Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Fear as a propaganda tool

Organized chaos and confusion as a method of political control

News Color revolutions Recommended Links Is MAGA bomber a false flag operation: Anthrax mailings anyone ? The Las Vegas Massacre: The Media Narrative is Deceptive Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers
Manchester attack vs Charlie Hebdo  Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Media as a weapon of mass deception Khashoggi grizzly murder
Lewis Powell Memo Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite The Iron Law of Oligarchy Two Party System as Polyarchy American Exceptionalism Anatol Leiven on American Messianism
The importance of controlling the narrative Patterns of Propaganda The Real War on Reality Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Co-opting of the Human Rights to embarrass governments who oppose neoliberalism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press"
Diplomacy by deception Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources Fifth Column of Neoliberal Globalization  Media-Military-Industrial Complex Manufactured consent What's the Matter with Kansas
Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Neo-fascism Nation under attack meme Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? Big Uncle is Watching You
Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Ukraine: From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss Pussy Riot Provocation and "Deranged Pussy Worship Syndrome" MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage Nineteen Eighty-Four British hypocrisy
Groupthink Soft propaganda Fighting Russophobia Propaganda Quotes Humor Etc
 

“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.

Global Research, October 16, 2017

Region:

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.”


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[May 28, 2021] Hope is not lost...

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
May 28, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Kanzen Saimin 4 hours ago (Edited)

Hope is not lost...

WATCH: A 10-Year-Old Boy Humiliates School Board Over Unscientific Mask Mandates

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.

[May 28, 2021] Don t mention Ivermectin; It ll Affect the Vaccine Rollout

Notable quotes:
"... "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 ..."
May 17, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hemiola , May 16 2021 18:16 utc | 33

"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 ... "

FLCCC Alliance statement on the irregular actions of Public Health Agencies and the widespread disinformation campaign against Ivermectin

Nice South African summary: Don't mention Ivermectin; It'll Affect the Vaccine Rollout

Grieved , May 17 2021 3:06 utc | 95

@33 Hemiola

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.

I recommend it:

FLCCC Alliance Statement on the Irregular Actions of Public Health Agencies and the Widespread Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin

[May 28, 2021] CDC's Absurd Guidelines For Summer Camps- A Recipe For Dystopian Fun

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 ..."
May 23, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

CDC Trapped in March 2020 Mindset

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:

With that knowledge in mind, here are some key ingredients in the CDC's recipe for dystopian summer fun:

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. "

Read more and subscribe at https://starkrealities.substack.com/

4 hours ago

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.

[May 22, 2021] Running Out of Patience for the CDC

May 21, 2021 | www.aier.org

"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 Magazine writes ,

"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.

[May 22, 2021] An Education in Viruses and Public Health, from Michael Yeadon, Former VP of Pfizer – AIER

May 22, 2021 | www.aier.org

[May 22, 2021] DR MIKE YEADON-Three facts No 10's experts got wrong - Daily Mail Online

May 22, 2021 | dailymail.co.uk

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.

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 +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 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.' +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 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share

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.

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.' +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

[May 22, 2021] Michael Yeadon -- No need of vaccine, COVID-19 pandemic effectively over - FoxExclusive

Highly recommended!
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." ..."
May 22, 2021 | foxexclusive.com

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).

[May 22, 2021] Skeptical COFID-19 sites

Some of those should be taken with a grain of salt as they are detached from reality in their ownway...
May 22, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

TonTon 13 hours ago remove link

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.

19331510 13 hours ago remove link

Covid19 links.

Websites:

https://aapsonline.org/

https://www.americasfrontlinedocs.com/media/

https://bmj.com

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/category/news/

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/

https://www.flemingmethod.com/

https://gbdeclaration.org/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/

https://healthimpactnews.com/

https://www.mercola.com/

https://drleemerritt.com/

https://www.drtenpenny.com/

https://principia-scientific.com/

https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

https://thehighwire.com/

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/ https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/links/general-links/

Video Sharing: https://www.bitchute.com/ ; https://brandnewtube.com/ ; https://odysee.com/ ; https://rumble.com/ https://superu.net

Healthcare Professionals :

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;

A list of Canadian doctors : https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

Lawyers : Dr. Reiner Fuellmich; Rocco Galati;

Drug Adverse Reaction Databases:

http://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html (Search; Suspected Drug Reactions Reports for Substances) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414); COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH; COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19); COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html https://www.openvaers.com/ http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/help/help.php

Research papers:

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ (pcr tests)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ (face masks)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 (lock downs)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670 (child/teacher morbidity)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315v1 (transmission by children)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm (masks/restaurants)

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199 (biased trial reporting)

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf (infections/vaccines)

19331510 13 hours ago

If there is only one website you visit let it be principia-scientific.com .

They post articles from a wide range of sites.

Please share with everyone you know and stay well.

[May 22, 2021] Warning about Faucism From Former Pfizer Chief Scientist by Michael Yeadon

Highly recommended!
For full text see Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics – the Deadly Danger of False Positives – Lockdown Sceptics
Also pretty impressive highlight are available Warning from former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon (21 Apr 2021)
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.
May 18, 2021 | www.investmentwatchblog.com

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.

chris/irish Bob 3 days ago ,

so they say. i doubt that seriously. sounds as if the " watch out " that vaccinated can kill you is another ploy to keep fear porn alive.

Tom Clark chris/irish 3 days ago ,

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.

Studies Show that Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease
https://www.globenewswire.c...

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm
https://www.greenmedinfo.co...

shedding vaccines studies
https://scholar.google.com/...

[May 22, 2021] Lysenkoism on the march -- CDC Changes Test Thresholds To Virtually Eliminate New COVID Cases Among Vaxx'd

May 22, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

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:

  1. False-positive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)

  2. 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.

https://goldenageofgaia.com/2018/12/07/robert-kennedy-jr-cdc-is-a-privately-owned-vaccine-company/

yerfej 7 hours ago

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.

https://goldenageofgaia.com/2018/12/07/robert-kennedy-jr-cdc-is-a-privately-owned-vaccine-company/

paranoid.dragon 8 hours ago

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."

[May 14, 2021] Wuhan Mistake (Honest Mistake Parody) - Louder With Crowder

May 14, 2021 | www.youtube.com

Cathy Snyder , 11 months ago

That was pretty excellent...loved the little clips of President Trump saying "China" and "Chinese"! The media's reactions are priceless!

Thong Slapping V8 , 11 months ago

The Crowder team has some serious musical talent

Shadow Banned , 11 months ago

I would love to see a "HOTEL CHINAFORNIA" parody!

XSquibX , 1 month ago

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

[May 13, 2021] CDC slaps Fauci face: Fully Vaccinated People Can Stop Wearing Face Masks, Physical Distancing in Most Settings by Brianna Abbott

May 13, 2021 | www.wsj.com

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 .

[May 11, 2021] The German Corona Investigation. -The PCR Pandemic

May 11, 2021 | www.globalresearch.ca

First published in October 2020

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:

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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:

  1. How dangerous is the virus really?
  2. What is the significance of a positive PCR test?
  3. 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.

The Covid-19 Numbers Game: The "Second Wave" is Based on Fake Statistics

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 even appeared. 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 ."

Regarding the all-important PCR tests, Yeadon writes, in a piece called " Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives ", dated September 20, 2020, and I quote

" 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:

  1. As a result of a damage-inducing event
  2. 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.

[May 11, 2021] The German Corona Investigation. -The PCR Pandemic

May 11, 2021 | www.globalresearch.ca

First published in October 2020

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:

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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:

  1. How dangerous is the virus really?
  2. What is the significance of a positive PCR test?
  3. 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.

The Covid-19 Numbers Game: The "Second Wave" is Based on Fake Statistics

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 even appeared. 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 ."

Regarding the all-important PCR tests, Yeadon writes, in a piece called " Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger of False Positives ", dated September 20, 2020, and I quote

" 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:

  1. As a result of a damage-inducing event
  2. 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.

[May 11, 2021] Looks like anti-mask and anti-vaxes online communities attract highly educated critical thinkers

"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."
May 11, 2021 | twitter.com

commie lee jones

@commieleejones

May 10

"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.

[May 11, 2021] MIT researchers found that skeptics place a high premium on daton data analysis and empiricism; they believe that science is a process, and not an institution

The link to the paper is https:// arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993 .pdf
May 11, 2021 | www.reddit.com

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."

pi_over_3 18 hours ago

This is the most amazing thing I've read all week. 41 Reply Share Report Save

simsonic 5 hours ago

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

ItsKonway 6 hours ago
· edited 5 hours ago

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

brentwilliams2 17 hours ago

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

WaltzRoommate 15 hours ago

You've gotta do something.

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

brentwilliams2 6 hours ago

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

WaltzRoommate 4 hours ago

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

brentwilliams2 3 hours ago

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

WaltzRoommate 3 hours ago

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

brentwilliams2 2 hours ago

most of them are midwits

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

WaltzRoommate 2 hours ago

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

brentwilliams2 1 hour ago

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

the_seraphim 17 hours ago

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.

[May 10, 2021] Inputs, for example, from our CDC, have consistently been wrong, or manipulated to achieve a political end. Masks were necessary, then they weren't

May 10, 2021 | www.wsj.com

J

Inputs, for example, from our CDC, have consistently been wrong, or manipulated to achieve a political end. Masks were necessary, then they weren't J Joe Ross

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.

[May 10, 2021] Love it when people unintentionally and accidentally tell the truth

May 10, 2021 | www.wsj.com

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


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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

[May 10, 2021] Lockdowns Didn't Stop Covid

May 10, 2021 | www.wsj.com

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."

[May 09, 2021] Flu Has Disappeared Worldwide During the COVID Pandemic

May 09, 2021 | science.slashdot.org

(scientificamerican.com) 306 BeauHD 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.

[May 09, 2021] Face mask in ubic places mandate couls have saved 5% of GDP in comparison with lockkdowns

May 09, 2021 | science.slashdot.org

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.

Against this backdrop, a team of economists at investment bank Goldman Sachs has published an analysis suggesting more painful shutdowns could be averted if the United States implements a nationwide mask mandate .

"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."

[May 09, 2021] May 7, 2021 at 9:33 pm

May 09, 2021 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Update CDC/aerosols 5-7-2021

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fscience%2Fscience-briefs%2Fscientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html

Some of the References look familiar/

[May 09, 2021] Economists Disagree Over How Much Covid-19 'Herd Immunity' Needed for Recovery

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'. ..."
May 09, 2021 | www.wsj.com

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'.

Umesh Patil

SUBSCRIBER

[May 08, 2021] Only two things are infinite, human stupidity and the universe, and I'm not sure about the universe: 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.

May 08, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Im4truth4all 1 hour ago

"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."

COVID isn't even on the list

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

[May 08, 2021] Imperial College Predicted Catastrophe In Every Country On Earth... Then The Models Failed

Why this jerk is still listened to? Only because his predictions suit the neoliberal elite. ..completly wrong, never in doubt.....
May 08, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Phillip Magness via The American Institute for Economic Research,

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 searchable results above ( please view on desktop or turn mobile to landscape and reload for best results ), compared to the actual death toll on March 26, 2021 – one year after the original release of Imperial's international 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.

Not Your Father's ZH 2 hours ago

Vicious criminal Neil Ferguson playing key role in new lockdowns - by Jon Rappoport, December 24, 2020

Professor Neil Ferguson, and the idiot presidents and prime ministers who believe his computer predictions : Nothing is riding on this except the immediate future of the human race. Ferguson used old failed model to predict COVID deaths - by Jon Rappoport May 4, 2020

The five key events in the fake pandemic - by Jon Rappoport, December 22, 2020

Janet_the_Gannet 2 hours ago

"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 ...

https://odysee.com/@EJOK:c/WIN_20210507_10_57_10_Pro:c

https://odysee.com/@EJOK:c/WIN_20210409_08_53_11_Pro:9

4thmeal 2 hours ago remove link

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.

Gone 2 hours ago

Rerun of this

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

Zero-Hegemon 2 hours ago

Ferguson provided the best models that money could buy. They wanted global fear and he delivered.

Follow the money.

End Times Prophecy 3 hours ago

COVID-19 Total Deaths Worldwide to Date : 0.0

$1.2 M Reward Offered For Proof COVID-19 Virus Exists

https://principia-scientific.com/1-2-m-reward-offered-for-proof-covid-19-virus-exists/

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.

[May 07, 2021] The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown - The Atlantic

Notable quotes:
"... EMMA GREEN ..."
"... MONICA GANDHI ..."
"... EMILY OSTER ..."
"... DEREK THOMPSON ..."
May 07, 2021 | www.theatlantic.com

The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown

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
A woman wearing a face shield, surgical mask, and plastic poncho holds up signs in protest of school reopening.
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.

me title=

RECOMMENDED READING

me title=

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.

Read: Overcaution carries its own danger to children

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 .

me title=

me title=

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.

me title=

me title=

Read: Schools aren't super-spreaders

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.

me title=

me title=

Read: Are outdoor mask mandates still necessary?

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.

[May 06, 2021] Aldous Huxley Foresaw Our Despots - Fauci, Gates, The Vaccine Crusaders

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.
May 06, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Patricia McCarthy via AmericanThinker.com,

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 ."

- Crome Yellow

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIJQuk-qK2o

19331510 14 hours ago (Edited)

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/death-stats

AGE Deaths

0-24 23

25-50 184

51-65 506

66-80 1164

81-100 1346

U 321

R.I.P.

Joe Joe Depends 13 hours ago

India up in arms about mere 1%

spanish flu was 3%

JimmyJones 9 hours ago

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.

19331510 14 hours ago

Covid19 links.

Websites:

https://www.americasfrontlinedocs.com/media/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/category/news/

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/

https://www.flemingmethod.com/

https://gbdeclaration.org/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/

https://healthimpactnews.com/

https://www.mercola.com/

https://drleemerritt.com/

https://www.drtenpenny.com/

https://principia-scientific.com/

https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

https://thehighwire.com/

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/ https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/links/general-links/

Video Sharing : https://www.bitchute.com/ ; https://brandnewtube.com/ ; https://odysee.com/ ; https://rumble.com/ https://superu.net

Healthcare Professionals :

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;

A list of Canadian doctors: https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

Lawyers : Dr. Reiner Fuellmich; Rocco Galati;

Drug Adverse Reaction Databases:

http://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html (Search; Suspected Drug Reactions Reports for Substances) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414); COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH; COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19); COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

Research papers :

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ (pcr tests)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ (face masks)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 (lock downs)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670 (child/teacher morbidity)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315v1 (transmission by children)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm (masks/restaurants)

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199 (biased trial reporting)

Covid19 links.

Websites:

https://www.americasfrontlinedocs.com/media/

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/

https://www.constitutionalrightscentre.ca/category/news/

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com/

https://www.flemingmethod.com/

https://gbdeclaration.org/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/

https://healthimpactnews.com/

https://www.mercola.com/

https://drleemerritt.com/

https://www.drtenpenny.com/

https://principia-scientific.com/

https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

https://thehighwire.com/

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/ https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/links/general-links/

Video Sharing : https://www.bitchute.com/ ; https://brandnewtube.com/ ; https://odysee.com/ ; https://rumble.com/ https://superu.net

Healthcare Professionals :

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;

A list of Canadian doctors: https://standupcanada.solutions/canadian-doctors-speak

Lawyers : Dr. Reiner Fuellmich; Rocco Galati;

Drug Adverse Reaction Databases:

http://www.adrreports.eu/en/index.html (Search; Suspected Drug Reactions Reports for Substances) COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE MODERNA (CX-024414); COVID-19 MRNA VACCINE PFIZER-BIONTECH; COVID-19 VACCINE ASTRAZENECA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19); COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S)

https://www.openvaers.com/

Research papers :

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ (pcr tests)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ (face masks)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484 (lock downs)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670 (child/teacher morbidity)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.01.20222315v1 (transmission by children)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm (masks/restaurants)

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199 (biased trial reporting)

Ultramarines 15 hours ago (Edited)

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.

Sorry, Aldous. Just...too...problematic.

[May 03, 2021] COVID-19 almost totally eliminated flu epidemic. Why ?

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Bollockinell 6 hours ago

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.

[May 03, 2021] Masks help to prevent other infections so in closed spaces they are justified

May 03, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Stonebird , Apr 27 2021 8:50 utc | 6

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

[May 03, 2021] Why authorities ask vaccinated people wear masks and obey social distancing rules?

May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

acheron2016 10 hours ago

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.

[May 03, 2021] 53 prominent German actors/actresses have become satirical too! They've simultaneously released 1-minute satirical statements.

May 03, 2021 | off-guardian.org

Penelope , Apr 26, 2021 10:34 PM

53 prominent German actors/actresses have become satirical too! They've simultaneously released 1-minute satirical statements. https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/24/shock-wave-50-prominent-german-actors-launch-campaign-satiring-corona-l

[May 03, 2021] Take Off Your Mask and Go Outside by Daniel Halperin and Monica Gandhi

Money quote: " Discarding pointless practices like outdoor masking and obsessive “ hygiene theater †would make the continuing necessary precautions, including indoor masking, easier to accept."
Apr 28, 2021 | www.wsj.com

You don’t need to wear a mask outdoors.

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.

[May 03, 2021] It's like the neolibel elite is testing the level of our stupidity

May 03, 2021 | off-guardian.org

Apr 27, 2021 12:28 AM

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.

Researcher , Apr 27, 2021 4:11 AM Reply to Dick

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.

[May 03, 2021] Fascinating fellow

May 03, 2021 | off-guardian.org

Moneycircus , Apr 27, 2021 4:15 PM Reply to Judith

Vimeo
NoodleMagazine
Odysee
YT: Kary Mullis – The Full Interview by Gary Null

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vo-ue95TrUg?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

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.

Fascinating fellow.

[May 03, 2021] Teachers abusing kids. Disgusting. Pfizer and Moderna experimenting on kids. Criminal

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "teachers abusing kids" ..."
"... " 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." ..."
May 03, 2021 | off-guardian.org

Jacques , Apr 27, 2021 10:18 AM

"teachers abusing kids"

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.

Disgusting

Corarden , Apr 27, 2021 11:30 AM Reply to Jacques

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.

Arby , Apr 27, 2021 5:06 PM Reply to Corarden

"VAERS: Two-year-old baby in Virginia dead six days after second experimental Pfizer mRNA shot"
From the above linked-to article by ? (The Covid Blog):

" 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."

Peter , Apr 28, 2021 12:10 AM Reply to Arby

Sickening. Evil.

Corarden , Apr 27, 2021 10:36 AM Reply to NickM

Judge Christian Dettmar

" 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.'

[May 03, 2021] Florida Gov. DeSantis Says Lockdowns Were A Huge Mistake by Ivan Pentchoukov

Apr 16, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov and Jan Jekielek via The Epoch Times,

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,†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,†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,†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€

[May 03, 2021] Tucker Carlson Says People Who Wear Masks Outside Should Be Mocked by Paul Joseph Watson

Apr 27, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

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."

me title=

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.453.0_en.html#goog_1043494571

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.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1386921015943602178&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fcovid-19%2Ftucker-carlson-says-people-who-wear-masks-outside-should-be-mocked&sessionId=2230b0fb24328ba2a6edaa853064249defa128d8&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=b5cd9ac%3A1619504549508&width=550px

"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."

* * *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

* * *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here . Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here


Fiscal.Enema 8 hours ago (Edited)

In all fairness... Tucker should have pointed out that SOME MASKS do filter out the virus most of the time.

Wearing a mask outdoors in most situations is ridiculous, stupid, and dangerous.

3M N95's 1860 which are electrostatically charged have good filtration protection against most virus.

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-Health-Care-Particulate-Respirator-and-Surgical-Mask-1860-N95-120-EA-Case/?N=5002385+3294795990&rt=rud

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.

Fiscal.Enema 6 hours ago

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/04/lab-study-supports-use-n95-respirators-flu-protection

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!

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:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

[May 03, 2021] Can any sound mind be OK with this idiotism?

May 03, 2021 | off-guardian.org

fame , Apr 27, 2021 8:36 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExT3lpQWYAAewAE?format=jpg

Denny KirkQ , Apr 27, 2021 8:46 PM Reply to fame

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[May 03, 2021] He who wear mask while alone in car should also wear condom while alone in bed. The power of propaganda about wearing masks outdoor coming from TV truly rots your brain

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"
May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Dickweed Wang 10 hours ago (Edited)

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.....

[Apr 29, 2021] Slowly But Surely, The Truth Is Coming Out: Pfizer CEO admitted that fully vaccinated people will need a third shot of the vaccine within 12 months If you don t want to believe me, perhaps you will believe the CEO of Pfizer. This week, he admitted that fully vaccinated people If you don t want to believe me, perhaps you will believe the CEO of Pfizer. This week, he admitted that fully vaccinated people This week, he admitted that fully vaccinated people will need a third shot of the vaccine within 12 months

Apr 29, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

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...

  1. Requiring Vaccine IDs or passports violates medical privacy - Right?
  2. Unvaccinated are NOT a threat because the vaccinated are protected - Right?
  3. 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.

see

Antibody that inhibits the new coronavirus discovered in ...

https://www.livescience.com › sars-antibody-inhibits-ne...

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 ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z

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.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/index.htm

Bacon's Rebellion 5 hours ago (Edited)

"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.

University of Chicago

Fed Supporter 5 hours ago remove link

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!"

NYTimes

baja canada 6 hours ago remove link

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.

[Apr 28, 2021] Joe Rogan is being attacked by Fauci the White House for daring to have an honest discussion about Covid-19 vaccines by Zachary Leeman

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
And Fauci response: "You have to put a little bit of societal responsibility in your choices, and that's where I disagree with Mr. Rogan." https://twitter.com/i/status/1387414298432000000
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.
Apr 28, 2021 | www.rt.com
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.

ALSO ON RT.COM Rose McGowan tells Democrats they are in a cult, and their whining, defensive responses prove her right

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.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Apr 27, 2021] The Gamaleya Center statement - Official website vaccine against COVID-19 Sputnik V

Notable quotes:
"... Science Mag ..."
Apr 27, 2021 | sputnikvaccine.com

Covid-19 Vaccine Thrombosis:

THE GAMALEYA CENTER STATEMENT

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.

Link to the study:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840?query=featured_home

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.

[Apr 26, 2021] Genetic Vaccines -- Are They the New Thalidomide by Dr. Lee Merritt

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Apr 26, 2021 | thenewamerican.com

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.

me scrolling=

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. Hervι 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.

OhSoGood tex52 • 4 days ago ,

Please point to a vaccine that didn't have such a tiny fraction of issues.

Start with Polio... are you going to say that was a bad idea?

Pauper Jim j b • 4 days ago ,

Try this:
https://archive.org/details...

[Apr 26, 2021] White House Mask Theater

Apr 26, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

//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.

[Apr 19, 2021] Interesting that the CNN producer on the Veritas video said that global warming will be the next big fear-inducing corporate greenwashing campaign

Highly recommended!
Apr 17, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

j. casey , Apr 17 2021 19:03 utc | 11

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.

[Apr 15, 2021] Number racket in COVIS-19 space

Apr 15, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

youngman 3 hours ago

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...

[Apr 15, 2021] The Pandemic is Over! - Dr. Ryan Cole, CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics

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.
Apr 15, 2021 | www.bitchute.com

[Apr 15, 2021] Covid is a very selective virus

Apr 15, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

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.

theWHTMANN 2 hours ago

So sick and old people die. Wow I am surprised.

[Apr 14, 2021] CDC determined surface transmission is not the main route by which SARS-CoV-2 spreads. The risk of transmission is low in this instance

Apr 14, 2021 | angrybearblog.com

run75441 | April 14, 2021 9:21 pm

HEALTHCARE

A few notes catching you up on stuff.

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

[Apr 14, 2021] More False Covid Hysteria

Apr 14, 2021 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Let's start with this blaring headline from the Miami Herald:

White House looks at domestic travel restrictions as COVID mutation surges in Florida For those of you not familiar with my previous pieces on the Florida pandemic as viewed from my perch in the Sarasota/Bradenton area ( A Covid Panic Update and Why Does the Liberal Media Refuse to Report Meaningful Data on COVID? ), I have been a consistent critic of the scare tactics because I look at the actual facts. Here's the latest numbers for February compared to November and December 2020. The percent of patients hospitalized with COVID at Sarasota Memorial Hospital in December was 10.3%. That number now is 6.27%. Do you call that a surge?

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).


Deap , 12 February 2021 at 01:11 PM


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.

Eric Newhill , 12 February 2021 at 02:47 PM

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.

Ghost Ship , 12 February 2021 at 03:54 PM

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."


FWH , 12 February 2021 at 04:35 PM

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."

Posted by: FWH |

Eric Newhill , 12 February 2021 at 05:11 PM

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 +/-.

akaPatience , 12 February 2021 at 05:22 PM

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???

English Outsider , 12 February 2021 at 07:48 PM

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.

Jose , 12 February 2021 at 07:56 PM

Larry, you might be biased, we live in a "sane state" as oppose a democratic "state of fear."

Remember Darth Maul's One Truth, fear is my ally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZE1UM6xpjM

Shanks , 13 February 2021 at 01:48 AM


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

https://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/AttachLive/d3b8ef26-90ec-40ea-a0f4-38556a98d485.pdf

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.

Eric Newhill , 13 February 2021 at 01:12 PM

Seamus Padraig,
Why yes of course.

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.

Fred , 13 February 2021 at 01:18 PM

TTG,

"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.

Deap , 13 February 2021 at 01:40 PM

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.

KMD , 13 February 2021 at 01:50 PM

Here's multiple breakdowns of the CDC's own data. It does not support nationwide lock-downs.

https://kschulzke.github.io/C19/CDC_C19_Excess19.nb.html

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.

Deap , 14 February 2021 at 05:17 PM

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.

https://generaldispatch.whatfinger.com/censored-medical-legal-experts-viva-frei-dr-drew-zdoggmd-roundtable-rubin-report/

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?

[Apr 12, 2021] Education Tragedy in Los Angeles

Apr 12, 2021 | www.wsj.com

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.

M

Mac Moore SUBSCRIBER 43 minutes ago

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.

[Apr 12, 2021] Has the Era of Overzealous Cleaning Finally Come to an End- - The New York Times

Apr 12, 2021 | www.nytimes.com

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.

But the era of " hygiene theater " may have come to an unofficial end this week, when the C.D.C. updated its surface cleaning guidelines and noted that the risk of contracting the virus from touching a contaminated surface was less than 1 in 10,000 .

"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."

ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story

The admission is long overdue, scientists say.

"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."

Special offer: Subscribe for $1 a week.

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
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.

[Apr 12, 2021] Another COVID Myth Dies The Death - ZeroHedge

Apr 12, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Another COVID Myth Dies The Death BY TYLER DURDEN MONDAY, APR 12, 2021 - 05:00 AM

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

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.

Already back in February, AIER reported that something was very wrong about all of this. Studies were already appearing calling the physical-phobic frenzy baseless.

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.

H.L. Mencken

[Apr 12, 2021] 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

Apr 12, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Already back in February, AIER reported that something was very wrong about all of this. Studies were already appearing calling the physical-phobic frenzy baseless.

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.

H.L. Mencken

[Apr 09, 2021] 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

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Apr 09, 2021 | www.wsj.com

Originally from: Stop Taking Shots at Those Who Fear Them - WSJ By Robert M. Kaplan April 8, 2021 6:21 pm ET

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.

[Apr 03, 2021] How 6 feet became 3- Meet an ER doctor behind the research showing kids are still safe in school with new social-distancing s

Apr 03, 2021 | www.marketwatch.com

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."

This Q&A has been edited for clarity and length.

Read more A Word from the Experts interviews:

It's a 'question of time' before another virus jumps from animal to human, says co-inventor of flu treatment Tamiflu. Preventative therapies are needed.

The new B.1.1.7 is a 'superspreader' strain. Here's how the U.S. can control it, says Dr. Eric Topol.

Dr. James Hildreth: Here's how to instill vaccine confidence among people of color

[Apr 02, 2021] Was COVID-19 quarantine worth it?

Apr 02, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

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.

[Apr 01, 2021] NYT reporter against the Atlantic vaccine cheerleaders

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.
In this sense any skeptic is valuable.
Notable quotes:
"... and then that test came back negative. ..."
"... suspected but unconfirmed ..."
Apr 01, 2021 | www.theatlantic.com

Alex Berenson- The Pandemic's Wrongest Man - The Atlantic Derek Thompson, Staff writer at The Atlantic

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 :

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.

Jon D. Lee: The utter familiarity of even the strangest vaccine conspiracy theories

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.

me title=

me title=


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.

me title=

me title=

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."

Read: Coronavirus reinfection will soon become our reality

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."

Renee DiResta: Anti-vaxxers think this is their moment

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.

me title=

me title=

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.

[Apr 01, 2021] "Professor" Neil Ferguson

Apr 01, 2021 | science.slashdot.org

One person stands out... ( Score: 4 , Informative) by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Thursday April 01, 2021 @12:41PM ( #61224618 )

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.

https://statmodeling.stat.colu... [columbia.edu]

https://fort-russ.com/2020/05/... [fort-russ.com]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/ar... [spectator.co.uk] Re:One person stands out... ( Score: 2 ) by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Thursday April 01, 2021 @01:44PM ( #61224940 )

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.

[Apr 01, 2021] 'The Pandemic's Wrongest Man'

Apr 01, 2021 | science.slashdot.org

The pandemic has made fools of many forecasters. Just about all of the predictions whiffed . Anthony Fauci was wrong about masks . California was wrong about the outdoors . New York was wrong about the subways . I was wrong about the necessary cost of pandemic relief . And the Trump White House was wrong about almost everything else .

Fauci has been a disaster ( Score: 2 ) by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Thursday April 01, 2021 @01:55PM ( #61225004 )

He has lied at every turn [reason.com].

And why did the CDC's method for counting deaths change in March 2020 [disquscdn.com]? Summary is Irresponsible without Links ( Score: 3 ) by eepok ( 545733 ) on Thursday April 01, 2021 @02:48PM ( #61225280 ) Homepage

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.

Science works by observation, experiments, and data. "Tradition and order", the 2nd Pillar of US Conservatism, specifically "conserving the values that have been established over centuries" [isi.org] and therefor the idea of "doubling down" no matter what more recent data shows is just part of the fundamental core ideals.

[Mar 31, 2021] The "Unvaccinated" as outcasts by C.J. Hopkins

Mar 31, 2021 | www.unz.com

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.)

In Israel , Estonia , Denmark , Germany , the USA , and other New Normal countries, they have already begun the segregation process. In the UK , it's just a matter of time. The WEF, WHO, EU, and other transnational entities are helping to streamline the new segregation system, which, according to the WEF, " will need to be harmonized by a normative body, such as the WHO, to ensure that is ethical ."

Cowboy , says: March 29, 2021 at 4:26 pm GMT • 2.4 days ago

@follyofwar

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.

Auntie Analogue , says: March 29, 2021 at 5:25 pm GMT • 2.3 days ago

A black market trade in forged been-vaccinated-passports should be expected to debut and thrive.

[Mar 31, 2021] Stupidity and unintended consequences characterize human actions and interactions far more accurately than malice aforethought and design.

Mar 31, 2021 | www.unz.com

Dr. Robert Morgan , says: March 30, 2021 at 4:34 pm GMT • 1.4 days ago

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.

[Mar 31, 2021] 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

Mar 31, 2021 | www.unz.com

Buck Ransom , says: March 30, 2021 at 4:06 am GMT • 1.9 days ago

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.

[Mar 31, 2021] Techno-totalitarism

Mar 31, 2021 | www.unz.com

Dr. Robert Morgan , says: March 29, 2021 at 8:43 pm GMT • 2.2 days ago

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.

[Mar 31, 2021] 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"

Mar 31, 2021 | www.unz.com

Dr. Robert Morgan , says: March 30, 2021 at 4:34 pm GMT • 1.4 days ago

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.

Thomasina , says: March 30, 2021 at 7:15 pm GMT • 1.2 days ago
@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".

Enjoy the Great Reset.

Petermx , says: March 30, 2021 at 4:46 pm GMT • 1.3 days ago
@bcos t">

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.

[Mar 31, 2021] Perhaps the Hindu caste system is a better analogy. The unvaccinated will become Dalit or "untouchable."

Mar 31, 2021 | www.unz.com

Timothy Kelly , says: March 30, 2021 at 5:22 pm GMT • 1.3 days ago

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."

[Mar 30, 2021] There is something rotten in the state of Covid

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/ ..."
Mar 30, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org
gottlieb , Mar 30 2021 16:10 utc | 15

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.


ptb , Mar 30 2021 16:21 utc | 17

@15 gottlieb

Well these aren't vaccines as much as [seasonal] flu-shots.

That seems to be a very significant possibility.

james , Mar 30 2021 16:25 utc | 18

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/

james , Mar 30 2021 16:25 utc | 19

it is hard not to be cynical..

norecovery , Mar 30 2021 16:53 utc | 23

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.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJZxiNxYLpc

"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 ?] [inaudible] I mean, that wouldn't matter if you could eradicate if you could prevent infection. But these vaccines don't preven