+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst 1 8 18 19 LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 363

Thread: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

  1. Link to Post #341
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    11,127
    Thanks
    25,844
    Thanked 56,577 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Yahoo News UK
    Coronavirus death toll disputed after PHE accused of ‘exaggerating COVID-linked deaths’

    Yahoo News UK
    https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronaviru...093838013.html

    Matt Hancock has ordered an urgent review into how Public Health England (PHE) calculates daily coronavirus death figures after experts criticised “flaws” in the way they are recorded.

    Concerns have been raised that the reported death toll in England appears so high in contrast to neighbouring countries because of flaws in the way PHE is compiling “out of hospital” death statistics, including anyone who has ever been diagnosed with COVID-19 — even if they did not necessarily die from the disease.

    Epidemiologist Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, said the figures record people who have ever tested positive for coronavirus and then have died.

    In a blog post on The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s website, they said: “PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community.

    “Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.

    “By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness. A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.”

    Public Health England defended its reporting, telling Yahoo News UK it had been right to include all deaths up until now because COVID-19 is a new infection and there is “increasing evidence of long term health problems for some of those affected”.

    Dr Susan Hopkins, Public Health England Incident Director, welcomed the review, indicating the way England accounts for its death toll could soon change.

    The professors said the system explains why PHE figures vary substantially from day to day.

    They added: “It’s time to fix this statistical flaw that leads to an over-exaggeration of COVID-associated deaths.

    “One reasonable approach would be to define community COVID-related deaths as those that occurred within 21 days of a COVID positive test result.

    “In summary, PHE’s definition of the daily death figures means that everyone who has ever had COVID at any time must die with COVID too. So, the COVID death toll in Britain up to July 2020 will eventually exceed 290k, if the follow-up of every test-positive patient is of long enough duration.”

    Health secretary Matt Hancock is expected to order an urgent review into the situation, clarifying any confusion over coronavirus deaths.

    On the Government death statistics website for England, the issue is acknowledged, saying: “Deaths are counted where a lab-confirmed positive coronavirus test result is reported in any setting.

    “This means that not all deaths reported here are caused by coronavirus.”

    Dr Susan Hopkins, Public Health England Incident Director, said: “Although it may seem straightforward, there is no WHO agreed method of counting deaths from COVID-19. In England, we count all those that have died who had a positive COVID-19 test at any point, to ensure our data is as complete as possible.

    “We must remember that this is a new and emerging infection and there is increasing evidence of long term health problems for some of those affected. Whilst this knowledge is growing, now is the right time to review how deaths are calculated.”

    A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “The Health Secretary has asked Public Health England to conduct an urgent review into the reporting of deaths statistics, aimed at providing greater clarity on the number of fatalities related to Covid-19 as we move past the peak of the virus.

    It seems to me that some of the truth is coming out -- regarding inflated figure.
    Chris
    In general what I post, is to my mind, a "MAY BE SO"

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    kfm27917 (28th July 2020), Sunny (18th July 2020), Tintin (21st July 2020), TomKat (1st August 2020)

  3. Link to Post #342
    United States Avalon Member Chester's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,639
    Thanks
    32,166
    Thanked 29,477 times in 5,270 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    An acquaintance of mine (some I have come to love and respect most greatly) has the following - a Twitter site that relates to this thread's intentions - https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic



    Check his entire feed as it is full of excellent information - here's an example:

    Last edited by Chester; 17th July 2020 at 14:50.
    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chester For This Post:

    greybeard (17th July 2020), justntime2learn (17th July 2020), kfm27917 (28th July 2020), onevoice (17th July 2020), Tintin (21st July 2020), wondering (21st July 2020)

  5. Link to Post #343
    Netherlands Avalon Member
    Join Date
    19th April 2013
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 596 times in 106 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    No idea wether this was allready posted before, if so excusez moi.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mypos For This Post:

    East Sun (2nd August 2020), greybeard (21st July 2020), justntime2learn (21st July 2020), thepainterdoug (21st July 2020)

  7. Link to Post #344
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2016
    Posts
    597
    Thanks
    1,472
    Thanked 4,011 times in 571 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Try this!!!

    Go to Google's search bar.

    Type in any 3 digits and then " new cases".

    See what you get.

    I managed to get different numbers showing up for the same province.

    Give this treat to anyone who thinks that we are not being played.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patient For This Post:

    greybeard (22nd July 2020), kfm27917 (28th July 2020)

  9. Link to Post #345
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    11,127
    Thanks
    25,844
    Thanked 56,577 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Covid 19 "V" Prof. Dolores J. Cahill - Truth Edit



    Debunking coronavirus with Dr Dolores Cahill. Biologist/Immunologist




    She is acknowledged as top authority on her subject in the world.
    Well worth taking the time to watch.
    Chris
    Ps this may seem off topic and can be moved if deemed to be so but it all comes under the heading of eradicating virus.
    ch
    Last edited by greybeard; 22nd July 2020 at 12:48.
    In general what I post, is to my mind, a "MAY BE SO"

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    kfm27917 (28th July 2020), Sunny (24th July 2020), TomKat (1st August 2020)

  11. Link to Post #346
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    373
    Thanks
    967
    Thanked 1,586 times in 346 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    WOW, just WOW!

    I am doing some research for a website article.

    I just discovered some data that if accurate, confirms what many here have been saying all along.

    This COVID-19 is a big fat NOTHING BURGER!

    I had previously dug up seasonal flu death stats for a few countries and compared them with Covid-19 death stats.

    For the U.S. in particular, they lumped the flu with pneumonia, so I just compared total all-cause deaths from the last five years to this year.
    With Covid-19, the U.S. is seeing just a 5.5% increase in all-cause deaths this year.

    Neil Ferguson was predicting that millions would die in the U.S. and the pandemic would be in the league of the Spanish flu!

    Well get this...

    31 countries have had more deaths due to Covid-19 than the 2017 flu .
    89 countries have had more deaths due to the 2017 flu than Covid-19!

    I dare you to publish this anywhere in your media, MSM, let alone the front page!

    And for this we have shut down the world?

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DaveToo For This Post:

    East Sun (2nd August 2020), Franny (30th July 2020), greybeard (23rd July 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd July 2020), justntime2learn (27th July 2020), kfm27917 (28th July 2020), pueblo (28th July 2020), Sunny (24th July 2020)

  13. Link to Post #347
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    1,165
    Thanked 2,276 times in 349 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Ninety out of 144 Covid-19 tests were wrong

    by Robert
    July 22, 2020
    “Ninety out of 144. That is a failure rate of of 68.75%. We cannot trust ANY of the data.”
    – Benjamin Napier
    _______________

    Ninety people who received positive COVID-19 results did not have the virus, according to the Connecticut state Department of Public Health.

    The department said the state public health laboratory uncovered a flaw in one of the testing systems it uses to test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and 90 of 144 people tested between June 15 and July 17 received a false positive COVID test report. Many are nursing home residents.

    According to the state Department of Health, the errant testing results were “from a widely-used laboratory testing platform that the state laboratory started using on June 15.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...dpyWVGstMm7xVE

    Thanks to Benjamin Napier for this link

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    Franny (30th July 2020), kfm27917 (28th July 2020), Sunny (24th July 2020)

  15. Link to Post #348
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    1,165
    Thanked 2,276 times in 349 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    ...
    Sweden: the One Chart That Matters

    Mike Whitney
    July 25, 2020

    While the Covid-19 epidemic continues to drag on in the United States, it’s largely over in Sweden where fatalities have dropped to no more than 2 deaths per day for the last week. Sweden has been harshly criticized in the media for not imposing draconian lockdowns like the United States and the other European countries. Instead, Sweden implemented a policy that was both conventional and sensible. They recommended that people maintain a safe distance between each other and they banned gatherings of 50 people or more. They also asked their elderly citizens to isolate themselves and to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible. Other than that, Swedes were encouraged to work, exercise and get on with their lives as they would normally even though the world was still in the throes of a global pandemic.


    Full article: https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/sweden-...-that-matters/

  16. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    Bodhicee (31st July 2020), celticwarrior (28th July 2020), ClearWater (27th July 2020), DaveToo (28th July 2020), Ewan (27th July 2020), fifi (1st August 2020), Franny (30th July 2020), Gracy May (27th July 2020), greybeard (27th July 2020), mountain_jim (28th July 2020), TomKat (1st August 2020)

  17. Link to Post #349
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    11,127
    Thanks
    25,844
    Thanked 56,577 times in 9,700 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    The Fact-Free Lockdown Hysteria | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

    In general what I post, is to my mind, a "MAY BE SO"

    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    celticwarrior (28th July 2020), Franny (30th July 2020)

  19. Link to Post #350
    Canada Avalon Member kfm27917's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th June 2019
    Location
    Garymede
    Language
    German
    Posts
    130
    Thanks
    1,518
    Thanked 724 times in 121 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Covid 19 is now THE miracle cure for most fatal ailments from HIV, TB, Arterioschlerosis (sp?)
    Heart Attacks and Cancer.
    These are now longer deadly diseases.
    Thank You, WHO !

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kfm27917 For This Post:

    greybeard (29th July 2020), wondering (31st July 2020)

  21. Link to Post #351
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,879
    Thanks
    29,948
    Thanked 56,712 times in 11,382 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    NYTimes SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Lies: Part 1
    by Jeremy R. Hammond Jul 29, 2020
    https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/...bfck%2BA%3D%3D

    "In response to the novel coronavirus pandemic, governments have implemented extreme “lockdown” measures with devastating economic consequences, the costs of which must be measured not only in dollars but also in terms of worsened health and lost or shortened lives. The mainstream media have fulfilled the function of manufacturing consent for these extreme policies by reporting about the virus in an alarmist manner that has caused mass fear and panic among the public.

    A key pillar of the mainstream narrative that has served to cause mass fear and submission to harmful government diktats is that the spread of the coronavirus is largely driven via the airborne route by people who don’t know they are infected because they have no symptoms. The New York Times, America’s “newspaper of record”, has been pushing this narrative for months in a series of articles by Apoorva Mandavilli, who last year was awarded the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting.

    A recurring theme in Mandavilli’s articles is that the World Health Organization (WHO) has been consistently behind the science when it comes to knowledge about the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The WHO, as the Times tells it, has been wrong to say that asymptomatic transmission appears to be rare and has been stubbornly resistant in acknowledging the airborne transmissibility of the virus in the community setting.

    A critical examination of the Times’ reporting, however, reveals how it lies to the public by systematically mischaracterizing the science and the WHO’s positions on asymptomatic and airborne transmission.

    For example, on July 16, in an article titled “Mask Rules Expand Across U.S. as Clashes Over the Mandates Intensify”, the Times reported that “Public health officials increasingly see masks as a powerful weapon against the virus, particularly after the World Health Organization acknowledged that the virus can be airborne, with tiny respiratory droplets able to linger in the air for hours.”[1]

    That statement is false. In fact, the WHO rightly maintains that airborne transmission, while a theoretical possibility, remains unproven. The linked source for that claim is another Times article, which was written by Mandavilli. However, the fact that the Times falsely characterizes the WHO’s position as well as the science can be seen by examining her own primary sources.

    The Times has built its deceptive narrative over a matter of months in a litany of articles by Mandavilli, with each successive article building on those that came before, and so to demonstrate how the more recent Times articles lie to readers, it is necessary to also examine the earlier reporting.

    So, to begin, let’s go back to March 17, on which day the Times published an article by Mandavilli with a headline asking, “How long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”

    How the Times Falsely Reported Airborne Transmission as a Proven Fact
    That article reported as fact that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible, remaining viable in the air for up to thirty minutes, contrary to the position of the WHO that the virus is not airborne.

    In fact, however, the studies cited to support that contention did not contradict the WHO’s position that airborne transmission remained unproven.

    Having reported the airborne route as a proven mode of transmission with its headline, the Times article correctly noted that experts believed that the risk of transmission through contact with infected surfaces, known as fomite transmission, is “low”, but that they also “offered additional warnings about how long the virus survives in air”.

    While many among the general public might assume that any transmission of the virus by droplets that travel through the air constitutes “airborne” transmission, it is actually a technical term that distinguishes between respiratory droplets with different characteristics.

    The predominant mode of transmission is recognized to be larger respiratory droplets generated by coughing, sneezing, or talking at higher volumes. These droplets fall rapidly to the ground within a short distance, which is the basis for the “social distancing” recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to maintain a distance of at least six feet from others.

    Airborne transmission, by contrast, refers to smaller droplets, generally under five micrometers in diameter, that are known as aerosols and can linger in the air longer and travel farther.

    The main source for the Times article was a study published online by the New England Journal of Medicine on March 17. “In the study’s experimental setup,” the Times reported, “the virus stayed suspended for three hours, but it would drift down much sooner under most conditions.”

    Under more natural conditions, aerosols “can stay suspended for about a half-hour, researchers said, before drifting down and settling on surfaces where it can linger for hours.”

    The study’s finding that “the virus can survive and stay infectious in aerosols”, the Times asserted, “is inconsistent with the World Health Organization’s position that the virus is not transported by air.”

    “For weeks experts have maintained that the virus is not airborne”, the Times adds. “But in fact, it can travel through the air and stay suspended for that period of about a half-hour.”

    Furthermore, “procedures health care workers use to care for infected patients are likely to generate aerosols.”

    Health care workers might also resuspend droplets into the air when doffing their protective gear, thereby exposing themselves and others to the virus. “A study that is being reviewed by experts”, the Times stated, “bears out this fear.”

    A third study, published in the journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, “also indicates that the virus is transported by air. That study, based in Singapore, found the virus on a vent in the hospital room of an infected patient, where it could only have reached via the air.”

    The article paraphrases Dr. Linsey Marr, “an expert in the transmission of viruses by aerosol at Virginia Tech”, saying that “the World Health Organization had so far referred to the virus as not airborne” but cautioning that health care workers should wear protective gear including respirator masks on the assumption that it is.

    Importantly, the Times included the caveat that “The virus does not linger in the air at high enough levels to be a risk to most people who are not physically near an infected person.”

    In other words, even if we assume that SARS-CoV-2 is spread via the airborne route by people who have no symptoms of infection, prolonged close contact with others would still be required for transmission to occur.

    Relevant to the ongoing debate about executive mask-wearing orders, the article also quoted Dr. Marr saying that “surgical masks are probably insufficient” to protect health care workers from airborne transmission—as opposed to serving as a physical barrier to transmission via larger respiratory droplets.

    In another important caveat, the Times also relayed Dr. Marr’s paraphrased reassurance that the new findings “should not cause the general public to panic, however, because the virus disperses quickly in the air.” While it “sounds scary”, the Times quoted Dr. Marr as saying, “unless you’re close to someone, the amount you’ve been exposed to is very low.” The Times reiterated that, “for anyone farther than a few feet away, there is too little of the virus in the air to be any danger.”

    Further into the article, the Times also quoted Dr. Vincent Munster, a virologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who led the New England Journal of Medicine study, acknowledging that they generated aerosols using “bizarre experiments done under very ideal controllable experimental conditions.”

    But the only significance the Times attributes to the experimental nature of the study, in which researchers “used a rotating drum to suspend the aerosols, and provided temperature and humidity levels that closely mimic hospital conditions”, was that it left open the question of how long viable virus may remain suspended in the air once aerosolized.

    It paraphrases Dr. Munster saying that “the virus survived and stayed infectious for up to three hours, but its ability to infect drops sharply over this time”, with aerosols perhaps staying aloft “only for about 10 minutes” in real-world settings. Then it paraphrases Dr. Marr disagreeing, saying that infectious aerosols “could stay in the air for three times longer” and that “the experimental setup might be less comfortable for the virus than a real-life setting.”[2]

    Thus, the overall message the Times delivers to its readers is that airborne transmission had been proven, and that the only question remaining was how long aerosols containing viable virus remain in the air after being generated by infected individuals. Furthermore, this important new finding, readers are told, contradicts the WHO’s position that SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne transmissible.

    Dissecting the Times’ Claims about Airborne Transmission
    The first thing to note about this New York Times article is how the headline presupposes that the airborne route had been proven as mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. The rest of the article reinforces the claim that studies had contradicted the position of the WHO that the virus is not airborne. The question, the way the Times frames it, is how long viable virus can remain airborne, not whether it remains infectious in smaller aerosol droplets.

    That characterization of the science, however, is false.

    The New England Journal of Medicine study, titled “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1”, did detect viable virus in aerosols. As the Times points out, researchers did so experimentally, using aerosol-generating machinery. However, while the Times characterizes the significance of this as simply leaving open the question of how long infectious virus might remain suspended in the air, its true significance is that it leaves open the question of whether infectious virus can be found in aerosols generated by individuals by coughing, sneezing, talking, or breathing.

    The WHO itself points this out in a scientific brief published on July 9. With reference to the New England Journal of Medicine study, the WHO notes that its findings were based on “experimentally induced aerosols that do not reflect normal human cough conditions.” Consequently, it did not demonstrate that airborne transmission occurs in the community setting.[3]

    In an earlier scientific brief, published on March 29, less than two weeks after the Times reported airborne transmission as a proven fact, the WHO pointed out that some studies had provided “initial evidence on whether the COVID-19 virus can be detected in the air”, and “some news outlets” had consequently “suggested that there has been airborne transmission.” However, the WHO noted, these initial findings “need to be interpreted carefully.”

    In the New England Journal of Medicine study, specifically, aerosols were experimentally generated using “a high-powered machine that does not reflect normal human cough conditions.” It was, in other words, “an experimentally induced aerosol-generating procedure.”[4]

    The authors of the study themselves acknowledged that they did not prove that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible. Their findings, the researchers noted, rather indicated “that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible” (emphasis added).[5]

    As for the potential for airborne transmission in the health care setting due to aerosol-generating medical procedures, the WHO had already been warning about this risk prior to that study’s publication.

    As the WHO observed in a report published on February 28, “Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence; however, it can be envisaged if certain aerosol-generating procedures are conducted in health care facilities.”[6]

    The New England Journal of Medicine study, contrary to the Times’ characterization, did not contradict but reinforced that stated position of the WHO, which was not that airborne transmission had been definitively ruled out, but that it remained a theoretical risk and an important topic for further research.

    The second study cited by the Times to support its narrative is titled “Aerodynamic Characteristics and RNA Concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol in Wuhan Hospitals during COVID-19 Outbreak”. Published on the preprint server bioRxiv (“bio archive”) on March 10, this was the study the Times said had borne out the fear that aerosols can be resuspended by health care workers doffing protective gear, resulting in workers exposing themselves to infectious virus.

    However, the study did not confirm that this can happen, but merely hypothesized that it might occur. Its authors detected viral RNA in air samples in two hospitals in Wuhan but did not determine whether it remained viable. In contrast to the Times’ characterization, the study authors did not claim that their findings demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible; they rather characterized their findings as supporting “a hypothesis that virus-laden aerosol deposition may play a role in surface contamination and subsequent contact by susceptible people resulting in human infection.”[7]

    The third study cited by the Times is titled “Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient”. Published in JAMA on March 4, this is the study the Times says “also indicates that the virus is transported by air.”

    That study did detect viral RNA in an environmental sample taken from an air vent using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. As its authors reported, “Air samples were negative despite the extent of environmental contamination. Swabs taken from the air exhaust outlets tested positive, suggesting that small virus-laden droplets may be displaced by airflows and deposited on equipment such as vents.”

    However, what the Times fails to relay to its readers is the fact that the detection of viral RNA is not necessarily indicative of the presence of infectious virus. As the study authors explicitly stated, one of the limitations of their study was that “viral culture was not done to demonstrate viability.”[8]

    As the WHO’s scientific brief of March 29 rightly observes, “It is important to note that the detection of RNA in environmental samples based on PCR-based assays is not indicative of viable virus that could be transmissible.” To establish the airborne transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the WHO noted, further research was required to determine whether it is possible to detect viable virus in air samples in the absence of aerosol-generating procedures.[9]

    In an interim guidance document published on June 29, the WHO noted that airborne transmission “is possible under circumstances and settings where aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are performed”. It added that, “Although the COVID-19 virus has been detected by RT-PCR in air samples gathered in the rooms of COVID-19 patients who did not undergo AGPs, none of these studies have been able to culture the virus from these air particles, a step that is critical to determining the infectiousness of viral particles.”[10] (Emphasis added.)

    The WHO’s updated scientific brief of July 9 similarly states (emphasis added),

    Some studies conducted in health care settings where symptomatic COVID-19 patients were cared for, but where aerosol generating procedures were not performed, reported the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples, while other similar investigations in both health care and non-health care settings found no presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; no studies have found viable virus in air samples. Within samples where SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found, that quantity of RNA detected was in extremely low numbers in large volumes of air and one study that found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples reported inability to identify viable virus. The detection of RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based assays is not necessarily indicative of replication- and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of causing infection.

    The WHO once again reiterated that “Further studies are needed to determine whether it is possible to detect viable SARS-CoV-2 in air samples from settings where no procedures that generate aerosols are performed and what role aerosols might play in transmission.”[11]

    Conclusion
    In sum, the New York Times, in its March 17 article titled “How long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”, characterized the science as having firmly established that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible, albeit with questions remaining about the duration that viable virus might remain in the air after aerosols are generated by infected individuals in the community setting. To bolster that characterization, the Times portrayed the WHO as having expressed a position that was contradicted by the scientific studies being reported.

    In truth, however, as is evident from examining the Times’ own cited sources, airborne transmission remained theoretical, and the studies cited did not contradict the WHO’s position for reasons that the WHO has itself since explained. Namely, the detection of viable virus in air samples in experimental studies using machines to generate aerosols does not demonstrate airborne transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting, and the detection of viral RNA using RT-PCR assays is not necessarily indicative of the presence of infectious virus.

    In forthcoming installments of this series, we’ll further examine the propagandistic nature of the New York Times’ reporting and how it has systematically deceived the public for months about the what science tells us about how transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the community setting.

    References
    [1] Sara Mervosh, Manny Fernandez, and Campbell Robertson, “Mask Rules Expand Across U.S. as Clashes Over the Mandates Intensify”, New York Times, July 16, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/u...rus-masks.html.

    [2] Apoorva Mandavilli, “How Long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”, New York Times, March 17, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/h...-aerosols.html.

    [3] World Health Organization, “Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions”, WHO.int, July 9, 2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/i...ecommendations.

    [4] World Health Organization, “Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations”, WHO.int, March 29, 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331616.

    [5] Neeltje van Doremalen et al., “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1”, New England Journal of Medicine, March 17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2004973.

    [6] World Health Organization, “Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), WHO.int, February 28, 2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/i...2019-(covid-19).

    [7] Yuan Liu et al., “Aerodynamic Characteristics and RNA Concentration of SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol in Wuhan Hospitals during COVID-19 Outbreak”, bioRxiv, March 10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.08.982637.

    [8] Sean Wei Xiang Ong et al., “Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient”, JAMA, March 4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

    [9] WHO, “Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19”.

    [10] World Health Organization, “Infection prevention and control during health care when coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is suspected or confirmed”, WHO.int, June 29, 2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/i...CoV-IPC-2020.4.

    [11] WHO, “Transmission of SARs-CoV-2”. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    greybeard (30th July 2020), Jill (30th July 2020), Satori (2nd August 2020), Sunny (30th July 2020), wondering (31st July 2020)

  23. Link to Post #352
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,879
    Thanks
    29,948
    Thanked 56,712 times in 11,382 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Yale PhD Epidemiology "Unnecessary Deaths"
    Newsweek: “Tens of Thousands of Patients with COVID-19 are Dying Unnecessarily” – by Dr. Harvey A. Risch
    7/30/20
    https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/newsw...arvey-a-risch/

    Comments by Brian Shilhavy
    Editor, Health Impact News

    "While not a “news” story, but an “opinion” piece, it is still rare to see a corporate media outlet like Newsweek publish the truth about hydroxychloroquine.

    Since this was written the week before the Frontline Doctors descended upon Washington D.C. to educate the public on how they were curing ALL of their COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine, we are republishing the entire editorial by Dr. Harvey A. Risch before it disappears.

    The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It
    by Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health
    Newsweek.com

    As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

    I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

    On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.” That article, published in the world’s leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

    Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

    Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients.

    These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

    My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

    Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been “natural experiments.” In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.

    A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

    Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?

    First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

    Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.

    In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

    Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.

    But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.

    Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.

    In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points.

    For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately."

    Full article at Newsweek.com: https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeati...pinion-1519535

    Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    fifi (1st August 2020), Satori (2nd August 2020), Sunny (1st August 2020), wondering (31st July 2020)

  25. Link to Post #353
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,879
    Thanks
    29,948
    Thanked 56,712 times in 11,382 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    FAIL: The Exact Same COVID Test will Produce Different Results Depending on the Laboratory
    7/30/20
    https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/fail-...he-laboratory/

    "Another failure of the COVID diagnostic test
    by Jon Rappoport
    NoMoreFakeNews.com

    In previous articles, I’ve detailed several key reasons why the PCR test is worthless and deceptive. (PCR article archive here).

    Here I discuss yet another reason: the uniformity of the test has never been properly validated. Different labs come up with different results.

    Let’s start here—the reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

    “Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

    “For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

    “Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

    “Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

    “There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

    “Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

    “’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

    “With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

    “Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

    “’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

    —Sobering, to say the least. Of course, some people will claim that since the date of the Times’ article (2007), vast improvements have been made in the PCR test.

    Really? The truth is, something much worse is lurking in the weeds. It has been lurking ever since the PCR was approved for use in diagnostics:

    No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done.

    You would think at least a dozen very large studies had checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

    Here is what should have been done decades ago:

    Take a thousand volunteers. Remove tissue samples from each person. Send those samples to 30 different labs. Have the labs run PCR and announce their findings for each volunteer.

    “We found the following virus in sample 1…” Something simple like that.

    Now compare the findings, in each of the 1000 cases, from all 30 labs. Are the findings the same? Are the outcomes uniform all the way across the board?

    My money would be against it. Strongly against.

    But this is not the end of the process. SEVERAL of these large-scale studies should be done. In EACH study, there are 1000 volunteers and 30 labs.

    Why? Because, as you can readily see, the whole story about a current pandemic is riding on those tests. The story, the containment measures, the lockdowns, the economic devastation, the human destruction—it’s all built on the presumption that the PCR is a valid test.

    It’s unthinkable that these validation studies of the PCR weren’t done decades ago. But they weren’t. And there is only one reason why: to avoid the truth. The results of the PCR aren’t uniform. They vary from lab to lab.

    One lab says positive for virus B. Another lab says negative for virus B. Both labs are looking at the same sample.

    No? Couldn’t be? Then prove it with the several large-scale studies I’m proposing.

    I’ll give you a rough fictional analogy for the current testing situation—

    In an old-growth forest of immense trees, a government agency tests white spots found on some trunks. The verdict? A highly destructive and novel fungus, for which there is no remedy. Without immediate and drastic action, the fungus will spread to the whole forest and destroy all the trees.

    So a government contract is signed with a logging company, and workers move in and start cutting down many trees.

    Meanwhile, another lab tests those white spots and reports they’re harmless bird droppings. Yet another lab claims they’re a mild traditional fungus of no great concern.

    The reports of these two labs are suppressed and censored. The labs are put on a quiet blacklist, and their business dries up.

    The tree cutting continues.

    An analyst at the US Forestry Service sends a memo to his boss. It details the fact that the test which found deadly fungus is unreliable. Different labs doing the test come up with different and conflicting results.

    Worse yet, that test was never properly validated as a uniform process before being approved for use. In other words, no one did a large study in which multiple labs used the test to determine the composition of spots found on trees. No one made sure that all labs came to the same conclusions using the test.

    The Forestry analyst writes:

    “The test has inherent flaws. Different labs examining the same sample will always come up with different results. This has disastrous consequences in the real world. You can see that now; we are cutting down half a forest to prevent the spread of a fungus which has been noticed for centuries, and never caused serious harm…”

    The analyst is fired from his job and firmly reminded that he signed a non-disclosure agreement, and he better keep his mouth shut.

    The tree-cutting goes on. A developer buys up the cleared land at a very low price…

    In essence, the pipeline of information from actually reliable sources, to the government, and then to the public, is narrowed, and guarded against unwelcome intrusions of TRUTH.

    In the case of the PCR test, that’s what is happening.

    Read the full article at NoMoreFakeNews.com: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020...agnostic-test/

    Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    DaveToo (3rd August 2020), greybeard (1st August 2020), kfm27917 (2nd August 2020), Philippe (1st August 2020), Satori (2nd August 2020), Sunny (1st August 2020)

  27. Link to Post #354
    Sweden Avalon Member Rawhide68's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th May 2017
    Age
    51
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    1,064
    Thanked 2,047 times in 359 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    A question
    If there is no virus, no peer reviewed studies of a gold standard isolation of the virus have been done.(Acc to Dr Kaufman)
    What are the the big Farma trying to make vaccin's from?
    They must have the "kern" of the virus to have something to work on.

    Is Dr Kaufman a liar?

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rawhide68 For This Post:

    East Sun (2nd August 2020), Gwin Ru (1st August 2020), justntime2learn (1st August 2020), kfm27917 (2nd August 2020)

  29. Link to Post #355
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    1,165
    Thanked 2,276 times in 349 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Very good question!

    "They" know what it is but don't want it to be published in order to misdirect the research onto something else as was done by the same guy for the Chronic Fatigue Syndrom and what Dr. Judy Mikovits found out as well as Luc Montagnier.

    ... I mean... who wants to demonstrate many had a hand in the manufacture of the "bug" at Fort Detrick?

    It also doesn't mean that Kaufman is lying but his analysis might be insufficient simply because:
    • What causes cells to spit out, as exosomes, bits and pieces of malaria, HIV, H1N1, etc. to start with?
    • Where are these bits and pieces coming from and generating an "en masse" detox of cells?
    Last edited by Gwin Ru; 1st August 2020 at 15:50.

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    East Sun (2nd August 2020), greybeard (2nd August 2020), justntime2learn (1st August 2020), kfm27917 (2nd August 2020)

  31. Link to Post #356
    Avalon Member Maia Gabrial's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th April 2011
    Location
    On the planet Sophia
    Age
    67
    Posts
    4,445
    Thanks
    15,531
    Thanked 15,745 times in 3,712 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Can you believe this? If it wasn't bad enough that they were told to fudge the numbers of the virus, now they're telling the states to do it even more so.

    Is this what the second wave will be? Even more fraud? We all should question their honor and integrity finally. A lie is still a lie....To perpetrate an even bigger hoax means that there is no pandemic, so they have to make it appear as though there is one.



    As far as I'm concerned, "potential cases" are like "what ifs". The chances are, they may never happen. Is that how we want to live?

  32. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Maia Gabrial For This Post:

    Franny (2nd August 2020), Gemma13 (2nd August 2020), justntime2learn (2nd August 2020), kfm27917 (2nd August 2020), Maknocktomb (2nd August 2020), Mike (2nd August 2020), Satori (2nd August 2020), TomKat (2nd August 2020), wondering (2nd August 2020)

  33. Link to Post #357
    Scotland Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th February 2012
    Posts
    618
    Thanks
    207
    Thanked 2,898 times in 551 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)


  34. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to indigopete For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (2nd August 2020), DaveToo (3rd August 2020), East Sun (2nd August 2020), greybeard (2nd August 2020), Gwin Ru (3rd August 2020), justntime2learn (2nd August 2020), Satori (2nd August 2020)

  35. Link to Post #358
    Scotland Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th February 2012
    Posts
    618
    Thanks
    207
    Thanked 2,898 times in 551 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Guv testing out their propaganda messaging for "selling" the vaccine to us:


  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to indigopete For This Post:

    greybeard (3rd August 2020), kfm27917 (2nd August 2020)

  37. Link to Post #359
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,345
    Thanks
    5,728
    Thanked 9,036 times in 1,313 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Outstanding, concise and extremely informative and thought-provoking video.

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (2nd August 2020), greybeard (3rd August 2020), justntime2learn (2nd August 2020)

  39. Link to Post #360
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    373
    Thanks
    967
    Thanked 1,586 times in 346 posts

    Default Re: Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness)

    Quote Posted by Rawhide68 (here)
    A question
    If there is no virus, no peer reviewed studies of a gold standard isolation of the virus have been done.(Acc to Dr Kaufman)
    What are the the big Farma trying to make vaccin's from?
    They must have the "kern" of the virus to have something to work on.

    Is Dr Kaufman a liar?
    Let me ask the question another way.

    If there is no virus, and 100+ companies are currently racing to make a vaccine for one, wouldn't it be
    a piece of cake for one company to just say they have created a safe and effective vaccine and bring it to market?
    Of course the vaccine could just be a placebo, but who would know the difference?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst 1 8 18 19 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts