“There’s something happening here, but what it is ain’t exactly clear.” – Buffalo Springfield 1967
It’s not supposed to be clear, now or then. If you’re confused by the news you’re hearing, you should be. They want you to
be. They try to make you be. But you don’t have to be.
Who are “they”? They are the corporate mainstream media (MSM) that serve as mouthpieces for the power elites, who are connected
through an intricate system of institutions and associations, both obvious and shadowy. They run the show that the media produce
for the masses. To paraphrase the illustrious American propagandist, Edward Bernays: This is the engineering of
the consent of the ignorant herd by the intelligent few.
That this has been going on for a long time should be obvious. That such propaganda is surround-sound today is a fact. It is total
and non-stop. Even its critics are often seduced as they are horrified.
But I utter the obvious to explore the obscure. In particular, the ways the elites try to manage the public mind by confusing
contradictions, half-truths, multiple and conflicting narratives, and revelations proffered to conceal more fundamental facts.
The basic way people’s thinking is controlled today is by confusing them and creating a perpetual state of mental vertigo. Muddled
and disordered by double-speak, illogical reporting, and a kaleidoscopic merry-go-round of conflicting reports, the average person
is reduced to a mental mess.
“To the average man who tries to keep informed,” writes Jacques Ellul in Propaganda, “a world emerges that
is astonishingly incoherent, absurd, and irrational, which changes rapidly and constantly for reasons he can’t understand.”
Take Donald Trump. He is regularly castigated by the media for his endless stream of tweets and contradictory
statements. He is called a moron, mentally imbalanced, and a clown. But what these critics fail to grasp is that he is beating them
at their own game of sowing confusion. He is our modern mythic Johnny Appleseed, wildly spewing seeds of bedlam to incite and confound.
He is no anomaly. He has stepped out of our celebrity reality-TV screened world to carry on the media’s task of what Orwell said
was a necessary task for the rulers in a totalitarian society: “to dislocate the sense of reality.”
The mainstream media do this daily. Think of their reporting of some recent news and ask yourself what exactly have they said
– Russia-gate, the Iran agreement, the Las Vegas massacre, Catalonia, health insurance, etc. Gibberish piled upon gibberish, that’s
what they’ve said. A salmagundi of contradictory verbiage that leaves a half-way sentient person shaking one’s head in astonishment.
Or leaves one baffled, devoid of any sense of the truth.
While the gross Harvey Weinstein, buddy to Democrat politicians who took large sums from his deep pockets, dominates
the MSM’s spotlight, as if his exploits suddenly appeared out of nowhere, the U.S. war against Syria and so many other countries
“isn’t happening,” as Harold Pinter put it in his Nobel acceptance speech when he said the systematic crimes of
the United States have been disappeared behind “a highly successful act of hypnosis.” The nuclear threats to Russia and China aren’t
happening. It doesn’t matter right now anyway. We might get back to that next week or next month, if we are finished with Weinstein
by then or if Stephen Paddock’s autopsy report isn’t back from Stanford where they are studying his brain tissue
to find the cause and manner of his death – you know what deep secrets brain tissue can reveal. And yes, we will be exploring a question
a brilliant reporter asked the Las Vegas authorities:
“Do you think Paddock did it because he could?”
In 2003 the Bush administration blatantly lied about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction in
order to wage a barbaric and criminal war against Iraq. Then Obama glided in on the giddy fantasies of liberals, the same people
who supported Clinton’s savaging of Serbia in 1999. He smiled and smiled and spoke articulately about the need for war, drone assassinations,
the bailing out of Wall Street and the big banks, the need to confront Russia over his own administration’s engineered Ukrainian
coup, and a crackdown on whistleblowers. For decades the media echoed the blatant deceptions of these men. From slick to obvious
to slick went the propaganda. And then the shock and awe of Mr. Trump’s election. How to deal with one of their own, one spawned
from the entertainment-media-news complex? Trump accused them of creating fake news. He relentlessly attacked them, as if to say:
you hypocrites; you accuse me of what you do. Then he continued to tweet out his messages meant to confuse and inflame. He continued
to make statements that were then contradicted. What were the poor media to do except one-up him. This they have done.
We have now entered a new phase of propaganda where sowing mass confusion on every issue 24/7 is the method of choice.
But therein lies hope if we can grasp the meaning of Oscar Wilde’s paradoxical statement:
“When both a speaker and an audience are confused, the speech is profound.”
"... 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 ... " ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Big Pharma, Big Science, Big Media, Big Tech, Big Government, Big Foundations - all in collusion, all following the trail originally blazed by Big Tobacco. ..."
"... FLCCC Alliance Statement on the Irregular Actions of Public Health Agencies and the Widespread Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin ..."
"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."
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.
Bedingfield also dismissed Rogan's opinion in a CNN interview where she said Rogan not being
a doctor basically strips his words of any merit.
"I guess my first question would be, did Joe Rogan become a medical doctor while we
weren't looking?" she asked. "I'm not sure that taking scientific and medical advice
from Joe Rogan is perhaps the most productive way for people to get their information."
Initial social media criticism of Rogan is one thing, but the White House pitting themselves
against a private citizen having an open and frank discussion on a podcast is concerning. It's
alarming enough that White House officials busy with vaccination efforts and a still-fresh
administration would take the time to debate Rogan on the subject, but the responses to his
discussion also show that administration officials are fearful of open debate and conversations
about the vaccines. If one even strays from the belief that vaccines are 100% safe and every
single person, regardless of age or health, should take them, they are attacked, at least if
you have the following that Rogan has.
Rogan's discussions on Covid-19 vaccines do not boil down to a debate on whether getting
inoculated against the virus is good for everyone or not. The recent viral clip even opens with
the podcaster saying vaccines are safe, and he acknowledges that what he says about children
and young, healthy people is not true across the board. He merely expresses concerns as a
father and gives a personal opinion that in no way discourages everyone from getting a
vaccine.
Looking at Fauci and Bedingfield's responses, it appears they aren't even debating what
Rogan actually said.
Fauci, who has been a controversial figure himself and
accused of flip-flopping multiple positions during the pandemic, argues that it is the
potential transmission of the virus from one person to another that is the reason everyone
should be vaccinated. Rogan never talks about the risk of transmission though. He simply makes
the argument that a healthy individual who is younger may not need a vaccination to protect
themselves from the deadlier aspects of Covid.
Bedingfield's argument is even lamer as she says without a "Dr." title, Rogan simply
can't have concerns about vaccinations for children and others. She argues no one should take
"medical advice" from a podcaster, setting Rogan up as a man who presented himself as
some kind of expert on vaccines, dishing out advice to his listeners, who apparently aren't
intelligent enough to make up their own minds, according to these critics.
Fauci and Bedingfield and any other White House official who decides to paint Rogan as the
face of anti-vaxxers should be ashamed of themselves. Their personal attacks are an
opportunistic way to take a shot at someone who has somehow become a near-pariah on the left,
and to discourage open and frank discussions about vaccines. Their swift dismissal of a
comedian who is not quite waving the flag for every single person to be vaccinated shows that
they don't want discussion from citizens they want compliance and for people to keep nodding
their heads at their ever-changing talking points and guidelines.
It really doesn't matter who is right in the White House versus Joe Rogan debate because
there shouldn't be a White House versus Joe Rogan debate. Ironically, Fauci and Bedingfield
have probably made more people aware of Rogan's comments by addressing them. They and other
officials have taken questionable criticism of a fairly harmless conversation and used it to
create a false narrative about one man to strike fear into anyone who would dare consider what
he or anyone else would say above what they do.
A comprehensive analysis of adverse events during clinical trials and over the course of
mass vaccinations with the Sputnik V vaccine showed that there were no cases of cerebral venous
sinus thrombosis (CVST).
All vaccines based on adenoviral vector platform are different and not directly comparable.
In particular, AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1-S vaccine uses chimpanzee adenovirus to
deliver the antigen, consisting of S-protein combined with leader sequence of tissue-type
plasminogen activator. The vaccine from Johnson&Johnson uses human adenovirus serotype Ad26
and full-length S-protein stabilized by mutations. In addition, it is produced using the PER.C6
cell line (embryonic retinal cells), which is not widely represented among other registered
products.
Sputnik V is a two-component vaccine in which adenovirus serotypes 5 and 26 are used. A
fragment of tissue-type plasminogen activator is not used, and the antigen insert is an
unmodified full-length S-protein. Sputnik V vaccine is produced with the HEK293 cell line,
which has long been safely used for the production of biotechnological products.
Thus, all of the above vaccines based on adenoviral vectors have significant differences in
their structure and production technology. Therefore, there is no reason and no justification
to extrapolate safety data from one vaccine to safety data from other vaccines.
The quality and safety of Sputnik V are, among other things, assured by the fact that,
unlike other vaccines, it uses a 4-stage purification technology that includes two stages of
chromatography and two stages of tangential flow filtration. This purification technology helps
to obtain a highly purified product that goes through mandatory control including the analysis
of free DNA presence. In addition, the volume of nucleic acid is several dozen times lower in
adenoviral vectors compared to Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (1 to 2 mcg vs 50 to 100 mcg,
correspondingly).
A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine on April 9, 2021, discusses that
the cause of the thrombosis in some patients vaccinated with other vaccines could be
insufficient purification that leads to the emergence of significant quantities of free DNA.
Insufficient purification or use of very high doses of target DNA/RNA can result in adverse
interaction of a patient’s antibodies that activate thrombocytes with
elements of the vaccine itself and/or free DNA/RNA, which can form a complex with the PF4
factor.
The Gamaleya Center is ready to share its purification technology with other vaccine
producers in order to help them minimize the risk of adverse effects during
vaccination.
"... He had a total loss of his platelets -- the little blood cells that stop bleeding. In spite of being treated by a team of physicians, he died two weeks later from a brain hemorrhage, and was reported to have had zero platelets . ..."
"... What happened to this physician and the others seems to be a new previously unseen problem related to vaccination -- despite the manufacturers' claims. ..."
"... Increasingly, vaccine manufacturers and government officials are following the sarcastic maxim from Samuel Shem's novel of medical residency entitled The House of God that "if you don't take a temperature you can't find a fever." In other words, if we don't critically look at the actual recorded patient damage, we won't find our products to be defective. ..."
Many Americans have heard the news account of Dr. Gregory Michael, a 56-year-old Florida physician who, after receiving his first
dose of a Pfizer COVID vaccine on December 18 of last year, was hospitalized three days later. He had a total loss of his platelets
-- the little blood cells that stop bleeding. In spite of being treated by a team of physicians, he died two weeks later from a brain
hemorrhage, and was reported to have had zero platelets .
By February 10, 2021, 36 other similar cases were reported in the mainstream media. Pfizer, which along with its partner BioNTech
made the vaccine the doctor received, said in a statement that it was aware of the death. Typically, they concluded, "We are actively
investigating this case, but we don't believe at this time that there is any direct connection to the vaccine."
Pfizer made this "finding" despite several unusual circumstances of the case. First, low-platelet disorders, known as idiopathic
thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), most commonly affect children, and generally follow a viral illness. Only 10 percent of ITP cases
occur in adults, who usually present with a slow onset form of the disorder, referred to as chronic ITP. The disorder usually starts
by someone noticing easy bleeding, such as slow oozing from gums or the nose, or bruises showing up without trauma. Rarely do platelets
drop below 20,000, and generally treatment either reverses the disease or prolongs life for years in spite of the problem.
What happened to this physician and the others seems to be a new previously unseen problem related to vaccination -- despite
the manufacturers' claims.
Increasingly, vaccine manufacturers and government officials are following the sarcastic maxim from Samuel Shem's novel of
medical residency entitled The House of God that "if you don't take a temperature you can't find a fever." In other words,
if we don't critically look at the actual recorded patient damage, we won't find our products to be defective. Now, major media
are increasingly getting on board, condemning "vaccine hesitancy" and pushing everyone to get vaccinated for COVID, discounting any
dangers. But in the practice of medicine, we are supposed to employ the "precautionary principle" -- above all do no harm.
Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 "vaccines" are experimental, employing a genetic technology never before used on humans. Ironically,
many people who wouldn't purchase the first edition of a new car line are lining up to take an injection they know nothing about,
that has never successfully passed animal trials, that could never meet the required "safety level" for a "drug," and is unapproved
for the prevention of COVID except as an emergency experiment .
Legally, those who get the vaccine are unnamed participants in a Stage IV FDA trial.
Moreover, a vaccine is supposed to prevent disease. By that definition, these agents are not even vaccines. They are more
properly termed "experimental unapproved genetic agents." By admission of the manufacturers themselves, both the Pfizer and Moderna
products only lessen the symptoms of COVID; they don't prevent transmission.
Vaccination was first invented to treat smallpox, which had a a fatality rate of up to 60 percent. Then other diseases such as
typhoid and polio were similarly addressed. But vaccination is not used when effective safe treatment is available. Although censorship
has confused the public understanding, overwhelming evidence dating back to the 1970s shows that viruses can be treated with "lysosomotropic
agents." The truth is, hundreds of papers have shown that chloroquine, and its later version hydroxychloroquine, are very effective
in treating this virus if given early. A worldwide open architecture online review of COVID survival (hcqtrial.com) showed that death
rate was 78.7-percent lower in those countries where hydroxychloroquine was used early and often:
Multiple large studies done in outpatient settings show very excellent prevention and cure with these and other drugs such as
Ivermectin. In Mumbai, India, a study was done of the city police force of 10,000 officers. No deaths were recorded in the 4,600
officers taking a small dose of hydroxychloroquine each week. All the deaths were in the untreated group. Using Worldometer statistics,
COVID deaths per capita in New York State are 2,656 per million population; in New Jersey they are 2,821 per million population.
In India the rate is 126 per million and in Uganda it is only seven per million. Neither India nor Uganda used social distancing
in any real way. But they do use hydroxychloroquine. New York (except for Dr. Zev Zelenko and a few others) does not use the drug.
As to the claims of the efficacy of the drugs, the declaration of 95-percent effectiveness of the Pfizer product was shown to
be bunkum by Dr. Peter Doshi, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal , writing in that publication. After doing
an independent review of the data submitted to the FDA, Dr. Doshi reported that only 30 percent of test subjects, at best, experienced
even the slightest benefit (symptom reduction). Absolute risk reduction -- in other words stopping transmission -- he estimated at
less than one percent.
The limited benefit of taking the drugs is made worse by the relatively high death tolls from the new mRNA therapy. During the
first two months of the rollout of Pfizer and Moderna "vaccines" in 2021, 95 percent of deaths from vaccines recorded in the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) were for those agents, meaning only five percent of reported deaths involved all the other
vaccines put together. Compared to 2019, deaths in VAERS are up 6,000 percent. Thirty-six deaths were recorded in the first quarter
of 2020 versus 1,754 in the first quarter of 2021.
In Israel, where the Pfizer mRNA product is being used exclusively and a major push is on to vaccinate the whole population, an
independent review of government data after two months of the vaccine program was done by the Aix-Marseille University Faculty of
Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit's Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ. They showed that when 12.5
percent of Israelis were vaccinated, 51 percent of the deaths from COVID were in the vaccinated group. Additionally, in the
over 65-year-olds, vaccination resulted in death from COVID 40 times more than in unvaccinated people. In other words, this
is not protecting people from COVID but increasing fatalities from the disease -- and this neglects the number of other side effects.
If the truth were known, most sane, thinking people would not likely take part in such an experiment. With the truth hidden and
with threats of travel bans and an unwarranted fear of COVID, and with pressure from employers and the politicization of COVID in
general, Americans have been throwing caution to the wind.
The Unknowns
To understand what is actually happening to people after receiving the mRNA agents, I reviewed data in VAERS -- an open-source
searchable database of possible vaccine side effects reported by both providers and patients. According to the CDC website:
VAERS is used to detect possible safety problems -- called "signals" -- that may be related to vaccination. If a vaccine safety
signal is identified through VAERS, scientists may conduct further studies to find out if the signal represents an actual risk.
The main goals of VAERS are to:
• Detect new, unusual, or rare adverse events that happen after vaccination.
• Monitor increases in known side effects, like arm soreness where a shot was given
• Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of health problems related to vaccines
• Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines
• Watch for unexpected or unusual patterns in adverse event reports
• Serve as a monitoring system in public health emergencies
The CDC acknowledges limitations of the system, including:
• Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contain errors.
◦ Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than mild side effects.
◦ It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event.
I searched the VAERS database using keywords that would identify bleeding problems and thrombocytopenia (low or absent platelets).
Entries are defined by age groups and sex with a narrative account of the injury.
In a two-and-a-half-month period from December 15, 2020 to March 12, 2021, 358 cases of unusual clotting or bleeding were identified,
and it makes grim reading. There were 104 cases of frank thrombocytopenia (low platelets) -- some including young people. However,
the numbers alone do not adequately convey the problems. In one case about an 18-29 year-old female, the physician wrote this: "Patient
was seen in in my office on 1/19/21 with complaint of heavy vaginal bleeding. A CBC was obtained which revealed an H/H of 12.2/36.1
and a platelet count of 1 (not 1K, but 1 platelet!) This was confirmed on smear review." The surprise and horror the doctor experienced
upon seeing the absence of platelets is clear when reading the report.
But the platelet problem may just be the most severe expression of a physical derangement that is producing bleeding of all sorts.
As seen in the table below, there were 49 people with brain hemorrhages -- nine fatal at the time of reporting. A number of other
people arrived at Emergency Departments with bleeding from multiple sites, or internally, so massive that they could not be stabilized
even to clearly define the sources of the bleeding.
Severe Thrombocytopenia
94
Various Spontaneous Skin bleeding
10
Mild Thrombocytopenia
11
Vein bleeding from temple
1
Thrombocytopenic Petechial rash/bruising
5
Prolonged surgical site bleeding
3
Severe Pancytopenia
2
Severe multifocal bleeding
5
Unknown Hematologic Problem
1
Severe internal bleeding
5
Multifocal or "massive" brain hemorrhage
20
Severe uncharacterized bleeding
3
Focal brain hemorrhage
29
Bleeding from cancer site liver
1
GI Bleed
34
Renal dialysis shunt
1
Severe Vaginal Bleeding
7
Hematuria
2
Vaginal Bleeding
21
Renal bleed
1
Bleeding in Pregnancy
6
Tonsillar bleed
1
Bleeding with Miscarriage
12
Acute Uterine Fibroid hemorrhage
1
Irreg Menses
4
Nosebleed
32
Oral bleeding
8
Spontaneous Splenic hemorrhage
1
Subconjunctival Hemorrhage
11
Injection Site Bleeding
21
Intraocular bleed
4
Arm Bruising
1
Most cases of severe problems were in people over the age of 50 years. But there were many younger people involved, especially
in the less severe-but-unusual bleeding problems. Of the 36 reported nosebleeds, six were either unable to be stopped with usual
measures, were recurrent, or were recorded as having significant blood loss or dubbed "profuse." Many were associated with other
symptoms: photophobia (eye sensitivity to light), headache, hives, "sick in bed," brain fog, and face swelling. The youngest patient
with a nosebleed was, sadly, a toddler requiring emergency care. Unusual skin bleeding was also reported. Four 65-plus-year-old males
reported blood spontaneously oozing through the skin: one from the legs, one from the scalp, one from an old biopsy site, and one
from an old healed "boil" site. Frank bleeding at the time of the inoculation occurred 14 times. Some bleeding was momentary, but
often the bleeding was difficult to stop, recurrent, and/or persisted after the patient returned home. (How many times have you had
an injection and bled at all, let alone bled off and on for hours?)
Perhaps the saddest were the bleeding episodes that preceded spontaneous miscarriages. Here are some direct entries in VAERS:
40-49 y.o. Female: The evening of my vaccination I began to feel feverish, weak and achy. During the night I woke with heavy
bleeding and found out the following morning I had miscarried my otherwise healthy pregnancy.
39 y.o. Female: Internal brain bleeding 10 days after 1st dose Covid vaccine; brain damage, confused, suffering memory loss;
This is a spontaneous report from a contactable physician (patient).
30-39 y.o. Female: 48 hours after injection developed micro-hemorrhages in her right eye. Symptoms resolved and 12/29 recurrence
of bleeding to right eye slightly worse than before
65+ y.o. Male: Patient developed significant nose bleed after receiving vaccine. Required emergency department visits x 2 and
hospitalization.
65+ y.o. Female: Vaccine administered 02/02/2021. By Thursday 2/11/2021 patient almost nonverbal, by Monday 2/15/2021 patient
went to the hospital with bruising, sores on her stomach and clots reported as thrombocytopenia. Deceased by Friday, 2/19/20201.
40-49 y.o. Female: Bleeding, myalgia, tingling in the fingers of the right hand; fatigue immediately upon vaccination -- bleeding
at the injection site which the employee reports as filling the Band-Aid over the site. When she got home in the evening and took
it off blood ran.
65+ y.o. Female: Within 15 min of the injection, the individual became aphasic and stroke like symptoms. She was taken to the
ER where she was later diagnosed with a cerebral hemorrhage and passed away.
When such facts are presented, the standard retort from vaccine advocates is, "We have given millions of vaccines, so a few deaths
are to be expected." Besides the fact that a willingness to sacrifice individuals for the nebulous good of the masses represents
a bankrupt moral order, simply calculating the numbers of deaths is inadequate. "Experts" need to take the time to read the narrative
to open their eyes -- and their hearts -- to the suffering happening. There are over 25 pages of such stories printed from VAERS
entries, and we must consider, "How many of these people are now dead, and how many are going to die?"
A second-year medical student armed with the facts should recognize looming disaster -- where are the experts?
In truth, neither recipients nor their doctors know what is in these "vaccines." Only a few people at the top of the Moderna,
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca research groups really understand them. These mRNA injections produce a potentially deadly
pathogen -- the spike protein -- in your cells.
The Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer product says that it contains "a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding
the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2." If your immune system is strong enough to withstand this onslaught and create some
immunity, you may survive the first onslaught. But even if you don't die in the short term, mRNA is an epigenetic controller of
DNA . Though this foreign synthetic mRNA doesn't actually become part of your DNA to make you a "GMO human," as some people have
been worrying about, it can control DNA in ways we have yet to completely understand . We literally have no idea whether this
bodily additive is going to have a side effect of expressing cancer genes, or of repressing cancer protective genes, or thousands
of other potentially deadly unknowns.
Additionally, the Pfizer vaccine includes all types of ingredients that may by themselves create ailments. The Pfizer shot
contains "lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2- hexyldecanoate), 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide,
1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride,
dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose."
I insert this list just for completeness -- don't expect to make sense of it. Your doctor can't either. I understand "sucrose"
(sugar) and sodium chloride (salt), but who doesn't get lost in the "hydroxybutyl" and "distearoyl" lipid list?
After doing some sleuthing and having some inside knowledge to start from, I discovered that this lipid particle is an adjuvant
called "Matrix M." As described in scientific literature, "Adjuvant Matrix-M™ is comprised of 40 nm nanoparticles composed of
Quillaja saponins , cholesterol and phospholipid."
Matrix-M essentially wraps the mRNA in a lipid coating that allows it to move through cell walls and to linger in your system.
Matrix-M is derived from plant chemicals called saponins, which have poorly understood properties in plant biology. They can be toxic
to humans in some cases, and have been traditionally used by aboriginal tribesmen to poison fish. Should we consider that comforting?
The pharmacology industry has a long history of removing bad drugs from the market. Thalidomide is perhaps the most famous example
of a pharmacologic disaster. The drug was released in 1957 for its sedative effects and was touted as being safe for everyone including
"pregnant women and children." In 1961, Dr. William McBride, an obstetrician, discovered that thalidomide was useful for "morning
sickness" in pregnant women. Later he began to see unusual and devastating birth defects in babies born to women for whom he had
prescribed the drug. Independently, Dr. Widuking Lenz, a pediatrician in Germany, also associated thalidomide with severe and unusual
birth defects, such as the absence of limbs or parts of limbs. Sometimes an infants' hands were attached at the shoulders, there
being no connecting long bones at all. By 1962 the drug was taken off the market.
But unlike with our new, experimental agents, recognition of the thalidomide problem was made relatively easy by several factors.
First among these was the uniqueness of the deformities. These were both profound and obvious, which stand in stark contrast to the
current bleeding problems, which appear on the surface to be normal problems in clinical medicine -- such as nosebleeds. Even now,
doctors continue to call the loss of platelets "ITP" -- even though what we are seeing is not the same as what we would expect to
see under that diagnosis. ITP simply does not kill adult males in a few days.
Second, with thalidomide, the physician who first began using the drug for nausea in pregnancy was also the doctor who delivered
the affected babies, so he could readily put two and two together. In the case of our COVID drugs, when your doctor tells you to
get a vaccine, he doesn't administer it, doesn't witness the injection, and usually doesn't follow up to see how you fared. And if
you were to suddenly develop a vision problem or bleeding from the bowel, you wouldn't be seen by your PCP; you would be in an Emergency
Department -- and they don't usually ask about your recent vaccine history.
Third, Dr. Lenz presciently recognized that, in the case of thalidomide, many less-severe deformities, when put into perspective,
revealed "gradations of the defect." Unfortunately in the present case, lesser degrees of clotting problems are indistinguishable
from bleeding issues frequently encountered in an Emergency Room or doctor's office. For example, if a 75-year-old hypertensive male
-- who has gotten a COVID shot -- suffers a brain hemorrhage and dies, it would not likely be deemed unusual, and the relationship
to vaccination may not even be explored.
Keeping that in mind, we should assume the worst when it comes to these new COVID shots. When any new drug problem starts, it
begins slowly and unrecognized -- like a snowball beginning to roll down a mountain. By the time the problem is generally acknowledged,
the avalanche is well on its way. In the case of thalidomide, over 100,000 children were severely damaged before the drug was removed
from use. Though VAERS has the potential to shorten recognition time of drug problems by trying to spot the "unusual patterns," this
requires that physicians be aware of the system, and take the time to enter any suspected side effects -- not just the worst
cases. It also requires that researchers care enough to look. This is not happening. A report previously submitted to the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality revealed that fewer than one percent of adverse events get reported to VAERS.
In the past, testing done on mRNA technology revealed problems specifically involving the clotting system. Antibody-mediated platelet
damage has been suspected. Yet today when these exact problems arise, the researchers are mum. Do the experts not study or know their
own vaccine research history?
For those who are concerned about the risks, we need to advocate for ourselves, either through contacting legislators or simply
refusing to take the shots. It's obvious that the pharmaceutical industry is willing to release untried technology upon the entire
world population, and not be deterred by any inconvenience such as unexplained death.
We need to stop being a gullible population that forces our children to get vaccinated for trivial, non-fatal diseases such as
mumps. We need to stop believing in the god-like status of medical technocrats who claim to be making the world safer. We need to
reject the idea that vaccine deniers are anti-scientific troglodytes. We must reject the unspoken premise under which pharmaceutical
companies and doctors operate -- that all vaccines are always safe in all people all the time. It should not be considered unreasonable
to require scientific transparency, honesty by drug manufacturers, and safety from vaccines.
Vaccines are only indicated for diseases with a high risk of death or morbidity, and for which there is no cure. After
seeing the esteemed leaders in medicine denigrate hydroxychloroquine (even though it was a recognized treatment used successfully
elsewhere for SARS, and mentioned favorably by Dr. Fauci for MERS), after watching three plants used in the production of hydroxychloroquine
burn down in a year -- two on the same day -- after watching doctors lose their jobs and be censored for speaking truth and saving
lives with old safe drugs that work, and now, after seeing experimental genetic agents being rolled out for use globally that have
never passed animal testing and have only a few months human trials, perhaps it is time to address the 800-pound gorilla in the room
and ask, "Are they trying to kill us?"
Dr. Lee Merritt has been in the private practice of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery since 1995, has served on the Board of
the Arizona Medical Association, and is past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. She is a lifelong
advocate for a patient's right to choose their own medical care without government intervention.
//Describing the move as "theater," Paul said that it would harm efforts to get people
vaccinated if the public doesn't believe the shot has an impact in curbing the spread of the
virus. He was referring to an online meeting between world leaders, in which President Joe
Biden was the only official
wearing a mask .
Biden forgot that "this theater was so ridiculous that people would call him out on it," he
added. Last week, others had questioned why the president would wear a mask in such a setting.
All the other world leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President
Vladimir Putin, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were not wearing masks.
"If I want to go visit the White House, Republicans, and Democrats who go visit, even though
they've all been vaccinated or had the disease, they're being tested with a deep sinus test,"
Paul told Fox News over the weekend,
"And they're being told that wear the N95 masks to go in the White House, even though
they've all been vaccinated," he added.
"So, there is no science behind any of this. It's fear-mongering. But it also has a
deleterious effect, in that it's discouraging people from getting the vaccine because they're
saying, well, if the vaccine doesn't mean anything, it doesn't seem to have any protective
benefit, you get no benefit. "
If people cannot "quit wearing the mask," some have asked why they should get vaccinated at
all, Paul said.
"I think that's the wrong attitude," the Kentucky Republican added.
"But this is what's coming from Biden and the so-called scientists that he's putting
forward."
It comes as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s director, Rochelle
Walenksy, said the agency is looking into revising its mask provision for people who are
outside.
"We'll be looking at the outdoor masking question, but also in the context of the fact that
we still have people who are dying of COVID-19," she told "Today" last week.
...The current CDC guidelines
say that "masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or
with people who live in your household."
The Epoch Times has contacted the White House for comment.
Interesting that the CNN producer on the Veritas video said that global
warming will be the next big fear-inducing corporate greenwashing campaign.
Would love to know where all these "narratives" are coordinated from and
by whom.
and if we had an accurate count of how many died of this virus....we would see it was not
bad at all.....but the healtcare workers made more money if they said it was covid than if it
was just a heart attack.....and remember ....no one got the flu this year...
It is interesting presentation. He promotes ivermectin and points that CIVID-19 kill 90% of
virus in petri disk study. He point s the NIH is co-holder with Moderna of a parent for the
vaccine. The main points:
1. We are no longer in pandemic, we are in endemic. Wearing makes in open space is
idiotism.
2. Coronavirus are seasonal and they have
3. Average Covid19 age of death 78.6 yo. Average annual US age of death in the is the
same
4. Low vitamin D is the main reason of higher susceptibility.
Covid is a strange one. At a certain age and health spectrum (especially obesity) people
that caught covid had a 10% plus or minus chance of not surviving. For everyone else, a nothing
burger. The flu is/was more dangerous. play_arrow 3 play_arrow 4
sun tzu 2 hours ago
For people over 80, the survival rate is 95%. That's including tens of thousands murdered
by ventilators and hundreds of thousands who died of something else blamed on covid-19
LeftandRightareWrong 2 hours ago
A high % of elderly + co-morbidities did not survive.
I would not recommend licking the counter top as it does not taste very good. In any case,
the transmission of COVID-19 does not come from touching surfaces. And I am reiterating what I
had read approximately a year ago.
The Atlantic 's Staff Writer Derek Thompson reiterates what is pretty much known
since the advent of COVID and ignored by many.
"
Deep Cleaning Isn't a Victimless Crime" brings the point home in its content on surface
contamination.
Based on "epidemiological data and studies of environmental transmission factors; the CDC
determined surface transmission is not the main route by which SARS-CoV-2 spreads. The risk of
transmission is low in this instance."
Fomites are "objects or materials such as clothes, utensils, and furniture likely to carry
infection. The surface transmission of COVID is low risk in the spread of SARS-CoV-2."
Originally the thought was it to be a major contributor of spreading COVID.
Instead, COVID-19 is an airborne threat and spreads through tiny aerosol droplets lingering
in the air in unventilated spaces. Rhinovirus is a common virus and the predominant cause of a
common cold. It spreads
via aerosols .
The solution is ventilating areas which may not be so due to being closed in by walls,
etc.
And outspoken researchers such as Jose-Luis Jimenez, an aerosol scientist at the University
of Colorado Boulder, were insisting on needing focus on ventilation rather than surfaces and
windows rather than Windex. Instead, they were being loudly rebuffed or ignored.
"Watching people troll Aerosol Science reminds me of Creationists telling Evolutionary
Biologists there is no evidence for Evolution. My students in 1st semester Physics easily
follow the fluid dynamics of your presentation slides (drag F, Reynold's #, etc)." Clark
Vangilder, PhD
The 7 Day Positivity rate has gone from 5.4% in November to 3.2%. Yes, people are still
being infected with COVID and a very small percentage of those are hospitalized. And even
smaller number wind up in the ICU.
And what about the death rate? If you just read the Miami Herald headline you would assume
they are stacking bodies. Nope. The number of people who have died at Sarasota Memorial in the
last 86 days (17 November 2020 to 10 February 2021) is averaging 1 per day. (Yes, I know, two
died today but none died yesterday, so it averages out).
Stumbling Joe Biden, or should I say his handlers, are pissed that Ron DeSantis, our
Governor, is not playing the fear game. Florida is open for business and we have something
approaching a normal, pre-COVID life (except for the brainwashed who have been bamboozled into
improperly wearing masks).
Here is the major Covid hysteria turning point, used to seal Trump's political defeat so the
Democrat's could claim Trump murdered over 300,000 persons. This happened shortly after Nancy
Pelosi tore up Trump's SOTU address in Feb 2020, which was her declaration of war against
him. The real felony murder charge should fall on Dr. Deborah Birx, the infamous Scarf
Lady.
APRIL 2020: The federal government is classifying the deaths of patients infected with
the coronavirus as COVID-19 deaths, regardless of any underlying health issues that could
have contributed to the loss of someone's life.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House coronavirus task force,
said the federal government is continuing to count the suspected COVID-19 deaths, despite
other nations doing the opposite.
"There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition, and let's say the
virus caused you to go to the ICU [intensive care unit] and then have a heart or kidney
problem," she said during a Tuesday news briefing at the White House. "Some countries are
recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death.
"The intent is ... if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that," she
added.
Larry,
You are spot on from where I'm sitting. What you see is not just true in Florida. It is true
across the country.
I have access to data pertaining to a sample of Americans from across the country - and
it's not a small sample (i.e. consists of many millions). Inpatient bed utilization per 1,000
in < 65 products is same as, or lower than, the previous years. Ditto ICU utilization.
We are not seeing a large volume of covid diagnosed people/people receiving treatment, nor
hospitalizations for covid, nor deaths due to it in < 65 products. The deaths are
minuscule in number/% and are almost exclusively among those with a history of serious
underlying conditions - the kind of underlying conditions that kill you sooner or later
anyhow.
In > 65 products, the figures are a little higher, but still tiny (just like a bad flu
season) and bed day utilization is flat compared to previous years. Deaths tend to be among
those at, or above, their actuarially expected year of death.
We are being to told to understand that what we see (or not see, more accurately) is
explained by covid damage being done primarily to the indigent elderly; people on Medicaid,in
low grade nursing homes, etc - and not to our people, who the type working or paying for
Medicare Advantage. The indigent are always effected worse because they don't take of
themselves. That is axiomatic in our business.
At any rate, it still appears to me - based on the data - that relatively healthy,
educated people have little to worry about from covid, beyond economic destruction caused by
reactionary policies and by associated loss of freedoms that America is supposed to
represent.
The
US excess deaths for 2020 show that approximately 300,000 more people died than were
predicted to die in 2020.
Even as U.S. deaths from COVID-19 surpassed 400,000 this week, some Americans dispute the
accuracy of the death toll, contending it is exaggerated.
Final figures aren't yet in, but preliminary numbers show 2020 is on track to become the
deadliest year in U.S. history, with more than 3.2 million total deaths – about
400,000 more than 2019 – a sharp increase that public health experts attribute to
COVID-19 and aligns with reported deaths from the disease.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 2,835,533 U.S. deaths in 2019.
Before the pandemic, models projected a slightly higher number, about 2.9 million deaths,
for 2020, said Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's
Hospital.
It's not a coincidence, he said, that the 400,000 excess deaths closely resemble the
number of coronavirus deaths in the U.S., which reached 401,796 as of Wednesday, according
to Johns Hopkins data.
"That is not a seasonal change or just a random bad year," Faust said. "That is what
every person who can correctly attest to these numbers can plainly see is a historic
increase in excess mortality. If we put that together with the number of coronavirus
deaths, it's game, set, match."
Former President Trump's pandemic team addressed comorbidities at one time (well over 90%
comorbidity). The "Swiss Doctor" website notes average age of death (I think it was 78 in US
and 82 worldwide). These are clear signs that this additional information is being collected;
just not consistently and widely published.
I thought early on that consistent complete factual reporting by even a single local TV
station could collapse the pandemic in a pocket. I remember others said early on that active
resistance was needed for change (the covidians are "true believers", like religion, who will
not be put off).
The consistent, complete factual reporting has not taken place. This blog post may have
found the key. "More governors need to go on the offensive."
Ghost Ship,
What is the methodology used to arrive at the "excess deaths" number? Is it similar to
Cuomo's nursing home deaths counting, but in reverse? Why are raw numbers being used and not
rates (e.g. deaths per 100K)? Why is 2020 being compared to just one data point, 2019? Why
not compare an *age adjusted* rate per 100K for 2020 to each of the past 10 years (hint, I
know what that would show and it doesn't maximize covid hysteria)?
How many excess deaths, such that they may be, are actually attributable to the increases
in drug overdoses and suicides in 2020? To lack of screenings and early diagnosis due to
doctor office and hospital shut downs and restrictions? To people too scared of covid
exposure to continue treatment for chronic conditions even if they could see their doctor? To
illegal aliens and other recent third world immigrants (another hint moment)?
You're allowing yourself to be gaslighted under the guise of wanting to appear
informed.
Yes. There is a covid virus. Yes it will make some people with weak immune systems + a
heavy viral load, sick. No. It's not more deadly than the some of the flues that come around
from time to time, like every ten years +/-.
SO, there were reportedly 400,000 more US deaths in 2020 than in 2019. Considering that
the very eldest of the huge Baby Boom generation turned 74 in 2020, I wonder if such an
increase in deaths per year is something we're going to witness for the foreseeable
future?
What does our resident actuarial have to say about US death rates vis a vis aging Baby
Boomers???
Eric - I've got the picture, here in Europe and also in the States, that it's a race
between the new variants and mass vaccination.
B117 gave us quite a scare. The figures were going down nicely, as in the States, then
along came this new variant. In Ireland, Portugal (less certain because less genomic testing)
and the UK the same pattern: New variant. Cases, and later deaths, rising sharply. Control
measures (lockdown etc). Then an equally sharp drop.
So in those three countries I don't think there's any doubt that after the new variant
came along it was only lockdown that prevented the hospitals getting hopelessly overloaded.
Now it's a question of hoping that mass vaccination will have its effect before the new
variant gets further ahead.
There's some B117 in the States but not enough genomic testing is done to be quite sure
how much. The SA variant also, and the two Brazilian variants. The mysterious thing about the
Brazilian variants in Manaus is that they seem to be attacking people who by rights should
have immunity from previous exposure to Covid. I've just heard in Europe of yet another
variant (N439K "Romania variant") this one seemingly more resistant to treatment but I don't
know if it's more transmissible and don't know if it's reached the States.
As are you, I'm sceptical about the stats put out. They don't allow for the effects of
such lockdown as there has been. They don't allow for the fact that flu deaths have gone
right down. They don't allow for informal lockdown - that is, people who isolate whatever the
advice is. They don't allow for increased deaths from other conditions that didn't get
treated because of the pandemic. And the crude stats I'm seeing don't allow for different
cultural patterns, and different population densities, that increase transmission rates and
therefore death rates by up to four times.
So instead of rooting around in that thicket I believe it's safer to stick to the one
verifiable fact. That is that the new variants are more transmissible, possibly more
dangerous, and that if the race between them and vaccination is lost then all that will stop
the hospitals getting overloaded over your way will be control measures of the sort that were
successful in Ireland, Portugal and the UK.
Is this right, or are there factors that alter the picture in the States that don't alter
it here?
...................
I've gone off your man Fauci, by the way. Heard him bad mouthing Trump. Nothing about what
I reckon is going to be counted as one of the great achievements of the Trump Presidency,
Operation Warp Speed. Nothing about the fact that he himself lost the plot several times last
year. Just a sneaky little jibe. He could be Paracelsus come again for all I care but I put
him down as a rat.
And I'm not at all sure that William Barr shouldn't be placed in the same Hall of
Infamy.
I have one data point to offer from an unlikely area and that too from India. Make of it what
you will.
I invested in Pharma stocks specifically generics makers that export to USA and Europe
largely. I get copies of earnings conference calls posted and a typical is like this
This is the third time, I have seen a reference to the lowest-flu-shot sales in a
decade . This is from Lupin and I have seen similar lines from CFOs in the earnings calls
of Cipla, Aurobindo generics makers that have a large US generics presence.
from the linked pdf file...
Talking about sales - U.S. sales grew by 4% sequentially at US$188 million in
Q3 FY21, as compared to US$180 million in Q2 FY21, and grew by 1% as
compared to Q3 FY20. The sequential growth was driven by ramp up in
Albuterol as well as new products like Lapatinib, Tacrolimus etc. The demand
for seasonal products continues to be pretty weak on back of the weakest flu
season in the last decade, leading to a fall in quite a few of those products as
compared to the previous year. Other in-line products however. remain
stable.
For those of you who posted that there's something off about flu season, the above is a
good indicator; though it still does NOT explain why the deaths seem higher than normal at an
elevated 3000 deaths/week. Personally, I have no idea what's a "normal" weekly death rate is,
as macabre as it may sound to ask.
Everyone with some rudimentary smarts is fixated on "excess deaths", because it sounds,
well, smart - and would have merit if done right and with full transparency into methodology.
As I said, those figures, as thrown around today, have serious methodological flaws and who
knows how they are really calculated.
IMO, a more telling metric will be life expectancy in years, currently at 78.8 years (2019
figure). If covid is the existential scourge that Covidians want it to be, then life
expectancy should show a decline in 2020. On the other hand, if what I am saying is true,
that covid is merely killing those who were going to soon die anyhow, then life expectancy,
in years, will remain the same. That finding would also support what you say about anyone
testing positive and dying for any reason being chalked up to covid; an understanding that I
agree with more than not.
2020 figures are not yet available.
I also note that Google searches for age/sex adjusted mortality rates direct you away from
that and towards links about how terrible covid is and how many excess deaths there have
been. It is near impossible for the general public to find adjusted mortality rates for the
past 20 years. I'm sure that's done on purpose by the tech-Marxists. Of course the CDC site
is a scrambled mess still. No luck there either.
"Hospitals have never been in danger of collapsing..."
Now that there has been a change in administrations there's a change of tune of the
narrative. Why are states still ordering lockdowns and masks if there was never any danger of
hospitals being overwhelmed? That was the whole point of doing so. Well, actually, driving
Trump from office was the point. Mission accomplished.
A few months ago when the first "Johns Hopkins study" (French female epidemiologist study)
analyzing CDC data was squelched, it concluded from the official CDC morbidity data there
were NO excess deaths in 2020 when plotted against the prior 10 years of CDC data.
This CDC data "study" was immediately depublished by Johns Hopkins with the claim this
study conclusion would be confusing to the public.
However, it did serve the purpose to put CDC on notice and make sure any future CDC data
reports conformed to the prevailing Democrat narrative, or risk also getting "cancelled".
The latest official "gaslighting" narrative claims regular seasonal influenza morbidity is
close to ZERO because everyone is wearing masks and social distancing - which stopped regular
flu in its tracks according to this narrative.
Yet for some reason this exact same masks and social distancing that stopped seasonal
influenza cold, did nothing to stop "covid"?
2020: Influenza = 0; Covid = 350,000. C'mon, man.
When Democrats run both the media narrative and the deep state data gathering operations,
we will never know the truth.
Though I suspect many of actually do know the truth regardless of the massive Democrat
efforts to keep gas-lighting the public for their own political gain. Yes, they are that
venal. Look what they have accomplished for their own self-interests so far.
TL:DR Removing New York City, not the state, just the city, it was a bad flu season in the
U.S.
A better response would have been to educate the public with ways to boost their immune
systems so as to avoid hospitalization. Vitamin D and Zinc supplements among other
strategies.Depending on an EULA experimental "vaccine" as a magic bullet was flawed
thinking.
As others have noted we also have a boomer generation aging up and out.
A sane discussion: Medicine, law, covid, censorship and media. The Rubin report explores
covid tribal hysteria by those censored by new media algorithms with three popular media
personalities who are experts in their field.
Media censorship in medicine has translated to private censorship among medical
colleagues. No deviations allowed from the corporate medical orthodoxy - even conventional
medicine suffering now from the heavy hand of media censorship.
Where is this taking us - when will freedom finally leak out from under this heavy
non-science censorship hand?
The L.A. district considers students engaged merely for logging on to the online teaching
platform. Yet even by this low standard, the Great Public Schools Now report finds that "over
13,000 middle and high school students were consistently disengaged in fall 2020," and "an
additional 56,000 did not actively participate on a daily basis." In January and February, some
22,800 students missed three or more days of class a week.
During the 2020-2021 school year, 37% of Los Angeles kindergartners exhibited basic literacy
skills, compared to 57% a year before. A fall 2020 assessment showed that only one in three
middle- and high-school students displayed grade-level reading and math skills.
It really is sad what the Dems have done to kids, for what? Political gain? What a sick party
that puts their greed for power above their own children. They over-played their hands on
COVID-19 and Race relations to scare citizens to their party and to keep minorities on the
plantation. Now, we have kids about as confused about life, relationships and virtues as one
can get.
This week, the C.D.C. acknowledged what scientists have been saying for months: The risk of catching the coronavirus from surfaces
is low.
When the coronavirus began to spread in the United States last spring, many experts warned of the danger posed by surfaces.
Researchers
reported
that the virus could survive for days on plastic or stainless steel, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention advised that if someone touched one of these contaminated surfaces -- and then touched their eyes, nose or mouth --
they could become infected.
Americans responded in kind, wiping down groceries, quarantining mail and clearing drugstore shelves of Clorox wipes. Facebook
closed two of its offices for a "
deep
cleaning
." New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority began
disinfecting
subway cars
every night.
"People can be affected with the virus that causes Covid-19 through contact with contaminated surfaces and objects," Dr.
Rochelle Walensky, the director of the C.D.C., said at a White House briefing on Monday. "However, evidence has demonstrated
that the risk by this route of infection of transmission is actually low."
"Finally," said Linsey Marr, an expert on airborne viruses at Virginia Tech. "We've known this for a long time and yet people
are still focusing so much on surface cleaning." She added, "There's really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19
by touching a contaminated surface."
During the early days of the pandemic, many experts believed that the virus spread primarily through large respiratory
droplets. These droplets are too heavy to travel long distances through the air but can fall onto objects and surfaces.
In this context, a focus on scrubbing down every surface seemed to make sense. "Surface cleaning is more familiar," Dr. Marr
said. "We know how to do it. You can see people doing it, you see the clean surface. And so I think it makes people feel
safer."
Image
A "sanitization specialist" at an Applebee's Grill and Bar in Westbury, N.Y., wiping down a used pen last year. Restaurants
and other businesses have highlighted extra cleaning in their marketing since the pandemic began.
Credit...
Hiroko
Masuike/The New York Times
But over the last year, it has become increasingly clear that the virus spreads
primarily
through the air
-- in both large and small droplets, which can remain aloft longer -- and that scouring door handles and
subway seats does little to keep people safe.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The scientific basis for all this concern about surfaces is very slim -- slim to none," said Emanuel Goldman, a microbiologist at
Rutgers University,
who
wrote last summer
that the risk of surface transmission had been overblown. "This is a virus you get by breathing. It's not a
virus you get by touching."
The C.D.C.
has
previously acknowledged
that surfaces are not the primary way that the virus spreads. But the agency's statements this week
went further.
"The most important part of this update is that they're clearly communicating to the public the correct, low risk from surfaces,
which is not a message that has been clearly communicated for the past year," said Joseph Allen, a building safety expert at the
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Catching the virus from surfaces remains theoretically possible, he noted. But it requires many things to go wrong: a lot of
fresh, infectious viral particles to be deposited on a surface, and then for a relatively large quantity of them to be quickly
transferred to someone's hand and then to their face. "Presence on a surface does not equal risk," Dr. Allen said.
In most cases, cleaning with simple soap and water -- in addition to hand-washing and mask-wearing -- is enough to keep the odds of
surface transmission low, the C.D.C.'s updated cleaning guidelines say. In most everyday scenarios and environments, people do
not need to use chemical disinfectants, the agency notes.
"What this does very usefully, I think, is tell us what we don't need to do," said Donald Milton, an aerosol scientist at the
University of Maryland. "Doing a lot of spraying and misting of chemicals isn't helpful."
Still, the guidelines do suggest that if someone who has Covid-19 has been in a particular space within the last day, the area
should be both cleaned and disinfected.
Going to the grocery store in Massachusetts in 2020 guaranteed you would breathe heaps
of sanitizer.
A full-time employee scrubbed down shopping carts between customers. Conveyor belts at the checkout
counter were blasted and wiped between every sale. Glass surfaces were sprayed as often as possible. The plastic keypads on
credit machines were not only covered in plastic – why putting plastic on plastic stopped Covid was never clear – but also
sprayed between uses.
Employees would carefully watch your hands to see what you touched, and as you exited the space would cover the area with
cleaning spray.
It was the same at offices and schools. If a single person turned in a positive PCR test, the entire place had to be evacuated
for a 48-hour fumigation. Everything had to be wiped, sprayed, and scrubbed, to get rid of the Covid that surely must be
present in the bad place. The ritualistic cleaning took on a religious element, as if the temple must be purified of the devil
before God could or would come back.
All of this stemmed from the belief that the germ lived on surfaces and in spaces,
which in turn stemmed from a primitive intuition. You can't see the virus so it really could be anywhere. The human
imagination took over the rest.
I was in Hudson, New York, at a fancy breakfast house that had imposed random Covid protocols. It was cold outside but they
wouldn't let me sit inside, even though there were no government restrictions on doing so. I asked that masked-up
twenty-something why. She said "Covid."
"Do you really believe that there's Covid inside
that room?"
"Yes."
Subway cars were cleaned daily. Facebook routinely shut its offices for a full scrub. Mail was left to disinfect for days
before being opened. Things went crazy: playgrounds removed nets from basketball hoops for fear that they carried Covid.
During the whole pathetic episode of last year, people turned wildly against physical
things.
No sharing of pencils at the schools that would open. No salt and pepper shakers at tables because surely
that's where Covid lives. No more physical menus. They were replaced by QR codes. Your phone probably has Covid too but at
least only you touched it.
"Touchless"' became the new goal.
All physical things became the untouchables,
again reminiscent of ancient religions that considered the physical world to be a force of darkness while the
spiritual/digital world points to the light. The followers of the
Prophet
Mani
would be pleased.
The demonization of surfaces and rooms stemmed not just from active imaginations; it was also recommended and even mandated by
the CDC. It offered
a
huge page of instructions
on the need constantly to fear, scrub, and fumigate.
On April 5,
however, the CDC page was replaced by a much-simplified set of instructions, which includes now this discreet note: "In most
situations, the
risk
of infection from touching a surface is low
." Oh is that so?
The link goes to the following:
Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) studies have been conducted to understand and characterize the relative risk
of SARS-CoV-2 fomite transmission and evaluate the need for and effectiveness of prevention measures to reduce risk.
Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and
generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each
contact with a contaminated
surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection
.
Whoops.
So much for the many billions spent on cleaning products, the employees and the time, and hysteria and frenzy, the rise of
touchlessness, and gloves, the dousing of the whole world. The science apparently changed. Still it will be years before
people get the news and act on it. Once the myths of surface transmission of a respiratory virus are unleashed, it will be
hard to go back to normal.
Fortunately the
New York Times
did some
accurate
reporting
on the CDC update, quoting all kinds of experts who claim to have known this all along.
"Finally," said Linsey Marr, an expert on airborne viruses at Virginia Tech. "We've known this for a long time and yet
people are still focusing so much on surface cleaning." She added, "There's really
no
evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a contaminated surface
."
Still, I'm willing to bet that if right now I headed to a WalMart or some other large chain store, there will be several
employees dedicated to disinfecting everything they can, and there will be customers there who demand it to be so.
How many years
will it take before people can come to terms with the embarrassing and scandalous reality that much of what posed as Science
last year was made up on the fly and turns out to be wholly false?
JMRPete
4 hours ago
It was never about health, and never about sense. It's about OBEY!!!
Mile High Perv
2 hours ago
It's also about fear and controlling people's thoughts, emotions, and actions.
We have nothing to fear except fear itself.
Western medicine has never been about health, pandemic or not, and now the truth is out in the open for
those who want to see.
Frito
2 hours ago
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
The demonization of surfaces and rooms stemmed not just from active imaginations; it was
also recommended and even mandated by the CDC. It offered
a huge page of instructions on the need constantly to fear, scrub, and fumigate.
On April 5, however, the CDC page was replaced by a much-simplified set of instructions,
which includes now this discreet note: "In most situations, the
risk of infection from touching a surface is low ." Oh is that so?
The link goes to the following:
Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) studies have been conducted to understand
and characterize the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 fomite transmission and evaluate the need
for and effectiveness of prevention measures to reduce risk. Findings of these studies
suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and
generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface
has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection .
Whoops.
So much for the many billions spent on cleaning products, the employees and the time, and
hysteria and frenzy, the rise of touchlessness, and gloves, the dousing of the whole world. The
science apparently changed. Still it will be years before people get the news and act on it.
Once the myths of surface transmission of a respiratory virus are unleashed, it will be hard to
go back to normal.
Fortunately the New York Times did some
accurate reporting on the CDC update, quoting all kinds of experts who claim to have known
this all along.
"Finally," said Linsey Marr, an expert on airborne viruses at Virginia Tech. "We've known
this for a long time and yet people are still focusing so much on surface cleaning." She
added, "There's really no evidence that anyone has ever gotten Covid-19 by touching a
contaminated surface ."
Still, I'm willing to bet that if right now I headed to a WalMart or some other large chain
store, there will be several employees dedicated to disinfecting everything they can, and there
will be customers there who demand it to be so.
How many years will it take before people can come to terms with the embarrassing and
scandalous reality that much of what posed as Science last year was made up on the fly and
turns out to be wholly false?
JMRPete 4 hours ago
It was never about health, and never about sense. It's about OBEY!!!
Mile High Perv 2 hours ago
It's also about fear and controlling people's thoughts, emotions, and actions.
We have nothing to fear except fear itself.
Western medicine has never been about health, pandemic or not, and now the truth is out in
the open for those who want to see.
Frito 2 hours ago
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous
to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary.
"... Dr. Kaplan is a faculty member at the Stanford School of Medicine Clinical Excellence Research Center and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. He has served as associate director of the National Institutes of Health and chief science officer at the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ..."
Distrust of the establishment plays a role in vaccine hesitancy, but it's probably time to
back off on the prevailing commentary suggesting that those avoiding vaccines are
irresponsible, uninformed or politically manipulated. Achieving herd immunity requires that
about 70% of Americans are vaccinated or contract Covid and develop natural immunity, which
official numbers place around 10% of the population. Polls consistently show that 21% say they
will definitely not get the vaccine and about a third rate their chances of taking the vaccine
as less than 50%. It's better to address common fears and concerns respectfully and
informatively than with hectoring and condescension.
Dr. Kaplan is a faculty member at the Stanford School of Medicine Clinical Excellence
Research Center and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. He has served as associate
director of the National Institutes of Health and chief science officer at the U.S. Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality.
It turns out that children who attend schools with mask requirements are likely just as safe
from COVID-19 sitting just 3 feet from each other and not the 6 feet previously recommended by
the Centers for Disease and Prevention.
Those findings, which were used by
the CDC to update its guidance about schools in mid-March, stem from a study conducted over
the fall and winter examining transmission rates in K-12 schools in Massachusetts, where masks
are required for most public-school students and all staff.
Putting students closer
together in classrooms did not lead to an increase in COVID-19 cases, a group of medical
researchers and policy experts concluded in the accepted
manuscript published March 10 in the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.
One of the researchers is Dr. Elissa Schechter-Perkins, an emergency-room physician at
Boston Medical Center who has done infection control for the ER there during the COVID-19
pandemic.
" Back in spring of 2020, we didn't know a whole lot about COVID-19," she said in a March
23 interview with MarketWatch. "And based on what we have seen in influenza pandemics, it was
thought that closing schools would be essential and effective in preventing the spread of
COVID-19."
But now, as the pandemic has stretched into its second year and the science is still
evolving, it looks like the 6-foot rule, which was particularly onerous for classrooms, may not
be necessary.
--
MarketWatch: Has much of the research around distancing in schools so far been
anecdotal?
Dr. Elissa Schechter-Perkins: I would say it went beyond anecdotal evidence. There have been
multiple studies that are primarily epidemiologic in nature, from around the world and around
the U.S., in which students went back at closer distances. [Editor's note: The World Health
Organization recommends 1 meter -- about 3 feet -- in schools.] There haven't been large
amounts of in-school transmission, and there haven't been increased cases in school settings
compared to the surrounding communities. So there has been a slowly emerging body of
literature, saying that our schools are safe, even with fewer than 6 feet of distance between
the students.
MarketWatch: How do you think mitigation factors like masking, plexiglass dividers, or open
windows affect transmission in schools?
Schechter-Perkins: It's a really important point. Our study really was not able to tease out
which of the mitigation measures other than distancing was not important. I think it's
important to understand that every school in the districts in Massachusetts that were part of
our study had a 100% masking mandate for all staff and all students in Grade 2 and above, and
the majority of districts had either a masking requirement or masking was strongly encouraged
in the younger students as well. [Editor's note: The Massachusetts Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education requires noses and mouths to be covered at all times, except during
designated breaks, for staff and students in second grade or older. Kindergartners and first
graders were encouraged to wear masks or shields, but it's not required . ]
Many of the schools, but not all, had multiple other mitigation measures in place, including
daily symptom screening. Many of them had other mitigation measures in place, such as
ventilation checks and requirements for contact tracing and quarantining for exposed people.
Although we can't say which of the mitigation measures was the most important, our thought is
[that if] the bundle of mitigation measures taken in aggregate is sufficient in decreasing the
spread of COVID-19, then it becomes safe to decrease the distance between students. We
shouldn't extrapolate our findings to other less controlled environments where those other
factors are not in place.
MarketWatch: Now that we have the new CDC guidance for schools, are you planning any
follow-up studies?
Schechter-Perkins: It's going be really important to continue to follow the data, and it's
something that the country has really struggled with over the last year. As new studies come
out and new evidence comes out, the guidelines should change, and that's been a real struggle
for the United States population at large to come to terms with. We're not used to things
changing so rapidly, but I would say as schools do open for more in-person learning it is
really essential that we continue to see what happens, especially as we know that the new
variants are circulating but also vaccination is increasing.
MarketWatch: Do you think it's a possibility that one day we would see that spacing
requirement shrink even further?
Schechter-Perkins: I absolutely would be open to that. I'm very optimistic about where we
are right now. We are doing an excellent job vaccinating greater and greater numbers of the
population, and I am really hopeful that we can decrease the transmission of COVID-19 in our
country to the point that it becomes, instead of widespread, it becomes episodic in our
communities. [Editor's note: About 16% of the U.S. population has been fully vaccinated, as
of March 31, according to the CDC .] At
that point, we can use other public health measures, such as rapid diagnostic testing, rapid
contact tracing, rapid surveillance testing and quarantines -- and really tamp down the
transmission of COVID-19.
When we start to get to that point, I do think we'll be able to open up a lot of things with
less distancing requirements, and life will look much more like normal. We're not there yet,
but I do you think that that is in the future.
The other opportunity to keep in mind is what was mentioned in the CDC guidelines, where
they talk about cohorting. This has worked really well in other countries, particularly in
Europe, where they have groups of students that don't require any distancing between them. So
if there's an outbreak, that particular cohort or bubble is at greater risk, but [the virus] is
not anticipated to spread outside of that cohort. That's another model that can be looked at,
as a way to get more students back in the classroom and try to get life more back to normal.
Our study did not evaluate that at all. That is more of an international phenomenon.
MarketWatch: Strictly from a vaccination point, how long do you see distancing being
necessary in schools?
Schechter-Perkins: It's a tough question to answer. Our study was conducted during a time
where virtually nobody was vaccinated. [Editor's note: It was conducted between Sept. 24 and
Jan. 27.] What our study and others have shown is that vaccination is not essential to
getting back into school safely, as long as the mitigation measures are in place. In order to
really start relaxing some of the other mitigation measures, you really have to have a large
portion of not just the teachers but the entire community vaccinated. We'll get there, but I
think it's still a long way away.
MarketWatch: One of my co-workers has talked about how there's a cycle of an exposure, kids
get tested or stay home, and then they resume school in person. Would cohorting be one way to
offset that type of cycle?
Schechter-Perkins: It would. The cycle that we have is really dependent on where in the
country you are. Certain places are very aggressively quarantining. I don't know if this has
changed in New York, but I know it at one point all it took was two cases in a school building,
and the entire school would shut down for quarantine. [Editor's note: New York Mayor Bill de
Blasio is reportedly re-evaluating that policy, as of March 14,
according to Gothamist .] That is incredibly conservative and a really damaging policy
that's not necessary. More schools across the country are going to more of a modified
quarantine, in which, as long as students are only exposed in school with masks on, they're not
being made to quarantine. There are many places that have recently gone to that sort of model,
and reportedly there hasn't been a lot of in-school transmission, even with that modified
limited quarantine. So I'm eagerly awaiting publication of that data.
Right now, if people are within 6 feet of each other for a cumulative 15 minutes, according to
the CDC guidelines , they should still be quarantining. But, hopefully, that's not entire
classrooms at a time. There's a lot of variation in how people are interpreting exposure in the
school setting. I do worry that the constant exposure–shut down–quarantine the
whole class for 10 days–then resume [cycle] may very well be too conservative and too
disruptive, and it may also not prevent more cases. If it's not preventing the cases, then I
don't think we want to pursue that strategy. But I think we still need more data.
MarketWatch: Do you think that's a leftover reaction from last spring?
Schechter-Perkins: It's been really hard to change. Way back when we set out these
guidelines, they were based on the best evidence at the time. It's really important for
guidelines to change as the evidence evolves. We need to keep doing the studies, providing the
science, so that the guidelines can then catch up to what the evidence actually shows.
MarketWatch: At what age are children in a K-12 school at higher risk for contracting the
virus?
Schechter-Perkins: It seems like about 12 years old, maybe about puberty, is about when
things start to change, when younger kids who seem more protected and less likely to transmit
start to behave more and more like adults, as far as their infection risk and their
transmission risk.
That said, in our study, and plenty of others, even high schools are still safe for students
and for staff with those mitigation measures in place. So even though you have older students
who may behave more like adults as far as the virus goes, they can still be safe in school
settings.
And they are at particular risk for some of the harms of not being in school. We see harms
to their mental health, with anxiety, depression, isolation, suicide, as well as tremendous
learning loss. So that risk-benefit analysis really needs to take place as far as keeping
schools closed. We've seen that, in a regulated school environment, they can still be safe in
school, and their teachers and their educators can also be safe in schools with them.
Schechter-Perkins later noted in email that "even though they may have a higher risk of
getting ill or transmitting the virus compared to younger students, I still think they can
belong in school, since the risk in school is not higher than it is outside of school."
there are essentially two countries inthe USA: one is the country of big cities with high
dencity of population were carantine probably makes some sense and aother countryside with low
density of population (let's say areas 100 miles or more from major metropolitan area, where
restriction were much less sensible. Also authorities behaviour during summer riots has shown
that this was about deposing Trump as much as about COVID-19.
boyplunger7777 48 minutes ago
Was COVID-19 quarantine worth it? In addition to $6 trillion in new debt. The ruined
businesses, the damage to school children, the psychological pain, depression, and anxiety as
well as substance/domestic abuse? The lingering damage to sporting events, concerts, and
outdoor entertainment? You tell me.
There are a lot of issues with vaccine rollout. One issue is that they do not check if a person has immunity to
the virus or not.
Another issue is how long vaccine will be effective is the next year we might face yet another strain of the virus.
Coronaviruses are mutating viruses and that's why previous attempts to create vaccine failed.
Are those people who demonstrate a severe reaction to the vaccine the same people who would get severe case of COVID-19 if
infected ?
Yes another issue is "emergency use". Long time effects are not known. We do not know why immunity for some people do not emerge
and they became ill even after being immunized. We do not know how long immunization status hold. Will it weaken in six months
to the level when infection became possible again or. and how effective it is against new strains.
So this rush with vaccine rollout is a large scale biological experiment with uncertain consequences.
For the past few weeks on Twitter, Berenson has mischaracterized just about every detail regarding the vaccines
to make the dubious case that most people would be better off avoiding them. As his conspiratorial nonsense accelerates
toward the pandemic's finish line, he has proved himself
the
Secretariat of being wrong
:
He has blamed the vaccines
for causing spikes
in
severe illness
, by pointing to data that actually demonstrate their safety and effectiveness.
He has suggested that
countries
such as Israel have suffered
from their early vaccine rollout, even though deaths and hospitalizations among
vaccinated groups in Israel have plummeted.
He has implied that for
most non-seniors, the side effects of the vaccines are worse than having COVID-19 itself -- even though, according to the
CDC, the pandemic has killed
tens
of thousands of people
under 50 and the vaccines
have
not conclusively killed anybody
.
Usually, I would refrain from lavishing attention on
someone so blatantly incorrect. But with vaccine resistance
hovering
around 30 percent of the general population, and with 40 percent
of Republicans saying they won't get a shot, debunking
vaccine skepticism, particularly in right-wing circles, is a matter of life and death.
Berenson's TV appearances are more misdirection than
outright fiction, and his Twitter feed blends internet-y irony and scientific jargon in a way that may obscure what he's
actually saying. To pin him down, I emailed several questions to him last week. Below, I will lay out, as clearly and
fairly as I can, his claims about the vaccines and how dangerously, unflaggingly, and superlatively wrong they are.
Before I go point by point through his wrong
positions, let me be exquisitely clear about
what is true
. The vaccines work. They
worked in the clinical trials, and they're working around the world. The vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and
Johnson & Johnson seem to provide
stronger
and more lasting protection
against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants than natural infection. They are
excellent
at reducing symptomatic infection
. Even better, they are extraordinarily
successful
at
preventing severe illness from COVID-19. Countries that have vaccinated large percentages of their population quickly, such
as the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Israel, have all seen sharp and sustained declines in hospitalizations among the
elderly. Meanwhile, countries that have lagged in the vaccination effort -- including the U.K.'s neighbors France and Italy,
and Israel's neighbor Jordan -- have struggled to contain the virus. The authorized vaccines are marvels, and the case against
them relies on half-truths, untruths, and obfuscations.
Berenson's claim:
In country after country, "cases rise after vaccination campaigns begin," he wrote in an
email.
The reality:
In
country after country, cases decline after vaccination campaigns begin.
One of Berenson's themes is that the mRNA vaccines
are badly underperforming outside the clinical trials and are possibly even causing a spike in cases after the first shot.
But just this week, CDC researchers studying real-world conditions came to the opposite
conclusion
:
The mRNA vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer are 90 percent effective two weeks after the second dose, in line with the trial
data. "COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons," they concluded.
Still, Berenson pushes the argument that the vaccines
are causing suspicious illness and death. On
Twitter
and
in his email to me, Berenson claimed that
an
"excellent" Denmark study
showed a 40 percent rise in infections immediately after nursing-home residents received
their first vaccine shot.
I reached out to
that
study's lead author
, Ida Rask Moustsen-Helms at the Statens Serum Institut, who said that Berenson had mischaracterized
her findings. She explained to me that the Danish nursing homes in question were already experiencing a significant
COVID-19 outbreak when vaccinations began. Many people in the long-term-care facilities were likely already sick before
their vaccine was administered, and "these people would technically count as vaccinated with confirmed COVID-19, even if
the infection happened prior to the vaccination or its immune response," she said. With limited vaccines, countries ought
to give the first vaccines to the groups most likely to get COVID-19. That's exactly what seems to have happened here.
Berenson is scaremongering about the vaccines by essentially criticizing their wise distribution.
In our emails, Berenson further argued that many of
the perceived benefits of the vaccines are illusory. "It is very hard to distinguish the course of the epidemic this winter
in countries that have vaccinated heavily, such as Israel and the UK, and those that have not, such as Canada and Germany,"
he wrote.
This is hogwash. In the U.K. and Israel,
hospitalizations have fallen by at least 70 percent since mid-January, and they remain low. In
Canada
,
hospitalizations fell by significantly less, and in Germany, the seven-day average of COVID-19 cases has more than
doubled
since
mid-February; its government has
debated
a new lockdown
.
This stage of the pandemic is a race between the
variants and the vaccines. In many states, such as Michigan and New York, normalizing behavior combined with more
contagious strains of the virus are pushing up cases again. This is not evidence that America's vaccination campaign isn't
working. Quite the opposite: It highlights the urgency of moving faster to deliver vaccines, which are our best chance to
control the spread of contagious variants.
Berenson's claim:
Pfizer-BioNTech's clinical-trial data prove that the companies are being shady about vaccine
efficacy.
The reality:
His
"proof" is a total mischaracterization of trial data.
Berenson seems to enjoy spelunking through research to
find esoteric statistics that he then dresses up with spooky language to make confusing points that sow doubt about the
vaccines. Arguing that COVID-19 cases spike after the first dose, he
directs
people
to the
Pfizer-BioNTech
FDA briefing document
, which reports hundreds of "suspected but unconfirmed" COVID-19 cases in the trial's vaccine
group that aren't counted as positive cases in the final efficacy analysis.
But "suspected but unconfirmed" doesn't refer to
participants who were probably sick with COVID-19. On the contrary, it refers to participants who reported various
symptoms, such as a cough or a sore throat, and then took a PCR test --
and then that test
came back negative.
"His point is absolutely stupid, and I would know
because I enrolled participants in the Pfizer-BioNTech trial," Kawsar Talaat, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins
University, told me. "He's talking about people who call in and say, 'I have a runny nose.' So we mark them as 'suspected.'
Then we ask them to take a PCR test, and we test their swab, and if the test comes back negative, the FDA says it's
'unconfirmed.' That's what
suspected but unconfirmed
means."
When I emailed Pfizer and BioNTech representatives
about Berenson's claim, they struggled to even understand what I was talking about. Someone was taking a group of several
thousand people who had tested negative for COVID-19 and, from afar, diagnosing all of them with COVID-19? "Does not make
sense," a BioNTech spokesperson responded curtly.
If you were enrolled in Berenson's vaccine trial for
SARS-CoV-2 and never contracted the virus, but one day you told a clinician that you had a bit of a cough, Berenson would
mark you down as "infected with COVID-19" and blame the vaccine. That's the logic here, and, as you can tell, it's not
really logic; it just seems like an attempt to find something -- anything -- wrong with the vaccines.
Berenson's claim:
The mRNA vaccines dangerously suppress your immune system, possibly causing severe illness
and even death.
The reality:
His
claim is based on a total misunderstanding of how the immune system works.
Berenson wrote in an email that "the first dose of
the mRNA vaccine temporarily suppresses the immune system." He has claimed on
Twitter
that
the mRNA vaccines "transiently suppress lymphocytes," or our white blood cells, and suggested that this might lead to
"post-vaccination deaths."
Scientists tore this one to shreds. "The claim he is
making is simply fearmongering, connecting a simple physiological event with bogus claims of deaths," Shane Crotty, a
researcher at the Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, told me.
"The observation of lymphocyte numbers temporarily dropping in blood is actually a common phenomenon in immune responses."
A little background is useful here: White blood cells
are the immune system's scouts. After an effective vaccination, some of them leave the blood and go to the site of
inflammation, such as the arm that received the shot. "The cells are not gone," Crotty said. "They come back to the blood
in a few days. It is generally a good sign of an immune response, not the opposite." To demonstrate that the vaccines are
counterproductive, then, Berenson is pointing to the very biological mechanism that strongly suggests they're working just
as scientists expected.
Readers are surely familiar with other biological
events that sound bad in the short term but are part of a normal, healthy process. When you lift weights at the gym, your
muscles experience small tears that recover and then strengthen over time. Imagine if some loudmouth started screaming in
the middle of the weight room, "You all think you're building your muscles, but actually you're tearing them to shreds, and
it could kill you!" You would probably carry on calmly, assuming that this guy just got a little overexcited after finding
a Yahoo Answers article about muscle formation and stopped reading after the first paragraph. Berenson's claim is basically
a version of that, but for your immune system.
"Actually," Talaat said, "his argument is even worse
than your analogy. Muscles really do tear at the gym. But lymphocytes don't go away. They just move. What he's describing
as dangerous in these tweets is just the regular functioning of our immune system."
Berenson's claim:
In Israel, the shots are causing a scary number of deaths and hospitalizations.
The reality:
Israel
is a sensational vaccine success story: a nearly open economy where COVID-19 rates are plunging.
See
for yourself!
On February 11, Berenson
warned
his
followers that early data from Israel proved that vaccine advocates "need to start ratcheting down expectations." This was
a strange claim to make at the time: An Israeli health-care provider had
reported
no
deaths and four severe cases among its first 523,000 fully vaccinated people. But the claim seems even more ridiculous now,
in light of Israel's incredible success since then. New positive cases in Israel are down
roughly
95 percent
since January. Deaths have plunged, even though the economy is
almost
fully open
.
When I asked Berenson to explain his beef with
Israel's vaccine record, he sent
a
link to a news story in Hebrew
that, he said, reported "several hundred deaths and hospitalizations and thousands of
infections in people who have received both doses." I can't read Hebrew, so I reached out to someone who can, Eran Segal, a
computational biologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. He replied by email: "This link actually
shows that the vast majority of those who died were NOT vaccinated." By Segal's calculations, the vaccines have reduced the
risk of death by more than 90 percent in the Israeli population. Segal also said that "numbers of infections only went
down, and even more so among the age groups who were first to vaccinate."
Berenson is wrong about all sorts of little things
when it comes to Israel, but I want to emphasize how straightforward and obvious the big picture is here. Israel is
a
world leader in vaccinations
. Its COVID-19 cases have plunged, and its economy is roaring back to life.
Berenson's claim:
Healthy people under 70 shouldn't get a vaccine.
The reality:
Outside
of extremely rare cases, every adult should get a vaccine -- and if it's authorized for children, children should get it
too.
I wanted to know where Berenson stood on the most
important question: Who does he think should get a vaccine, and who does he think shouldn't? This was the core of his
answer:
For most healthy people under 50 -- and certainly under 35 -- the side effects
from the shots are likely to be worse than a case of Covid. Over 70, sure. The grey zone is somewhere in the middle and
probably depends on personal risk factors.
This response has two huge problems. First, although
the disease clearly gets more severe with age, drawing a line at 70 is nonsensical. Those in their 50s and early 60s are
three times more likely to die from this disease than a 40-something, and
400 times
more
likely to die than a teenager, according to the CDC.
Oh, surely not. "Professor" Neil Ferguson has never met an epidemic he couldn't portray as a
world-ending catastrophe. He has often been wrong by four orders of magnitude.
I'm not a Neil Ferguson fan, but AC below seems correct. https://theferret.scot/fact-ch...
[theferret.scot] In particular, Ferguson's doomsday prediction of 500k dead in the UK was based
on just letting the virus run its course. Almost a year later, with 120k dead, this seems like
it would be in the right ballpark.
Honestly though, I thought he was an economist moonlighting as an epidemiologist, but it
turns out that I had it backwards. So maybe "ballpark" isn't good enough.
The article has very important links that should probably be included in the summary because
those links given EXTREMELY important context.
Summary : Anthony Fauci was wrong about masks.
Article Link : Fauci said, "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in
the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it
might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think
that it is..."
He wasn't wrong that masks are important and need to be worn. He was wrong about masks when
he made a comment before on March 8, 2020 . On March 8, 2020, the WHO counted 213 total cases
in the US to date. At the time it seemed unnecessary to wear a mask in public and,
furthermore, the concern was that there would be a mask shortage for medical workers... AND
THERE WAS. No one was mass-producing cloth masks yet. We all remember the "how to make a cloth
mask at home" tutorials right?
Summary : New York was wrong about the subways
Article Link : New York City is shutting down its subway system every night, for the first time
in its 116-year history, to blast the seats, walls, and poles with a variety of antiseptic
weaponry, including electrostatic disinfectant sprays.
Surface transmission has been shown to be low risk. This is a relatively new conclusion.
Transit systems have shown to be low-probability vectors for transmission, but that is likely
due to VASTLY reduced use, reduced occupancy, and and the ridiculous amount of cleaning they're
doing now. The precautions have prevented the need for knee-jerk closures of the transit
systems. That's not being wrong... that's being successful.
Summary : I was wrong about the necessary cost of pandemic relief.
Article Link : We Can Prevent a Great Depression. It'll Take $10 Trillion.
That still seems about right. It hasn't nor will it come as a single check being written,
but all the stimulus adding up will probably cost around that much-- especially if you factor
in the MASSIVE amounts of expenses (and lost revenue) taken on by major public institutions
with the blind hope of getting reimbursed by FEMA. That's right, a lot of the relief is being
debt-financed by organizations other than the Federal government and if we want to prevent
recession or depression, we're going to have to keep spending. Re:Right vs Wrong
( Score: 4 ,
Insightful) by Rob Y. ( 110975 )
on Thursday April 01, 2021 @01:01PM ( #61224708 )
And whoever wrote this article and included the phrase "Fauci was wrong about masks" is
making a political statement. Fauci pretty much winked at us at the time he said masks won't
make much difference. He was saying that because there was a run on them, and doctors weren't
able to find enough N95's. In that light, yes, it was more important for doctors to get them
than the general public - who were already being recommended to socially distance.
As the epidemic wore on, Fauci and almost anybody else acting responsibly recommended mask
wearing for everyone when out in public. But the talking points still include "...but Fauci
said masks don't work". It's out of date, irrelevant, and a political distraction tactic at
best... Re:Right vs Wrong
( Score: 2
) by l0n3s0m3phr34k (
2613107 ) on Thursday April 01, 2021 @03:14PM ( #61225414 )
Absolutely, it's like people saying "well, the Church said the Earth is the center of the solar
system!" in discussing modern astronomy. Or, a bit more modern, always trying to factor in the
affect of the aether on the propagation of light.
So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us?
No, not those who haven't been "vaccinated" yet. Us. The "Covidiots." The "Covid
deniers." The "science deniers." The "reality deniers." Those who refuse to get "vaccinated,"
ever.
There is no place for us in New Normal society. The New Normals know this and so do we. To
them, we are a suspicious, alien tribe of people. We do not share their ideological beliefs. We
do not perform their loyalty rituals, or we do so only grudgingly, because they force us to do
so. We traffic in arcane "conspiracy theories," like "pre-March-2020 science," "natural herd
immunity," "population-adjusted death rates," "Sweden," "Florida," and other heresies.
They do not trust us. We are strangers among them. They suspect we feel superior to them.
They believe we are conspiring against them, that we want to deceive them, confuse them, cheat
them, pervert their culture, abuse their children, contaminate their precious bodily fluids,
and perpetrate God knows what other horrors.
So they are discussing the need to segregate us, how to segregate us, when to segregate us,
in order to protect society from us. In their eyes, we are no more than
criminals , or, worse, a plague , an infestation. In the
words of someone (I can't quite recall who), "getting rid of the Unvaccinated is not a question
of ideology. It is a question of cleanliness," or something like that. (I'll have to hunt down
and fact-check that quote. I might have taken it out of context.)
Nice thoughts but the high priests of the new secular cult of scientism are playing a zero
sum game. It's an either/or for them; slavery or scalp. The rituals of the cult reinforce the
dogma. The continual washing of hands as an act of purification. The mask as an act of
penance for your defiling breath. Forced solitude to keep you in front of the 24 hour Cult
broadcasts on tv. Social distancing as a way to inculcate insular thinking. Any resistors to
the new rituals will be brought to a tribunal of neo torquemadas. Perhaps a better way to be
thinking of the resistance is in terms of knighthood.
TTSSYF: "Good point, but what drives the "experts" to push this? Would that not be a
conspiracy of sorts?"
Certainly there are factions among the so-called experts, and the members of factions can
"conspire" with each other to win out over other factions. I don't doubt that at all. Nor do
I doubt that anything that happens will advantage some groups and disadvantage others, and
that groups fight to advance their own interests. Yet, to claim that the whole pandemic was
planned in advance down to the last detail by a shadowy group of conspirators called
"Globocap", as CJ Hopkins often seems to do, I think is a bridge too far. Stupidity and
unintended consequences characterize human actions and interactions far more accurately than
malice aforethought and design. Some see conspiracy where in reality there is only chaos.
So the bulk of U.S. political "leaders" and media geniuses shriek in horror at the thought
of someone needing to present an ID in order to vote. This, we are endlessly told, is a crime
against humanity. But every pleb and prole will need to produce a government-issue "vaccine
passport;" without it, they will forfeit the right to leave their residence,
go to the park, or enter a grocery store.
I think even the normies may start to dimly discern something not quite right here.
CJ Hopkins: "This stuff is built into the structure of the system. It is a standard
feature of totalitarian societies, cults, churches, self-help groups, and well, human
society, generally."
Quite true, and why I tend to think the so-called pandemic isn't a result of a conspiracy
as such, but rather should just be seen as an expected outcome in a technological society
that increasingly and necessarily depends on the recommendations of "experts" to operate.
Take that necessary fact, and couple it with the built-in conformism of human nature (herd
mentality), and voilà, you get today's techno-totalitarianism. In short, never suspect
conspiracy when ordinary stupidity will serve perfectly well as an explanation.
TTSSYF: "Good point, but what drives the "experts" to push this? Would that not be a
conspiracy of sorts?"
Certainly there are factions among the so-called experts, and the members of factions can
"conspire" with each other to win out over other factions. I don't doubt that at all. Nor do
I doubt that anything that happens will advantage some groups and disadvantage others, and
that groups fight to advance their own interests. Yet, to claim that the whole pandemic was
planned in advance down to the last detail by a shadowy group of conspirators called
"Globocap", as CJ Hopkins often seems to do, I think is a bridge too far. Stupidity and
unintended consequences characterize human actions and interactions far more accurately than
malice aforethought and design. Some see conspiracy where in reality there is only chaos.
@Dr. Robert
Morgan fled on masks, so I'm willing to admit these might not have been part of the plan.
And the vaccines might also have been an opportunistic play by the pharmaceutical industry.
Heck, why not? They were given immunity from prosecution for their vaccines. Same with the
useless ventilators.
But the shutting down of economies all over the world, the faulty PCR tests producing
false positives, counting as many deaths as possible as Covid deaths, the lies and deceit,
the shutting down of dissenting opinions, the firing of doctors, the banning of alternative
medicines – this type of behavior cannot be put down to "stupidity".
Good tunes, better lyrics. I have never felt more disrespect, contempt and had such
complete lack of confidence in the authorities in the US. Until the last year I had complete
confidence in at least the science of the American medical establishment which maybe led me
even to have a little too much confidence in my own doctors. I always had good doctors but no
one is faultless and I realize if I had not had an unquestioning confidence in my doctors
some serious problems I had may have been solved much earlier. But the problem is not our
doctors. They are good, many excellent and they have spoken out against incompetents like
Fauci.
The comparisons of the New Normal to Nazi Germany have become thread bare if not
misleading in my opinion but the author hits all the key points. Perhaps the Hindu caste
system is a better analogy. The unvaccinated will become Dalit or "untouchable."
The level of corruption of science (and medicine is just a branch of science) in the USA is
really astounding. It is Lysenkoism, pure and simple. And vaccine debate, or absence of thereof
is just a tip of the iceberg, one manifestations of corrupt nature of neoliberalism in the USA
and the level of amorality and corruption of the neoliberal elite. After all the essence of
neoliberalism is "profits before people".
Notable quotes:
"... it's what it looks like to me too... pfizer must be laughing all the way to the bank, or blackrock - whatever.. i guess the johnston vaccine or whatever will have to be pushed harder too.. https://www.holdingschannel.com/13f/blackrock-inc-top-holdings/ ..."
Well these aren't vaccines as much as flu-shots. Indeed they're already buzzing about
combining the annual flu jab with the covid 'vaccine' for inoculation once or twice a year
depending on the severity of variant season. Vaccines are supposed to offer protection
against disease for long periods of time. The flu shot isn't a vaccine and neither are these
Covid jabs. And contrary to a comment above these 'vaccines' have proven very effective to
'cure' serious Covid patients, much like the gene-therapies being used to great effect.
I certainly wouldn't take the experimental mRNA 'vaccines' until much more data is in. Is
there a reason the mRNA rabies vaccine hasn't been approved after years of trying? And of
course folks are quick the forget the Moderna/Pfizer medicines have not been approved either
except for "emergency use."
And now finally there is out in the open debate about the origins of the 'novel' Corona
virus of which so many react as if it is not novel at all. Not to say we'll ever know the
truth - imagine the legal liability of setting off a global pandemic.
There is something rotten in the state of covid. Let's put on our gasmasks and get to the
bottom of it.
Most people are not grasping the serious wrong-headedness of this mass vaccination effort.
I transcribed a germane section of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche's interview so folks here can
please read it until they understand what he's saying. (I inserted punctuation and paragraphs
to make it more readable.)
"If you go to war, you better make sure you have the right weapon. The weapon in itself
can be an excellent weapon, and that is what I'm saying about the current vaccines, I mean
just brilliant people who have been making these vaccines in no time and with regulatory
approval and everything, so the weapon in itself is excellent. The question is, is this the
right weapon for the kind of war that is going on right now? And there, my answer is
definitely no. Because these are prophylactic vaccines, and prophylactic vaccines should
typically not be administered to people who are exposed to high infectious pressure. So don't
forget we are administering these vaccines in the heat of a pandemic.
"So in other words, while we are preparing our weapon, we are fully attacked by the virus
– the virus is everywhere – so that is a very different scenario from using such
vaccines in a setting where the vaccinee is barely or not exposed to the virus. And I'm
saying this because if you have a high infectious pressure, it's so easy for the virus to
jump from one person to the other. So, if you're immune response is just mounting, as we see
right now with a number of people who get their first dose – they get their first dose,
the antibodies are not fully mature, [inaudible] are not very high, so their immune response
is sub-optimal. But they are in the midst of this war. While they are mounting an immune
response they are fully attacked by the virus. And every single time – I mean, this is
textbook knowledge – every time you have an immune response that is sub-optimal in the
presence of an infection, in the presence of a virus that infects that person, you are at
risk for immune escape. So that means that the virus can escape from the immune response.
"So I'm saying that these vaccines – I mean, in their own right of course, are
excellent – but to use them in the midst of a pandemic and do mass vaccinations,
because then you provide within a very short period of time with high antibody [types ?]
[inaud
AIER
Staff
–
November
21, 2020
Reading
Time:
20
minutes
Print
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit
Flipboard
Email
Share
Micha
Gartz
Amelia
Janaskie
–
May 20, 2021
Aleksandra
Przegalinska
–
May 19, 2021
Robert
E. Wright
–
May 19, 2021
Ethan
Yang
–
May 19, 2021
Donald
J. Boudreaux
–
May 17, 2021
Joakim
Book
–
May 16, 2021
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
