The doctor Andrew Kaufman says you can’ t catch a virus , the viruses we’re told about in school don’t really exist , viruses are produced inside of cells to combat toxins and the PCR tests in so-called coronavirus patients are just testing for exosomes produced by cells under stress from toxins .
Is there any evidence that a virus is contagious ?
Coronavirus lockdowns have ‘destroyed millions of livelihoods’ but failed to alter the course of the pandemic given many US states have seen lower infection rates after easing restrictions, a JP Morgan study has claimed.
The statistical analysis has raised questions about the effectiveness of the lockdowns put in place across much of the United States two months ago to stop the spread of COVID-19.
It suggests that the lockdown measures have not only resulted in economic devastation but could have also resulted in more COVID-19 deaths.
The strict stay-at-home measures put in place by the governors of most states in mid-March has so far seen nearly 39 million American lose their jobs and forced businesses to close.
There are now more than 1.6 million infections in the US and over 95,000 deaths.
‘Unlike rigorous testing of potential new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than COVID-19 itself,’ author Marko Kolanovic, a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan, said.
The JP Morgan report says that restarting the US economy may not lead to a second surge in infections that health experts have feared given the falling infections rates seen since lockdown measures were lifted in parts of the country
The report also includes a chart showing that ‘the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates’ after lockdowns were lifted. The chart, however, doesn’t specify which country is which
The JP Morgan report says that restarting the US economy may not lead to a second surge in infections that health experts have feared given the falling infections rates seen since lockdown measures were lifted in parts of the country.
Almost all states have seen lower infection reproduction rates (R rates) after lockdown measures were lifted, according to the report.
Meanwhile, Nevada, Rhode Island, Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvannia are the states where infection rates increased after lockdowns ended, according to the report.
Infection rates have continued to decline even once a lag period for new infections to become visible is factored in, according to the report.
A chart included in the report shows that many US states have seen a lower rate of transmission (R rate) after full-scale lockdowns were ended.
The R rate is the average number of people who will become infected by one person with the virus. Researchers and health experts have said a rate below 1.0 is a key indicator that the spread of the virus has been maintained.
Reproduction rate data from Rt.live on Friday showed that all but two states had lowered the rate of infection.
According to that data, Minnesota’s R rate was 1.01 and North Dakota’s was at 1.02.
The report also includes a chart showing that ‘the vast majority of countries had decreased infection rates’ after lockdowns were lifted. The chart, however, doesn’t specify which country is which.
Reproduction rate data from Rt.live (pictured above) on Friday showed that all but two states had lowered the rate of infection. According to that data, Minnesota’s R rate was 1.01 and North Dakota’s was at 1.02
All 50 states have at least partially reopened this week by relaxing restrictions on businesses and social distancing in varying degrees across the country.
Kolanovic said governments had been spooked by ‘flawed scientific papers’ into imposing lockdowns that were ‘inefficient or late’ and had little effect.
‘While we often hear that lockdowns are driven by scientific models, and that there is an exact relationship between the level of economic activity and the spread of [the] virus – this is not supported by the data,’ the report says.
‘Indeed, virtually everywhere infection rates have declined after re-opening even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.
‘This means that the pandemic and COVID-19 likely have (their) own dynamics unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures that were being implemented.’
Those dynamics may be influenced by increased hand-washing and even weather patterns but seemingly not by full-scale lockdowns, the report suggests.
‘The fact that re-opening did not change the course of the pandemic is consistent with studies showing that initiation of full lockdowns did not alter the course of the pandemic either,’ it says.
The JP Morgan analysis linked the decision to impose lockdowns to ‘flawed scientific papers’ predicting millions of deaths in the West.
‘This on its own was odd, given that in China there were only several thousand deaths, and the mortality rate outside of Wuhan was very low,’ the report says.
‘In the absence of conclusive data, these lockdowns were justified initially. Nonetheless, many of these efforts were inefficient or late.’
All 50 states have at least partially reopened this week by relaxing restrictions on businesses and social distancing in varying degrees across the country
Kolanovic says that lockdowns had remained in place even as ‘our knowledge of the virus and lack of effectiveness of total lockdowns evolved’.
‘Despite the conditions for re-opening being mostly met across the US, it is not yet happening in the largest economic regions for example California and New York,’ he said.
‘While our knowledge of the virus and lack of effectiveness of total lockdowns evolved, lockdowns remained in place and focus shifted to contact tracing, contemplating second wave of outbreaks and ideas about designing better education, political and economic systems.
‘At the same time, millions of livelihoods were being destroyed by these lockdowns.’
The US and other countries in lockdown are having to blow huge holes in their budgets to counter the economic standstill that is forcing millions of people into unemployment.
The report cites ‘worrying populism’ as an obstacle to re-opening the economy, for example in the US where senators passed an anti-China measure this week.
It warns that economic activity in the US is ‘now largely following partisan lines’ as Republican and Democratic governors adopt different strategies for their states.
As well as casting doubt on the wisdom of imposing lockdowns in the first place, the report suggests that economies could now be re-opened more quickly.
In other parts of the world, Denmark is among the countries that has started re-opening its economy without seeing a new surge in virus cases.
Americans across the country have protested the strict lockdowns. Pictured above are protesters in Lansing, Michigan
People walk along a street closed to vehicle traffic as the city expands areas for pedestrians to walk and to keep a recommended safe distance in New York City
Zoos, museums and cinemas have re-opened early in Denmark with many children now back at school after scientists said the R rate had continued to fall.
Germany has also been confident enough to scale back the lockdown after the R rate mostly stayed below 1.0 following an initial lifting of restrictions.
However, chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly urged caution and warned that a second wave of virus cases could leave hospitals overwhelmed.
The UK government has similarly warned that some restrictions could be re-imposed if there is a ‘sudden and concerning’ rise in new cases.
Sweden has never imposed a lockdown, and its per-capita death rate is better than Britain’s – although worse than that of its Scandinavian neighbours.
The World Health Organisation has urged ‘extreme vigilance’ about lifing lockdowns, saying there is ‘always the risk that the virus takes off again’.
WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that some countries such as Germany and South Korea had systems in place to respond to a new surge.
Tedros said that a ‘comprehensive package of measures’ is needed until a vaccine becomes available, which is likely to be many months away at least.
It is not yet fully clear how many people have been infected or to what extent they are now immune, but most people remain susceptible.
UK Chief Medic confirms (again) covid19 harmless to vast majority
From the beginning of this crisis we have been pointing out that there are two mutually contradictory messages at the heart of the covid19 rollout, and, just as Orwell describes in 1984, a major point of the exercise seems to be to get people to believe both at the same time.
1. ‘Be Afraid…’
The first message is that covid19 is terrifying, unique, an existential threat to the human race.
This message is never sourced to much fact, because the facts about the virus don’t really support it. If it cites anything solid it’s the appallingly sloppy and discredited Imperial computer model, or some generic research into the pathology of severe infections or rare viral syndromes, which it tries to spin as being unique to covid19, even though it is not. But mostly it doesn’t cite anything at all. Or really claim anything at all.
It just tells people to be afraid. Very afraid. Of death, of uncertainty, of the ‘virus’, of other people, of ‘fake news’.
The fear being encouraged is not rooted in facts, and is therefore impervious to them.
2. ‘There is nothing to be afraid of…’
The second message is that covid19 is actually pretty harmless and no big deal.
This message is rooted in a great deal of fact, because, as we have been pointing out since day one, pretty much all the data coming out about this virus supports exactly this conclusion.
No official body has ever denied this, and most of them readily admit it. Regularly and unambiguously. Here and here and here and here.
All these sources admit the virus is ‘mild’ or even asymptomatic in the majority of cases, and chiefly a danger only to the already ailing or severely immuno-compromised. Just as most coronaviruses are.
So, Chris Whitty above is only one of many to point this out and this is not even his first go (see here) at explaining clearly that covid19 is only dangerous to a very very small minority of people, and that most who get it will be just fine.
Here’s a slide from his talk on April 30th:
Now, let’s look at what he is saying in the above video, on May 11th [our emphasis]:
[T]he great majority of people will not die from this and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:
Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.
Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens.
Of those who get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease. Might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor.
An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital.
And then a minority of those will end up having to go to severe end critical care and some of those sadly will die.
But that’s a minority, it’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall.
And even in the highest risk group this is significantly less than 20%, ie. the great majority of people, even the very highest groups, if they catch this virus, will not die.
And I really wanted to make that point really clearly…
It seems all the officials want ‘to make that point really clearly’, even while they behave as if it was not true.
There’s plenty of room for speculation there, and we leave it to readers to get into that BTL.
The motives, though, are less important than the basic and undeniable fact – the fear currently gripping the public mind is being simultaneously encouraged and acknowledged as unnecessary by the bodies overseeing the ‘response’.
And if enough people would wake up to the pea-and-thimble trick being pulled on them, then the most dangerous and far-reaching coup against human liberty we have ever seen would essentially be stopped in its tracks.
Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
Dr. Knut Wittkowski strikes again, giving us a retrospective on where we’re at with this non-event virus scare. He recently gave an interview to Spiked online magazine, which we’ve summarized below.
Wittkowski was head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science for 20 years. We remind readers of an article we published on this doctor’s sensible, science-based perspective, titled Epidemiologist: Coronavirus could be ‘exterminated’ if lockdowns were lifted. The video from this article has been removed by Youtube, predictably, so we’re linking to it from a Facebook(!) page below. The transcript to this interview can be found at Perspectives on the Pandemic II by John Kirby, Libby Handros and Lee Davis.
A recurring theme in the interview is that, ‘very early on, we knew from China and we knew from South Korea that this is an epidemic that runs its course, and there was nothing special about it.’
Reiterating the well-known point that covid is only dangerous to those having ‘age-related severe comorbidities’, and that people in nursing homes are very vulnerable, he says that the virus is now over in China and South Korea. Further,
‘It is substantially down in most of Europe and down a bit everywhere, even in the UK. The UK and Belarus are latecomers, so you do not see exactly what you are seeing in continental Europe. But everywhere in Europe, the number of cases is substantially declining.’
Protecting the hospitals was completely misguided. The original reason given for the lockdown, he says, was to ‘prevent hospitals from become overloaded’ but he says that this couldn’t have happened anyway, irrespective of the approach taken. ‘Flattening the curve’, i.e. prolonging the epidemic, was only ever about spreading out the same number of cases ‘over a longer period of time because otherwise the hospitals would not have enough capacity,’ but the vast majority do not end up in hospital:
The ideal approach would [have been] to simply shut the door of the nursing homes and keep the personnel and the elderly locked in for a certain amount of time, and pay the staff overtime to stay there for 24 hours per day.
On herd immunity, studies done so far show ‘that we already have at least 25 per cent of the population who are immune… If 25 per cent of the population are already immune, we are very quickly getting to the 50 per cent that we need to have what is called herd immunity. We will actually get a bit higher than that…’ It wouldn’t actually be a problem to let the infection run its course because ‘we already have enough immune people in the population.’
On the newly-touted second spike by the MSM, he says ‘this is an invention to justify a policy that politicians are afraid of reversing.’
Social distancing? ‘No’:
People need to ask the government for an explanation. The government is restricting freedom. You do not have to ask me for justification. There is no justification.
Fingering our governments for listening to Neil Ferguson, ‘who has a history of coming up with projections that are a bit odd’, ‘the government did not convene a meeting with people who have different ideas, different projections, to discuss his projection. If it had done that, it could have seen where the fundamental flaw was…’, of assuming that one percent of all infected people would die. Neither in Wuhan nor South Korea ‘did one per cent of all people infected die… The South Korean government was extremely proud to have resisted pressure to drop the very basic concepts of democracy.’ He continues:
‘The epidemic in South Korea was over by March, the number of cases was down by 13 March. In Wuhan they also did not shut down the economy…We have seen, then, in Wuhan and South Korea, if you do not do anything, the epidemic is over in three weeks… one per cent of all people infected does not make any sense. And we had that evidence by mid-March.
On the situation in Italy, Wittkowski fingers the policy of shutting schools so that children, who are generally not affected by the virus, didn’t achieve immunity:
But then, Italy did an illogical thing. It closed schools so that the schoolchildren were isolated and did not get infected and did not become immune. Instead, the virus spread almost exclusively among the old, causing more deaths and a higher utilisation of hospitals. And that is mind-boggling.
Very early on, we knew from China and we knew from South Korea that this is an epidemic that runs its course, and there was nothing special about it. But when it hit Italy, we stopped thinking about it as an age-stratified problem, and instead lumped everyone all together. The idea that if we did not shut down the schools, the hospitals would have been overwhelmed does not make any sense. I frankly still cannot fully understand how our governments can be so stupid.
On the topic of certain scientists having the power to dispense strange advice to our governments, he claims the problem lies in scientists being dependent on government funding:
Scientists are in a very strange situation. They now depend on government funding, which is a trend that has developed over the past 40 years. Before that, when you were a professor at a university, you had your salary and you had your freedom. Now, the university gives you a desk and access to the library. And then you have to ask for government money and write grant applications. If you are known to criticise the government, what does that do to your chance of getting funded? It creates a huge conflict of interest. The people who are speaking out in Germany and Switzerland are all independent of government money because they are retired.
Sweden, he continues, generally took the right approach despite the heat they took for it, except for their large nursing homes, which were not closed and where the largest number of deaths took place:
They decided to keep society open and they forgot to close nursing homes. Remarkably, the politicians acknowledged that it was a mistake to extend that open concept to nursing homes. The nursing homes should have been isolated to protect the elderly who are at high risk.
So the US’ first death in a Seattle nursing home in February gave a strong indication of what was to come, plus Italy’s situation of deaths among the elderly, yet New York State recently ‘told the nursing homes that if they did not take in patients from hospitals, they would lose their funding. So they would have to import the virus from the hospitals.’ 20,000 deaths in the United States could have been prevented by just isolating the nursing homes. ‘After three or four weeks, they could have reopened and everybody would be happy.’
That would have been a reasonable strategy. But shutting down schools, driving the economy against the wall – there was no reason for it. The only reason that this nonsense now goes on and on, and people are inventing things like this ‘second wave’, which is going to force us to change society and never live again, is that the politicians are afraid of admitting an error.
And it’s not a matter of hindsight, either. The Wuhan and South Korean epidemics were over by mid-March, and the data had officially been collected and published on it.
to read the rest, go to the source of the article: https://www.europereloaded.com/dr-knut-wittkowski-strikes-again-we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/
ER Editor: How the Globalist Media Do It. In this case, Canadian.
Dr. Joel Kettner (pictured), a Manitoba doctor, professor and top health administrator and veteran of 30 years and 30 pandemics, expresses a number of concerns not only with the puzzling position taken by WHO, but also the deleterious social, psychological and economic consequences for the public currently underway. And provides some statistics from Hubei Province in China, which completely undercuts the whole fear-panic narrative. He is finally cut off by CBC interviewer Duncan McCue, who then completely changes tack by talking about … Trump.
Note that one of the invited doctors onto this radio broadcast is pushing for more ‘flu vaccines, as is the public health agency of Canada, which are correlating with higher rates of the very disease that they’re supposed to PREVENT. This doctor is also ‘terrified’ of COVID. That seems to be the narrative we’re supposed to accept everywhere: immense fear and Big Pharma solutions. It is certainly the case here in France.
The relevant part of the radio program runs for about 6 or so minutes (linked to below), and is worth listening to. A transcription is provided.
LISTEN: CBC Radio cuts off expert when he questions Covid19 narrative
A phone interview with a respected physician appears to have been cut short by CBC Radio when the Doctor went off-script
Dr Joel Kettner phoned into the March 15th episode of CBC’s Cross Country Checkup podcast to discuss the Canadian (and international) reaction to the Covid19 pandemic. He was in the middle of making a point about statistics when the host abruptly cut him off.
While the two invited guests were very much taking the governmental line on the threat of Covid19, Dr Kettner was striking a different tone.
Duncan McCue (DM, Host):Dr Joel Kettner is on the line from Manitoba. Hi, Dr Kettner welcome to Checkup. You teach at the University of Manitoba and are former Chief Medical Officer of Manitoba, I understand. So what do you think of how we are coping right now?
Dr Joel Kettner (JK): Well I don’t know what to think, frankly, but I’ll tell you what I do think. First, I wanna say that in 30 years of public health medicine I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why. I have to say that I really feel for my colleagues that are in public health practice. it is easy for me to sit in the armchair of my office and look at this and observe it, and be critical and have ideas. But I really feel for them for three reasons.
One is that the data they are getting is incomplete to really make sense of the size of the threat. We are getting very crude numbers of cases and deaths, very little information about testing rates, contagious analysis, severity rates, who is being hospitalised, who is in intensive care, who is dying, what are the definitions to decide if someone died of the coronavirus or just died with the coronavirus.
There is so much important data that is very hard to get to guide the decisions on how serious a threat this is.
The other part is we actually do not have that much good evidence for the social distancing methods. It was just a couple of reviews in the CDC emerging infectious disease journal, which showed that although some of them might work, we really don’t know to what degree and the evidence is pretty weak.
The third part is the pressure that is being put on public health doctors and public health leaders. And that pressure is coming from various places. The first place it came from was the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) when he said “This is a grave threat and a public enemy number one”.I have never heard a Director-General of WHO use terms like that.
Then when he announced the pandemic, he said he was doing it “because of a grave alarming quick spread of the disease and an alarming amount of inaction around the world” that puts a huge pressure on public health doctors and leaders and advisors and huge pressure on governments, and then you get this what seems like a cascade of decision making that really puts pressure on the countries and governments– provincial, state – to sort of…to keep up with this action that Dr Hoffman [an earlier guest on the programme] said that we are trying to avoid, or should avoid, which is an overreaction. I don’t know what is an appropriate reaction, but I do know that I am having trouble trying to figure this out and I…
[INTERRUPTED BY HOST]
DM: …So I’m sure that your medical colleagues across the country are probably nodding their heads when you say they don’t have enough data, that they lack data. I suspect health professionals around the world wish they had more data, whether it is testing rates, severity rates, all that kind of thing. So it’s probably a valid concern. But you mentioned that you are not confident with some of the literature with regard to social distancing and its effectiveness […] What is the basis of your concern then? If social distancing is debatable in your mind, what do you worry about then?
JK: I worry about the consequences of social distancing. I worry about people who are losing their jobs. I worry about interruptions with the healthcare system itself. There are many doctors in Manitoba in quarantine right now, because they have returned from other countries. I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.
If you look at the data for what we are actually dealing with, I want to give this example. In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1,000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000.So maybe that would help to put things into perspective, as to the actual rate and risks of this condition, because it is a lot lower in any other part of the world, including Italy, and certainly in Canada and the United States…
[INTERRUPTED BY HOST AGAIN, INTERVIEW OVER]
Many thanks to Cory Morningstar for bringing this to our attention. She is doing great work collating dissident voices on the coronavirus, follow her on twitter if you don’t already.
Correction 18/03/20 – The original version of this article incorrectly suggested Kettner was an invited guest of the programme, when in reality he phoned in of his own volition.
While COVID-19 meets the technical definition of a pandemic, the death toll is nowhere near that of earlier serious pandemics that would legitimately justify the extraordinary measures being deployed by the U.S. government
An estimated 75 million to 200 million people in Eurasia and as much as 60% of the European population in rural areas were wiped out by the Black Death (bubonic plague) between 1347 and 1351
The Spanish flu (swine flu), which hit during World War I in 1918, infected 500 million people worldwide, killing an estimated 50 million, or 2.7% of the global population
Using the higher of two prominent COVID-19 trackers, 238,950 people had died, globally, from COVID-19 as of the afternoon on May 2, 2020. Based on a global population of 7.8 billion, 238,950 deaths amount to 0.003% of the global population
Mid-March predictions said COVID-19 would kill 2.2 million Americans if allowed to run its course. April 8, 2020, the Murray Model downgraded the threat to 60,000 dead by August, which is lower than the death toll for the seasonal flu of 2017/2018
While COVID-19 meets the technical definition1 of a pandemic (i.e., “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”), the death toll is nowhere near that of earlier serious pandemics2 that would legitimately justify the extraordinary measures being deployed by the U.S. government and others around the globe.
The Black Death
For comparison, the “Black Death,” which swept through Europe between 1347 and 1351 and kept resurfacing at intervals for the next 300 years, decimated up to one-third of the population with each recurrence.3,4
While the Black Death was long thought to be the same as the bubonic plague, in more recent years, researchers have questioned this assumption,5 and at least some of the evidence suggests they were not the same disease.
Either way, the plague killed 75 million to 200 million people in Eurasia, with deaths peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.6 As much as 60% of the European population in rural areas were wiped out by the Black Death in the first four-year-long pandemic wave. People died within days of having symptoms.7 This horrific lethality is typically what people think of when they hear the word “pandemic.”
The Spanish Flu
Similarly, the Spanish flu (aka, swine flu), which hit during World War I in 1918, infected 500 million people worldwide, killing an estimated 50 million, or 2.7% of the global population.8
It killed 675,000 in the U.S. alone — more than died in combat during World War I, World War II, the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, according to the historical documentary above.
Like the bubonic plague, the Spanish flu was a very rapid killer, causing death in as little as 12 hours. Like the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the virus also spread very easily and rapidly. Unlike COVID-19, however, people between the ages of 20 and 40 were most susceptible to the infection.
With COVID-19, it’s the elderly and immune compromised that are at greatest risk, but even in these high-risk groups, the mortality rate is nowhere near that of the Spanish flu.
Data points vary, and mortality statistics differ widely depending on the country and area you’re looking at, but using the higher of two prominent COVID-19 trackers — Worldometer,9 opposed to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center10 — 238,950 people had died, globally, from COVID-19 as of the afternoon on May 2, 2020.
Based on a global population of 7.8 billion,11 238,950 deaths amount to 0.003% of the global population. Even if this tally is off by hundreds of thousands, we’re still only looking at a fraction of a percent of the global population succumbing to COVID-19 in three and a half months.
April 15, there were also 1,403,420 active cases, 96% of which were mild and only 4% of which were serious or critical,12 so clearly, a vast majority of people who are infected make it through and end up having antibodies that will confer long-term immunity.
I for one could see shutting down the global economy for a true plague or something much like the Spanish flu, but COVID-19 simply doesn’t warrant the draconian elimination of personal freedom and liberty we’re currently seeing. Nor is it serious enough to warrant the kinds of long-term surveillance strategies suggested by Bill Gates
Understand What’s Happening Right Now
The Corbett Report above is well worth listening to if you’re still on the fence and think the way we’re going is a good idea to safeguard the vulnerable. Remember, infectious diseases have been with us since the dawn of mankind, and are not going to stop. Ever.
Right now, we’re being told that we have to forgo our civil liberties because we might spread a virus to a potentially vulnerable individual, and if that happens, we’re culpable in their death. So, to prevent “mass homicide” from occurring by people moving about freely, we’re told we have to isolate ourselves and stop living.
Yet every single flu season throughout history, people have moved about, spreading the infection around. Undoubtedly, most people who have ever left their house with a cold, stomach bug or other influenza at any point in the past has unwittingly spread the infection to others, some of which may have ended up with a serious case of illness and some of which may ultimately have died from it.
There is simply no way to prevent such a chain of events in perpetuity. Giving up our civil liberties in an effort to prevent all future deaths from infectious disease is profoundly misguided, and ultimately will not work anyway.
From my perspective, the only mitigating factor in this analysis is that there appears to be solid, well-documented evidence that this is an engineered virus, one that was constructed in biosafety level 3 and 4 labs that are focused on offensive biological weapons research. This may result in unprecedented adverse biological adaptions that impair innate immunity. But at this time, I seriously doubt it.
Mortality Predictions Fall Apart
Mid-March predictions said COVID-19 would kill 2.2 million Americans if allowed to run its course.13 By the end of March, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, downgraded the projected death toll, saying we were probably looking at 100,000 to 240,000 Americans dying.14
April 8, 2020, a new model referred to as the Murray Model15 downgraded the threat further, predicting COVID-19 will kill 60,000 in the U.S. by August16 — a number that is still 20,000 lower than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s death toll numbers attributed to the seasonal flu the winter of 2017/2018.17
In the Liberty Report video above, Dr. Ron Paul, former GOP congressman, also points out that Fauci’s “doom and gloom predictions” have completely collapsed, “with the new official prediction coming in under the normal flu numbers for 2018.”
If COVID-19 is not causing any greater death toll than the regular flu season two years ago, why are we now asked to end society as we know it well into the foreseeable future? There’s no doubt in my mind that there will be far more deaths attributable to the financial collapse and isolation than there will be from the actual infection.
H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic Response Was a Gift to Big Pharma
The H1N1 swine flu of 2009 was the most recent pandemic of note, and considering Fauci and Gates are both saying we won’t be able (read, allowed) to go back to any semblance of normalcy until or unless we have a vaccine and enforce mandatory vaccination of the global population, it’s worth remembering what happened during the 2009 swine flu pandemic.
The CDC estimates that from April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, there were 60.8 million cases of H1N1 infection, 274,000 hospitalizations, and 12,469 deaths (0.02% infection fatality rate/mortality rate) in the United States.
June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic of novel influenza A (H1N1).18 A vaccine was rapidly unveiled, and within months, cases of disability and death from the H1N1 vaccine were reported in various parts of the world.
In the aftermath, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) questioned the WHO’s handling of the pandemic. In June 2010, PACE concluded “the handling of the pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU health agencies and national governments led to a ‘waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.’”19
Specifically, PACE concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making.20 As reported by the Natural Society in 2014:21
“… a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) has uncovered some serious conflicts of interest between the World Health Organization (WHO), who proposed … heavy vaccinations, and the pharmaceutical companies which created them.
The joint-investigation’s report explains that the WHO profited immensely22 from the scare tactics they utilized to promote the use of a swine flu vaccine.
Creating mass hysteria was the WHO’s emergency advisory committee’s goal … The WHO told the world that up to 7 million people could die without the vaccines they were pushing … The advisory panel was choked with individuals highly connected to the pharmaceutical companies with vested interests in both antiviral and influenza vaccines.
An over $4 billion stake was invested in developing these vaccines, and without a pandemic there would be no use for them. Utilizing propaganda and fear, the drugs were pushed on unsuspecting people, and the money was made.”
Disturbingly, while the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then, which makes one wonder whether the WHO’s COVID-19 pandemic response can actually be trusted.
White House Halts Funding to WHO
To Read the rest of the article and get links that may not have been included, go to: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/02/how-does-covid-19-compare-to-the-spanish-flu.aspx
Lockdowns: looks like an op, smells like an op, walks six feet apart like an op
by Jon Rappoport
May 6, 2020
We don’t need Rahm Emanuel to tell us a crisis shouldn’t go to waste. It’s a strategy that probably got off the ground a hundred thousand years ago. The other half of it is, create the crisis to begin with. Then don’t waste it.
The Bill Gates plan involves a mother of all vaccines for COVID, mandated across the globe, before the lockdowns end. That’s his psychopathic wet dream. Then, coming in behind that, his lackey, the World Health Organization, along with the professional liars at the CDC, will add—“we must mandate EVERY vaccine…”
To pull off a mandated global vaccine for eight billion people takes a manufactured crisis.
Fake virus plus real lockdown is the crisis.
You don’t think that one up overnight. You plan. You drill, and you organize. You put all your ducks in a row. You prepare, in order to become Stalin and Mao.
Then somebody has to break the ice.
In this case, it was the Chinese regime—locking down 50 million people overnight in three cities. Moving quickly to a hundred million.
“If the Chinese did it, we can do it, too. We must.”
Then follow up with a dire prediction. Where will that come from? “Let’s dust off that broken-down hack, Neil Ferguson. He’ll give us what we want. He always does. Tell him to slap together one of his computer models. You know, predictions of lots of deaths up the road. Half a million in the UK, a couple of million in the US. Fauci will salute it like money.”
Drive people back into their homes. Put them out of work. Shut down businesses. Wreck economies.
NOW, hold out the carrot. The vaccine.
Note: A new COVID vaccine could be used to alter the genetic makeup of humans. That’s exactly what the emerging (and as yet unlicensed) DNA technology does. It’s a form of gene therapy, now in clinical trials—and, officially, one of the “competing candidates” for a COVID vaccine.
The New York Times, 3/10/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes a frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was five years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”
Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Permanent alteration.
The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:
“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”
Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.
Even if we (falsely) assume this is an epidemic caused by a virus, the official case numbers—as I’ve described in a recent article—do NOT warrant nearly as much concern as annual official flu numbers.
And, of course, NO lockdowns faintly resembling what we have now have ever been recommended, much less enforced, for flu.
And there is no mandated global flu vaccine.
Therefore, a planet-wide, mandated COVID vaccine, as a get-out-of-jail-card, is absurd.
The freedom to reject the vaccine MUST be protected.
The actual conspiracy theorists—Gates, WHO, CDC—who invented the conspiracy, must also be rejected.
In this explosive interview, Spiro Skouras is joined by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny. The two discuss the latest developments regarding the coronavirus situation which was declared a global health pandemic by the Gates-funded World Health Organization, as more information comes to light questioning the need for a global lockdown.
Dr. Tenpenny and Spiro examine and explore the motives of the global response by governments, global institutions and private interests, as Dr. Tenpenny exposes perhaps the most alarming aspect of the crisis yet!
No, it is not the virus, it is the blank check issued to the vaccine and drug manufacturers, which not only provides unlimited funding, but also provides blanket immunity to Big Pharma for any harm attributed with the treatments produced during the declared emergency, including all drugs and vaccines.
This blanket immunity is provided by the US government under the PREP Act and provides the drug and vaccine manufacturers the ‘Ultimate Blank Check’ during a declared emergency. As Dr. Tenpenny points out, the vaccine and drug manufacturers have zero incentive to produce a safe product, as the declared emergency not only rolls back regulatory standards and removes them from any and all liability, but it also ensures the government will purchase their products.
This is an unprecedented level of immunity which raises many questions and safety concerns.
The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
By Dr. Scott W. Atlas, Opinion Contributor — 04/22/20 12:30 PM EDT 10,923
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.
Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.
Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.
In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.
Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent per 100,000. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded “age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization.” Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falselyportrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.
The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.
Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
Email Addresses And Passwords From WHO, NIH, Wuhan Lab, And Gates Foundation Dumped On 4chan
A cache of nearly 25,000 email addresses and passwords allegedly belonging to the World Health Organization (WHO), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wuhan Institute of Virology, Bill Gates Foundation and several other groups involved with the coronavirus pandemic response were dumped on 4chan before appearing on several other websites, according to the SITE Intelligence Group.
The report by SITE, based in Bethesda, Md., said the largest group of alleged emails and passwords was from the NIH, with 9,938 found on lists posted online. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had the second-highest number, with 6,857. The World Bank had 5,120. The list of WHO addresses and passwords totaled 2,732. –Washington Post
WHO chief information officer Bernardo Mariano told Bloombergthat the organization wasn’t hacked, and that the data was possibly obtained through prior data breaches.
“The employees may have used their work email address to register an account for a particular website, and then that website has been hacked, leaking their password.”
According to Mariano, 400 of the credentials were still active – and he claims that none of the passwords were used to access sensitive information due to the organization’s two-factor authentication system. 4chan users, on the other hand, said that they were able to use the passwords to gain access to a WHO website called “Extranet,” according to Bloomberg.
Mariano added that the organization has been seeing an increasing number of attempted cyber-intrusions since mid-March, and that there had recently been a “sustained attempt” to hack into the computers of four WHO employees in South Korea, along with the organization’s Geneva headquarters.
4chan users said they were using the credentials to download ‘everything’ they could.
An unverified photo posted as part of the dump appears to refer to “Splicing HIV” into “coronavirus,” fueling speculation that COVID-19 was genetically engineered with HIV spike proteins – a theory posted by Indian researchers soon after the virus’s genome was published, and later withdrawn after their findings were refuted.
The Gates Foundation told WaPo “We are monitoring the situation in line with our data security practices. We don’t currently have an indication of a data breach at the foundation.”
If legit, someone named Mararet at the Gates Foundation (last name withheld) is apparently a fan of the dark lord:
Australian cybersecurity expert Robert Potter said he was able to verify the WHO information, and that “their password security is appalling.”
“Forty-eight people have ‘password’ as their password,” he said. Others used their own first names or “changeme.”
Potter said the alleged email addresses and passwords may have been purchased from vendors on the dark Web, a portion of the Internet that is not indexed by most search engines and where hacked information often is posted for sale. He said the WHO credentials appear to have come from a hack in 2016. –Washington Post