at me that way
It was a Chinese mistake
An honest mistake
Sometimes
When I'm in the lab
I F up
And pathogens get away
Chinese flu
I swear I never meant for this
I never meant
Don't look at me that way
It was a Chinese mistake
Don't look at me that way
It was a Chinese mistake
An honest mistake
Don't look at me that way
It was a Chinese mistake
Don't look at me that way
It was a Chinese mistake
People who have been fully vaccinated should still follow precautions in doctor's
offices, airports, nursing homes, the agency recommends
Fully vaccinated people don't need to wear a mask or physically distance during outdoor or
indoor activities, large or small, federal health officials said, the broadest easing of
pandemic recommendations so far.
The fully vaccinated should continue to wear a mask while traveling by plane, bus or train,
and the guidance doesn't apply to certain places like hospitals, nursing homes and prisons, the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.
The fully protected can, however, resume doing many of the things they had to give up due to
the pandemic, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said.
"We have all longed for this moment, when we can get back to some sense of normalcy," Dr.
Walensky said. "That moment has come for those who are fully vaccinated."
The CDC considers people fully vaccinated either two weeks after receiving their second dose
of an mRNA vaccine, such as the one from Pfizer Inc. PFE 1.03% and partner BioNTech SE
or Moderna Inc.,
MRNA
-1.84% or two weeks after getting the single-shot vaccine from Johnson & Johnson .
The German Corona Investigative Committee has taken testimony from a large number of
international scientists and experts since July 10, 2020.
Scroll down for the Video and Full Transcript of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich 's presentation.
Their conclusions are the following:
The corona crisis must be renamed the "Corona Scandal"
It is:
The biggest tort case ever
The greatest crime against humanity ever committed
Those responsible must be:
Criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity
Sued for civil damages
Deaths
There is no excess mortality in any country
Corona virus mortality equals seasonal flu
94% of deaths in Bergamo were caused by transferring sick patients to nursing homes
where they infected old people with weak immune systems
Doctors and hospitals worldwide were paid to declare deceased victims of
Covid-19
Autopsies showed:
Fatalities almost all caused by serious pre-existing conditions
Almost all deaths were very old people
Sweden (no lockdown) and Britain (strict lockdown) have comparable disease and
mortality statistics
US states with and without lockdowns have comparable disease and mortality
statistics
Health
Hospitals remain empty and some face bankruptcy
Populations have T-cell immunity from previous influenza waves
Herd immunity needs only 15-25% population infection and is already achieved
Only when a person has symptoms can an infection be contagious
Tests:
Many scientists call this a PCR-test pandemic, not a corona pandemic
Very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive
Likelihood of false-positives is 89-94% or near certainty
Prof. Drosten developed his PCR test from an old SARS virus without ever having seen
the real Wuhan virus from China
The PCR test is not based on scientific facts with respect to infections
PCR tests are useless for the detection of infections
A positive PCR test does not mean an infection is present or that an intact virus has
been found
Amplification of samples over 35 cycles is unreliable but WHO recommended 45
cycles
Illegality:
The German government locked down, imposed social-distancing/ mask-wearing on the
basis of a single opinion
The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating
The lockdowns were based on non-existent infections
Former president of the German federal constitutional court doubted the
constitutionality of the corona measures
Former UK supreme court judge Lord Sumption concluded there was no factual basis for
panic and no legal basis for corona measures
German RKI (CDC equivalent) recommended no autopsies be performed
Corona measures have no sufficient factual or legal basis, are unconstitutional and
must be repealed immediately
No serious scientist gives any validity to the infamous Neil Ferguson's false
computer models warning of millions of deaths
Mainstream media completely failed to report the true facts of the so-called
pandemic
Democracy is in danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models
Drosten (of PCR test), Tedros of WHO, and others have committed crimes against
humanity as defined in the International Criminal Code
Politicians can avoid going down with the charlatans and criminals by starting the
long overdue public scientific discussion
Conspiracy:
Politicians and mainstream media deliberately drove populations to panic
Children were calculatedly made to feel responsible "for the painful tortured death
of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow Corona rules"
The hopeless PCR test is used to create fear and not to diagnose
There can be no talk of a second wave
Injury and damage:
Evidence of gigantic health and economic damage to populations
Anti-corona measures have:
Killed innumerable people
Destroyed countless companies and individuals worldwide
Children are being taken away from their parents
Children are traumatized en masse
Bankruptcies are expected in small- and medium-sized businesses
Redress:
A class action lawsuit must be filed in the USA or Canada, with all affected parties
worldwide having the opportunity to join
Companies and self-employed people must be compensated for damages
Full Transcript
Hello. I am Reiner Fuellmich and I have been admitted to the Bar in Germany and in
California for 26 years. I have been practicing law primarily as a trial lawyer against
fraudulent corporations such as Deutsche Bank, formerly one of the world's largest and most
respected banks, today one of the most toxic criminal organizations in the world; VW, one of
the world's largest and most respected car manufacturers, today notorious for its giant diesel
fraud; and Kuehne and Nagel, the world's largest shipping company. We're suing them in a
multi-million-dollar bribery case.
I'm also one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Since July 10,
2020, this Committee has been listening to a large number of international scientists' and
experts' testimony to find answers to questions about the corona crisis, which more and more
people worldwide are asking. All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by
the German corporations pale in comparison in view of the extent of the damage that the corona
crisis has caused and continues to cause.
This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a "Corona Scandal" and
those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages. On a
political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a
position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with
their corrupt agendas. And for this reason I will now explain to you how and where an
international network of lawyers will argue this biggest tort case ever, the corona fraud
scandal, which has meanwhile unfolded into probably the greatest crime against humanity ever
committed.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/lWSuvM5MjV2r/
Crimes against humanity were first defined in connection with the Nuremberg trials after
World War II, that is, when they dealt with the main war criminals of the Third Reich. Crimes
against humanity are today regulated in section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three
major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the corona scandal
are:
Is there a corona pandemic or is there only a PCR-test pandemic? Specifically, does a
positive PCR-test result mean that the person tested is infected with Covid-19, or does it
mean absolutely nothing in connection with the Covid-19 infection?
Do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social
distancing, and quarantine regulations, serve to protect the world's population from corona,
or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe – without
asking any questions – that their lives are in danger, so that in the end the
pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests,
antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic
fingerprints?
Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied, more so than any other
country, by the chief protagonists of this so-called corona pandemic, Mr. Drosten, virologist
at charity hospital in Berlin; Mr. Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of
the CDC, the RKI; and Mr. Tedros, Head of the World Health Organization or WHO; because
Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role
model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence to the
corona measures?
Answers to these three questions are urgently needed because the allegedly new and highly
dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world, and certainly
not here in Germany. But the anti-corona measures, whose only basis are the PCR-test results,
which are in turn all based on the German Drosten test, have, in the meantime, caused the loss
of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and
individuals worldwide. In Australia, for example, people are thrown into prison if they do not
wear a mask or do not wear it properly, as deemed by the authorities. In the Philippines,
people who do not wear a mask or do not wear it properly, in this sense, are getting shot in
the head.
Let me first give you a summary of the facts as they present themselves today. The most
important thing in a lawsuit is to establish the facts – that is, to find out what
actually happened. That is because the application of the law always depends on the facts at
issue. If I want to prosecute someone for fraud, I cannot do that by presenting the facts of a
car accident. So what happened here regarding the alleged corona pandemic?
The facts laid out below are, to a large extent, the result of the work of the Corona
Investigative Committee. This Committee was founded on July 10, 2020 by four lawyers in order
to determine, through hearing expert testimony of international scientists and other
experts:
How dangerous is the virus really?
What is the significance of a positive PCR test?
What collateral damage has been caused by the corona measures, both with respect to the
world population's health, and with respect to the world's economy?
Let me start with a little bit of background information. What happened in May 2019 and then
in early 2020? And what happened 12 years earlier with the swine flu, which many of you may
have forgotten about? In May 2019, the stronger of the two parties which govern Germany in a
grand coalition, the CDU, held a Congress on Global Health, apparently at the instigation of
important players from the pharmaceutical industry and the tech industry. At this Congress, the
usual suspects, you might say, gave their speeches. Angela Merkel was there, and the German
Secretary of Health, Jens Spahn. But, some other people, whom one would not necessarily expect
to be present at such a gathering, were also there: Professor Drosten, virologist from the
Charite hospital in Berlin; Professor Wieler, veterinarian and Head of the RKI, the German
equivalent of the CDC; as well as Mr. Tedros, philosopher and Head of the World Health
Organization (WHO). They all gave speeches there. Also present and giving speeches were the
chief lobbyists of the world's two largest health funds, namely the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Less than a year later, these very people called the shots
in the proclamation of the worldwide corona pandemic, made sure that mass PCR tests were used
to prove mass infections with Covid-19 all over the world, and are now pushing for vaccines to
be invented and sold worldwide.
T hese infections, or rather the positive test results that the PCR tests delivered, in turn
became the justification for worldwide lockdowns, social distancing and mandatory face masks.
It is important to note at this point that the definition of a pandemic was changed 12 years
earlier. Until then, a pandemic was considered to be a disease that spread worldwide and which
led to many serious illnesses and deaths. Suddenly, and for reasons never explained, it was
supposed to be a worldwide disease only . Many serious illnesses and many deaths were
not required any more to announce a pandemic. Due to this change, the WHO, which is closely
intertwined with the global pharmaceutical industry, was able to declare the swine flu pandemic
in 2009, with the result that vaccines were produced and sold worldwide on the basis of
contracts that have been kept secret until today.
These vaccines proved to be completely unnecessary because the swine flu eventually turned
out to be a mild flu, and never became the horrific plague that the pharmaceutical industry and
its affiliated universities kept announcing it would turn into, with millions of deaths certain
to happen if people didn't get vaccinated. These vaccines also led to serious health problems.
About 700 children in Europe fell incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now forever severely
disabled. The vaccines bought with millions of taxpayers' money had to be destroyed with even
more taxpayers' money. Already then, during the swine flu, the German virologist Drosten was
one of those who stirred up panic in the population, repeating over and over again that the
swine flu would claim many hundreds of thousands, even millions of deaths all over the world.
In the end, it was mainly thanks to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and his efforts as a member of the
German Bundestag, and also a member of the Council of Europe, that this hoax was brought to an
end before it would lead to even more serious consequences.
Fast forward to March of 2020, when the German Bundestag announced an Epidemic Situation of
National Importance, which is the German equivalent of a pandemic in March of 2020 and, based
on this, the lockdown with the suspension of all essential constitutional rights for an
unforeseeable time, there was only one single opinion on which the Federal Government in
Germany based its decision. In an outrageous violation of the universally accepted principle "
audiatur et altera pars ", which means that one must also hear the other side, the only
person they listened to was Mr. Drosten.
That is the very person whose horrific, panic-inducing prognoses had proved to be
catastrophically false 12 years earlier. We know this because a whistleblower named David
Sieber, a member of the Green Party, told us about it. He did so first on August 29, 2020 in
Berlin, in the context of an event at which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also took part, and at which
both men gave speeches. And he did so afterwards in one of the sessions of our Corona
Committee.
The reason he did this is that he had become increasingly sceptical about the official
narrative propagated by politicians and the mainstream media. He had therefore undertaken an
effort to find out about other scientists' opinions and had found them on the Internet. There,
he realized that there were a number of highly renowned scientists who held a completely
different opinion, which contradicted the horrific prognoses of Mr. Drosten. They assumed
– and still do assume – that there was no disease that went beyond the gravity of
the seasonal flu, that the population had already acquired cross- or T-cell immunity against
this allegedly new virus, and that there was therefore no reason for any special measures, and
certainly not for vaccinations.
These scientists include Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California, a
specialist in statistics and epidemiology, as well as public health, and at the same time the
most quoted scientist in the world; Professor Michael Levitt, Nobel prize-winner for chemistry
and also a biophysicist at Stanford University; the German professors Kary Mölling,
Sucharit Bhakti, Klud Wittkowski, as well as Stefan Homburg; and now many, many more scientists
and doctors worldwide, including Dr. Mike Yeadon. Dr. Mike Yeadon is the former Vice-President
and Scientific Director of Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. I
will talk some more about him a little later.
At the end of March, beginning of April of 2020, Mr. Sieber turned to the leadership of his
Green Party with the knowledge he had accumulated, and suggested that they present these other
scientific opinions to the public and explain that, contrary to Mr. Drosten's doomsday
prophecies, there was no reason for the public to panic. Incidentally, Lord Sumption, who
served as a judge at the British supreme court from 2012 to 2018, had done the very same thing
at the very same time and had come to the very same conclusion: that there was no factual basis
for panic and no legal basis for the corona measures. Likewise, the former President of the
German federal constitutional court expressed – albeit more cautiously – serious
doubts that the corona measures were constitutional. But instead of taking note of these other
opinions and discussing them with David Sieber, the Green Party leadership declared that Mr.
Drosten's panic messages were good enough for the Green Party. Remember, they're not a member
of the ruling coalition; they're the opposition. Still, that was enough for them, just as it
had been good enough for the Federal Government as a basis for its lockdown decision, they
said. They subsequently, the Green Party leadership called David Sieber a conspiracy theorist,
without ever having considered the content of his information, and then stripped him of his
mandates.
Now let's take a look at the current actual situation regarding the virus's danger, the
complete uselessness of PCR tests for the detection of infections, and the lockdowns based on
non-existent infections. In the meantime, we know that the health care systems were never in
danger of becoming overwhelmed by Covid-19. On the contrary, many hospitals remain empty to
this day and some are now facing bankruptcy. The hospital ship Comfort , which anchored
in New York at the time, and could have accommodated a thousand patients, never accommodated
more than some 20 patients. Nowhere was there any excess mortality. Studies carried out by
Professor Ioannidis and others have shown that the mortality of corona is equivalent to that of
the seasonal flu. Even the pictures from Bergamo and New York that were used to demonstrate to
the world that panic was in order proved to be deliberately misleading.
Then, the so-called "Panic Paper" was leaked, which was written by the German Department of
the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that, in fact, the
population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media. The
accompanying irresponsible statements of the Head of the RKI – remember the [German] CDC
– Mr. Wieler, who repeatedly and excitedly announced that the corona measures must be
followed unconditionally by the population without them asking any question, shows that that he
followed the script verbatim. In his public statements, he kept announcing that the situation
was very grave and threatening, although the figures compiled by his own Institute proved the
exact opposite.
Among other things, the "Panic Paper" calls for children to be made to feel responsible
– and I quote – "for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents
if they do not follow the corona rules", that is, if they do not wash their hands constantly
and don't stay away from their grandparents. A word of clarification: in Bergamo, the vast
majority of deaths, 94% to be exact, turned out to be the result not of Covid-19, but rather
the consequence of the government deciding to transfer sick patients, sick with probably the
cold or seasonal flu, from hospitals to nursing homes in order to make room at the hospitals
for all the Covid patients, who ultimately never arrived. There, at the nursing homes, they
then infected old people with a severely weakened immune system, usually as a result of
pre-existing medical conditions. In addition, a flu vaccination, which had previously been
administered, had further weakened the immune systems of the people in the nursing homes. In
New York, only some, but by far not all hospitals were overwhelmed. Many people, most of whom
were again elderly and had serious pre-existing medical conditions, and most of whom, had it
not been for the panic-mongering, would have just stayed at home to recover, raced to the
hospitals. There, many of them fell victim to healthcare-associated infections (or nosocomial
infections) on the one hand, and incidents of malpractice on the other hand, for example, by
being put on a respirator rather than receiving oxygen through an oxygen mask. Again, to
clarify: Covid-19, this is the current state of affairs, is a dangerous disease, just like the
seasonal flu is a dangerous disease. And of course, Covid-19, just like the seasonal flu, may
sometimes take take a severe clinical course and will sometimes kill patients.
However, as autopsies have shown, which were carried out in Germany in particular, by the
forensic scientist Professor Klaus Püschel in Hamburg, the fatalities he examined had
almost all been caused by serious pre-existing conditions, and almost all of the people who had
died had died at the very at a very old age, just like in Italy, meaning they had lived beyond
their average life expectancy.
In this context, the following should also be mentioned: the German RKI – that is,
again the equivalent of the CDC – had initially, strangely enough, recommended that no
autopsies be performed. And there are numerous credible reports that doctors and hospitals
worldwide had been paid money for declaring a deceased person a victim of Covid-19 rather than
writing down the true cause of death on the death certificate, for example a heart attack or a
gunshot wound. Without the autopsies, we would never know that the overwhelming majority of the
alleged Covid-19 victims had died of completely different diseases, but not of Covid-19. The
assertion that the lockdown was necessary because there were so many different infections with
SARS-COV-2, and because the healthcare systems would be overwhelmed is wrong for three reasons,
as we have learned from the hearings we conducted with the Corona Committee, and from other
data that has become available in the meantime:
A. The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating. By the time the lockdown
was imposed, the alleged infection rates were already dropping again.
B. There's already protection from the virus because of cross- or T-cell immunity. Apart
from the above mentioned lockdown being imposed when the infection rates were already dropping,
there is also cross- or T-cell immunity in the general population against the corona viruses
contained in every flu or influenza wave. This is true, even if this time around, a slightly
different strain of the coronavirus was at work. And that is because the body's own immune
system remembers every virus it has ever battled in the past, and from this experience, it also
recognizes a supposedly new, but still similar, strain of the virus from the corona family.
Incidentally, that's how the PCR test for the detection of an infection was invented by now
infamous Professor Drosten.
At the beginning of January of 2020, based on this very basic knowledge, Mr. Drosten
developed his PCR test, which supposedly detects an infection with SARS-COV-2, without ever
having seen the real Wuhan virus from China, only having learned from social media reports that
there was something going on in Wuhan, he started tinkering on his computer with what would
become his corona PCR test. For this, he used an old SARS virus, hoping it would be
sufficiently similar to the allegedly new strain of the coronavirus found in Wuhan. Then, he
sent the result of his computer tinkering to China to determine whether the victims of the
alleged new coronavirus tested positive. They did.
And that was enough for the World Health Organization to sound the pandemic alarm and to
recommend the worldwide use of the Drosten PCR test for the detection of infections with the
virus now called SARS-COV-2. Drosten's opinion and advice was – this must be emphasized
once again – the only source for the German government when it announced the lockdown as
well as the rules for social distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks. And – this
must also be emphasized once again – Germany apparently became the center of especially
massive lobbying by the pharmaceutical and tech industry because the world, with reference to
the allegedly disciplined Germans, should do as the Germans do in order to survive the
pandemic.
C. And this is the most important part of our fact-finding: the PCR test is being used on
the basis of false statements, NOT based on scientific facts with respect to infections .
In the meantime, we have learned that these PCR tests, contrary to the assertions of Messrs.
Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, do NOT give any indication of an infection with any virus, let
alone an infection with SARS-COV-2. Not only are PCR tests expressly not approved for
diagnostic purposes, as is correctly noted on leaflets coming with these tests, and as the
inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasized. Instead, they're simply
incapable of diagnosing any disease. That is: contrary to the assertions of Drosten, Wieler and
the WHO, which they have been making since the proclamation of the pandemic, a positive
PCR-test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does
NOT mean that they're infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-COV-2
virus.
Even the United States CDC, even this institution agrees with this, and I quote directly
from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests, dated July 13,
2020. First bullet point says:
" Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019
nCOV [novel coronavirus ] is the causative agent for clinical symptoms ."
Second bullet point says:
" The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019
nCOV infection ." Third bullet point says: " This test cannot rule out diseases caused
by other bacterial or viral pathogens ."
It is still not clear whether there has ever been a scientifically correct isolation of the
Wuhan virus , so that nobody knows exactly what we're looking for when we test, especially
since this virus, just like the flu viruses, mutates quickly. The PCR swabs take one or two
sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified
in many cycles to make it visible . Everything over 35 cycles is – as reported by the
New York Times and others – considered completely unreliable and scientifically
unjustifiable. However, the Drosten test, as well as the WHO-recommended tests that followed
his example, are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many
positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a
large number of infections have been detected?
The test cannot distinguish inactive and reproductive matter. That means that a positive
result may happen because the test detects, for example, a piece of debris, a fragment of a
molecule, which may signal nothing else than that the immune system of the person tested won a
battle with a common cold in the past. Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a
German business magazine in 2014, at that time concerning the alleged detection of an infection
with the MERS virus, allegedly with the help of the PCR test, that these PCR tests are so
highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive . At
that time, he also became very much aware of the powerful role of a panic and fear-mongering
media, as you'll see at the end of the following quote. He said then, in this interview: "
If, for example, such a pathogen scurries over the nasal mucosa of a nurse for a day or so
without her getting sick or noticing anything, then she's suddenly a MERS case. This could also
explain the explosion of case numbers in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the media there have made
this into an incredible sensation ."
Has he forgotten this? Or is he deliberately concealing this in the corona context because
corona is a very lucrative business opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? And
for Mr. Alford Lund, his co-author in many studies and also a PCR-test producer. In my view, it
is completely implausible that he forgot in 2020 what he knew about the PCR tests and told the
business magazine in 2014.
In short, this test cannot detect any infection, contrary to all false claims stating that
it can. An infection, a so-called "hot" infection, requires that the virus, or rather a
fragment of a molecule which may be a virus, is not just found somewhere, for example, in the
throat of a person without causing any damage – that would be a "cold" infection. Rather,
a "hot" infection requires that the virus penetrates into the cells, replicates there and
causes symptoms such as headaches or a sore throat. Only then is a person really infected in
the sense of a "hot" infection, because only then is a person contagious, that is, able to
infect others. Until then, it is completely harmless for both the host and all other people
that the host comes into contact with.
Once again, this means that positive test results, contrary to all other claims by Drosten,
Wieler, or the WHO , mean nothing with respect to infections, as even the CDC knows, as quoted
above.
Meanwhile, a number of highly respected scientists worldwide assume that there has never
been a corona pandemic, but only a PCR-test pandemic . This is the conclusion reached by many
German scientists, such as professors Bhakti, Reiss, Mölling, Hockertz, Walach and many
others, including the above-mentioned Professor John Ioannidis, and the Nobel laureate,
Professor Michael Levitt from Stanford University.
The most recent such opinion is that of the aforementioned Dr. Mike Yeadon , a former
Vice-President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer, who held this position for 16 years. He and
his co-authors, all well-known scientists, published a scientific paper in September of 2020
and he wrote a corresponding magazine article on September 20, 2020. Among other things, he and
they state – and I quote:
" We're basing our government policy, our economic policy, and the policy of restricting
fundamental rights, presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus.
If it weren't for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic
would be over because nothing really happened. Of course, there are some serious individual
cases of illness, but there are also some in every flu epidemic. There was a real wave of
disease in March and April, but since then, everything has gone back to normal. Only the
positive results rise and sink wildly again and again, depending on how many tests are carried
out. But the real cases of illnesses are over. There can be no talk of a second wave. The
allegedly new strain of the coronavirus is "
– Dr. Yeadon continues –
" only new in that it is a new type of the long-known corona virus. There are at least
four coronaviruses that are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience,
especially in winter. They all have a striking sequence similarity to the coronavirus, and
because the human immune system recognizes the similarity to the virus that has now allegedly
been newly discovered, a T-cell immunity has long existed in this respect. 30 per cent of the
population had this before the allegedly new virus evenappeared. Therefore, it is
sufficient for the so-called herd immunity that 15 to 25 per cent of the population are
infected with the allegedly new coronavirus to stop the further spread of the virus. And this
has long been the case ."
" The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89 to
94 per cent, or near certainty ."
Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology Kamera from Germany, Kappel from
the Netherlands, and Cahill from Ireland, as well as the microbiologist Dr. Arve from Austria,
all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive
test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.
The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is – and I quote:
" Simply the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could
be a piece of dead virus, which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and
cannot make anyone else sick ."
Because of the complete unsuitability of the test for the detection of infectious diseases
– tested positive in goats, sheep, papayas and even chicken wings – Oxford
Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, writes that the
Covid virus would never disappear if this test practice were to be continued, but would always
be falsely detected in much of what is tested. Lockdowns, as Yeadon and his colleagues found
out, do not work. Sweden, with its laissez-faire approach, and Great Britain, with its strict
lockdown, for example, have completely comparable disease and mortality statistics. The same
was found by US scientists concerning the different US states. It makes no difference to the
incidence of disease whether a state implements a lockdown or not.
With regard to the now infamous Imperial College of London's Professor Neil Ferguson and his
completely false computer models warning of millions of deaths, he says that – and I
quote: " No serious scientist gives any validity to Ferguson's model." He points out
with thinly veiled contempt – again I quote:
" It's important that you know, most scientists don't accept that it " – that
is, Ferguson's model – " was even faintly right. But the government is still wedded to
the model ." Ferguson predicted 40 thousand corona deaths in Sweden by May and 100 thousand
by June, but it remained at 5,800 which, according to the Swedish authorities, is equivalent to
a mild flu. If the PCR tests had not been used as a diagnostic tool for corona infections,
there would not be a pandemic and there would be no lockdowns, but everything would have been
perceived as just a medium or light wave of influenza, these scientists conclude. Dr. Yeadon in
his piece, " Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False
Positives, writes: " This test is fatally flawed and must immediately be withdrawn and
never used again in this setting, unless shown to be fixed ." And, towards the end of that
article, " I have explained how a hopelessly performing diagnostic test has been, and
continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease, but it seems solely to create fear
".
Now let's take a look at the current actual situation regarding the severe damage caused by
the lockdowns and other measures. Another detailed paper, written by a German official in the
Department of the Interior, who is responsible for risk assessment and the protection of the
population against risks, was leaked recently. It is now called the "False Alarm" paper. This
paper comes to the conclusion that there was that there was and is no sufficient evidence for
serious health risks for the population as claimed by Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, but –
the author says – there's very much evidence of the corona measures causing gigantic
health and economic damage to the population, which he then describes in detail in this paper.
This, he concludes, will lead to very high claims for damages, which the government will be
held responsible for. This has now become reality, but the paper's author was suspended.
More and more scientists, but also lawyers, recognize that, as a result of the deliberate
panic-mongering, and the corona measures enabled by this panic, democracy is in great danger of
being replaced by fascist totalitarian models. As I already mentioned above, in Australia,
people who do not wear the masks, which more and more studies show, are hazardous to health, or
who allegedly do not wear them correctly, are arrested, handcuffed and thrown into jail. In the
Philippines, they run the risk of getting shot, but even in Germany and in other previously
civilized countries, children are taken away from their parents if they do not comply with
quarantine regulations, distance regulations, and mask-wearing regulations. According to
psychologists and psychotherapists who testified before the Corona Committee, children are
traumatized en masse, with the worst psychological consequences yet to be expected in the
medium- and long-term. In Germany alone, to bankruptcies are expected in the fall to strike
small- and medium-sized businesses, which form the backbone of the economy. This will result in
incalculable tax losses and incalculably high and long-term social security money transfers for
– among other things – unemployment benefits.
Since, in the meantime, pretty much everybody is beginning to understand the full
devastating impact of the completely unfounded corona measures, I will refrain from detailing
this any further.
Let me now give you a summary of the legal consequences. The most difficult part of a
lawyer's work is always to establish the true facts, not the application of the legal rules to
these facts. Unfortunately, a German lawyer does not learn this at law school but his
Anglo-American counterparts do get the necessary training for this at their law schools.
And probably for this reason, but also because of the much more pronounced independence of the
Anglo-American judiciary, the Anglo-American law of evidence is much more effective in practice
than the German one. A court of law can only decide a legal dispute correctly if it has
previously determined the facts correctly, which is not possible without looking at all the
evidence. And that's why the law of evidence is so important. On the basis of the facts
summarized above, in particular those established with the help of the work of the German
Corona Committee, the legal evaluation is actually simple. It is simple for all civilized legal
systems, regardless of whether these legal systems are based on civil law, which follows the
Roman law more closely, or whether they are based on Anglo-American common law, which is only
loosely connected to Roman law.
Let's first take a look at the unconstitutionality of the measures. A number of German law
professors, including professors Kingreen, Morswig, Jungbluth and Vosgerau have stated, either
in written expert opinions or in interviews, in line with the serious doubts expressed by the
former president of the federal constitutional court with respect to the constitutionality of
the corona measures, that these measures – the corona measures – are without a
sufficient factual basis, and also without a sufficient legal basis, and are therefore
unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately. Very recently, a judge, Thorsten Schleif is
his name, declared publicly that the German judiciary, just like the general public, has been
so panic-stricken that it was no longer able to administer justice properly. He says that the
courts of law – and I quote – "have all too quickly waved through coercive measures
which, for millions of people all over Germany, represent massive suspensions of their
constitutional rights. He points out that German citizens – again I quote – "are
currently experiencing the most serious encroachment on their constitutional rights since the
founding of the federal republic of Germany in 1949". In order to contain the corona pandemic,
federal and state governments have intervened, he says, massively, and in part threatening the
very existence of the country as it is guaranteed by the constitutional rights of the
people.
What about fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity?
Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or
intentional misrepresentation , as it was committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and WHO, as well
as the WHO, can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this
translates into intentional infliction of damage. The German professor of civil law, Martin
Schwab, supports this finding in public interviews. In a comprehensive legal opinion of around
180 pages, he has familiarized himself with the subject matter like no other legal scholar has
done thus far and, in particular, has provided a detailed account of the complete failure of
the mainstream media to report on the true facts of this so-called pandemic. Messrs. Drosten,
Wieler and Tedros of the WHO all knew, based on their own expertise or the expertise of their
institutions, that the PCR tests cannot provide any information about infections, but asserted
over and over again to the general public that they can, with their counterparts all over the
world repeating this. And they all knew and accepted that, on the basis of their
recommendations, the governments of the world would decide on lockdowns, the rules for social
distancing, and mandatory wearing of masks, the latter representing a very serious health
hazard, as more and more independent studies and expert statements show. Under the rules of
civil tort law, all those who have been harmed by these PCR-test-induced lockdowns are entitled
to receive full compensation for their losses. In particular, there is a duty to compensate
– that is, a duty to pay damages for the loss of profits suffered by companies and
self-employed employed persons as a result of the lockdown and other measures.
In the meantime, however, the anti-corona measures have caused, and continue to cause, such
devastating damage to the world population's health and economy that the crimes committed by
Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against
humanity , as defined in section 7 of the International Criminal Code.
How can we do something? What can we do? Well, the class action is the best route to
compensatory damages and to political consequences. The so-called class action lawsuit is based
on English law and exists today in the USA and in Canada. It enables a court of law to allow a
complaint for damages to be tried as a class action lawsuit at the request of a plaintiff
if:
As a result of a damage-inducing event
A large number of people suffer the same type of damage.
Phrased differently, a judge can allow a class-action lawsuit to go forward if common
questions of law and fact make up the vital component of the lawsuit. Here, the common
questions of law and fact revolve around the worldwide PCR-test-based lockdowns and its
consequences. Just like the VW diesel passenger cars were functioning products, but they were
defective due to a so-called defeat device because they didn't comply with the emissions
standards, so too the PCR tests – which are perfectly good products in other settings
– are defective products when it comes to the diagnosis of infections. Now, if an
American or Canadian company or an American or Canadian individual decides to sue these persons
in the United States or Canada for damages, then the court called upon to resolve this dispute
may, upon request, allow this complaint to be tried as a class action lawsuit.
If this happens, all affected parties worldwide will be informed about this through
publications in the mainstream media and will thus have the opportunity to join this class
action within a certain period of time, to be determined by the court. It should be emphasized
that nobody must join the class action, but every injured party can join the
class.
The advantage of the class action is that only one trial is needed , namely to try
the complaint of a representative plaintiff who is affected in a manner typical of everyone
else in the class. This is, firstly, cheaper, and secondly, faster than hundreds of thousands
or more individual lawsuits. And thirdly, it imposes less of a burden on the courts. Fourthly,
as a rule it allows a much more precise examination of the accusations than would be possible
in the context of hundreds of thousands, or more likely in this corona setting, even millions
of individual lawsuits.
In particular, the well-established and proven Anglo-American law of evidence, with its
pre-trial discovery, is applicable. This requires that all evidence relevant for the
determination of the lawsuit is put on the table. In contrast to the typical situation in
German lawsuits with structural imbalance, that is, lawsuits involving on the one hand a
consumer, and on the other hand a powerful corporation, the withholding or even destruction of
evidence is not without consequence; rather the party withholding or even destroying evidence
loses the case under these evidence rules.
Here in Germany, a group of tort lawyers have banded together to help their clients with
recovery of damages. They have provided all relevant information and forms for German
plaintiffs to both estimate how much damage they have suffered and join the group or class of
plaintiffs who will later join the class action when it goes forward either in Canada or the
US. Initially, this group of lawyers had considered to also collect and manage the claims for
damages of other, non-German plaintiffs, but this proved to be unmanageable.
However, through an international lawyers' network, which is growing larger by the day, the
German group of attorneys provides to all of their colleagues in all other countries, free of
charge, all relevant information, including expert opinions and testimonies of experts showing
that the PCR tests cannot detect infections. And they also provide them with all relevant
information as to how they can prepare and bundle the claims for damages of their clients so
that, they too, can assert their clients' claims for damages, either in their home country's
courts of law, or within the framework of the class action, as explained above.
These scandalous corona facts, gathered mostly by the Corona Committee and summarized above,
are the very same facts that will soon be proven to be true either in one court of law, or in
many courts of law all over the world.
These are the facts that will pull the masks off the faces of all those responsible for
these crimes. To the politicians who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby
offered as a lifeline that can help you readjust your course of action, and start the long
overdue public scientific discussion, and not go down with those charlatans and criminals.
Thank you.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The German Corona Investigative Committee has taken testimony from a large number of
international scientists and experts since July 10, 2020.
Scroll down for the Video and Full Transcript of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich 's presentation.
Their conclusions are the following:
The corona crisis must be renamed the "Corona Scandal"
It is:
The biggest tort case ever
The greatest crime against humanity ever committed
Those responsible must be:
Criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity
Sued for civil damages
Deaths
There is no excess mortality in any country
Corona virus mortality equals seasonal flu
94% of deaths in Bergamo were caused by transferring sick patients to nursing homes
where they infected old people with weak immune systems
Doctors and hospitals worldwide were paid to declare deceased victims of
Covid-19
Autopsies showed:
Fatalities almost all caused by serious pre-existing conditions
Almost all deaths were very old people
Sweden (no lockdown) and Britain (strict lockdown) have comparable disease and
mortality statistics
US states with and without lockdowns have comparable disease and mortality
statistics
Health
Hospitals remain empty and some face bankruptcy
Populations have T-cell immunity from previous influenza waves
Herd immunity needs only 15-25% population infection and is already achieved
Only when a person has symptoms can an infection be contagious
Tests:
Many scientists call this a PCR-test pandemic, not a corona pandemic
Very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive
Likelihood of false-positives is 89-94% or near certainty
Prof. Drosten developed his PCR test from an old SARS virus without ever having seen
the real Wuhan virus from China
The PCR test is not based on scientific facts with respect to infections
PCR tests are useless for the detection of infections
A positive PCR test does not mean an infection is present or that an intact virus has
been found
Amplification of samples over 35 cycles is unreliable but WHO recommended 45
cycles
Illegality:
The German government locked down, imposed social-distancing/ mask-wearing on the
basis of a single opinion
The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating
The lockdowns were based on non-existent infections
Former president of the German federal constitutional court doubted the
constitutionality of the corona measures
Former UK supreme court judge Lord Sumption concluded there was no factual basis for
panic and no legal basis for corona measures
German RKI (CDC equivalent) recommended no autopsies be performed
Corona measures have no sufficient factual or legal basis, are unconstitutional and
must be repealed immediately
No serious scientist gives any validity to the infamous Neil Ferguson's false
computer models warning of millions of deaths
Mainstream media completely failed to report the true facts of the so-called
pandemic
Democracy is in danger of being replaced by fascist totalitarian models
Drosten (of PCR test), Tedros of WHO, and others have committed crimes against
humanity as defined in the International Criminal Code
Politicians can avoid going down with the charlatans and criminals by starting the
long overdue public scientific discussion
Conspiracy:
Politicians and mainstream media deliberately drove populations to panic
Children were calculatedly made to feel responsible "for the painful tortured death
of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow Corona rules"
The hopeless PCR test is used to create fear and not to diagnose
There can be no talk of a second wave
Injury and damage:
Evidence of gigantic health and economic damage to populations
Anti-corona measures have:
Killed innumerable people
Destroyed countless companies and individuals worldwide
Children are being taken away from their parents
Children are traumatized en masse
Bankruptcies are expected in small- and medium-sized businesses
Redress:
A class action lawsuit must be filed in the USA or Canada, with all affected parties
worldwide having the opportunity to join
Companies and self-employed people must be compensated for damages
Full Transcript
Hello. I am Reiner Fuellmich and I have been admitted to the Bar in Germany and in
California for 26 years. I have been practicing law primarily as a trial lawyer against
fraudulent corporations such as Deutsche Bank, formerly one of the world's largest and most
respected banks, today one of the most toxic criminal organizations in the world; VW, one of
the world's largest and most respected car manufacturers, today notorious for its giant diesel
fraud; and Kuehne and Nagel, the world's largest shipping company. We're suing them in a
multi-million-dollar bribery case.
I'm also one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Since July 10,
2020, this Committee has been listening to a large number of international scientists' and
experts' testimony to find answers to questions about the corona crisis, which more and more
people worldwide are asking. All the above-mentioned cases of corruption and fraud committed by
the German corporations pale in comparison in view of the extent of the damage that the corona
crisis has caused and continues to cause.
This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a "Corona Scandal" and
those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages. On a
political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again be in a
position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity or to attempt to manipulate us with
their corrupt agendas. And for this reason I will now explain to you how and where an
international network of lawyers will argue this biggest tort case ever, the corona fraud
scandal, which has meanwhile unfolded into probably the greatest crime against humanity ever
committed.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/lWSuvM5MjV2r/
Crimes against humanity were first defined in connection with the Nuremberg trials after
World War II, that is, when they dealt with the main war criminals of the Third Reich. Crimes
against humanity are today regulated in section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three
major questions to be answered in the context of a judicial approach to the corona scandal
are:
Is there a corona pandemic or is there only a PCR-test pandemic? Specifically, does a
positive PCR-test result mean that the person tested is infected with Covid-19, or does it
mean absolutely nothing in connection with the Covid-19 infection?
Do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdown, mandatory face masks, social
distancing, and quarantine regulations, serve to protect the world's population from corona,
or do these measures serve only to make people panic so that they believe – without
asking any questions – that their lives are in danger, so that in the end the
pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests,
antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic
fingerprints?
Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied, more so than any other
country, by the chief protagonists of this so-called corona pandemic, Mr. Drosten, virologist
at charity hospital in Berlin; Mr. Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of
the CDC, the RKI; and Mr. Tedros, Head of the World Health Organization or WHO; because
Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role
model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence to the
corona measures?
Answers to these three questions are urgently needed because the allegedly new and highly
dangerous coronavirus has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world, and certainly
not here in Germany. But the anti-corona measures, whose only basis are the PCR-test results,
which are in turn all based on the German Drosten test, have, in the meantime, caused the loss
of innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and
individuals worldwide. In Australia, for example, people are thrown into prison if they do not
wear a mask or do not wear it properly, as deemed by the authorities. In the Philippines,
people who do not wear a mask or do not wear it properly, in this sense, are getting shot in
the head.
Let me first give you a summary of the facts as they present themselves today. The most
important thing in a lawsuit is to establish the facts – that is, to find out what
actually happened. That is because the application of the law always depends on the facts at
issue. If I want to prosecute someone for fraud, I cannot do that by presenting the facts of a
car accident. So what happened here regarding the alleged corona pandemic?
The facts laid out below are, to a large extent, the result of the work of the Corona
Investigative Committee. This Committee was founded on July 10, 2020 by four lawyers in order
to determine, through hearing expert testimony of international scientists and other
experts:
How dangerous is the virus really?
What is the significance of a positive PCR test?
What collateral damage has been caused by the corona measures, both with respect to the
world population's health, and with respect to the world's economy?
Let me start with a little bit of background information. What happened in May 2019 and then
in early 2020? And what happened 12 years earlier with the swine flu, which many of you may
have forgotten about? In May 2019, the stronger of the two parties which govern Germany in a
grand coalition, the CDU, held a Congress on Global Health, apparently at the instigation of
important players from the pharmaceutical industry and the tech industry. At this Congress, the
usual suspects, you might say, gave their speeches. Angela Merkel was there, and the German
Secretary of Health, Jens Spahn. But, some other people, whom one would not necessarily expect
to be present at such a gathering, were also there: Professor Drosten, virologist from the
Charite hospital in Berlin; Professor Wieler, veterinarian and Head of the RKI, the German
equivalent of the CDC; as well as Mr. Tedros, philosopher and Head of the World Health
Organization (WHO). They all gave speeches there. Also present and giving speeches were the
chief lobbyists of the world's two largest health funds, namely the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Less than a year later, these very people called the shots
in the proclamation of the worldwide corona pandemic, made sure that mass PCR tests were used
to prove mass infections with Covid-19 all over the world, and are now pushing for vaccines to
be invented and sold worldwide.
T hese infections, or rather the positive test results that the PCR tests delivered, in turn
became the justification for worldwide lockdowns, social distancing and mandatory face masks.
It is important to note at this point that the definition of a pandemic was changed 12 years
earlier. Until then, a pandemic was considered to be a disease that spread worldwide and which
led to many serious illnesses and deaths. Suddenly, and for reasons never explained, it was
supposed to be a worldwide disease only . Many serious illnesses and many deaths were
not required any more to announce a pandemic. Due to this change, the WHO, which is closely
intertwined with the global pharmaceutical industry, was able to declare the swine flu pandemic
in 2009, with the result that vaccines were produced and sold worldwide on the basis of
contracts that have been kept secret until today.
These vaccines proved to be completely unnecessary because the swine flu eventually turned
out to be a mild flu, and never became the horrific plague that the pharmaceutical industry and
its affiliated universities kept announcing it would turn into, with millions of deaths certain
to happen if people didn't get vaccinated. These vaccines also led to serious health problems.
About 700 children in Europe fell incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now forever severely
disabled. The vaccines bought with millions of taxpayers' money had to be destroyed with even
more taxpayers' money. Already then, during the swine flu, the German virologist Drosten was
one of those who stirred up panic in the population, repeating over and over again that the
swine flu would claim many hundreds of thousands, even millions of deaths all over the world.
In the end, it was mainly thanks to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and his efforts as a member of the
German Bundestag, and also a member of the Council of Europe, that this hoax was brought to an
end before it would lead to even more serious consequences.
Fast forward to March of 2020, when the German Bundestag announced an Epidemic Situation of
National Importance, which is the German equivalent of a pandemic in March of 2020 and, based
on this, the lockdown with the suspension of all essential constitutional rights for an
unforeseeable time, there was only one single opinion on which the Federal Government in
Germany based its decision. In an outrageous violation of the universally accepted principle "
audiatur et altera pars ", which means that one must also hear the other side, the only
person they listened to was Mr. Drosten.
That is the very person whose horrific, panic-inducing prognoses had proved to be
catastrophically false 12 years earlier. We know this because a whistleblower named David
Sieber, a member of the Green Party, told us about it. He did so first on August 29, 2020 in
Berlin, in the context of an event at which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. also took part, and at which
both men gave speeches. And he did so afterwards in one of the sessions of our Corona
Committee.
The reason he did this is that he had become increasingly sceptical about the official
narrative propagated by politicians and the mainstream media. He had therefore undertaken an
effort to find out about other scientists' opinions and had found them on the Internet. There,
he realized that there were a number of highly renowned scientists who held a completely
different opinion, which contradicted the horrific prognoses of Mr. Drosten. They assumed
– and still do assume – that there was no disease that went beyond the gravity of
the seasonal flu, that the population had already acquired cross- or T-cell immunity against
this allegedly new virus, and that there was therefore no reason for any special measures, and
certainly not for vaccinations.
These scientists include Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California, a
specialist in statistics and epidemiology, as well as public health, and at the same time the
most quoted scientist in the world; Professor Michael Levitt, Nobel prize-winner for chemistry
and also a biophysicist at Stanford University; the German professors Kary Mölling,
Sucharit Bhakti, Klud Wittkowski, as well as Stefan Homburg; and now many, many more scientists
and doctors worldwide, including Dr. Mike Yeadon. Dr. Mike Yeadon is the former Vice-President
and Scientific Director of Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. I
will talk some more about him a little later.
At the end of March, beginning of April of 2020, Mr. Sieber turned to the leadership of his
Green Party with the knowledge he had accumulated, and suggested that they present these other
scientific opinions to the public and explain that, contrary to Mr. Drosten's doomsday
prophecies, there was no reason for the public to panic. Incidentally, Lord Sumption, who
served as a judge at the British supreme court from 2012 to 2018, had done the very same thing
at the very same time and had come to the very same conclusion: that there was no factual basis
for panic and no legal basis for the corona measures. Likewise, the former President of the
German federal constitutional court expressed – albeit more cautiously – serious
doubts that the corona measures were constitutional. But instead of taking note of these other
opinions and discussing them with David Sieber, the Green Party leadership declared that Mr.
Drosten's panic messages were good enough for the Green Party. Remember, they're not a member
of the ruling coalition; they're the opposition. Still, that was enough for them, just as it
had been good enough for the Federal Government as a basis for its lockdown decision, they
said. They subsequently, the Green Party leadership called David Sieber a conspiracy theorist,
without ever having considered the content of his information, and then stripped him of his
mandates.
Now let's take a look at the current actual situation regarding the virus's danger, the
complete uselessness of PCR tests for the detection of infections, and the lockdowns based on
non-existent infections. In the meantime, we know that the health care systems were never in
danger of becoming overwhelmed by Covid-19. On the contrary, many hospitals remain empty to
this day and some are now facing bankruptcy. The hospital ship Comfort , which anchored
in New York at the time, and could have accommodated a thousand patients, never accommodated
more than some 20 patients. Nowhere was there any excess mortality. Studies carried out by
Professor Ioannidis and others have shown that the mortality of corona is equivalent to that of
the seasonal flu. Even the pictures from Bergamo and New York that were used to demonstrate to
the world that panic was in order proved to be deliberately misleading.
Then, the so-called "Panic Paper" was leaked, which was written by the German Department of
the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that, in fact, the
population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media. The
accompanying irresponsible statements of the Head of the RKI – remember the [German] CDC
– Mr. Wieler, who repeatedly and excitedly announced that the corona measures must be
followed unconditionally by the population without them asking any question, shows that that he
followed the script verbatim. In his public statements, he kept announcing that the situation
was very grave and threatening, although the figures compiled by his own Institute proved the
exact opposite.
Among other things, the "Panic Paper" calls for children to be made to feel responsible
– and I quote – "for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents
if they do not follow the corona rules", that is, if they do not wash their hands constantly
and don't stay away from their grandparents. A word of clarification: in Bergamo, the vast
majority of deaths, 94% to be exact, turned out to be the result not of Covid-19, but rather
the consequence of the government deciding to transfer sick patients, sick with probably the
cold or seasonal flu, from hospitals to nursing homes in order to make room at the hospitals
for all the Covid patients, who ultimately never arrived. There, at the nursing homes, they
then infected old people with a severely weakened immune system, usually as a result of
pre-existing medical conditions. In addition, a flu vaccination, which had previously been
administered, had further weakened the immune systems of the people in the nursing homes. In
New York, only some, but by far not all hospitals were overwhelmed. Many people, most of whom
were again elderly and had serious pre-existing medical conditions, and most of whom, had it
not been for the panic-mongering, would have just stayed at home to recover, raced to the
hospitals. There, many of them fell victim to healthcare-associated infections (or nosocomial
infections) on the one hand, and incidents of malpractice on the other hand, for example, by
being put on a respirator rather than receiving oxygen through an oxygen mask. Again, to
clarify: Covid-19, this is the current state of affairs, is a dangerous disease, just like the
seasonal flu is a dangerous disease. And of course, Covid-19, just like the seasonal flu, may
sometimes take take a severe clinical course and will sometimes kill patients.
However, as autopsies have shown, which were carried out in Germany in particular, by the
forensic scientist Professor Klaus Püschel in Hamburg, the fatalities he examined had
almost all been caused by serious pre-existing conditions, and almost all of the people who had
died had died at the very at a very old age, just like in Italy, meaning they had lived beyond
their average life expectancy.
In this context, the following should also be mentioned: the German RKI – that is,
again the equivalent of the CDC – had initially, strangely enough, recommended that no
autopsies be performed. And there are numerous credible reports that doctors and hospitals
worldwide had been paid money for declaring a deceased person a victim of Covid-19 rather than
writing down the true cause of death on the death certificate, for example a heart attack or a
gunshot wound. Without the autopsies, we would never know that the overwhelming majority of the
alleged Covid-19 victims had died of completely different diseases, but not of Covid-19. The
assertion that the lockdown was necessary because there were so many different infections with
SARS-COV-2, and because the healthcare systems would be overwhelmed is wrong for three reasons,
as we have learned from the hearings we conducted with the Corona Committee, and from other
data that has become available in the meantime:
A. The lockdown was imposed when the virus was already retreating. By the time the lockdown
was imposed, the alleged infection rates were already dropping again.
B. There's already protection from the virus because of cross- or T-cell immunity. Apart
from the above mentioned lockdown being imposed when the infection rates were already dropping,
there is also cross- or T-cell immunity in the general population against the corona viruses
contained in every flu or influenza wave. This is true, even if this time around, a slightly
different strain of the coronavirus was at work. And that is because the body's own immune
system remembers every virus it has ever battled in the past, and from this experience, it also
recognizes a supposedly new, but still similar, strain of the virus from the corona family.
Incidentally, that's how the PCR test for the detection of an infection was invented by now
infamous Professor Drosten.
At the beginning of January of 2020, based on this very basic knowledge, Mr. Drosten
developed his PCR test, which supposedly detects an infection with SARS-COV-2, without ever
having seen the real Wuhan virus from China, only having learned from social media reports that
there was something going on in Wuhan, he started tinkering on his computer with what would
become his corona PCR test. For this, he used an old SARS virus, hoping it would be
sufficiently similar to the allegedly new strain of the coronavirus found in Wuhan. Then, he
sent the result of his computer tinkering to China to determine whether the victims of the
alleged new coronavirus tested positive. They did.
And that was enough for the World Health Organization to sound the pandemic alarm and to
recommend the worldwide use of the Drosten PCR test for the detection of infections with the
virus now called SARS-COV-2. Drosten's opinion and advice was – this must be emphasized
once again – the only source for the German government when it announced the lockdown as
well as the rules for social distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks. And – this
must also be emphasized once again – Germany apparently became the center of especially
massive lobbying by the pharmaceutical and tech industry because the world, with reference to
the allegedly disciplined Germans, should do as the Germans do in order to survive the
pandemic.
C. And this is the most important part of our fact-finding: the PCR test is being used on
the basis of false statements, NOT based on scientific facts with respect to infections .
In the meantime, we have learned that these PCR tests, contrary to the assertions of Messrs.
Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, do NOT give any indication of an infection with any virus, let
alone an infection with SARS-COV-2. Not only are PCR tests expressly not approved for
diagnostic purposes, as is correctly noted on leaflets coming with these tests, and as the
inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasized. Instead, they're simply
incapable of diagnosing any disease. That is: contrary to the assertions of Drosten, Wieler and
the WHO, which they have been making since the proclamation of the pandemic, a positive
PCR-test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does
NOT mean that they're infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-COV-2
virus.
Even the United States CDC, even this institution agrees with this, and I quote directly
from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests, dated July 13,
2020. First bullet point says:
" Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019
nCOV [novel coronavirus ] is the causative agent for clinical symptoms ."
Second bullet point says:
" The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019
nCOV infection ." Third bullet point says: " This test cannot rule out diseases caused
by other bacterial or viral pathogens ."
It is still not clear whether there has ever been a scientifically correct isolation of the
Wuhan virus , so that nobody knows exactly what we're looking for when we test, especially
since this virus, just like the flu viruses, mutates quickly. The PCR swabs take one or two
sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified
in many cycles to make it visible . Everything over 35 cycles is – as reported by the
New York Times and others – considered completely unreliable and scientifically
unjustifiable. However, the Drosten test, as well as the WHO-recommended tests that followed
his example, are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many
positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a
large number of infections have been detected?
The test cannot distinguish inactive and reproductive matter. That means that a positive
result may happen because the test detects, for example, a piece of debris, a fragment of a
molecule, which may signal nothing else than that the immune system of the person tested won a
battle with a common cold in the past. Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a
German business magazine in 2014, at that time concerning the alleged detection of an infection
with the MERS virus, allegedly with the help of the PCR test, that these PCR tests are so
highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive . At
that time, he also became very much aware of the powerful role of a panic and fear-mongering
media, as you'll see at the end of the following quote. He said then, in this interview: "
If, for example, such a pathogen scurries over the nasal mucosa of a nurse for a day or so
without her getting sick or noticing anything, then she's suddenly a MERS case. This could also
explain the explosion of case numbers in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the media there have made
this into an incredible sensation ."
Has he forgotten this? Or is he deliberately concealing this in the corona context because
corona is a very lucrative business opportunity for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole? And
for Mr. Alford Lund, his co-author in many studies and also a PCR-test producer. In my view, it
is completely implausible that he forgot in 2020 what he knew about the PCR tests and told the
business magazine in 2014.
In short, this test cannot detect any infection, contrary to all false claims stating that
it can. An infection, a so-called "hot" infection, requires that the virus, or rather a
fragment of a molecule which may be a virus, is not just found somewhere, for example, in the
throat of a person without causing any damage – that would be a "cold" infection. Rather,
a "hot" infection requires that the virus penetrates into the cells, replicates there and
causes symptoms such as headaches or a sore throat. Only then is a person really infected in
the sense of a "hot" infection, because only then is a person contagious, that is, able to
infect others. Until then, it is completely harmless for both the host and all other people
that the host comes into contact with.
Once again, this means that positive test results, contrary to all other claims by Drosten,
Wieler, or the WHO , mean nothing with respect to infections, as even the CDC knows, as quoted
above.
Meanwhile, a number of highly respected scientists worldwide assume that there has never
been a corona pandemic, but only a PCR-test pandemic . This is the conclusion reached by many
German scientists, such as professors Bhakti, Reiss, Mölling, Hockertz, Walach and many
others, including the above-mentioned Professor John Ioannidis, and the Nobel laureate,
Professor Michael Levitt from Stanford University.
The most recent such opinion is that of the aforementioned Dr. Mike Yeadon , a former
Vice-President and Chief Science Officer at Pfizer, who held this position for 16 years. He and
his co-authors, all well-known scientists, published a scientific paper in September of 2020
and he wrote a corresponding magazine article on September 20, 2020. Among other things, he and
they state – and I quote:
" We're basing our government policy, our economic policy, and the policy of restricting
fundamental rights, presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus.
If it weren't for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic
would be over because nothing really happened. Of course, there are some serious individual
cases of illness, but there are also some in every flu epidemic. There was a real wave of
disease in March and April, but since then, everything has gone back to normal. Only the
positive results rise and sink wildly again and again, depending on how many tests are carried
out. But the real cases of illnesses are over. There can be no talk of a second wave. The
allegedly new strain of the coronavirus is "
– Dr. Yeadon continues –
" only new in that it is a new type of the long-known corona virus. There are at least
four coronaviruses that are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience,
especially in winter. They all have a striking sequence similarity to the coronavirus, and
because the human immune system recognizes the similarity to the virus that has now allegedly
been newly discovered, a T-cell immunity has long existed in this respect. 30 per cent of the
population had this before the allegedly new virus evenappeared. Therefore, it is
sufficient for the so-called herd immunity that 15 to 25 per cent of the population are
infected with the allegedly new coronavirus to stop the further spread of the virus. And this
has long been the case ."
" The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89 to
94 per cent, or near certainty ."
Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology Kamera from Germany, Kappel from
the Netherlands, and Cahill from Ireland, as well as the microbiologist Dr. Arve from Austria,
all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive
test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.
The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is – and I quote:
" Simply the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus, which could
be a piece of dead virus, which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and
cannot make anyone else sick ."
Because of the complete unsuitability of the test for the detection of infectious diseases
– tested positive in goats, sheep, papayas and even chicken wings – Oxford
Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, writes that the
Covid virus would never disappear if this test practice were to be continued, but would always
be falsely detected in much of what is tested. Lockdowns, as Yeadon and his colleagues found
out, do not work. Sweden, with its laissez-faire approach, and Great Britain, with its strict
lockdown, for example, have completely comparable disease and mortality statistics. The same
was found by US scientists concerning the different US states. It makes no difference to the
incidence of disease whether a state implements a lockdown or not.
With regard to the now infamous Imperial College of London's Professor Neil Ferguson and his
completely false computer models warning of millions of deaths, he says that – and I
quote: " No serious scientist gives any validity to Ferguson's model." He points out
with thinly veiled contempt – again I quote:
" It's important that you know, most scientists don't accept that it " – that
is, Ferguson's model – " was even faintly right. But the government is still wedded to
the model ." Ferguson predicted 40 thousand corona deaths in Sweden by May and 100 thousand
by June, but it remained at 5,800 which, according to the Swedish authorities, is equivalent to
a mild flu. If the PCR tests had not been used as a diagnostic tool for corona infections,
there would not be a pandemic and there would be no lockdowns, but everything would have been
perceived as just a medium or light wave of influenza, these scientists conclude. Dr. Yeadon in
his piece, " Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False
Positives, writes: " This test is fatally flawed and must immediately be withdrawn and
never used again in this setting, unless shown to be fixed ." And, towards the end of that
article, " I have explained how a hopelessly performing diagnostic test has been, and
continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease, but it seems solely to create fear
".
Now let's take a look at the current actual situation regarding the severe damage caused by
the lockdowns and other measures. Another detailed paper, written by a German official in the
Department of the Interior, who is responsible for risk assessment and the protection of the
population against risks, was leaked recently. It is now called the "False Alarm" paper. This
paper comes to the conclusion that there was that there was and is no sufficient evidence for
serious health risks for the population as claimed by Drosten, Wieler and the WHO, but –
the author says – there's very much evidence of the corona measures causing gigantic
health and economic damage to the population, which he then describes in detail in this paper.
This, he concludes, will lead to very high claims for damages, which the government will be
held responsible for. This has now become reality, but the paper's author was suspended.
More and more scientists, but also lawyers, recognize that, as a result of the deliberate
panic-mongering, and the corona measures enabled by this panic, democracy is in great danger of
being replaced by fascist totalitarian models. As I already mentioned above, in Australia,
people who do not wear the masks, which more and more studies show, are hazardous to health, or
who allegedly do not wear them correctly, are arrested, handcuffed and thrown into jail. In the
Philippines, they run the risk of getting shot, but even in Germany and in other previously
civilized countries, children are taken away from their parents if they do not comply with
quarantine regulations, distance regulations, and mask-wearing regulations. According to
psychologists and psychotherapists who testified before the Corona Committee, children are
traumatized en masse, with the worst psychological consequences yet to be expected in the
medium- and long-term. In Germany alone, to bankruptcies are expected in the fall to strike
small- and medium-sized businesses, which form the backbone of the economy. This will result in
incalculable tax losses and incalculably high and long-term social security money transfers for
– among other things – unemployment benefits.
Since, in the meantime, pretty much everybody is beginning to understand the full
devastating impact of the completely unfounded corona measures, I will refrain from detailing
this any further.
Let me now give you a summary of the legal consequences. The most difficult part of a
lawyer's work is always to establish the true facts, not the application of the legal rules to
these facts. Unfortunately, a German lawyer does not learn this at law school but his
Anglo-American counterparts do get the necessary training for this at their law schools.
And probably for this reason, but also because of the much more pronounced independence of the
Anglo-American judiciary, the Anglo-American law of evidence is much more effective in practice
than the German one. A court of law can only decide a legal dispute correctly if it has
previously determined the facts correctly, which is not possible without looking at all the
evidence. And that's why the law of evidence is so important. On the basis of the facts
summarized above, in particular those established with the help of the work of the German
Corona Committee, the legal evaluation is actually simple. It is simple for all civilized legal
systems, regardless of whether these legal systems are based on civil law, which follows the
Roman law more closely, or whether they are based on Anglo-American common law, which is only
loosely connected to Roman law.
Let's first take a look at the unconstitutionality of the measures. A number of German law
professors, including professors Kingreen, Morswig, Jungbluth and Vosgerau have stated, either
in written expert opinions or in interviews, in line with the serious doubts expressed by the
former president of the federal constitutional court with respect to the constitutionality of
the corona measures, that these measures – the corona measures – are without a
sufficient factual basis, and also without a sufficient legal basis, and are therefore
unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately. Very recently, a judge, Thorsten Schleif is
his name, declared publicly that the German judiciary, just like the general public, has been
so panic-stricken that it was no longer able to administer justice properly. He says that the
courts of law – and I quote – "have all too quickly waved through coercive measures
which, for millions of people all over Germany, represent massive suspensions of their
constitutional rights. He points out that German citizens – again I quote – "are
currently experiencing the most serious encroachment on their constitutional rights since the
founding of the federal republic of Germany in 1949". In order to contain the corona pandemic,
federal and state governments have intervened, he says, massively, and in part threatening the
very existence of the country as it is guaranteed by the constitutional rights of the
people.
What about fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity?
Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or
intentional misrepresentation , as it was committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and WHO, as well
as the WHO, can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this
translates into intentional infliction of damage. The German professor of civil law, Martin
Schwab, supports this finding in public interviews. In a comprehensive legal opinion of around
180 pages, he has familiarized himself with the subject matter like no other legal scholar has
done thus far and, in particular, has provided a detailed account of the complete failure of
the mainstream media to report on the true facts of this so-called pandemic. Messrs. Drosten,
Wieler and Tedros of the WHO all knew, based on their own expertise or the expertise of their
institutions, that the PCR tests cannot provide any information about infections, but asserted
over and over again to the general public that they can, with their counterparts all over the
world repeating this. And they all knew and accepted that, on the basis of their
recommendations, the governments of the world would decide on lockdowns, the rules for social
distancing, and mandatory wearing of masks, the latter representing a very serious health
hazard, as more and more independent studies and expert statements show. Under the rules of
civil tort law, all those who have been harmed by these PCR-test-induced lockdowns are entitled
to receive full compensation for their losses. In particular, there is a duty to compensate
– that is, a duty to pay damages for the loss of profits suffered by companies and
self-employed employed persons as a result of the lockdown and other measures.
In the meantime, however, the anti-corona measures have caused, and continue to cause, such
devastating damage to the world population's health and economy that the crimes committed by
Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and the WHO must be legally qualified as actual crimes against
humanity , as defined in section 7 of the International Criminal Code.
How can we do something? What can we do? Well, the class action is the best route to
compensatory damages and to political consequences. The so-called class action lawsuit is based
on English law and exists today in the USA and in Canada. It enables a court of law to allow a
complaint for damages to be tried as a class action lawsuit at the request of a plaintiff
if:
As a result of a damage-inducing event
A large number of people suffer the same type of damage.
Phrased differently, a judge can allow a class-action lawsuit to go forward if common
questions of law and fact make up the vital component of the lawsuit. Here, the common
questions of law and fact revolve around the worldwide PCR-test-based lockdowns and its
consequences. Just like the VW diesel passenger cars were functioning products, but they were
defective due to a so-called defeat device because they didn't comply with the emissions
standards, so too the PCR tests – which are perfectly good products in other settings
– are defective products when it comes to the diagnosis of infections. Now, if an
American or Canadian company or an American or Canadian individual decides to sue these persons
in the United States or Canada for damages, then the court called upon to resolve this dispute
may, upon request, allow this complaint to be tried as a class action lawsuit.
If this happens, all affected parties worldwide will be informed about this through
publications in the mainstream media and will thus have the opportunity to join this class
action within a certain period of time, to be determined by the court. It should be emphasized
that nobody must join the class action, but every injured party can join the
class.
The advantage of the class action is that only one trial is needed , namely to try
the complaint of a representative plaintiff who is affected in a manner typical of everyone
else in the class. This is, firstly, cheaper, and secondly, faster than hundreds of thousands
or more individual lawsuits. And thirdly, it imposes less of a burden on the courts. Fourthly,
as a rule it allows a much more precise examination of the accusations than would be possible
in the context of hundreds of thousands, or more likely in this corona setting, even millions
of individual lawsuits.
In particular, the well-established and proven Anglo-American law of evidence, with its
pre-trial discovery, is applicable. This requires that all evidence relevant for the
determination of the lawsuit is put on the table. In contrast to the typical situation in
German lawsuits with structural imbalance, that is, lawsuits involving on the one hand a
consumer, and on the other hand a powerful corporation, the withholding or even destruction of
evidence is not without consequence; rather the party withholding or even destroying evidence
loses the case under these evidence rules.
Here in Germany, a group of tort lawyers have banded together to help their clients with
recovery of damages. They have provided all relevant information and forms for German
plaintiffs to both estimate how much damage they have suffered and join the group or class of
plaintiffs who will later join the class action when it goes forward either in Canada or the
US. Initially, this group of lawyers had considered to also collect and manage the claims for
damages of other, non-German plaintiffs, but this proved to be unmanageable.
However, through an international lawyers' network, which is growing larger by the day, the
German group of attorneys provides to all of their colleagues in all other countries, free of
charge, all relevant information, including expert opinions and testimonies of experts showing
that the PCR tests cannot detect infections. And they also provide them with all relevant
information as to how they can prepare and bundle the claims for damages of their clients so
that, they too, can assert their clients' claims for damages, either in their home country's
courts of law, or within the framework of the class action, as explained above.
These scandalous corona facts, gathered mostly by the Corona Committee and summarized above,
are the very same facts that will soon be proven to be true either in one court of law, or in
many courts of law all over the world.
These are the facts that will pull the masks off the faces of all those responsible for
these crimes. To the politicians who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby
offered as a lifeline that can help you readjust your course of action, and start the long
overdue public scientific discussion, and not go down with those charlatans and criminals.
Thank you.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
"the group who is most likely to purposefully choose to #not #vaccinate are #highly
#educated. In speaking with them, these are people who have read the primary literature
themselves, & they're correctly interpreting it, so it's not a misunderstanding." ... "I like
the "Defying public health officials..." by reading and thinking for themselves? and these MIT
heads live in The Land of the Free? smh"..."It's terrifying because the conclusion is essentially
that the "anti maskers" have a better grip on the data, but surely they must be wrong because
they challenge orthodoxy."
"The lack of transparency within these data collection systems -- which many of these
users infer as a lack of honesty -- erodes these users' trust within both government
institutions and the datasets they release."
"In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the
data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states."
"These
groups argue that the conflation of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases therefore makes it
difficult for anyone to actually determine the severity of the pandemic."
"For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific
rigor, not less."
"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who
have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find
the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other
reputable studies...
that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the
limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific
graph."
"While these groups highly value scientific expertise, they also see collective
analysis of data as a way to bring communities together within a time of crisis, and being able
to transparently and dispassionately analyze the data is crucial for democratic governance."
"In fact, the explicit motivation for many of these followers is to find information so that
they can make the best decisions for their families -- and by extension, for the communities
around them."
"The message that runs through these threads is unequivocal: that data is the
only way to set fear-bound politicians straight, and using better data is a surefire way
towards creating a safer community."
"Data literacy is a quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have
created."
"Arguing anti-maskers need more scientific literacy is to characterize their
approach as uninformed & inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are
deeply invested in forms of critique & knowledge production they recognize as markers of
scientific expertise"
"We argue that anti-maskers' deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds a
particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending
elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the
public."
And yet in the conclusion they lament "the skeptical impulse that the 'science
simply isn't settled,' prompting people to simply 'think for themselves" to horrifying ends."
They then compare it to the January 6 Capitol riot. Bizarre and fascinating document. Derrick S. @DuLouef ·
May 10
This paper reads as an appeal to eradicate skepticism and affix in its place, a strict
adherence to dogma, absent of critical thinking. Feels like they would just prefer people take
it on faith that the church of science is infallible, and stop questioning it.
MIT researchers 'infiltrated' a Covid skeptics community a few months ago and found that
skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism. "Most fundamentally, the groups
we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."
This paper shows some crazy data about the complexity and stupidity of some people. They
know just enough to be "smart" and as a researcher I'll dispute a major premise - that these
people act in good faith. They do not. How do I know? Just go talk to them, read what they
wrote, and watch what they do. They don't analyze the data. They analyze some data and
dismiss a lot of good data that says the opposite. 6 Reply Share Report Save
We argue that anti-maskers' deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds
a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic,
condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking
from the public.
Damn they fucking nailed the libs. 18 Reply Share Report Save
In my experience, I've seen a lot of people who absolutely look at the data. However, they
do not have a science background, so therefore they often misinterpret things. They often see
things in the data that really aren't there, or that the data really can't prove. 48 Reply
Share Report Save
You can either try your best, put your ideas out for public scrutiny, and try to be
intellectually honest or you can completely outsource your thinking to people who (a) still
might have no clue what they're talking about, (b) might not have your best interest at
heart, (c) are possibly not using scientific processes so much as appeals to conformity. 19
Reply Share Report Save
This is the way I view it: If it is a singular government entity sharing information, then
I am generally skeptical. However, in the case of something like covid, you have independent
entities across the world with scientists agreeing on several key things. In that instance,
the chance of a conspiracy goes so far down that it is more prudent to lean on their
scientific expertise than my own analysis, which is probably so corrupted by my personal bias
as to not be very accurate. So I'm not sure I agree with the idea that I have to do something
- adding my own uneducated opinion in with the massive amount of other uneducated opinions is
not adding any value to the world. In fact, I would say it is an active detriment as it
muddies the waters, and at least here in the US, I think it is what has pushed us into more
anti-scientific thinking. 4 Reply Share Report Save
Why is a dispersed power structure more reliable? It's not like they don't all have
powerful incentives to conform.
adding my own uneducated opinion in with the massive amount of other uneducated opinions
is not adding any value to the world.
Your opinion on who is credible to follow blindly is equally as credible as your opinion
on covid.
Seriously though, just read source material. It's not that hard and when you do, you'll
notice it's not written in Latin and filled with PhD math. It's accessible to anyone and
it'll become intuitively obvious to you why you should be allowed to enter the discussion. 6
Reply Share Report Save
Your opinion on who is credible to follow blindly is equally as credible as your opinion
on covid.
Disagree completely. If you look at the worldwide community of scientists and they agree
on several key things, my opinion does not trump that. Now granted, there is a slight chance
that system fails. For example, in the US, the sugar lobby successfully placed health blames
on fat instead of sugar; however, those instances are in the minority, especially when there
are more institutions studying any given issue. As for my opinion, I could have an ego and
say that I could read the studies myself and form my own conclusion. I studied at a very
well-respected university and consider myself fairly mentally adept; however, my background
is not in the sciences and I would undoubtedly misconstrue something. Beyond that, half the
world's population is below average intelligence, and to think that they are going to draw
conclusions that are both correct and yet different from the scientific community at large is
simply laughable to me. But what they can do is misconstrue things, share it with
their equally uneducated friends, and build a swell of uninformed opinions that have the same
voting power as everyone else. And we are seeing this in action right now because people
think that their own opinions are better than someone who has studied the subject for
decades.
And again, to be clear, I'm not advocating for blind following. If something doesn't seem
right, then ask questions - that makes a ton of sense. But I think where people get messed up
is that they see something that doesn't seem to add up, but rather than ask questions of a
subject matter expert, they then try to answer it themselves, and they (laypeople) will
almost always be wrong in that situation. 1 Reply Share Report Save
If you don't read the literature then you have no idea if there is a "slight" chance of
the system failing. I've literally never met a half decent scientist who had any respect for
the institutions today. The system actually fails quite often due to a metric shit load of
problems with every aspect of scientific institutionalism from publication biases, to media
backlash and public backlash, to unqualified scientists with bad methods, bad research, and
bad results.
Know-nothing normie idiots treat scientists like some sort of intellectual super soldier
titans of knowledge, but most of them are midwits who lack passion and do the bare minimum to
get by. The only way to be informed is to be an actual part of the process by actually
reading the literature and taking an active role in your own thought processes. 1 Reply Share
Report Save
You think that someone who has advanced degrees in a specific niche is anywhere close to a
"midwit"? Sure, scientists are not infallible, but you are going the opposite extreme. 1
Reply Share Report Save
Degrees are more of a measure of how long you're willing to stay in college for than
anything else. It used to be 10% of society going, probably approximately the top 10%
intellectually, and now there's not only far more and far less impressive people, but their
grades are inflated. The private sector knows I'm right, which is why "Hey, I have a degree!"
will no longer just instantly land you a job.
What I'm saying is really not that extreme. Scientists are not excluded from the maxim
that 90% of everything is crap. Scientists are not the exception to the fact that most
employees phone it in day to day. Scientists are not excluded from social and political
pressures, and neither are the institutions that they work for.
You should not outsource your thinking based on the claims of institutions that those
institutions are wonderful. You should read the subject matter well enough to ask intelligent
questions and have a web of belief to fall back on that is based on actual information and
not based on a game of telephone. You should then put your thoughts up to public scrutiny,
ask questions as needed, and develop some working understanding of the world around you. This
statement is not extreme. 3 Reply Share Report Save
I have to admit that I'm getting so incredibly tired from people saying stuff like this:
"Degrees are more of a measure of how long you're willing to stay in college for than
anything else." That's just absurd. You have no idea what goes into a doctoral thesis, at
least from a reputable school.
I see a trend in your posts where there is a string of truth, but then takes a much more
extreme view of that situation. For example, yes, as more people are pushed into college
situations, it will be less that are potentially qualified, but that is a GIANT leap to what
you then say. And yes, surely there are well-educated but ultimately lazy scientists, but
again, you use that minority to make generalized statements over the entire scientific
community.
At the end, what you say has merit - if you ask questions directed to subject matter
experts and not your layperson peers , and continue to educate yourself, at some point
you will have an opinion that has validity. But we are talking about years of study to then
understand the issues well enough to dispute those who already have those years of experience
and study. If you want to go that route, that's completely fine, but that is not the average
person, nor anywhere close to it. It frankly is a lot more effective to simply get better at
being more discerning who to trust from that existing group of experts. Vote Reply Share
Report Save
I'm a covid skeptic in that I believe it's real, but don't trust my government to tell a)
the truth and (b) not sensationalise it for their benefit.
I like to see the data and evaluate things myself, I'm pretty smart with that and was in
the early day "close the borders or were screwed" camp back in December 2018 / January
2019
Empirical data is the only thing worth anything.
I do worry for people who don't have my background in science or know when to stop and say
"I don't know so let's just do the safe thing" though.
Am I the only one amused by the illusion of precision when it comes to defining outcomes
associated with "herd immunity". Inputs, for example, from our CDC, have consistently been
wrong, or manipulated to achieve a political end. Masks were necessary, then they weren't .
Six feet, became three feet, then back to six feet. We will get thru this, because we must.
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting workplaces
and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study by
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting workplaces
and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study by
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite
J Domingo
The lockdowns were not supposed stop anything.
Love it when people unintentionally and accidentally tell the truth.
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting workplaces
and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study by
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite
J Domingo
The lockdowns were not supposed stop anything.
Love it when people unintentionally and accidentally tell the truth.
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting
workplaces and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study by
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite
J Domingo
The lockdowns were not supposed stop anything.
Love it when people unintentionally and accidentally tell the truth.
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting
workplaces and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study
by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite
J Domingo
The lockdowns were not supposed stop anything.
Love it when people unintentionally and accidentally tell the truth.
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting
workplaces and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study
by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite
J Domingo
The lockdowns were not supposed stop anything.
Love it when people unintentionally and accidentally tell
the truth.
Covid-19 lockdowns shaved 3.5% off U.S. GDP in 2020 even as the federal government spent
more than $2.6 trillion in relief measures. Millions of children fell behind in learning and
nearly 100,000 businesses closed for good.
Conventional wisdom holds this was worth it because lives were saved by shutting workplaces
and schools and telling people to stay home. But a new study by
University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows the opposite. After the first month of the
pandemic, organizations that adopted prevention protocols became safer places than the wider
community. Officials who didn't see that coming forgot that organizations are rational and look
for cooperative solutions that improve the welfare of the group, such as reducing the risks of
communicable disease.
In "The Backward Art of Slowing the Spread? Congregation Efficiencies during COVID-19," Mr.
Mulligan uses empirical data to test the presumption that the workplace was less safe than the
home. He recognizes that "absent costly prevention activities, larger groups naturally have
more infections per member."
Yet as he notes, people join firms "in part because they value the group's management of
local externalities and public goods." That's an economist's way of saying that the human
capital of a company is tied to its capacity to protect employees and serve customers.
There is little doubt that infection would spread faster in congregations than in smaller
groups if both engaged in similar practices. But since larger groups have an incentive to spend
on expensive methods of prevention, larger organizations might be better at prevention than
households with fewer people.
This is what happened. "Available data from schools, hospitals, nursing homes, food
processing plants, hair stylists, and airlines," Mr. Mulligan writes in the study, "show
employers adopting mitigation protocols in the spring of 2020." These were "physical barriers,"
like masking and air filtering, but also included distancing protocols, pods and screenings.
Households were less likely to implement similar precautions.
According to the study, "per-capita transmission rates on site fell dramatically, usually to
levels below household transmission."
In one example, "an hour worked in the Duke Health system went from being more dangerous
than an hour outside work to being more than three times safer." Overall, "both the spread data
and the prevalence data suggest that the prevention efforts worked, or at least that something
about the organization keeps infection rates below what they are outside the organization."
(scientificamerican.com) 306BeauHD on Thursday April
29, 2021 @11:30PM from the effective-public-health-measures dept. An anonymous reader quotes a
report from Scientific American: Since the novel coronavirus began its global spread,
influenza cases reported to the World Health Organization
have dropped to minuscule levels . The reason, epidemiologists think, is that the public
health measures taken to keep the coronavirus from spreading also stop the flu. Influenza
viruses are transmitted in much the same way as SARS-CoV-2, but they are less effective at
jumping from host to host. As Scientific American
reported last fall , the drop-off in flu numbers was both swift and universal. Since then,
cases have stayed remarkably low. "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 600 deaths from
influenza during the 2020-2021 flu season. In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimated there were roughly 22,000 deaths in the prior season and 34,000 two
seasons ago.
Because each year's flu vaccine is based on strains that have been circulating during the
past year, it is unclear how next year's vaccine will fare, should the typical patterns of the
disease return. [...] Public health experts are grateful for the reprieve. Some are also
worried about a lost immune response, however. If influenza subsides for several years, today's
toddlers could miss a chance to have an early-age response imprinted on their immune system.
That could be good or bad, depending on what strains circulate during the rest of their life.
For now, future flu transmission remains a roll of the dice.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: After a late-spring lull,
daily coronavirus cases in the United States have again
hit record highs , driven by resurgent outbreaks in states such as Florida, Arizona and
California. Hospitals in Houston are already on the brink of being overwhelmed, and public
health experts worry the pandemic's body count will soon again be climbing in tandem with the
daily case load. The dire situation has raised the specter of another round of state-level
stay-at-home orders to halt the pandemic's spread and caused a number of governors to pause or
reverse their ongoing reopening plans.
"A face mask mandate could potentially substitute for lockdowns that would otherwise
subtract nearly 5% from GDP," the team, led by the company's chief economist, Jan Hatzius,
writes. It's worth noting the authors of the report are economists and not public health
experts. Their primary motivation is to protect the economic interests of Goldman Sachs's
investors, which is why they're interested in the effects of federal policy on gross domestic
product. But their findings are in line with a number of other published studies on the
efficacy of masks.
The Goldman Sachs report notes the United States is a global outlier with respect to face
mask use, which is widespread in Asia and currently mandated in many European countries. Though
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "
recommends " the use of masks in public and 20 states plus the District of Columbia have
implemented their own mandates, there is no binding national policy, with
wide regional variations in mask use around the country. "
We estimate that statewide mask mandates gradually raise the percentage of people who
'always' or 'frequently' wear masks by around 25 [percentage points] in the 30+ days after
signing," the authors write. "Our numerical estimates are that cumulative cases grow 17.3% per
week without a mask mandate but only 7.3% with a mask mandate, and that cumulative fatalities
grow 29% per week without a mask mandate but only 16% with a mask mandate."
There is no or very little (depending of type of vaccine) immunity from South African mutation in the USA for people who
already were vaccinated.
From comments: "Herd Immunity or Heard on the Street immunity? COVID was way over-played in order to get Biden in the WH. Now
the shoes on the other foot and the Herd Concept is eroding pretty darn fast"... "Here in the US, it's undeniable that the quantity
of covid cases were intentionally over counted -- likely for political reasons."
"If the re-infection rate is near zero and those who are the most vulnerable are 95% inoculated why should the remaining
unvaccinated (mostly youth) be needed to reach herd immunity? Their reaction to COVID-19 is either undetectable or no worse than a
mild cold. Some people, journalists, just do not want to think and/or act logically."
Notable quotes:
"... For example, there is no herd immunity from South African mutation in the USA for those who were immunized with the Moderna vaccine and Johnson and Johnson vaccine ..."
"... And more mutations will follow this and the next year. So the concept of "herd immunity" when applied to coronaviruses looks to me fuzzy; in this sense this is the goal that the nation probably can't achieve. Remember the "flattering of the curve" fiasco in NYC. Quarantine measures were completely decimated by Floyd-gate riots and authorities were forced to swallow the bitter pill. Measures they advocated proved to be useless and economically damaging. ..."
"... Coronaviruses like C19 are a moving target. Moreover, there are large swats of the US population that have weakened immune system (including some seniors) who that does not respond to vaccination, creating no protection. In large cities like NYC they will serve as the reservoir of virus mutations vaccination, or no vaccination. ..."
"... We have Fauci making unfounded statements that confuse everyone and now economists are going to tell us when herd immunity will become operative. Can't do any worse than the 'media docs'. ..."
Some view herd immunity -- the point at which a critical mass of a population become immune to a disease-causing virus or bacteria -- as a
key factor in determining when Covid-19 will be conquered and economies will return to normal. Until herd immunity is reached, some
say, governments will restrict activities to prevent the disease's spread, resulting in fewer goods and services being produced and
consumed.
Other economists say businesses can reopen and economic activity can rebound without full herd immunity, and likely will.
Part of the challenge for economists is that it is hard to know exactly when a given place will achieve herd immunity, if ever.
For
Covid-19
, epidemiologists generally believe it will require having at least 60% to 80% of a population develop antibodies,
curbing the virus's ability to spread.
... ... ...
Economists at
Goldman
Sachs Group
Inc.
have
tried to incorporate immunity estimates into their forecasts by looking at daily vaccination progress around the world and take
account of estimates of how many people have already been infected.
According to their calculations, 60% of the population in the U.S. and U.K. are already immune to Covid-19; the biggest economies
of Europe will get there by August.
Serg Bezrukov
I agree with Umesh Patil.
For example, there is no herd immunity from South African mutation in the USA for those who were immunized with the Moderna
vaccine and Johnson and Johnson vaccine
.
And more mutations will follow this and the next year. So the concept of "herd immunity" when applied to coronaviruses looks
to me fuzzy; in this sense this is the goal that the nation probably can't achieve. Remember the "flattering of the curve"
fiasco in NYC. Quarantine measures were completely decimated by Floyd-gate riots and authorities were forced to swallow the
bitter pill. Measures they advocated proved to be useless and economically damaging.
Coronaviruses like C19 are a moving target. Moreover, there are large swats of the US population that have
weakened
immune system
(including
some seniors) who that does not respond to vaccination, creating no protection. In large cities like NYC they will serve as the
reservoir of virus mutations vaccination, or no vaccination.
Rick Schaler
SUBSCRIBER
3 hours ago
We have Fauci making unfounded statements that confuse everyone and now economists are going to tell us when herd
immunity will become operative. Can't do any worse than the 'media docs'.
"Only two things are infinite, human stupidity and the universe, and I'm not sure about
the universe." - Attributed to Einstein: The CDC repoted under 2,500 confirmed flu cases for
the US for the entire season. In the previous season, the CDC estimated there were 38 million
cases, or 99.99% fewer cases.
ReadyForHillary 1 hour ago (Edited)
No different from climate "science". Ferguson repeated the mistake made by the first
warming hysterics - making predictions that can be tested empirically. The latter learned to
push their predictions out to the year 2100 so they can never be tested.
JaxPavan 1 hour ago
"As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious
disease (HCID) in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are
not classified as HCIDs.
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to
classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about
the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak.
Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the
most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined
that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about
mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and
sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19
should no longer be classified as an HCID.
The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to consider COVID-19 as a Public Health
Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), therefore the need to have a national,
coordinated response remains and this is being met by the government's COVID-19 response .
Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only. All healthcare
workers managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the
updated national infection and prevention (IPC) guidance for COVID-19 , which supersedes
all previous IPC guidance for COVID-19. This guidance includes instructions about different
personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles that are appropriate for different clinical
scenarios."
The satirist Ambrose Bierce once defined prophecy as the "art and practice of selling one's
credibility for future delivery." Covid-19 has produced no shortage of doomsaying prophets
whose prognostications completely failed at future delivery, and yet in the eyes of the
scientific community their credibility remains peculiarly intact.
No greater example exists than the epidemiology modeling team at Imperial College-London
(ICL), led by the physicist Neil Ferguson . As I've documented at
length , the ICL modelers played a direct and primary role in selling the concept of
lockdowns to the world. The governments of the United States and United Kingdom explicitly
credited
Ferguson's forecasts on March 16, 2020 with the decision
to embrace the once-unthinkable response of ordering their populations to shelter in
place.
Ferguson openly boasted of his team's role in these decisions in a
December 2020 interview , and continues to implausibly claim credit for saving millions of
lives despite
the deficit of empirical evidence that his policies delivered on their promises. Quite the
opposite – the worst
outcomes in terms of Covid deaths per capita are almost entirely in countries that leaned
heavily on lockdowns and related nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in their unsuccessful
bid to turn the pandemic's tide.
Assessed looking backward from the one-year mark,
ICL's modeling exercises performed disastrously . They not only failed to accurately
forecast the course of the pandemic in the US and UK – they also failed to anticipate
Covid-19's course in almost every country in the world, irrespective of the policy responses
taken.
Time and time again, the Ferguson team's models dramatically overstated the death toll of
the disease, posting
the worst performance record of any major epidemiology model . After a year, some of the
ICL predictions reach farcical territory. Their forecast of 179,000 deaths in Taiwan, which
never locked down, was off by 1,798,000% (as of this writing, Taiwan has just 12 Covid-19
deaths). A similar story played out in other countries that eschewed the lockdown approach for
the first year of the pandemic. Imperial overstated the predicted mortality of Sweden (392%),
South Korea (17,461%), and Japan (11,670%) in the absence of heavier-handed NPIs than any of
these countries actually imposed.
But what about the rest of the world? Most other countries experimented with some form of
Neil Ferguson's prescriptive advice over the last year, although for different degrees of
severity and duration. Despite widely different mortality outcomes of their own, no other
country provides anything approaching a clear validation of the ICL model.
The table depicts three modeled scenarios that were published in
ICL's report from one year ago (ICL also included a fourth scenario attempting to
approximate focused protection of elderly populations; however this approach was not
meaningfully attempted in any country).
The first scenario shows an extreme "suppression" model, triggered when a country reached
1.6 deaths per 100,000 residents. This strategy envisioned a stunning 75% overall "uniform
reduction in contact rates" across the entire population. Even in the short term, this approach
is akin to the harsh measures first implemented in the Wuhan region of China as distinct from
the lesser lockdowns with "essential business" exemptions seen in most of the world. But ICL's
suppression strategy also assumed that this measure "will need to be maintained in some manner
until vaccines or effective treatments become available" – basically a full year or more
of uninterrupted lockdown.
No country on earth maintained a 75% suppression rate of all contacts for an entire year,
making ICL's first model an extreme hypothetical of what a "best case" aggressive policy
response could attain rather than a predictive reflection of reality. Despite its hypothetical
nature, ICL's suppression model still managed to overstate the number of Covid-19 deaths in all
but the 20 worst-afflicted countries – none of which used anything close to the
scenario's policy approach.
The second ICL strategy is closer to reality in most countries. This "mitigation" model
envisioned mandatory population-wide social distancing with a primary aim of preserving
hospital capacity to treat the disease – a "flattening of the curve" as the popular
slogan maintained. Using the most conservative replication rate that they modeled, R=2.4,
Imperial's "mitigation" forecasts managed to dramatically overstate the number of deaths in
every single country on earth. Using a higher R0 yields even more extreme overpredictions. But
sticking with the 2.4 scenario is sufficient to show the systemic problem in the ICL model.
Their "mitigation" numbers were too high by roughly 20-30% in hard-hit locations such as Peru,
Mexico, and the Czech Republic – all countries that used
stringent lockdown measures at several points in the last year . On the other extreme, ICL
overstated the "mitigation" scenario's predicted death toll by 100,000% or more in a dozen
countries. All but about 20 of the hardest-hit countries had "mitigation" forecasts that ran
high by 100% or more.
The third ICL strategy projected the results of an "unmitigated" pandemic in which
governments did nothing at all. This is the scenario that famously predicted 2.2 million deaths
in the United States, 500,000 in the United Kingdom, and similar catastrophic outcomes across
the world. Although Ferguson's team has a bad
habit of falsely claiming credit for saving millions of lives premised upon these
apocalyptic numbers, the truth is they all amounted to wild exaggerations from a fundamentally
flawed model. At the 1-year mark, no country on earth approached anywhere near ICL's
"unmitigated" projections, and certainly not any of the countries that avoided heavy-handed
lockdowns.
Although ICL did not release its full timeline of how the pandemic would play out under
these scenarios, its modeling enterprise was built upon the assumption that the peak daily
death toll for each country would hit approximately three months after the introduction of the
virus. For most countries, that means a predicted peak sometime in the summer of 2020, with the
overwhelming majority of forecast deaths to have occurred by the end of that wave. A year
later, most countries have not even remotely resembled the tolls predicted under most of the
ICL model scenarios.
Several questions remain.
Why is Ferguson, who has a long history of absurdly exaggerated modeling predictions, still
viewed as a leading authority on pandemic forecasting? And why is the ICL team still advising
governments around the world on how to deal with Covid-19 through its flawed modeling approach?
In March 2020 ICL sold its credibility for future delivery. That future has arrived, and the
results are not pretty.
asteroids 2 hours ago (Edited)
As a computer scientist familiar with statistical modelling I took a look at his code. It
made me want to puke. This joker should not be confused with Niall Ferguson, a top notch
historian.
gspanner PREMIUM 4 minutes ago
The article doesn't mention that he broke the lockdown he espoused to travel across london
to screw his partner. So one rule for me....
He also was responsible for the slaughter of millions of cows during a Foot and Mouth
outbreak (probably for no reason). His previous doom **** predictions for precious infectious
disease outbreaks have been wrong. His model has been discredited because the
code/methodology is fundamentally flawed, written in error ridden out of date language and
code.
Yet the BBC wheel him out whenever they need to justify the draconian regulations without
any questions of his idiocy which I am afraid seems likely because they need to maintain
/support the licence fee agreement with the government.
It all stinks.
Majorca PREMIUM 10 minutes ago
Dr. John Ioannides(Stanford University California): Much closer to the reality. Does not
fit the "script"
JaxPavan 1 hour ago
"As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious
disease (HCID) in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are
not classified as HCIDs.
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to
classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about
the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak.
Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the
most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined
that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about
mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and
sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19
should no longer be classified as an HCID.
The World Health Organization (WHO) continues to consider COVID-19 as a Public Health
Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), therefore the need to have a national,
coordinated response remains and this is being met by the government's COVID-19 response .
Cases of COVID-19 are no longer managed by HCID treatment centres only. All healthcare
workers managing possible and confirmed cases should follow the
updated national infection and prevention (IPC) guidance for COVID-19 , which supersedes
all previous IPC guidance for COVID-19. This guidance includes instructions about different
personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles that are appropriate for different clinical
scenarios."
Janet_the_Gannet 3 hours ago
Why is Ferguson, who has a long history of absurdly exaggerated modeling predictions,
still viewed as a leading authority on pandemic forecasting?
I imagine because his predictions feed into a pre-existing agenda.
"Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at
Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen
outbreaks."
"It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation"
Colour me not at all surprised
phoolish 3 hours ago
A couple videos where I explain my experience as a researcher in modeling ...
Because he's one of the stupid ones willing to do it. Any decent statistician will not use
models to predict outcomes like this, as it is problematic and error prone. Add in a lot of
unknowns to said model and any outcome prediction is going to be absolute crap. It's junk
science.
SDShack 3 hours ago
Why is Ferguson, who has a long history of absurdly exaggerated modeling predictions,
still viewed as a leading authority on pandemic forecasting?
Why is Michael Mann still a professor at Penn State after being exposed as the Globull
Warming Hockey Stick Faker? As the ClimateGate emails proved...it's all about money. Same as
it ever was. Follow the money!
Detective Miller 3 hours ago
You have answered your own question. That view serves a certain ideology, does it not?
They pay people like that to continue screaming FIRE! because it gives them POWER.
Taffer 2 hours ago
Taiwan had 12 Covid deaths. I wonder how many the US actually had, removing all the
government incentives to state almost every death as Covid related that is.
Gone 2 hours ago
And flu disappeared. But hey they got to try out their genetic crap on millions.
After testing 1,500 samples from people who tested positive for the CCP Virus [COVID-19],
these scientists found that ALL of the samples had evidence of Influenza A and Influenza B ,
something that had already been discovered in other cases, and none of COVID-19 .
El Chapo Read 2 hours ago
...and Neil Ferguson was caught, in the middle of the strongest UK lock downs,
criss-crossing London on several occasions to shag his mistress. The moment I heard that
fact, it confirmed we were being scammed.
JSG 2 hours ago
His married mistress which is even worse!
Kelley 50 minutes ago
It's simple : Ferguson is paid through Imperial College because he comes up with numbers
that match his paymaster's agenda.
smacker 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
"And why is the ICL team still advising governments around the world on how to deal with
Covid-19 through its flawed modeling approach?"
I suspect the answer to this question is that Neil Ferguson produced the overly dramatic
predictions that the political elites wanted, so they could impose authoritarian control over
their populations, like we have seen in the UK, Europe, US and elsewhere. Let's not forget
that Ferguson along with most governments are all now fully on-board with the so-called
Climate Change Crises. So they all had common motives.
MilwaukeeMark 2 hours ago (Edited)
They weren't interested in truth. Leaders fear the truth as the Wicked Witch feared water.
They were interested in peddling fear. Trauma based events like what we got with the MSM
nightly fear **** gets people to by-pass reason and go right into reaction mode. I'm still
seeing people out jogging with masks on. It worked.
BigJJ 1 hour ago (Edited)
During every "lockdown" in the UK people were still permitted by their gloriously
benevolent government to hop on the London underground so mixing with millions of people per
day, to go on buses all across the country so mixing with hundreds of people per day, to get
in taxis mixing with dozens of people per day, to go to supermarkets at any time mixing with
hundreds of people etc etc etc. This had nothing to do with stopping a virus and everything
to do with killing small independent businesses and any business such as pub chains where
people could sit and speak together about the upcoming trials of all Western politicians.
Progressive communities have been home to some of the fiercest battles over COVID-19 policies, and some liberal policy makers
have left scientific evidence behind.
EMMA GREEN
MAY 4, 2021
Teachers in Massachusetts protest a
school-reopening plan.
MEDIANEWS
GROUP / BOSTON HERALD / GETTY
L
urking
among the jubilant americans
venturing back out to bars and planning their summer-wedding travel is a different
group: liberals who aren't quite ready to let go of pandemic restrictions. For this subset, diligence against COVID-19
remains an expression of political identity -- even when that means overestimating the disease's risks or setting limits far
more strict than what public-health guidelines permit. In surveys, Democrats express more worry about the pandemic than
Republicans do. People who describe themselves as "very liberal" are distinctly anxious. This spring, after the vaccine
rollout had started, a third of very liberal people were "very concerned" about becoming seriously ill from COVID-19,
compared with a quarter of both liberals and moderates, according to a study conducted by the University of North Carolina
political scientist Marc Hetherington. And 43 percent of very liberal respondents believed that getting the coronavirus
would have a "very bad" effect on their life, compared with a third of liberals and moderates.
Get the news, without the noise.
Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily for our editors' guide to what matters in the world.
Sign Up
Thanks for signing up!
Last year, when the pandemic was raging and
scientists and public-health officials were still trying to understand how the virus spread, extreme care was warranted.
People all over the country made enormous sacrifices -- rescheduling weddings, missing funerals, canceling graduations,
avoiding the family members they love -- to protect others. Some conservatives refused to wear masks or stay home, because of
skepticism about the severity of the disease or a refusal to give up their freedoms. But this is a different story, about
progressives who stressed the scientific evidence, and then veered away from it.
For many progressives, extreme vigilance was
in part about opposing Donald Trump. Some of this reaction was born of
deeply
felt frustration
with how he handled the pandemic. It could also be knee-jerk. "If he said, 'Keep schools open,' then,
well, we're going to do everything in our power to keep schools closed," Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine at UC San
Francisco, told me. Gandhi describes herself as "left of left," but has alienated some of her ideological peers because she
has advocated for policies such as reopening schools and establishing a clear timeline for the end of mask mandates. "We
went the other way, in an extreme way, against Trump's politicization," Gandhi said. Geography and personality may have
also contributed to progressives' caution: Some of the most liberal parts of the country are places where the pandemic hit
especially
hard
, and Hetherington found that the very liberal participants in his survey tended to be the most neurotic.
The spring of 2021 is different from the
spring of 2020, though. Scientists know a lot more about how COVID-19 spreads -- and how it doesn't. Public-health advice is
shifting. But some progressives have not updated their behavior based on the new information. And in their eagerness to
protect themselves and others, they may be underestimating other costs. Being extra careful about COVID-19 is (mostly)
harmless when it's limited to wiping down your groceries with Lysol wipes and wearing a mask in places where you're
unlikely to spread the coronavirus, such as on a hiking trail. But vigilance can have unintended consequences when it
imposes on other people's lives. Even as scientific knowledge of COVID-19 has increased, some progressives have continued
to embrace policies and behaviors that aren't supported by evidence, such as
banning
access
to playgrounds,
closing
beaches
, and
refusing
to reopen
schools for in-person learning.
"Those who are vaccinated on the left seem
to think overcaution now is the way to go, which is making people on the right question the effectiveness of the vaccines,"
Gandhi told me. Public figures and policy makers who try to dictate others' behavior without any scientific justification
for doing so erode trust in public health and make people less willing to take useful precautions. The marginal gains of
staying shut down might not justify the potential backlash.
E
ven
as the very effective covid-19 vaccines
have become widely accessible, many progressives continue to listen to
voices preaching caution over relaxation. Anthony Fauci recently
said
he
wouldn't travel or eat at restaurants even though he's fully vaccinated, despite CDC
guidance
that
these activities can be safe for vaccinated people who take precautions. California Governor Gavin Newsom
refused
in
April to guarantee that the state's schools would fully reopen in the fall, even though
studies
have demonstrated
for months that modified in-person instruction is safe. Leaders in Brookline, Massachusetts,
decided
this
week to keep a local outdoor mask mandate in place, even though the CDC recently relaxed its guidance for outdoor mask use.
And scolding is still a popular pastime. "At least in San Francisco, a lot of people are glaring at each other if they
don't wear masks outside," Gandhi said, even though the risk of outdoor transmission
is
very low
.
Scientists, academics, and writers who have
argued that some very low-risk activities are worth doing as vaccination rates rise -- even if the risk of exposure is not
zero -- have faced intense backlash. After Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University,
argued
in
The
Atlantic
in March that families should plan to take their kids on trips and see friends and relatives this summer, a
reader sent an email to her supervisors at the university suggesting that Oster be promoted to a leadership role in the
field of "genocide encouragement." "Far too many people are not dying in our current global pandemic, and far too many
children are not yet infected," the reader wrote. "With the upcoming consequences of global warming about to be felt by a
wholly unprepared worldwide community, I believe the time is right to get young scholars ready to follow in Dr. Oster's
footsteps and ensure the most comfortable place to be is white [and] upper-middle-class." ("That email was something,"
Oster told me.)
Sure, some mean people spend their time
chiding others online. But for many, remaining guarded even as the country opens back up is an earnest expression of civic
values. "I keep coming back to the same thing with the pandemic," Alex Goldstein, a progressive PR consultant who was a
senior adviser to Representative Ayanna Pressley's 2018 campaign, told me. "Either you believe that you have a
responsibility to take action to protect a person you don't know or you believe you have no responsibility to anybody who
isn't in your immediate family."
Goldstein and his wife decided early on in
the pandemic that they were going to take restrictions extremely seriously and adopt the most cautious interpretation of
when it was safe to do anything. He's been shaving his own head since the summer (with "bad consequences," he said).
Although rugby teams have been back on the fields in Boston, where he lives, his team still won't participate, for fear of
spreading germs when players pile on top of one another in a scrum. He spends his mornings and evenings sifting through
stories of people who have recently died from the coronavirus for
Faces
of COVID
, a Twitter feed he started to memorialize deaths during the pandemic. "My fear is that we will not learn the
lessons of the pandemic, because we will try to blow through the finish line as fast as we can and leave it in the rearview
mirror," he said.
Progressive politics focuses on fighting
against everyday disasters, such as climate change and poverty, struggles that may shape how some people see the pandemic.
"If you're deeply concerned that the real disaster that's happening here is that the social contract has been broken and
the vulnerable in society are once again being kicked while they're down, then you're going to be hypersensitive to every
detail, to every headline, to every infection rate," Scott Knowles, a professor at the South Korean university KAIST who
studies the history of disasters, told me. Some progressives believe that the pandemic has created an opening for ambitious
policy proposals. "Among progressive political leaders around here, there's a lot of talk around: We're not going back to
normal, because normal wasn't good enough," Goldstein said.
In practice, though,
progressives don't
always
agree on what prudent policy looks like. Consider the experience of Somerville, Massachusetts, the kind of community where
residents proudly display rainbow yard signs declaring
in
this house we believe science is real
. In the 2016 Democratic primary, 57 percent of voters there
supported
Bernie
Sanders, and this year the Democratic Socialists of America
have
a shot
at taking over the city council. As towns around Somerville began going back to in-person school in the fall,
Mayor Joseph Curtatone and other Somerville leaders delayed a return to in-person learning. A group of moms -- including
scientists, pediatricians, and doctors treating COVID-19 patients -- began to feel frustrated that Somerville schools weren't
welcoming back students. They considered themselves progressive and believed that they understood teachers' worries about
getting sick. But they saw the city's proposed safety measures as nonsensical and unscientific -- a sort of
hygiene
theater
that prioritized the appearance of protection over getting kids back to their classrooms.
With Somerville kids still at home,
contractors conducted in-depth assessments of the city's school buildings, leading to proposals that included extensive
HVAC-system overhauls and the installation of UV-sterilization units and even automatic toilet flushers -- renovations with a
proposed budget of $7.5 million. The mayor told me that supply-chain delays and protracted negotiations with the local
teachers' union slowed the reopening process. "No one wanted to get kids back to school more than me It's people needing
to feel safe," he said. "We want to make sure that we're eliminating any risk of transmission from person to person in
schools and carrying that risk over to the community."
Months slipped by, and evidence
mounted
that
schools could reopen safely. In Somerville, a local leader appeared to describe parents who wanted a faster return to
in-person instruction as "fucking white parents" in a virtual public meeting; a community member accused the group of
mothers advocating for schools to reopen of being motivated by white supremacy. "I spent four years fighting Trump because
he was so anti-science," Daniele Lantagne, a Somerville mom and engineering professor who works to promote equitable access
to clean water and sanitation during disease outbreaks, told me. "I spent the last year fighting people who I normally
would agree with desperately trying to inject science into school reopening, and completely failed."
In March, Erika Uyterhoeven, the
democratic-socialist state representative for Somerville, compared the plight of teachers to that of Amazon workers and
meatpackers, and described the return to in-person classes as part of a "push in a neoliberal society to ensure, over and
above the well-being of educators, that our kids are getting a competitive education compared to other suburban schools."
(She later asked the socialist blog that ran her comments to remove that quote, because so many parents found her
statements offensive.) In Somerville, "everyone wants to be actively anti-racist. Everyone believes Black lives matter.
Everyone wants the Green New Deal," Elizabeth Pinsky, a child psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital, told me. "No
one wants to talk about how to actually get kindergartners onto the carpet of their teachers." Most elementary and middle
schoolers in Somerville finally started back in person this spring, with some of the proposed building renovations in
place. Somerville hasn't yet announced when high schoolers will go back full-time, and Curtatone wouldn't guarantee that
schools will be open for in-person instruction in the fall.
P
olicy
makers' decisions
about how to fight the pandemic are fraught because they have such an impact on people's lives.
But personal decisions during the coronavirus crisis are fraught because they seem symbolic of people's broader value
systems. When vaccinated adults refuse to see friends indoors, they're working through the trauma of the past year, in
which the brokenness of America's medical system was so evident. When they keep their kids out of playgrounds and urge
friends to stay distanced at small outdoor picnics, they are continuing the spirit of the past year, when civic duty has
been expressed through lonely asceticism. For many people, this kind of behavior is a form of good citizenship. That's a
hard idea to give up.
And so as the rest of vaccinated America
begins its summer of bacchanalia, rescheduling long-awaited dinner parties and medium-size weddings, the most hard-core
pandemic progressives are left, Cassandra-like, to preach their peers' folly. Every weekday, Zachary Loeb publishes four
"plague poems" on Twitter -- little missives about the headlines and how it feels to live through a pandemic. He is personally
progressive: He blogs about topics like Trump's calamitous presidency and the future of climate change. He also studies
disaster history. ("I jokingly tell my students that my reputation in the department is as Mr. Doom, but once I have earned
my Ph.D., I will officially be Dr. Doom," he told me.) His Twitter avatar is the plague doctor: a beaked, top-hat-wearing
figure who traveled across European towns treating victims of the bubonic plague. Last February, Loeb started stocking up
on cans of beans; last March, he left his office, and has not been back since. This April, as the country inched toward
half of the population getting a first dose of a vaccine and daily deaths dipped below 1,000, his poems became melancholy.
"When you were young, wise old Aesop tried to warn you about this moment," he wrote, "wherein the plague is the steady
tortoise, and we are the overconfident hare."
EMMA GREEN
is a staff writer at
The Atlantic
, where
she covers politics, policy, and religion.
This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is
closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of
both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous
Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to
Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.
Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New
World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his
own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the
philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is
more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less
wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with
sadism and fear.
The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley.
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?
Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements
that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of
them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the
Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred
to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there
was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty
years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental.
These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There
are potential
disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are
nothing new .
Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive
drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless
adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will
suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots,
seizures, heart failure.
As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets,
the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make
it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning
to campus.
The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed
virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If
they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask
requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides
exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!
Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now
the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer
expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about
money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to
convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and
as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and
inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented
with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his
like-minded tyrants drunk on power.
Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID,
of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be
vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than
they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids
from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting
" on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children,
and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.
Huxley also wrote this:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they
will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be
able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height
of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."
Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those
of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to
do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the
righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.
As C.J. Hopkins has
written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are
soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of
discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley
also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other
sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what
Critical Race Theory is all about.
Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the
software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called
the vaccines " an operating
system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't
hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to
what they have in mind.
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love
their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of
painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.
This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised
population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people
around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3
billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.
In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it
is so profound:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never
changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173
Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)
If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will
immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's
of millions will be right there with me.
strych10 14 hours ago
Welcome to the club.
We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.
Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago
I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.
Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)
I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically
for the worse...
sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago
You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?
bothneither 2 hours ago
Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma.
Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.
Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)
Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal
gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism
demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this
poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to
unite, much less resist.
Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k
reported so far this year.
Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?
Nelbev 10 hours ago
Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention
mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III
trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get
covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally,
I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested
experimental vaccine.
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out
now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave
New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what
these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths
actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their
script.
Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago
If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.
They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly
likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo
triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten
up , Aldous.
Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in
The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent
bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.
"... I am still trying to figure out the SCIENCE of BLM mostly peaceful protests were just safe, fine and dandy while churches had to be shut down or grandma would die. ..."
This is probably the first time in the history of mankind that an illness that has been with
us our entire lives has magically disappeared only to be immediately replaced by another one
with exactly the same symptoms!
2banana 7 hours ago
I am still trying to figure out the SCIENCE of BLM mostly peaceful protests were just safe,
fine and dandy while churches had to be shut down or grandma would die.
In this day and age, we all need to do our own research and we all need to think for
ourselves, because the big pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with profits than
anything else.
If you are harmed by their experimental therapies, the big pharmaceutical companies
won’t be there to pick up the pieces for you if something goes horribly
wrong.
Quote "So there may be a new form of normalcy where masks don?t necessarily have to go
away.?
Dr. Leonard A. Mermel, medical director of epidemiology and infection control at Rhode
Island Hospital, who said making people wear masks all the time was worth it to stop the
spread of other viruses aside from COVID-19.
?Within the Lifespan system we are seeing far fewer of all the respiratory viruses than
we are used to seeing at this moment in the calendar year? So it?s impressive: the COVID
preventative strategies are having an impact on other respiratory viruses, which just makes
sense: they spread in a similar fashion,? said Mermel.
?It would not surprise me if that became a recommendation from the CDC,? he said. ?It?s
a pretty low price to pay to try to reduce the risk to oneself and to particularly
loved ones who may be at particular risk of these sorts of infections causing
harm,?
Of course "lockdowns" are being used in the same way, (ie in the UK) where they would love
to have a third wave. ( Wave goodbye as freedom flies ). This is not a question of
numbers but of policy that hides and tries to ignore .... rebellious attitudes. (The recent
massive march in London that you didn't see reported by the BBC (!) Or we can have Bill Gates
getting agitated about "patents" being used by anyone else (ie Russia and China) Who might
"learn their techniques". This is in spite of Russia offering help to the West with their own
research (Was that for the "Oxford" vaccine ?).
*******
"Many hands make light work", but with all of them trying to push the switch in their own
direction, we will be lucky if a fuse doesn't blow somewhere
IF vaccines worked it shouldn't matter to a vaccinated person whether you have a
vaccination or not.
The entire "what about the poor wretch that is so ill he cannot survive a vaccine" is just
virtue signaling tripe. FIRST no person has a claim on your life. Period, the only exception
being your own children. And even that has finite limits.
The more truthful complaint is "I KNOW it is a scientific fact that flu vaccines are at
BEST 70%, and often closer to 40% effective. So I am afraid of my own shadow." This exposes a
risk aversion that has long since crossed over into the mental illness of full on
uncontrollable paranoia.
Let the person that is so sick they cannot be around other people self isolate. Let the
person that is so terrified they cannot function in society self isolate too!
The fake outrage and virtue signaling sociopaths have well and truly outlived the patience
of everyone on the planet that doesn't require psychotropic drugs to make it through the
day.
Money quote: " Discarding pointless practices like outdoor masking and obsessive
“ hygiene theater
†would make the continuing necessary precautions, including indoor masking, easier
to accept."
That applies whether you’re vaccinated against Covid-19 or not,
regardless of your age, and despite the other qualifications in the Centers for Disease
Control’s latest guidance
, released Tuesday. The only exception is in a packed setting in which social distancing is
impossible, such as a political rally or a sports arena filled to capacity.
The three main Covid mitigation strategies
are distancing, masks and ventilation. Accumulating evidence indicates how difficult it is to
contract the virus outdoors, which is as ventilated as it gets. One modeling study
estimated that ventilation outside, even with only a gentle breeze, is well over 100 times as
effective as in an office, and more than 1,000-fold better than in most homes.
Documented cases of outdoor Covid-19 transmission are rare. A study in Wuhan, China, where the
virus originated, used careful contact tracing and found that only one of 7,324 infection
events was linked to outdoor transmission. An
analysis of more than 232,000 infections in Ireland found that only one case in 1,000 was
traced to outdoor transmission. An extensive
review from the University of Canterbury concluded that outdoor transmission is rare and
warned of “the potential impact on physical and mental health and
wellbeing†of discouraging people from congregating outdoors.
Coronavirus droplets are rapidly dissipated in the air and deactivated by ultraviolet
radiation, heat and humidity. That’s why the World Health Organization
concluded in
December that masks are unnecessary outside as long as physical distancingâ€"which
WHO defines as one meter, or around three feetâ€"can be maintained.
Mr. Halperin is an adjunct professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and author of “Facing Covid
Without Panic.†Dr. Gandhi is an infectious-disease physician and professor of
medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
Yes just finished listening to my dose of bullshit on ABC. The amazing thing is they
actually telling you it's bullshit if people listen closely. The number of new infections in
India. Hundreds of thousands. Deaths a few hundred. In a country where the normal annual death
rate is 9.6 Million and 26,000 people die EVERY DAY. It's like a joke. Like they testing our
stupidity. And you can't say; No we not falling for it because there is no longer anywhere to
say it! I feel like I have permanent road rage over this crap.
It's the tone and emotive words like crisis, and other exaggerated terms they use that
triggers fear. The viewer remembers the number of cases, not deaths because the number is
larger. But the cases are based on testing.
Judith , Apr 27, 2021 4:28 PM Reply to
Moneycircus
Thanks, Moneycircus.
After watching that I searched for more interviews with him. He did a number of TED talks,
in the early 2000's. Also did an interview with "Google Tech" about his work on a medicine
for Anthrax.
Interestingly, he liked being able to work with computer models of bacteria and tht like.
It would be very interesting to know what he would have thought about Drosten's computer
model of sarscov2 which set the standard for the PCR testing.
Also, what he would have thought of the covid injections.
His final TED talk was very funny and very sweet. Called Sons of Sputnik.
"... " Pfizer and Moderna are both running clinical trials for their experimental mRNA shots on 11,000 children as young as six months old . Both trials began in mid-March. Moderna calls its study KidCOVE . Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are also using children as guinea pigs . These companies have no moral fiber and are driven solely by profits. That is a given. But the parents are something beyond surreal." ..."
No shit. Yesterday, as I was driving from my hideaway up on the hill in the woods, I
caught a glimpse of a group of preschoolers coming out of the forest. I thought that they had
facemasks on, which I found preposterous, so I stopped, checked the rear-view mirror and
waited for them to come closer. Sure enough, they did have the fucking things on. Mind you,
it was a nice sunny day, the air fresh, the perfect April weather.
I went full postal and yelled at the teachers with just about all my might. They didn't
seem to give a shit. Maybe they're too afraid, like of "losing their job". Damn, in
retrospect, I should have addressed the kids and told them to tell the teachers to wipe their
ass with the stupid masks.
This is truly horrible, and I know what I'm talking about. I started school in 1970, a
short while after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. At a time when all hope was
crushed, when the purges started. When people were afraid of "losing their job", if not
worse. The teachers took out their fear, or perhaps anger, on us kids. Save for some, they
came hard on us children and passed on us the oppression inflicted on them by the regime. I,
as other kids, saw them as enemies and fought against them throughout my younger years. I was
only able to come out of that in university (on the other side of the world).
What the teachers are doing today is much worse. It's not just mindfuck, it physical
terror. They're taking party in asphyxiating the kids.
Very interesting observation born from real experience Jacques – that the oppressed
adults took it out on the children, focused it through their own lens onto their helpless
captives in a mirror image of the larger version of the cruelty and dehumanising process.
Horrible. Undeniable based on current events.
" Pfizer and Moderna are both running clinical trials for their experimental mRNA
shots
on 11,000 children as young as six months old . Both trials began in mid-March. Moderna
calls its study KidCOVE . Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are also
using children as guinea pigs . These companies have no moral fiber and are driven solely
by profits. That is a given. But the parents are something beyond surreal."
" the children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and spiritual well-being
by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours and to keep their distance from each
other and from other persons, but, in addition, they are already being harmed. At the same
time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the
constitution and international conventions. This applies in particular to the right to free
development of the personality and to physical integrity from Article 2 of the Basic Law as
well as to the right from Article 6 of the Basic Law to upbringing and care by the parents
(also with regard to measures for preventive health care and 'objects' to be carried by
children) "
As Reiner Fuellmich stated recently – 'They are coming after the children.'
Florida Gov. Ron
DeSantis issued a statewide stay-at-home order on April 1 last year locking down the Sunshine
State for 30 days amid a global panic about the
CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus outbreak. Sitting in his office exactly a year later,
he told The Epoch Times that the lockdowns were a “huge
mistake,†including in his own state.
“We wanted to mitigate the damage. Now, in hindsight, the 15 days to
slow the spread and the 30â€"it didn’t work,â€
DeSantis said.
“We shouldn’t have gone down that
road.â€
Florida’s lockdown order was
notably less strict than some of the stay-at-home measures imposed in other states.
Recreational activities like walking, biking, golf, and beachgoing were exempted while
essential businesses were broadly defined.
“Our economy kept going,†DeSantis said.
“It was much different than what you saw in some of those lockdown
states.â€
The governor nonetheless now regrets issuing the order at all and is convinced that states
that have carried on with lockdowns are perpetuating a destructive blunder.
After the 30 days of the initial lockdown in Florida lapsed, DeSantis commenced a phased
reopening. He faced fierce criticism at each stage from establishment media and his own
constituents beholden to the lockdown narrative.
The governor fully reopened Florida on Sept. 25 last year. When cases began to rise as part
of the winter surge he did not reimpose any restrictions. Lockdown proponents forecast doom and
gloom. DeSantis stood his ground.
The governor’s persistence wasn’t a leap of faith.
Less than two weeks after Florida’s full reopening in late September,
scientists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford went public with the Great Barrington
Declaration, which disavowed lockdowns as a destructive and futile mitigation measure. The
declaration, which has since been signed by 13,985 medical and public health scientists, calls
on public officials to adopt the focused protection approachâ€"the exact strategy
employed by DeSantis.
Despite dire predictions about the pandemic in Florida, DeSantis has been vindicated. On
April 1, 2021, Florida ranked 27th among all states in deaths per capita from the CCP virus,
commonly known as the coronavirus.
The ranking’s significance is amplified because the Sunshine
State’s population is the sixth oldest in the United States by median age.
Californiaâ€"the lockdown state often compared to Florida due to its lower
per-capita death rateâ€"is the sixth
youngest . The risk of dying from the CCP virus is highest for people over 55, with the
group accounting for 93
percent of the deaths nationwide.
While Florida is doing either better or relatively the same as the strict lockdown states in
terms of CCP virus mortalities, the state’s economy is booming compared to
the crippled economies in California and New York. Though less quantifiable, the human
suffering from the lockdown-related rise in suicides, mental health issues, postponed medical
treatments, and opioid deaths is undeniably immense.
“It’s been a huge, huge mistake in terms of
policy,†DeSantis said.
“All I had to do was follow the data and just be willing to go forward
into the teeth of the narrative and fight the media,†he added.
“As people were beating up on me, what I said was
I’d rather them beat up on me than have someone lose their job.
I’d rather have them beat up on me than have kids locked out of school.
I’m totally willing to take whatever heat comes our way because
we’re doing the right thing.â€
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis gives a thumbs up as he leaves a press conference where he spoke
about the cruise industry at Port Miami on April 08, 2021 in Miami, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty
Images)
‘Don’t Let Them Roll Over
Us’
The Epoch Times spent a day embedded with DeSantis as he crisscrossed the state on April 1,
jetting southeast from the seat of state government in Tallahassee to a press conference in
Titusville and then back north to the Clay County Fair on the outskirts of Jacksonville.
Across dozens of encounters with Floridians from all walks of life, one trend persisted.
People thanked DeSantis for his work and his policies. Business owners praised him for not
shutting them down.
Chris Allen, the owner of Java Jitters, opened a coffee shop in Orange Park Mall during the
pandemic.
“We could not have done that if it wasn’t for Ron
DeSantis,†Allen told The Epoch Times after personally thanking the governor during
an encounter at the Clay County Fair.
A staff member for Gov. Ron DeSantis holds a “DeSantis 2024, Make America
Florida†hat at the Clay County fair on April 1, 2021. The staff member said the
hat was handed to the governor by a fair attendee. (Ivan Pentchoukov/Epoch Times)
At the time of the interview, Florida’s unemployment rate was 4.7 percent
compared to 6.2 percent nationally. Lockdown states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and California had some of the highest rates in the countryâ€"8.9 percent, 7.8
percent, 7.3 percent, and 8.5 percent respectively.
“I have a tough time paying for a meal in Florida just because I saved a
lot of these restaurants from oblivion,†DeSantis said. Hours after this claim, a
curly fries stand at the fair declined to charge the governor.
DeSantis said some people get emotional when they meet him. Several of the interactions with
the governor at the Clay County Fair resembled that description. An visibly moved elderly
veteran urged the governor to not “let them roll over us.â€
“If we hadn’t stood up, these people may not have
jobs, the businesses may have gone under, the kids wouldn’t be in school,
there’d be all these things,†DeSantis said.
“This really, really impacts people in a very personal way. And I
don’t think anything prior to COVID that I’ve seen in
politics can quite do it on this level. And it’s really unfortunate that
there were governors that had power [who did] the opposite. It really
shouldn’t depend on the governor.â€
Reopening the state wasn’t as easy as lifting his own stay-at-home
measures. When DeSantis issued the final reopening order in late September last year, he signed
a companion order prohibiting local Florida governments from restricting people from working or
operating a business. The order had far-reaching consequences across the state, especially in
densely-populated, liberal-leaning locales where the local authorities imposed their own strict
measures.
DeSantis adopted a hands-off approach to local regulations at first, thinking that voters
would ultimately hold local authorities responsible. It became obvious eventually that some
places would remain locked down despite the data showing that doing so would have no positive
impact on the spread of the virus.
“They weren’t going to open this stuff up unless I
pried it open,†DeSantis said.
“We had the data. We talked to some of the best scientists in the
country,†DeSantis said, referring to Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Jayanta
Bhattacharya from Stanford, and Sunetra Gupta from Oxford.
“Every Floridian has a right to work. Every business has a right to
operate.â€
In areas that were forced to reopen as a result, the economies are now booming with new
hotels and restaurants opening, DeSantis said.
DeSantis received a law degree from Harvard and is a textualist when interpreting the
Constitution. He believes barring the local authorities from placing restrictions on the people
and businesses was squarely within his authority.
“You can’t have 67 different minimum wages, or 67
different regulations on hotels. We are one state economy, and we need to have certain rules of
the road,†DeSantis said.
Gov. Ron DeSantis delivers remarks at a press conference in Titusville, Florida, on April 1,
2021. (Screenshot via Epoch Times)
‘They Are Never Going to Admit They
Were Wrong’
Standing behind the desk in his office in Tallahassee, DeSantis leafed through a folder of
praise he’s received from around the nation and across the globe. Hanging on
the walls around the relatively small space was a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, the
Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as well as the uniform the governor wore as the captain of
the Yale baseball team.
When asked why he chose Lincoln, DeSantis said the president is the best example of a leader
who had to make difficult decisions in a time of crisis. When asked why some of the leaders
today have continued with lockdowns even with ample evidence of their ineffectiveness, the
governor theorized that the people involved have committed too much to the narrative and have
made it impossible to change course.
“You have a situation where if you’re in this field,
the pandemic, that’s something that you kind of prepare for and
you’re ready for. And a lot of these people muffed it ,†he
said.
“When push came to shove, they advocated policies that have not worked
against the virus but have been very, very destructive. They are never going to admit they
were wrong about anything, unfortunately.â€
Elected leaders aren’t the only ones to blame, according to the governor.
The media and big tech companies played a major role in perpetuating fears about the virus
while selectively censoring one side of the mitigation debate. DeSantis said the media and tech
giants stood to benefit from the lockdown as people stayed home and consumed their
products.
“It was all just to generate the most clicks that they could. And so
that was always trying to do the stuff that would inspire the most fear,â€
DeSantis said.
Two weeks after the interview, an
undercover video recorded by Project Veritas showed a technical director at CNN talking
about the boost the network received due to its pandemic coverage.
“It’s fear. Fear really drives numbers,â€
CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester said. “Fear is the thing that keeps
you tuned in.â€
The fear-mongering worked, DeSantis said, pointing to CDC statistics showing that 4 out of 10 American
adults delayed or avoided getting urgent or routine medical treatment in June 2020. The
agency’s report said that the pattern may have contributed to the excess
deaths reported during that period, due to preventable illnesses and injuries going
untreated.
Emergency room doctors had reported that fewer people were coming in with cardiac-related
chest pains while more were coming in with late-stage appendicitis, something that is usually
caught much earlier. The pandemic has also led to a sharp decrease in cancer screenings and
detections.
“When you have people too scared to go to the emergency room when
they’re literally having a heart attack, that didn’t
happen in a vacuum,†DeSantis said.
“Corporate media played a role in that, by really whipping up people
into a frenzy.â€
The profit motive wasn’t the only factor potentially driving the
media’s slanted coverage, according to the governor. The pandemic hit the
United States in an election year, presenting an opportunity to heap the blame on President
Donald Trump.
“They viewed it as an opportunity to damage Trump. Obviously, they hated
Trump more than anything,†DeSantis said.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his office in Tallahassee, Florida, on April 1, 2021.
(Screenshot via Epoch Times)
‘Council of
Censors’
In the April 1 interview, DeSantis criticized big tech companies for censoring critics of
lockdowns. Less than a week after the interview, the governor himself became the victim of
censorship. YouTube, without warning, scrubbed videos of a roundtable discussion between
DeSantis and prominent scientists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford who assessed that
lockdowns are ineffective.
The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) was the first to
flag the video’s disappearance. The original clip is now hosted on a
different platform and appears along with a full transcript on the AIER
website .
“Google and YouTube have not been, throughout this pandemic,
repositories of truth and scientific inquiry, but instead have acted as enforcers of a
narrative, a big tech council of censors in service of the ruling elite†DeSantis
said in response to YouTube’s censorship during an April 12 video conference call with
three of the scientists from the banned video.
“When they took down the video … they were really
continuing what they’ve been doing for the past year: stifle debate,
short-circuit scientific inquiry, make sure that the narrative is not questioned. And I think
that we’ve seen already that that has had catastrophic consequences for
our society.â€
The takedown of the video suggests that Big Tech intends to keep exercising the awesome
power it directed against Trump in the closing days of the previous administration. Twitter and
Facebook banned the president, cutting off a direct line of communication between the
commander-in-chief and tens of millions of Americans.
DeSantis thinks that the power monopolies have now is far more extensive than what the
United States had witnessed at the turn of the century.
“What we’ve seen with the big tech and the censorship,
they are exercising more power than the monopolies at the beginning of the 20th century ever
could have exercised,†the governor said. “The type of power
that they’re exercising now in some respects is even more profound than the
type of power that government typically exercises.â€
No End In Sight
Desantis believes the lockdown states may never fully reopen because the leaders there have
invested so heavily in the narrative while the voters have grown fearful.
While restrictions are easing across the nation, only six states, including Florida, have
fully reopened, according to a tracker maintained by USA
Today . Eight states never issued a stay-at-home order.
“I think if your goal is no cases, then there may never be an end to
it, because you’re never gonna have zero COVID,†DeSantis
said, adding that a more pragmatic goal would be to aim towards a hospitalization rate
indicative of a respiratory virus endemic.
“But I don’t know that they’re
willing to accept that reality. I think they’re going to try to have no
cases at all, which would basically mean there would never be a full end to these policies,
which is scary.â€
Leftists reacted with fury after Fox News host Tucker Carlson said people who wear masks
outside should be mocked and that parents who made their kids wear them were engaging in "child
abuse."
Carlson noted that masks were "purely a sign of political obedience like Kim Il-Sung pins in
Pyongyang" and that the only people who voluntarily wear masks outside are "zealots and
neurotics."
He then asserted that the tables should be turned on Biden voters who have been harassing
conservatives for almost a year for not wearing a mask in public.
"The rest of us should be snorting at them first, they're the aggressors – it's our
job to brush them back and restore the society we were born in," said Carlson.
"So the next time you see someone in a mask on the sidewalk or on the bike path, do not
hesitate. Ask politely but firmly, ' Would you please take off your mask? Science shows there
is no reason for you to be wearing it. Your mask is making me uncomfortable, " he added.
"We should do that and we should keep doing it until wearing a mask outside is roughly as
socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator."
The Fox News host went on to call mask wearing "repulsive" while asserting that forcing
children to wear masks outside should be illegal.
"Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from
your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact
Child Protective Services. Keep calling until someone arrives," Carlson said.
"What you're looking at is abuse, it's child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt
to prevent it," he added.
As expected, Carlson immediately began trending on Twitter, with hysterical leftists
hyperventilating over Tucker once again challenging their cult. Many called for the Fox News
host to be fired while others ludicrously described him as a "national security threat."
As we
highlighted yesterday , even Dr. Fauci now admits that the risk of vaccinated people
spreading COVID outside is "minuscule," and yet some health professionals are pushing for the
mask mandates to be made permanent.
The transmission of COVID-19 outdoors is almost non-existent, making mask mandates merely a
political tool of population control.
In a recent open letter to the German government and state premiers, five leading members of
the Association for Aerosol Research (GAeF) wrote, "The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses
takes place indoors almost without exception. Transmission outdoors is extremely rare and never
leads to cluster infections as can be observed indoors."
Why the us government did not fund this type of mask for all is telling what the overall
strategy is.
Controlling you, your neighbor, and others that think for themselves.
Its not about the virus
Robert Neville 7 hours ago
Actually, M95 masks filter out 95% of particles over 4 microns in diameter in perfect
conditions. In the real world it is much less effective than that. Viruses are generally less
than one micron in size so they are ineffective for most viruses. Also, the masks are so hard
to breath through that some version have an exhale valve so they do nothing to protect others
if you are infected. Most masks don't protect your eyes. The only thing that works is a space
suit that is decontaminated before you remove it. The rest is virtue siganling.
Properly fitted n95's do protect against virus and the science proves it.
Dickweed Wang 10 hours ago (Edited)
This is an excerpt from the "Stanford Study" from November 2020 (that's been making the
rounds in the alternative media and conservative media space recently) about the uselessness
of masks in preventing "the virus":
A meta -analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical
mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or
influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28] . Using
separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta -analysis found no protective
effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28] . A recent
systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings
(self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks
and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like
illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community
settings [29] .
It's predictable that the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to "fact check" and
disparage the entire paper (do an internet search for 'Stanford Mask Paper' and you'll see
what I'm talking about). Their main criticism is 'that wasn't published by Stanford', while
they totally ignore the claims made in the paper. When you look at the people and
organizations doing the fact checking it really shows that the entire mask issue is a
political/control ploy. Here's the link to the entire paper if anyone is interested:
From comments: " Tucker is right on this one. If you wear a mask outside you truly are a
moron. You may as well add goggles and a butt plug." ... "Don't forget about those solo drivers
with masks on!", "Maskers are stupid scared virtue signalers"
As an anti-mask militant for quite a while now I've been going out of my way to ask people
with masks on outdoors why they're wearing one (I've really tried to be polite but it's
getting increasingly hard to do that). In literally hundreds of instances I haven't gotten a
straight answer yet. It's stunning that people are so gullible but it shows what the power of
propaganda really is. 99% of that is coming from teevee, which truly rots your brain.
Capt Tripps 10 hours ago remove link
They are signaling the submission to a tyrannical state. That submission makes us all less
free.
safelyG 10 hours ago
mister tucker is wrongeddy wrong wrong.
we must all wear multiple masks. indoors. outdoors. at work. at play. while we sleep.
while we bathe. while we eat. while we sing praises unto the most high.
and we must remain 8 feet apart, one from the other. at all times.
and report our whereabouts and our contacts and our body temperature. to the
authorities.
get your vacines!
lovingly,
bill n melinda
radical-extremist 10 hours ago
When Tucker Carlson says to tell people to take off their masks and call CPS on parents
who mask their children he's trolling the Left. And because the Left has no sense of humor or
irony or hypocrisy...they're of course OUTRAGED, which was his point.
Realism 10 hours ago remove link
I like it best when hiking outside, in 75 degree weather with a nice breeze, you see
people put up their mask as they walk by
Pure comedy, it's hard to understand the stupidity if you think you'll get any disease
much less Covid walking by someone
And importantly, would you really be hiking if you had Covid LOL
aztrader 10 hours ago
Mask wears see it as a badge of honor because they "care" about other people. In reality,
it's a badge of Stupidity and ignorance.
Prince Velveeta 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link
California is an open-air mental ward. I was just out there and the collective idiocy is
astounding. People jogging with masks on , exaggerating their breathing as they pass you in
some competitive virtue signaling event. I witnessed some idiot jogging up the hill past my
family member's house, with a bandana on his face, being sucked into his mouth as he's
gasping for air.....
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said people will “likely†need a
third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine within 12 months of getting fully vaccinated. His comments
were made public Thursday but were taped April 1.
Bourla said it’s possible people will need to get vaccinated against the
coronavirus annually.
From the very beginning of this crisis, I have been warning my readers that any immunity would
be very temporary.
Natural COVID immunity is very temporary, and immunity conferred by the vaccines is very
temporary too.
The CEO of Pfizer is comparing the COVID vaccines to flu shots. Every year millions of
Americans rush out to get their flu shots, and the CEO of Pfizer is admitting that it looks like
the COVID vaccines will be on a similar schedule
…
“There are vaccines that’s like polio that one dose is
enough, there are vaccines like pneumococcal vaccine that one dose is enough for adults and
there are vaccines like flu that you need every year,†Bourla said.
“The Covid virus looks more like the influenza virus than the polio
virus.â€
If people are going to need a new shot every year, that means that COVID will be with us for a
very long time to come.
This is essentially an admission that the COVID pandemic will not be ending any time soon.
Needless to say, Pfizer stands to make giant mountains of money if COVID vaccines become a
yearly thing, and we need to keep that in mind.
A lot of people that I know are going to be extremely upset when they finally realize that the
two shots that they got only provide temporary immunity.
And of course lots of people are still getting sick after being fully vaccinated. According to
the CDC, so far there have been almost 6,000 documented cases of people being infected after
getting two shots, and dozens of them
have died …
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported that roughly 5,800 people who received a
coronavirus vaccine still ultimately came down with the disease anyway, according to CNN.
Of those 5,800, 396 of them (roughly 7 percent) were hospitalized; 74 of the vaccinated
people ultimately died. The report proves that the vaccines, though frequently touted by the
government and the media, are not guaranteed to prevent everyone from contracting the
virus.
That wasn’t supposed to happen.
But it is happening.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the current vaccines will fare against
variants that have already developed and variants that will develop in the future.
At this point we just don’t know how effective the vaccines will be, but
the New York Times
is assuring us that we don’t have anything to be concerned
about…
“I use the term
‘scariants,’†said Dr. Eric Topol, professor
of molecular medicine at Scripps Research in La Jolla, Calif., referring to much of the media
coverage of the variants.
“Even my wife was saying, ‘What about this double
mutant?’ It drives me nuts. People are scared unnecessarily. If
you’re fully vaccinated, two weeks post dose, you
shouldn’t have to worry about variants at all.â€
Really?
I have a feeling that Dr. Eric Topol will end up eating those words.
The reason why a new flu vaccine comes out every year is because the flu is constantly
changing and mutating.
The same thing is happening to COVID, and there are already dozens of mutant variations
spreading around the globe.
To me, Dr. Eric Topol’s statement was exceedingly irresponsible, especially
considering some of the studies that have come out lately. Here is just one example
…
Two doses of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine were found to have only a 10.4% efficacy
against mild-to-moderate infections caused by the B.1.351 South Africa variant, according to a
phase 1b-2 clinical trial published
on Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine . This is a cause for grave concern as the
South African variants share similar mutations to the other variants leaving those vaccinated
with the AstraZeneca vaccine potentially exposed to multiple variants.
In this article, I haven’t even discussed all of the side effects that we
have been witnessing. A few days ago, the FDA issued an unprecedented order regarding the Johnson
and Johnson vaccine because it was
causing blood clots in a number of cases…
This week, the Food and Drug Administration called for a halt in the administration of the
single dose vaccine for COVID-19 manufactured by Johnson and Johnson. The halt was ascribed to
the rare incidence of blood clots that could potentially be related to the vaccine.
I am glad that the FDA decided to step in, but the order came too late
for this guy …
When the news broke about the pause of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine Tuesday, one Coast
family was already living with a tragedy they believe was caused by the vaccine.
It started out as a normal day for 43-year-old Brad Malagarie of St. Martin. This busy
father of seven spent the morning at his D’Iberville office before heading
to get a Johnson & Johnson vaccine a little after noon.
He returned to work, and within three hours coworkers noticed he was unresponsive at his
desk.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that rushing experimental vaccines
through the testing process was a really bad idea.
We should be putting the safety of the American people first, and nobody knows for sure what
the long-term effects of these experimental treatments will be.
In this day and age, we all need to do our own research and we all need to think for
ourselves, because the big pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with profits than anything
else.
If you are harmed by their experimental therapies, the big pharmaceutical companies
won’t be there to pick up the pieces for you if something goes horribly
wrong.
* * *
Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The
Future Of America†is now available in paperback and for the
Kindle on Amazon.
So...
Requiring Vaccine IDs or passports violates medical privacy - Right?
Unvaccinated are NOT a threat because the vaccinated are protected - Right?
Preventing unvaccinated from participating in society is discrimination - Right?
_arrow
The Antisoiler 5 hours ago remove link
It appears they are moving in the direction of mandating a vaccine subscription, where you
will pay monthly or yearly.
Trends indicate subscription based revenue generation is a win-win for both producer,
consumer, and eugenicist.
Remember, you will own nothing and be happy about it. You will be free from the burden of
asset management. And, you'll essentially be a slave, working till you drop into a grave or
incinerator.
Fed Supporter 6 hours ago remove link
Sorry Michael Snyder, you are flat out wrong about natural immunity not lasting very
long.
A corona virus from 17 years ago, every year those who were infected get tested for
immunity, and guess what every year for 17 year those previously infected individuals still
have immunity.
Further, the current corona virus , Covid, is 80% similiar to the one from 17 years ago.
Some virologits estimate that 30% of the world has cross immunity and can not get Covid.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you need to do more research. You are parroting the MSM
outlets who were selling fear and citing quacks from stanford, etc that said "we just don't
know", No they do know they just wanted to ramp fear sky high. Memory T cells are a thing.
May 18, 2020 â€" Blood samples from the patient, who had SARS in 2003, contained
an ... Antibody that inhibits the new coronavirus discovered in patient who had SARS 17 years
ago ... Antibodies form part of the body's immune response to pathogens. ... But Vir
Biotechnology has fast-tracked the antibody for development ...
Here we studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and
non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1 ) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ( n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and
CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein. Next, we showed that patients (
n = 23) who recovered from SARS (the disease associated with SARS-CoV infection) possess
long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the
outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of
SARS-CoV-2. We also detected SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in individuals with no history of
SARS, COVID-19 or contact with individuals who had SARS and/or COVID-19 ( n = 37).
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in uninfected donors exhibited a, etc.
Fed Supporter 6 hours ago
BTW natural immunity is way better than Mrna vaccines, which are narrowly tailored to target
proteins on the spike protein. Once it mutates, like the South Africa and UK mutations, the
pfizer vaccine will need modified to target the new mutations hence yearly boosters at $180 a
pop. We will be chasing this thing forever, always behind on catching the mutated viruses.
Invest in Pfizer their stock will go so high, they are going to make a ton of money off the
sheep.
Also, some doctors, said it is not wise to get vaccinated for corvid if you already had
it.
Also isn't peculiar the mutations all occurred in countries that ran human trials, Brazil,
UK, SA, Israel. These countries were the first to have humans vaccinated and they are the first
to have mutations.
Bacon's Rebellion 4 hours ago
"Just look at the number of medicines pulled from pharmacies in the last 20 years that the
FDC originally said were perfectly safe"
Think for yourself 4 hours ago (Edited) remove link
also, the mRNA vaccine 'targets' the s-proteins by genetically hijacking your cell to
construct biochemical factories to create these s-proteins. Not only is it a fixed overhead (no
off switch, it's in your genes now) but that overhead is spent building parts that are designed
to inflame your immune system. Even after so-called 'immunity' is acquired, those biochemical
factories will keep working to produce, the immune system will keep working against the
low-level inflammation, so the cells will not only be spending fuel on negative output, but the
spare viral proteins floating around it's creating are just begging to be assimilated into even
more mutant strains.
I am convinced that the mRNA 'vaccine' is exponentially increasing the mutation potential of
covid-19.
Libertarian777 5 hours ago
THIS GUY GETS IT. Lack of antibodies does not mean immunity disappears.
Pazuzu 4 hours ago
Upvoted for clever use of term 'virologits'. If ever there were a bunch of gits the virology
bunch fits the bill.
Josey Yahoo 6 hours ago remove link
Is anybody else stating to feel like they are being played?
For a year now I have been saying that this is a flu, just another flu, being blown into a
major issue to literally destroy our nation.
First the lockdowns, to destroy small business, as the large companies will gladly assist in
the elimination of cash. NOTE, the immediate calls for cash not to be used as it would transmit
the virus, then all of a sudden a coin shortage, when was the last time that happened, oh,
that's right, NEVER!
....
freedommusic 4 hours ago (Edited)
> Huh? Unvaccinated are a threat to other Unvaccinated people who want to get vaccinated
and don't want to die.
No problem that's what your double mask, self isolating, and social distancing is for. Since
it is SO EFFECTIVE , it will provide the necessary protection until all the smart people get
vaccinated.
Then all the unwashed, ignorant, unvaccinated fools will die off as a result of natural
selection.
Everyone wins here and nature wins.
RIGHT?
taketheredpill 6 hours ago
Or maybe the vaccine is 99.9925% Effective (6000 sick out of 80 Million with full dose) and
Pharma guys rounded up?
Bacon's Rebellion 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link
ummm.
Assuming 100% accuracy of the "cause of death" being Covid19:
Covid19 survival rates for all age groups:
563,000 dead / 329,000,000 total population = 99.829% survival.
Covid19 survival rates over the age of 75:
245,000 dead / 55,000,000 people = 99.555% survival rate.
Covid19 survival rates under the age of 55:
40,000 dead / 229,000,000 people = 99.983% survival rate.
Covid19 survival rates under the age of 25:
550 dead / 103,000,000 people = 99.9995% survival rate.
Explain to us why in the world we need to vaccinate the 16 to 25 folks? Vaccination DOES NOT
MEAN you can't catch it or spread it...
"" We don't know yet whether or not it prevents you from getting infected where you're not
with symptoms...but you have virus in your nasopharynx that you could then infect an
unvaccinated person who might be vulnerable, and you will inadvertently and innocently get them
sick," Fauci explained."
The whole vaccine jive talk is packed with "Could", "Maybe", "Possibly", "Likely",
"Unknown"...ect.
"UNLESS....you get people to lock down, wash hands, wear masks etc."
Yeah, we did that, and we have 31,000,000 confirmed cases.
How many people contracted Covid19 but were never tested?
Estimating the Fraction of Unreported COVID-19
"The results are striking: ...The range of results across model assumptions and time periods
utilized vary between 6 to 24 unreported cases."
So, at 6 unreported for every reported, more than half of the US population has been
exposed...your masks and lockdowns have been a huge failure....
186,000,000 infections and 563,000 dead = .3% death rate.
Bacon, don't confuse taketheredpill with facts, his mind is already made. I'll bet he is a
paid sock puppet or just some sick liberal trolling one of the few places post comments that
make sense, and that aren't a bunch of collectivist mindless sheep.
russellthetreeman PREMIUM 6 hours ago
It's not a vaccine. It doesn't even come close to halfway meeting the definition of a
vaccine.
It's not a pandemic. It doesn't even come close to halfway meeting the definition of a
pandemic.
The sars cov 2 virus has a known survival rate of WELL over 99+%.
sun tzu 6 hours ago remove link
The average sheep thinks over 30 million Americans died of covid-19 last year. Idiocy
rules
A Lunatic 6 hours ago (Edited)
That still pales in comparison to the 150 million gun deaths we had last year, according to
Joe.
Bacon's Rebellion 5 hours ago
"It's not a vaccine"...correct, it's a drug that forces your immune system to do something
it doesn't want to do.
The original mRNA researcher when it actually, sorta, worked "I felt like God!"
All BS. My wife and I are unvaccinated and have travelled half the country, always maskless,
over the past year. Not sick, haven’t been sick. Our dog is fine, too.
sun tzu 6 hours ago
Same here. I've been to Mexico 3 times too. Nobody around me, family and co-workers, has
gotten sick or died.
Lead Engineer PREMIUM 6 hours ago
And the CDC estimates that over 30% of the population has been infected. So if we assume
that another 20% had previous natural immunity and another 50% of the susceptible have been
vaccinated, then you can see that this pandemic is rapidly going extinct.
Captive1 6 hours ago (Edited) remove link
" From the very beginning of this crisis, I have been warning my readers that any immunity
would be very temporary. Natural COVID immunity is very temporary, and immunity conferred by
the vaccines is very temporary too."
Disqualifying statement. There is no data to support this statement. Antibody surveillance
studies have shown durability and case studies have demonstrated no reinfections to those who
had an initial antibody response on the first infection. Not to mention T Cell memory. He
doesn't know what he's talking about. Immune memory to COV2 is long lived and protective across
multiple strains. I would link the papers but I'm not helping people not be retarded anymore.
Big pharma wants you to believe that immunity is temporary to drive profit. It's not.
Huxley's Ghost 6 hours ago remove link
We know so little about the immune system (really the entire human body); basic concepts,
yes but effect of environment, innate experience, stressors, diet, etc..not a clue. Individual
immune systems because of all these factors are more like fingerprints--vastly unique to each
unit. The endocrine and immune systems are black boxes to the medical community but they act
like are doing more than spit-balling.
Huxley's Ghost 5 hours ago remove link
In theory, they (vaccine companies) annually analyze what strains are prevalent in the world
and predicted to have the greatest impact. Those strains get selected for production of the
annual flu shot; it could be the case that the same strain(s) prevailed. Or not. These days you
can't believe anything anymore.
Last time I had the flu shot was over 30 years ago. I had flu once since then and took
Tamiflu, which was miraculous in its speed (identify and dose early while viral load is low) of
effect, minimal/no side effects, and efficacy. I was back on my feet in about 36 hours--fully.
I have heard people report horrible abdominal/GI issues (temporary). I was lucky.
strych10 3 hours ago remove link
OK, I've said this before but I will repeat it, ultra basic here:
Natural immunity tends to be both "deeper" and "broader" than what one of these mRNA
(straight up or adeno vector, doesn't matter) can provide.
When a virus infects you there are a lot of different things that happen. The two that
matter the most for the purposes of this discussion are as follows:
1) Your body sees a wide array of viral surface proteins and gets a look at the actual
capsid and lipid envelope too. Particularly after you immune system shreds up some of the
buggers and looks at the pieces.
2) Your body gets to see millions of variations on this, including the most statistically
common variations in surface protein structure.
This means that your body develops a set of antibodies that is much wider than a single
introduced protein can provide.
With the vax you get one structure, lab controlled QC, a single "image" of the target if you
will. In the wild you get a bunch of various proteins and a ton of variation in their physical
shape, hundreds or thousands of images from various angles.
The result is that you get a relatively wide array of antibodies and a hugely wider picture
of what is "not self". This makes it easier for your body to recognize the same or similar
infectious agent/infection next time. You also now have a set of antibodies with variable
structure making it more likely that they can neutralize a mutant strain of the same virus (or
something substantially similar) or at least blunt the next virus' attack long enough to buy
time for your immune system to learn about it without you getting a serious illness.
duck_fur 2 hours ago
You seem to have a background in virology. What of the issue of coding errors - either
during or after manufacture - within the mRNA payload? What of the possibility of the expressed
protein exhibiting a fold due to the error(s)?
strych10 1 hour ago
I'm not a virologist. I'm a cell biologist.
So, trying not to make this a full on basic genetics class...
Yes, what you're asking is possible. It's also statistically rare. The root of misformed
proteins tends to be genetic code error or a mistake in copying that code into mRNA.
Ribosomes, which translate mRNA into a protein, tend to be very good at their job and if
they make an error can often detect it, back up and fix it and then begin sequencing again.
Errors do occur but they're rare. At this stage more common is an issue of improper folding of
the protein resulting in an improper tertiary structure and the inability to form a quaternary
structure due to this. (A quaternary structure is an overall structure formed by multiple
proteins folded to fit together into a larger unit which serves a purpose. For example,
hemoglobin is formed from four separate proteins that fold up and then can fit together to form
hemoglobin.)
So, assuming that the QC is good, which I have no reason to believe that it is not, coding
errors are not really a problem. It's the fact that the QC is too good.
But then you have to step back and ask if this matters. Yes and no, and I'll give you a
quick explanation of each.
An antibody is, essentially, like a Y of gum you're sticking on the key to a lock. The virus
has a key that unlocks the cell, the antibody prevents these two things from coming into
physical contact so the key can never open the lock. Once bound this antibody also marks
whatever it has bound to for destruction by other parts of the immune system. That in
mind...
Yes: If CoV-2 were to mutate to the point that the spike proteins in question changed enough
that an antibody couldn't bind to the virion then the virus could evade the antibodies that
neutralize the virion and mark it for destruction.
No: In order to do this, generally, you need quite a bit of mutation to change the physical
structure of the spike. In a lot of cases this would make the virion non-operational because
the same change that allows it to avoid the antibodies also means it can no longer fit that key
into the desired lock.
So, does it really matter? Again, yes and no. If the virus can "figure out" a key that still
opens the desired lock (or another one) and doesn't fit the antibody it will avoid the immune
system until the immune system figures out what's going on. This takes some time. Infected
cells have to signal that they're infected, inspection has to be done, antibodies synthesized
etc.
So, IMHO, and it's just my opinion: the fear of "breakthrough" is rather overblown. However,
it is still real. In a natural infection there is less chance of this kind of "breakthrough"
because your body has more data on the invader meaning that the invader usually needs to change
a lot more in order to evade the immune system hence "broader" and "deeper". That said, there
are viruses that are pretty good at this. Influenza A is one of them.
This is the root of what you may have heard last year about "T-cell immunity". People had
previously encountered a disease substantially similar to CoV-2 and it was similar enough that
they produced an antibody that neutralized CoV-2.
Quasimodo. 48 minutes ago remove link
If you have breakthrough, you have a new virus. A mutation, not just a variant. Most
variants have only slight changes in protein. A variant is more likely to spread and be more
virulant if it is less deadly since the host survives long enough to spread the virus further,
while a deadlier form (although could happen) will die out quickly as more hosts will die
strych10 15 minutes ago
I actually had to ask my wife about the technical definition about this.
For CoV-2 to change enough to be "not CoV-2" it would require significantly more alteration
than you're stating here.
The things that would change the classification are things like capsid shape, nucleic acid
type, mechanism of infiltration or exfiltration.
You need far more than simply the ability to evade current immune response. Hence why
Influenza A can jump species, come back and still be Influenza A.
Codery 1 hour ago
Ya but that’s just like science, can you explain how any of that helps
get rid of Trump?
strych10 1 hour ago remove link
Yes, in three letters. CNN.
sun tzu 6 hours ago remove link
Stay away from big hospitals. They are contract killers for big pharma
Sluggo315 3 hours ago
My older brother that has three or four co-morbidities (weight, BP, asthma, one more I
think) was rushed to the hospital for a bowel blockage. He spent the night in the emergency
room, and was admitted into the hospital for tests. They put him on the COVID floor. Tell me
these hospitals are not in on it too!!!?
TheTruthisSomewhere 5 hours ago remove link
The article unfortunately is going from the erroneous position that this is worse than the
flu. It is not the statistics are cooked and it is a testdemic. Variants are always less potent
and yes people have natural immunity to this. It is almost a Gaslighting article based on quasi
facts and hearsay.
Joe Rogan: "I think it's safe to get vaccinated, but if you're 21 years old ... if you're a
healthy person and you're exercising all of the time and you're young and you're eating well, I
don't think you need to worry about this." https://twitter.com/i/status/1387077145156063234
It is unclear how Fauci response correlates with the fact that existing vaccines are less
effective or (in case of Pfizer and South African strain) ineffective against new mutations. Does
he acts as Big Pharma lobbyist, or what ?
Also, you have to be skeptical of pharmaceutical companies and the fact that they cannot be
sued if something goes wrong with the vaccine.
White House
health adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci and communications director Kate Bedingfield have made a point
of belittling and attacking podcaster Joe Rogan for daring to have a mixed opinion on Covid-19
vaccines.
As Rogan has skyrocketed over the years to arguably the most influential and successful
podcaster around, he has also turned into an intensely controversial figure, mainly for
liberals who fear his willingness to give a platform to right-wing figures like Alex Jones and
his less-than-PC takes on everything from transgender athletes to Covid-19 vaccines.
The latter is what landed the former 'Fear Factor' host in the hot seat this week as a clip
from a recent episode of 'The Joe Rogan Experience' made its way across social media and
critics painted Rogan as an anti-vaxxer spreading disinformation.
The controversy stems from Rogan saying, during a conversation with fellow comic Dave
Smith, he would not recommend that a healthy person in their early 20s get a Covid-19 vaccine
as they are not as vulnerable to the virus as older generations (who account for the majority of Covid
deaths in the US) and people with preexisting medical conditions.
The Spotify podcaster also said pushing for kids to be vaccinated is "crazy," citing his
own childrens' history with getting Covid-19, as both recovered relatively quickly.
Critics painted Rogan's comments as an angry anti-vaxx rant, urging his millions of
listeners to avoid getting inoculated against Covid-19. However, they ignored the fact that
Rogan says in the clip (and has said in the past) that getting vaccinated seems mostly safe
and is indeed "important" for certain people.
Criticism of Rogan reached a bizarre new level on Wednesday when the White House appeared to
launch a coordinated effort to disparage and belittle the podcaster, completely dismissing his
opinions.
In multiple interviews, Fauci blasted Rogan for ignoring "societal responsibilities,"
arguing even young and healthy people should get vaccinated as asymptomatic individuals can
still spread the virus.
The infectious disease expert also believes "kids of all ages" will be vaccinated by the
end of the year – there are no vaccines on the market in the US approved for anyone under
16 – and everyone should "absolutely" get inoculated.
AIER Staff – November 21, 2020 Reading Time: 20 minutes
Print Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Reddit Flipboard Email Share
Print Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Reddit Flipboard Email Share READ MORE
AIER Staff
Jordan Schachtel – May 20, 2021
How Team Biden Ended Covid Mania OvernightREAD MORE
Micha Gartz
Amelia Janaskie – May 20, 2021
Lockdowns in Taiwan: Myths Versus RealityREAD MORE
Aleksandra Przegalinska – May 19, 2021
What the Heck Is Bitcoin All About?READ MORE
Robert E. Wright – May 19, 2021
Beware the Rise of ScamericaREAD MORE
Ethan Yang – May 19, 2021
The Moralization of Covid-19READ MORE
Donald J. Boudreaux – May 17, 2021
Will 2020 Prove to Be the Beginning of the End of Modernity?READ MORE
Joakim Book – May 16, 2021
To Lean, Clean, or Reign SupremeREAD MORE
Twitter Facebook-f Youtube Pinterest Linkedin Google Flipboard Rss
AIER would like to update you with the latest economic research, articles, and news . Allow Cancel
+5
+5
+5
+5
Tier Three IS working: Coronavirus cases are falling in ALL...
Daily Covid-19 cases rose by 50% last week in England and 1...
+5
