+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst 1 7 17
Results 321 to 338 of 338

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

  1. Link to Post #321
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    COVID19 Testing: What are we doing? What does it mean?
    POSTED BY: VAXXTERADMIN2 05/18/2020
    by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM
    https://vaxxter.com/covid19-testing-...-does-it-mean/

    (Many hyperlinks in the article, not embedded here)

    "In 1965, scientists identified the first human coronavirus; it was associated with the common cold. The Coronavirus family, named for their crown-like appearance, currently includes 36 viruses. Within that group, there are 4 common viruses that have been causing infection in humans for more than sixty years. In addition, three pandemic coronaviruses that can infect humans: SARS, MERS, and now, SARS-CoV-2.

    As the news of deaths in China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran began to saturate every form of media 24/7, we became familiar with a new term: COVID-19. To be clear, the name of the newly identified coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2, short for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2. This virus is associated with fever, cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath, the complex of symptoms that form the diagnosis of COVID-19.

    The Trump administration declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, then on February 2 placed a ban on the entry of most travelers who had recently been in China. On February 4, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a declaration of public health emergency and activated the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, otherwise known as the PREP Act. This nefarious legislation provides complete protection of manufacturers from liability for all products, technologies, biologics, or any vaccine developed as a medical countermeasure against COVID-19. For those nervously waiting for the vaccine to become available, be sure to understand the PREP Act before rushing to the get in line.

    Calls for testing – to see if a person is or isn’t infected – began soon after the emergency was declared, but performing those tests was initially slow due to an inadequate number of test kits. As the kits became available, those developed by the CDC had a defect: The reagents reacted to the negative control sample, making the test inaccurate and the kits unusable.

    In various countries, thousands of test kits purchased from China were found to be contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. No one really knows how that happened, but theories spread like wildfire. Could the test kit infect the person being tested? Or, did it mean the test would return a false-positive result, driving up the numbers of those said to be infected so those in power could implement stronger lockdowns and accelerate the hockey-stick unemployment rates? Neither of those questions has been adequately answered.

    Mandatory Testing…of what?
    Authorities claim that testing is important for public health officials to assess if their mitigation efforts – “shelter in place” and “social distancing” and “wearing a mask” – are making a difference to “flatten the curve.” Officials also claim that testing is necessary to know how many persons are infected within a community and to understand the nature of how coronaviruses spread.

    Are these reasons sufficient to give up our health freedom and our personal rights, being tested and shamed in public?

    Despite the challenges with test kits, testing began. By the end of March 2020, more than 1 million people had been tested across the US. By May 9, the number tested had grown to over 8.7M. Testing methods include a swab of the nasal passages or by inserting a long, uncomfortable swab through the nose to scrape the back of the throat. Specimens have also been obtained bronchoalveolar lavage, from sputum, and from stool specimens.

    The call for mandatory testing has been gathering steam and becoming ever more onerous. In Washington state, Governor Inslee has declared:

    Individuals that refuse to cooperate with contact tracers and/or refuse testing, those individuals will not be allowed to leave their homes to purchase basic necessities such as groceries and/or prescriptions. Those persons will need to make arrangements through friends, family, or state provided ‘family support’ personnel.

    But what do the results really mean?

    Who Should Be Tested
    On May 8, 2020, the CDC has listed specific priorities for when testing should be done. As of May 16, more than 11-million samples have been collected and more than 3700 specimens have not yet been evaluated.

    High Priority

    Hospitalized patients with symptoms
    Healthcare facility workers, workers in living settings, and first responders with symptoms
    Residents in long-term care facilities or other congregate living settings, including prisons and shelters, with symptoms
    Priority

    Persons with symptoms of potential COVID-19 infection, including fever, cough, shortness of breath, chills, muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, vomiting or diarrhea, and/or sore throat
    Persons without symptoms who are prioritized by health departments or clinicians, for any reason, including but not limited to public health monitoring, sentinel surveillance, or screening of asymptomatic individuals according to state and local plans.
    Read that last priority again: That means virtually everyone can be required to get a test.

    Is that a violation of your personal rights? And, if you submit to testing, what does a “positive test” actually mean?

    Types of Testing: RT-PCR
    PCR, short for polymerase chain reaction, is a highly specific laboratory technique. The key to understanding PCR testing is that PCR can identify an individual specific virus within a viral family.

    However, a PCR test can only be used to identify DNA viruses; the SARS-CoV2 virus is an RNA virus. Therefore, multiple steps must be taken to “magnify” the amount of genetic material in the specimen. Researchers used a method called RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, to specifically identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It’s a complicated process. To read more about it, go here and here.

    If a nasal or a blood sample contains a tiny snip of RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, RT-PCR can identify it, leading to a high probability that the person has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

    However – and this is important – a positive RT-PCR test result does not necessarily indicate a full virus is present. The virus must be fully intact to be transmitted and cause illness.

    RT-PCR Testing: The Importance of Timing
    Even if a person has had all the symptoms associated with a coronavirus infection or has been closely exposed to persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the probability of a RT-PCR test being positive decreases with the number of days past the onset of symptoms.

    According to a study done by Paul Wikramaratna and others:

    For a nasal swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 94% on day 0 to about 67% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 2% chance of a positive result.
    For a throat swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 88% on day 0 to about 47% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 1% chance of a positive result.
    In other words, the longer the time frame between the onset of symptoms and the time a person is tested, the more likely the test will be negative.

    Repeat testing of persons who have a negative test may (eventually) confirm the presence of viral RNA, but this is impractical. Additionally, repeated testing of the same person can lead to even more confusing results: The test may go from negative, to positive, then back to negative again as the immune system clears out the coronavirus infection and moves to recovery.

    And what makes this testing even more confusing is that the FDA admits that “The detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily equate with an infectious virus.”

    Let’s break that down:

    You’ve had all the symptoms of COVID19, but your RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is negative.

    Does that mean you’re “good to go” – you can go to work, go to school or you can travel? OR…
    Does that mean your influenza-like illness was caused by some other pathogen, possibly one of the four coronaviruses that have been in circulation for 60 years? OR…
    Does that mean the result is a false-negative and you still have the infection, but it isn’t detectable by current tests? OR…
    Does that mean it was a sample was inadequately taken due to the faulty technique by the technician? OR…
    Does that mean you have not been exposed, and you are susceptible to contracting the infection, and you need to stay in quarantine?
    So, what does a “positive” test actually mean? And that’s the problem:

    No one knows for sure.

    Another Type of Testing: Antibodies
    According to the nonprofit Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), more than 200 serologic blood tests, to test for antibodies, are either now available or in development.

    There are two primary types of antibodies that are assessed for nearly any type of infection: IgM and IgG. While several new testing devices are being touted as a home test, they are not the same as a home pregnancy test or a glucometer to you’re your blood sugar. The blood spot or saliva specimen can be collected at home, must it must then be sent to a laboratory for analysis. It can take a few days – or longer – to get the results. With so many tests in the pipeline, the ability to test at home will be changing over time.

    The first antibody to rise is IgM. It rises quickly after the onset of the infection and is usually a sign of an acute, or current, infection. The IgM levels diminish quickly as the infection resolves. The FDA admits they do not know how long the IgM remains present for SARS-CoV-2 as the infection is being cleared.

    The interpretation of an IgG antibody is more difficult. This antibody is an indicator of a past infection. The test is often not specific enough to determine if the past infection was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus or one of the four common coronaviruses that cause influenza-like illness.

    The FDA says:

    Because serology testing can yield a negative test result even if the patient is actively infected (e.g., the body has not yet developed in response to the virus) or maybe falsely positive (e.g., if the antibody indicates a past infection by a different coronavirus), this type of testing should not be used to diagnose an acute or active COVID-19 infection.

    Similarly, the CDC says the following regarding antibody testing:

    If you test positive:
    A positive test result shows you have antibodies as a result of an infection with SARS-CoV-2, or possibly a related coronavirus.
    It’s unclear if those antibodies can provide protection (immunity) against getting infected again. This means that we do not know at this time if antibodies make you immune to the virus.
    If you have no symptoms, you likely do not have an active infection and no additional follow-up is needed.
    It’s possible you might test positive for antibodies and you might not have or have ever had symptoms of COVID-19. This is known as having an asymptomatic infection [ie you have a healthy immune system!]
    An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
    If you test negative
    If you test negative for antibodies, you probably did not have a previous infection. However, you could have a current infection because antibodies don’t show up for 1 to 3 weeks after infection.
    Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people may not develop antibodies.
    An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
    What? Wait!

    Doesn’t the vaccine industry call the IgG a “protective antibody”?
    Isn’t this the marker of immunity they assess after you’ve had an infection with measles or chickenpox or mumps to determine if you are immune to future infections?
    Isn’t this the marker of induced immunity they are trying to achieve by administering a vaccine?
    If the FDA does not know if an IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 after recovering from the infection is protective against a future infection, then they certainly don’t know if an antibody caused by a vaccine will prevent infection either.

    Doesn’t this completely eliminate the theory that antibodies afford protection and antibodies from vaccines are necessary to keep you from getting sick?

    Mandatory Testing – New Job Creation
    Illinois U.S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush introduced the H.R. 6666 TRACE Act on May 1. On his website, Rush said,

    Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.

    H.R.6666 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the CDC to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing and then to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals. The contact tracers would be authorized to test people in their homes and as necessary, quarantine people in place.

    Where do they intend to do this testing? Besides mobile units to test people in their homes, the bill identifies eight specific locations where the testing and contract tracing could occur: schools, health clinics, universities, churches, and “any other type of entity” the secretary of HHS wants to use.

    The bill would allocate $100 billion in 2020 “and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.”

    But what are they looking for?

    Is your test supposed to be positive – saying you’ve been exposed and you’ve possibly recovered?
    Or is your test supposed to be negative, meaning, you are healthy?
    Or does a completely negative test – negative RT-PCR test and no IgG antibody mean you’re susceptible to infection and you need to stay in quarantine?
    The virus is rapidly mutating, which is rather typical of RNA viruses. In a study published in April 2020, researchers have discovered that the novel coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations. If your RT-PCR test is positive, does this identify exposure to the pandemic virus or exposure to one of the genetic variations? The same can be said about the vaccines under development: With each mutation, is the vaccine more likely to be all risk and no benefit when it reaches the market?

    What You Can Do
    Across the nation, police are being told to not apprehend criminals but instead, to arrest parents at playgrounds, to arrest lone surfers on public beaches, to fine ministers and congregation members sitting in their cars listening to a service on the radio, and to restrict movement by creating one-way sidewalks.

    People have had enough. They are beginning to see the huge scam that has been perpetrated on the entire world over a viral infection with a global death rate of 1.4% (meaning, 1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover). This is far fewer deaths than a severe flu season.

    We’re already starting to see the thrust to take our power back:

    In Virginia, people went to the beaches en mass, ignoring social distancing and the orders of the Governor to stay home.
    The central California city of Atwater has declared itself a “sanctuary city,” allowing business owners and churches to open, openly defying Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s coronavirus-related stay-at-home order.
    The truth about wearing masks is starting to come out and people are voting with their feet. Retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, warns that not only do face masks fail to protect healthy people from contracting an illness, but they create serious health risks to the wearer.
    While they shut us down and held us hostage in our homes, they changed our society, our lives, our world.

    I am not willing to accept this is the “new normal.”
    I won’t submit to testing.
    I will refuse mandatory vaccination.
    I will stop wearing a mask.
    I will not be afraid of standing next to a friend or family member and will not obey the concept of “social distancing.”
    I will understand that an asymptomatic carrier is a normal, healthy person and I will not buy into the fear that I might “catch something” from a normal, healthy person.
    It’s time for Americans to resist with non-violent civil disobedience. Be brave. Be bold. Put on the full armor of God, as found in Ephesians 6:10-20 in the Bible, to stand against the world rulers of this present darkness. With God on our side, all things are possible."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    DaveToo (23rd May 2020), Reinhard (24th May 2020), Sunny (19th May 2020)

  3. Link to Post #322
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    May 19, 2020
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=875315177

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    The National Institutes of Health have in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China
    Gain of function research refers to research in which pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced to make a pathogen more dangerous to humans
    To gain entry into a cell, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved. Without this protein cleavage, the virus would be unable to enter
    There are several enzymes that cleave spike proteins, including plasmin, which also degrades fibrin. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created, and many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots
    Another protein cleaver is furin, and the presence of a furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2 is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created
    Since the breakout of COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and those suspicions are only getting stronger.

    As reported1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China.

    This research was backed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House pandemic response team. According to Newsweek:2

    “In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

    Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

    As noted by GM Watch,3 “Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated its assessment of the origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices.’"

    Unfortunately, mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and 4 laboratories. Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.4

    Mainstream media journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In his May 4, 2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,5 who has a Ph.D. in pathology, carefully details the science behind his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory manipulation. The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still existed.

    What Is Gain of Function?
    As explained by Martenson, gain of function research refers to research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced. In other words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease. They also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct experiments to make them transmissible to humans.

    As noted by Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions naturally, there’s not a shred of evidence suggesting we’ve learned anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2. If we’re not actually learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research, then why are we doing it?

    Martenson goes on to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your cells. This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering into and infecting a cell.

    To gain entry, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further.

    There are several enzymes that can do this job, including plasmin and furin. Plasmin, which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin — plasma protein that can cause blood clots. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created.

    As explained in “Might Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?” many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots.

    Martenson also cites the review paper6 “Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19 Susceptibility,” which found that COVID-19 patients who have comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness (i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of plasmin.

    In other words, it’s this elevated plasmin that — at least in part — puts these people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection. In his May 6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem encountered in many COVID-19 patients. As he points out, COVID-19 is “really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder,” than a normal lung infection.
    Furin Cleavage Site Is the ‘Smoking Gun’
    As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections. As explained by Martenson, contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific about the locations it cuts. What’s more, when arginine is present in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the efficiency of the cleavage is magnified.

    This, he says, is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. An excellent, well-written article7 in Medium also addresses this finding and explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not.

    In “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”8,9 Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. As reported in this paper:10

    “It was found that all Spike with a SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence homology greater than 40% did not have a furin cleavage site … including Bat-CoVRaTG13 and SARS-CoV (with sequence identity as 97.4% and 78.6%, respectively).

    The furin cleavage site ‘RRAR’ in SARS-CoV-2 is unique in its family, rendering by its unique insert of ‘PRRA.’ The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have evolved from MERS, HCoV-HKU1, and so on.

    From the currently available sequences in databases, it is difficult for us to find the source. Perhaps there are still many evolutionary intermediate sequences waiting to be discovered."

    Mutation Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2
    According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 “is unique in its family” and “is unlikely to have evolved.” In other words, the virus must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a furin cleavage site, as there’s no apparent source for this virus.

    Put another way, there’s no coronavirus out there that is similar enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it.

    Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this in his Medium article,11 so if you prefer reading, you can review much of the same data there.

    Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to humans are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it. The furin cleavage site PRRA found in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals.

    furin cleavage site
    The fact that this furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and an insert in his video. It is extremely unlikely that 12 new nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there was nothing before.

    What About the Studies Saying It’s Natural?
    Two studies heavily cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a natural mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3, 2020, Nature paper,12 which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then jumped species. However, one of the authors of this paper, Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the SARS virus, and therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research.

    A second paper,13 published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers “a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome,” and discusses “scenarios by which they could have arisen.” According to this paper, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

    However, even though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site (PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these 12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally. As noted by Martenson, “whole inserts are not part of the mutation pathway.”

    Scientific Community Has Reason to Hide Origin
    He goes on to cite several studies showing how scientists around the world have been working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more virulent. Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many years.

    Martenson calls out leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020, interview with Joe Rogan, stated that “we could not have crafted a virus like this to do what it’s doing; I mean we don’t have the creative imagination or the skill set.”

    Really? Published research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and “creative imagination” to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply cannot be ignorant of that fact.

    Another source you may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,14 which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here. A summary of the evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under “Conclusion.”

    Naturally, there must be people in the scientific community who would now want to cover up any link to such research. Would you want to be responsible for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed the world economy and put people out of work around the globe?

    Would you want to be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life in prison? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:15

    “Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

    Other Experts Challenge Natural Evolution Claims
    Martenson is far from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated. An April 27, 2020, GM Watch article16 features professor Stuart Newman, who also believes “genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’ history.”

    According to Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which stated “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”) actually points to the exact opposite. GM Watch writes:17

    “As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted,18 Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses — the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory 'escape.’’

    But Professor Newman says19 that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the U.S. and China) for two decades’ …

    In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman … amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild.

    However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper20). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science …

    The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper21 they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.’

    Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.”

    There Are Many Ways to Manipulate Pathogens
    Those who claim the lack of “fingerprints” in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do not leave clearly identifiable traces. As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass (my interview with her will be posted May 24):22

    “Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

    They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

    In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

    Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
    Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
    Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”
    In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. As Martenson asserts, the presence of furin cleavage sites23 makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code wouldn’t just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation. How it got released, however, is anyone’s guess."

    + Sources and References
    1, 2 Newsweek April 28, 2020
    3 GM Watch May 4, 2020
    4 Independent Science News May 5, 2020
    5 Postcarbon.org Chris Martenson bio
    6 Physiol Rev July 1, 2020; 100(3):1065-1075
    7, 11 Medium April 22, 2020
    8 Fairdomhub.org, chinaXiv:202002.00062
    9, 23 ChinaXiv, DOI: 10.12074/202002.00062
    10 ChinaXiv, DOI: 10.12074/202002.00062, Page 6 of the downloaded PDF
    12 Nature February 3, 2020; 579: 270-273
    13 Nature Medicine March 17, 2020; 26: 450-452
    14 Project Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged From a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China
    15 S.993 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
    16, 17 GM Watch April 27, 2020
    18 Live Science, Wuhan lab says there's no way coronavirus originated there
    19 Twitter response from Stuart Newman April 18, 2020
    20 Science September 16, 2005; 309(5742): 1864-1868
    21 Virology July 5, 2006; 350(2):358-369
    22 Anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com April 2, 2020

    ALSO SEE:
    Why a Fort Detrick Bioweapons Lab Scientist Was Murdered

    Bioweapons researcher Frank Olson worked at Fort Detrick's biological warfare laboratory for years before being drugged by the Central Intelligence Agency and murdered days later. While Olson's death was staged as a suicide, it was later revealed that he was deliberately murdered after the CIA became concerned that he might reveal disturbing top-governmental operations.
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=875315177


    COVID Treatment Scam - How Big Pharma Will Fleece You
    The pharmaceutical industry is developing medications using taxpayer money, then turning around and selling them at exorbitant prices. This includes the antiviral remdesivir, which has shown some promise in treating COVID-19. The medication was largely developed using public funds, but stands to make biotech giant Gilead Sciences billions.
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=875315177
    Last edited by onawah; 19th May 2020 at 19:05.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Elainie (20th May 2020), Harmony (23rd May 2020), Sunny (19th May 2020), Tintin (24th May 2020)

  5. Link to Post #323
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    250
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked 1,530 times in 240 posts

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

    COVID-19 Deaths Have Declined in the US for the 4th Consecutive Week – Johns Hopkins Data Shows

    By Joaquin Flores
    Last updated May 19, 2020



    (click on picture for larger size)

    While deaths have continued to decline, we note that total deaths continue to rise. There are numerous ways to interpret this data, and many ideas currently float ranging from under-reportage of cases (until confronted with deaths), and over-reportage of death. The latter point, there appears to be substantial evidence for.
    Data from investment watch blog



    National deaths excluding New York and New Jersey are also down 18% from their peak three weeks ago.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    greybeard (19th May 2020)

  7. Link to Post #324
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    Win Keech wrote this on FB today:
    http://dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6ab...f9&oe=5EEAE3F8/" data-width="700">
    http://dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6ab...f9&oe=5EEAE3F8/">http://dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6ab...f9&oe=5EEAE3F8/">


    "If you look very carefully, you might just see a very small red curve. That is the actual Swedish daily death rate curve (Sweden had no lockdown)... The other two curves are the figures predicted by the self serving idiots insisting upon the lockdown. I'm glad I went to a real place of learning and not Imperial College. As an engineer, if I or any of my fellow engineers every made calculations or estimates so insanely wrong, not only would the World around you literally come crashing down everywhere, we could never live with the shame and abject failure. It seems that day has come for science and virology in particular. Science has sold out to corporate greed and the pharmaceutical industry in particular... And has forever lost all credibility as a result."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    DaveToo (24th May 2020), Dorjezigzag (21st May 2020), greybeard (21st May 2020), justntime2learn (22nd May 2020), Philippe (21st May 2020), Sunny (22nd May 2020), XelNaga (26th May 2020)

  9. Link to Post #325
    France Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th February 2019
    Location
    South of France
    Language
    French
    Age
    66
    Posts
    159
    Thanks
    1,526
    Thanked 929 times in 154 posts

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

    That is what I said to counter contacts that say Sweden is worse than Norway, Finland and Denmark added : by what we were warned for Sweden should have 20.000 or even 50.000 deaths by now for not following these dreadful recommendations. This worldwide calamity seems to be the price humanity has to pay to get rid of these death sciences. Because the evidence collected has the potential to take this decennia even millenia ( I have memories) old scourge down. That can count as a positif outcome. Keep strong.

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Win Keech wrote this on FB today:
    http://dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6ab...f9&oe=5EEAE3F8/" data-width="700">
    http://dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6ab...f9&oe=5EEAE3F8/">http://dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6ab...f9&oe=5EEAE3F8/">


    "If you look very carefully, you might just see a very small red curve. That is the actual Swedish daily death rate curve (Sweden had no lockdown)... The other two curves are the figures predicted by the self serving idiots insisting upon the lockdown. I'm glad I went to a real place of learning and not Imperial College. As an engineer, if I or any of my fellow engineers every made calculations or estimates so insanely wrong, not only would the World around you literally come crashing down everywhere, we could never live with the shame and abject failure. It seems that day has come for science and virology in particular. Science has sold out to corporate greed and the pharmaceutical industry in particular... And has forever lost all credibility as a result."

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Philippe For This Post:

    avid (21st May 2020), DaveToo (24th May 2020), greybeard (21st May 2020), onawah (22nd May 2020), Reinhard (24th May 2020)

  11. Link to Post #326
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,068
    Thanks
    25,842
    Thanked 34,196 times in 7,241 posts

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

    A mathematician / statistician's perspective on the COVID-19 stats ... forgive me if this has been posted -- this guy has many videos on the topic, here is a link to his YouTube page:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmF...wm4Dg/featured

    Maybe someone should DL his videos in case his channel gets shut down ... interesting stuff.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    avid (21st May 2020), ClearWater (21st May 2020), greybeard (22nd May 2020), justntime2learn (22nd May 2020), onawah (22nd May 2020), Reinhard (24th May 2020)

  13. Link to Post #327
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    Gary Null: COVID Vaccine Utterly Futile
    MAY 21, 2020
    RALPH FUCETOLA Open Source Truth
    http://www.opensourcetruth.com/covid...tterly-futile/

    https://prn.fm/gary-null-show-fast-t...vaccine-worry/

    ( Dr. Gary Null is a well-known figure in the US mainstream news, so he may be able to open many more minds to the dangers of a Covid vaccine.)

    "Fast-Tracking a CoV-19 Vaccine: Why Should We Worry?
    The consequences are that proposals for issuing certificates or passports would be utterly futile, an extraordinary waste of funding that would accomplish little.
    Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD
    Progressive Radio Network, May 21, 2020
    https://prn.fm/gary-null-show-fast-t...vaccine-worry/

    The CoV-19 pandemic is now exposing the hidden agendas and motives of the powers that be in government, in the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street, and in the media. Despairingly opponents of vaccine mandates are largely divided. Many Trump supporters in the so-called anti-vaccination community believed he would be their savior to protect vaccine exemptions and avert compulsory mandates. Nevertheless, during his watch draconian mandate laws to ban religious exemption for children to attend public schools have been signed by the governors of California and New York.

    Throughout the CoV-19 pandemic, Trump has waffled wildly, jumping on and off the vaccine band wagon depending upon his daily whims. Early he stated there was no need for a vaccine since the virus would magically disappear and no longer be a threat. It was his gut feeling and not surprisingly he was wrong. Yet during a press conference on March 14th, Trump announced the unveiling of his Operation Warp Speed agenda to accelerate development of a CoV-19 vaccine and have it ready this year. Trump is now fully on board with the pro-vaccination agenda. Moreover, he ordered that the military will be “mobilized so at the end of the year, we’re going to be able to give it to a lot people very, very rapidly.” His newly appointed Warp Speed advisor is a venture capitalist and a former chairman of GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccine division, Moncel Slaoui.

    Often in order to understand Trump’s strategies, follow the money trail, especially if the money trails leads to sealing loyalty to the president. However, his probable immediate motivation is for reelection and to increase the profits of pharmaceutical and investor profiles as repayment for those loyalties. We can therefore reasonably expect, despite what has already been stated, that Trump may nationally mandate a CoV-19 vaccine. There are voices in Trump’s camp who favor mandates. One of Trump’s leading attorneys is Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz who recently went on record saying,

    “Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread disease…. You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business…. if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

    What might be the downside if a vaccine pushed on the public en masse is discovered to not work or is found unsafe in the long-term? Worse, what might be the consequences of a flawed vaccine that becomes mandated and required as policy to attend schools, work or even to leave the home to shop? We might be faced with an epidemic of vaccine-related illnesses and death on a scale that could dwarf the current CoV-19 pandemic.

    There would be a greater rationale to push forward a fast-tracked vaccine if the private vaccine manufacturers were held legally liable for vaccine-related injuries and deaths. However, this was laid to rest by the Reagan administration after the passage of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act in 1986, which freed the pharmaceutical industry from personal injury lawsuits. Consequently, there is no incentive whatsoever for the vaccine industry to perform thorough due diligence analyses and reviews and to adopt gold standard scientific measures to create a safe and effective vaccine. In effect, they have free rein to develop vaccines according to their own rules.

    According to German oncologist Claus Kohnlein, we may well be in the era of “virus mania.” The prevailing medical establishment has become dominated by a rapidly expanding private industry obsessed with viruses and the invention of pandemics for enormous profit. This obsession has hijacked not only medical practice and legislators who are determined to mandate vaccination, but has also infiltrated the entire mainstream media. This is despite consensual confirmatory evidence that some of these viruses may not be dangerous enough to warrant a vaccine nor demand mass screening to monitor potential infection. For example, University of Toronto professor emeritus of pathology, Dr. Etienne de Harven would have us ask:

    do molecular markers for retroviruses truly confirm the presence of a virus, or is this a human invention that substitutes the absence of identifiable viral proteins and particles? Embedded in all of the confusion over CoV-19 and the heated debates and uncertainty over life returning to normal, the mainstream chorus chants that stability will only resume after a vaccine is launched on the public. At this moment, Kohnlein’s 2007 book Virus Mania: Avian Flu, Cervical Cancer, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio is essential reading to expose the life-threatening failures in modern medical science’s efforts to tackle viral threats. And what Kohnlein outlines is being repeated again with CoV-19.

    The need for a vaccine in order for society and the economy to return to normal was clearly stated by Trump’s Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. “.. for the economy to fully recover,” he stated, “that may have to await the arrival of a vaccine.” Unfortunately, besides the White House and nation being impatient and placing high hopes in a vaccine, we are also witnessing a careless zeal to cut regulatory corners. And this atmosphere could potentially end in a serious medical disaster on the not-too-distant horizon. Virus mania is morphing into vaccine mania. That vaccine mania has become a reality is evidenced in the 133 vaccines currently in development worldwide targeted against CoV-19 according to the Milken Institute.

    Many challenges must be recognized and surmounted before an effective CoV-19 vaccine can be deemed safe.. The virus has already been shown to mutate rapidly despite beliefs that its RNA is stable. .Mutations of course naturally occur when a virus changes hosts, especially after jumping species. However, RNA viruses mutate more readily than larger DNA viruses such as herpes, HPV and smallpox. University of Cambridge has identified three separate mutations since the Wuhan outbreak. Last month Los Alamos National Laboratory reporteda recent mutation that is more contagious and transmittable than the original Wuhan strain. Another strain was identified in India; the South China Morning Post reported that this Indian strain is being viewed as more virulent for the development of severe acute respiratory syndrome. The researchers from National Changhua University in Taiwan and Murdoch University in Australia warned that it “means current vaccine development against Sars-CoV-2 is at risk of becoming futile.” The problem with mutations, similar to the challenges to create a universal flu vaccine, is whether or not any CoV-19 vaccine would generate sufficient immunity to combat future mutant strains and whether this is a cross-over of multi-strain immunity.

    Furthermore, some reports indicate that natural

    CoV-19 immunity may wane quickly. This is an additional caution about any promises that a fast-tracked and poorly evaluated vaccine, which will bypass a rigorous regulatory review, will provide much if any long-term immunity. In a preliminary study, Columbia University researchers identified people who were reinfected with the same coronavirus strain within a single year. Twelve individuals tested positive two or three times for the same strain within 18 months. Similar findings were noted in South Korea. The Columbia scientists’ conclusion is that coronavirus “immunity seems to wane quickly.” Dr. Matthew Frieman at the University of Maryland is an expert in coronaviruses. He states that “we get coronaviruses every winter even though we’re seroconverted….. We really don’t understand whether it is a change in the virus over time [ie., mutations] or antibodies that don’t protect from infection.”

    The consequences are that proposals for issuing immunity certificates or passports would be utterly futile, an extraordinary waste of funding that would accomplish little.

    Since 2003 efforts have been made to develop coronavirus vaccines following the first SARS outbreak in China. All of these efforts failed either because of a lack in funding or because of observable serious adverse effects that necessitated the project to cease. To our knowledge, none of these efforts reached human trials because of serious adverse effects in animal trials.

    However, now we are witnessing one company Moderna bypassing animal studies with its new CoV vaccine and commencing with human trials. The company has already reported that its experimental vaccine showed signs of being “safe and provoked a strong immune response” in a first phase clinical trial; the vaccine was administered to a very small number of human participants (N=45) to determine safety and to measure the levels of volunteers’ immune response. Just over half of the participants had recognizable antibodies, but these were “binding antibodies.” What is critical for protection is neutralizing antibodies; and on this account only 4 of the 45 participants were actually “analyzed” to show promising neutralizing antibody results. Nor did Moderna report any T-cell activity, essential for fighting the virus. In other words, Moderna’s premature reports are negligible for guaranteeing an effective and safe CoV-19 vaccine.

    We should remember this is only a first phase trial. The vaccine has a ways to go before it can be ruled effective. “If you look at vaccine development,” stated Dr. Daniel Salmon, Director of Johns Hopkins’ Institute for Vaccine Safety, “[there are] lots of vaccines that look good out of phase one that don’t turn out to be good products.”

    Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, a professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, has documented NIAID’s Dr. Anthony Fauci’s support of Moderna’s vaccine, and. according to Bobby Kennedy, Faico waved the needs for the company to test the vaccine in ferrets and primates and instead proceed directly into larger human trials. Both Moderna’s and its German competitor CureVac’s CoV-19 vaccine rely on mRNA technology, which carry strands of mRNA that encode CoV-19-specific proteins intended to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. Bill Gates says he is “particularly excited by two new approaches that some of the candidates are taking: RNA and DNA vaccines.” But modern medicine has no practical experience with such vaccines being given to entire populations; therefore, there is absolutely no past history to monitor potential long-term risks, such as whether an engineered genetic code of a viral antigen will recombine adversely with the body’s own DNA and trigger other life-threatening injuries we have to be aware of.

    Despite the hype over Moderna’s apparent success and a huge 39 percent rise in its stock price, a recent article in Nature warns us not to pop the Champaign corks yet. Moderna’s data remains unpublished and many scientists worry the results may be “murky.” It is worrisome that the company would make such an announcement before any data is made available for independent review. Seemingly this was solely for financial reasons; Moderna’s premature claims were rewarded with a $1.3 million stock offering to bankroll its vaccine. Trump is also throwing his weight behind Moderna’s vaccine: it is manufactured in the US, funded by the government, and Warp Speed advisor Slaoui sits on the board of the Lonza Group that is collaborating with Moderna. One caveat is that Moderna has never brought a vaccine nor a therapeutic product to the market and is therefore largely inexperienced. There is also no public release of consent forms that the trial participants are required to sign. And no indication of how much volunteers were paid. Are they being compensated with inordinate amounts beyond the industry’s standards to accept high risk? None of this information has been provided.

    The Nature article also quotes Baylor University vaccine scientist and coronavirus expert Dr. Peter Hotez’s response to Moderna’s announcement, “I’m not convinced that this is really a positive result.” The article notes that

    “… most people who have recovered from COVID-19 without hospitalization did not produce high levels of ‘neutralizing antibodies’, which block the virus from infecting cells. Moderna measured these potent antibodies in eight participants and found their levels to be similar to those of recovered patients.”

    The most promising vaccine, Hotez believes, is being developed by Sinovac Biotech in China, but it requires three separate inoculations. Sinovac’s vaccine after being administered to rhesus monkeys showed no presence of the virus found in the throats, lungs or rectums of the primates.

    Another vaccine being developed at Oxford University protected monkeys (only six in the trial) from pneumonia but the primates;’ nasal passages contained as much of the virus as those unvaccinated. In other words, all vaccinated monkeys became infected.In addition, the antibody titers were extremely low, which suggests the animals may not be fully protected. Nevertheless, Oxford is interpreting these weak results as a success and will also push forward with recruiting participants for a large human trial.

    This sets a very disturbing precedent that will likely be imitated by other vaccine companies either now or during a future infectious pandemic. Still other vaccines in development are entirely experimental and have no predecessor on the market. Noroavx has created a recombinant nanoparticle vaccine — an artificially engineered fake replica of the actual virus. Since there is no vaccine on the current CDC schedule utilizing this technology, we have no idea of its long-term safety.

    So what do earlier efforts at developing a coronovirus vaccine tell us?

    In 2012, a vaccine being developed by the University of Texas at Galveston and Baylor University observed pulmonary immunopathology in an animal study with mice. The researchers proposed the vaccine’s pathology may be attributed to an adverse cytokine response, an observation a large number of physicians and researchers have made with persons severely affected with CoV-19. A later vaccine effort in 2016 by the same institutions targeted the MERS coronavirus strain and observed lung immunopathology similar to infection with the wild virus.

    A year earlier, another vaccine effort led by the University of North Carolina’s Vaccine Institute noted an increase in eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary responses in a mouse model. Eosinophils are a type of white blood cell that are associated with infections, allergies and cancers. However, an abnormal increase in eos, a condition called eosinophilia, can result in nasal allergies and even cancer. This raises a question whether the North Carolina vaccine could have potentially contributed to lung cancer? The vaccine was also shown to provide poor protection from infection both in the adjuvant and non-adjuvant vaccines.

    A later 2018 SARS vaccine trial with rhesus macaques conducted at Wuhan University led to antibody-dependent vaccine induced infections. The project was supposedly discontinued.

    Another SARS vaccine trial with ferrets led by researchers at the University of Manitoba observed a promising neutralizing antibody response; however there severe inflammatory responses were observed in the animals’ livers. The scientists concluded that the vaccine was “associated with enhanced hepatitis.” That vaccine project too seems to have been shelved.

    Japanese scientists in 2008 developed a SARS vaccine that utilized a recombinant vaccinia virus that expressed the SARS spike protein. Immunized mice exhibited increased infiltration of esoinophils in the lungs, a thickening of the alveolar epithelium, an uptake in cytokines contributing to abnormal inflammatory storms, and aggravated severe pneumonia.

    Clearly, the past history to develop a coronavirus vaccine is not encouraging.

    Jennifer Sun, a molecular biologist at Princeton, warns that due to past coronavirus vaccine failures, the CoV-19 signatures need to be fully evaluated before any human trials commence in order “to prevent organ damage upon viral challenge.” Baylor University, which has attempted to develop a vaccine, knows the problems all too well. According to Dr. Robert Atmar at Baylor’s Department of Molecular Virology, coronaviruses “are notoriously difficult when it comes to vaccine development…. the concern is that if these vaccines were used in people, they could end up causing harm.”

    Other scientists have issued warnings against hastily approving a vaccine without proper large, long-term clinical trials and scrupulous evaluation. For example, Dr. Paul Offit at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and one of the nation’s most vocal advocates for compulsory vaccination, has criticized the shortened vaccine timelines being stated. In a Philadelphia Inquirer interview, Offit cautioned for the need of “extensive animal model testing” to be certain the vaccine “is safe in animals.” This process, Offit says, “takes a lot of time, typically years.” “If you’re going to be testing this in otherwise healthy people who are very, very unlikely to die from this infection,” he continues, “you better make sure it’s safe. So you want those regulations in place…. The point being: We’re not very good at assessing risk.”

    Trump is pushing to have a vaccine ready by the end of this year. Offit and others argue two years is more realistic, and the global analytics firm Clarivate estimated that a vaccine “will require at least five years… to complete the development process through full regulatory approval.”

    The good news is that the firm predicts that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine has a 5% probability of success. The bad news is that the government and federal health agencies will very likely ram the first promising vaccine through the regulatory channels without having been properly evaluated for its efficacy and safety.

    Without serious critical thought, the demand for a vaccine now outweighs the risks. And there is the potential for many risks that remain completely unknown, which is the same for any vaccine. Trump said it will be available “in a fairly quick manner.” In an interview with philosophy professor Nicholas Evans at the University of Massachusetts, he raised concerns over the lack of proper animal model vaccine trials before administering it to humans. Unfortunately there are no US laws that require animal trials. Consequently the pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of this derelict oversight in their race to be the first to get a vaccine approved and distributed. Evans also worries about “the shredding of regulations and regulatory norms as part of their [the federal health agencies] response to this outbreak and this is a very dangerous proposition.”

    Rarely do politicians, and increasingly more and more scientists, make efforts to learn the lessons history offers. Past efforts to develop a coronavirus vaccine have failed and the adverse effects observed in these efforts are clear indicators for why fast-tracking a CoV-19 vaccine would be frightfully irresponsible. But now this is all being ignored within the Trump White House, the CDC, and across most of the medical establishment, particularly the private vaccine makers. In addition, the media continues to fuel our vaccine mania, priming the public to willingly surrender their bodies to the syringe under a pretext of being protected from future CoV outbreaks.

    Perhaps the most disturbing problem our national public health faces is the failure of our leading health agencies — the CDC, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the World Health Organization — to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that no vaccine developed during the past half century is truly safe and effective for all. Are there any scientific gold standard studies — double blind, controlled trials using an actual inert placebo — conducted for any vaccine currently on the market? No? Have meticulous independent studies been performed to compare the quality of health between vaccinated and non-vaccinated participants? Unfortunately there aren’t any, and the CDC was forced to acknowledge this during a Congressional subcommittee hearing on autism.

    All of the media’s vaccine propaganda is stacked with pro-industry scientists who have something to gain. They are always presented as the experts. On the other hand, independent scientists, as well as board certified physicians and pediatricians, who question the official vaccine dogma, are attacked by federal officials and the mainstream media as alarmists, anti-vaxxers and even threats to society if they speak out. Several years ago the World Health Organization listed vaccine opponents among the 10 leading threats to global health.

    But no one considers that the many millions of people who either themselves or their children received a vaccine and experienced serious adverse effects were at one time pro-vaccination. It was for that very reason they submitted themselves to be vaccinated in the first place. Now with the dramatic rise in vaccine injuries and deaths as more shots are added to the nation’s vaccination schedule, we still await Congressional hearings at the federal and state levels that invite independent scientists, toxicologists and immunologists to explain the actual peer-review literature that would have us conclude there is no such thing as either a safe vaccine or vaccine that creates neutralizing antibodies for any given person. In other words, every vaccine may or not be effective and there is no proof they protect everyone.

    There is also the utterly absurd notion that whenever someone receives a vaccine and does not come down with the disease, 100 percent of the credit is given to the vaccine’s efficacy.

    And where are the real advocates who are speaking on behalf of the victims from vaccine injuries? Certainly not the pharmaceutical industry that profits immensely without any liability for damages. Nor are advocates to be found in federal and state health agencies, in most of the medical community nor across the spectrum of the media. Rather, those who refuse to take unsafe vaccines are blamed for spreading fear, uncertainty, conspiracies and even infectious disease.

    But now those who have been injured or their loved ones are speaking out in greater unison. This is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for those who have profited for years from their pain." "
    Last edited by onawah; 23rd May 2020 at 04:36.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  14. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Elainie (24th May 2020), Franny (23rd May 2020), greybeard (23rd May 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd May 2020), Harmony (23rd May 2020), kfm27917 (25th May 2020), Reinhard (24th May 2020), shaberon (23rd May 2020), Sunny (23rd May 2020), wavydome (25th May 2020), wondering (23rd May 2020)

  15. Link to Post #328
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,375
    Thanks
    7,828
    Thanked 26,346 times in 4,686 posts

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

    U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients




    The endeavor cost more than $660 million, according to an NPR analysis of federal spending records.

    But nearly four months into the pandemic, most of these facilities haven't treated a single patient.


    https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/85171...=1590251229970
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Elainie (24th May 2020), greybeard (23rd May 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd May 2020), pueblo (23rd May 2020), Reinhard (24th May 2020), shaberon (23rd May 2020), Sunny (23rd May 2020)

  17. Link to Post #329
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    2,013
    Thanks
    3,240
    Thanked 6,832 times in 1,738 posts

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

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)

    The good news is that the firm predicts that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine has a 5% probability of success. The bad news is that the government and federal health agencies will very likely ram the first promising vaccine through the regulatory channels without having been properly evaluated for its efficacy and safety.
    Robert Kennedy's response on this indicates that three trial participants wound up with a level three (impairing) syndrome at a period of forty-three days after use. In world math, this is like saying it is ok to potentially cripple 1.5 billion people in order to treat everyone.

    This vaccine's trial must have started at least that long before the press statement, i. e. they had a formula ready to go around the beginning of April.

    How realistic is this compared to the background of sixty years of coronaviruses with no corresponding success?

    Most field hospitals around the world are getting packed up with little to no use. That seems to be where most of the money and policies are headed, little to no use. Except it works for stock investors, just not the old ones that had airlines or something, but those with enough intuition to have gone medical for the win, or killing blow, depending on how you look at it.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    greybeard (23rd May 2020), onawah (23rd May 2020), Philippe (23rd May 2020), pueblo (23rd May 2020), wavydome (25th May 2020)

  19. Link to Post #330
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    There are no good or safe vaccines imho. I posted that article because Gary Null is a more mainstream name and so may reach more people who are still undecided.
    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)

    The good news is that the firm predicts that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine has a 5% probability of success. The bad news is that the government and federal health agencies will very likely ram the first promising vaccine through the regulatory channels without having been properly evaluated for its efficacy and safety.
    Robert Kennedy's response on this indicates that three trial participants wound up with a level three (impairing) syndrome at a period of forty-three days after use. In world math, this is like saying it is ok to potentially cripple 1.5 billion people in order to treat everyone.

    This vaccine's trial must have started at least that long before the press statement, i. e. they had a formula ready to go around the beginning of April.

    How realistic is this compared to the background of sixty years of coronaviruses with no corresponding success?

    Most field hospitals around the world are getting packed up with little to no use. That seems to be where most of the money and policies are headed, little to no use. Except it works for stock investors, just not the old ones that had airlines or something, but those with enough intuition to have gone medical for the win, or killing blow, depending on how you look at it.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Elainie (24th May 2020), greybeard (24th May 2020), pueblo (23rd May 2020), shaberon (25th May 2020), wavydome (25th May 2020)

  21. Link to Post #331
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked 1,197 times in 232 posts

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




    David Icke dicusses the problems with the testing explains in the first 4 minutes why the CV 19 virus has not been identified and the problems with testing. He also reports on the real agendas and Why Bill Gates needs to be arrested to crimes against humanity.



    Blessings Luke

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    shaberon (25th May 2020), wondering (24th May 2020)

  23. Link to Post #332
    Canada Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th September 2018
    Posts
    308
    Thanks
    867
    Thanked 1,356 times in 292 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)



    David Icke dicusses the problems with the testing explains in the first 4 minutes why the CV 19 virus has not been identified and the problems with testing. He also reports on the real agendas and Why Bill Gates needs to be arrested to crimes against humanity.



    Blessings Luke
    Thanks Luke.
    Often times Icke will get a little sloppy with his research.
    Such is the case here.

    He mentioned several times that the President of Tanzania sent in his samples to the WHO for testing.
    The samples were sent to a local Tanzanian testing facility.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DaveToo For This Post:

    greybeard (24th May 2020), shaberon (25th May 2020), wondering (24th May 2020)

  25. Link to Post #333
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    310
    Thanks
    1,223
    Thanked 1,491 times in 302 posts

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

    Trust the statistics? Not when the UK has been counting a nasal and throat swab of the same patient as TWO DIFFERENT tests!
    Quote Tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double-counted, officials admit

    Two samples taken from the same patient are being recorded as two separate tests in the Government's official figures

    Tens of thousands of Covid-19 tests have been double-counted in the Government’s official tally, public health officials have admitted.

    Diagnostic tests which involve taking saliva and nasal samples from the same patient are being counted as two tests, not one.

    The Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England each confirmed the double-counting.

    This inflates the daily reported diagnostic test numbers by over 20 per cent, with that proportion being much higher earlier on in the crisis before home test kits were added to the daily totals.

    Almost 350,000 more tests have been reported in Government data than people tested since the start of the pandemic.

    The discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting salvia and nasal samples for the same individual twice.

    Public Health England oversee the testing of patients who are seriously ill in hospital, as well as the most critical key workers.

    The test involves a swab from the mouth and nose as well as a sample of saliva. Although both of these are taken from the same patient, they are counted twice by the Government in its daily data.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...box=1590091486

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    DaveToo (24th May 2020), greybeard (24th May 2020), Gwin Ru (24th May 2020), Reinhard (24th May 2020), shaberon (25th May 2020), wavydome (25th May 2020), wondering (24th May 2020)

  27. Link to Post #334
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    1st April 2016
    Posts
    2,013
    Thanks
    3,240
    Thanked 6,832 times in 1,738 posts

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

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    There are no good or safe vaccines imho. I posted that article because Gary Null is a more mainstream name and so may reach more people who are still undecided.
    I hope so, I hope that overall a different message will prove itself to the public's eyes that "you don't necessarily need all this" including various concoctions generally claimed to produce effective relevant anti-bodies.

    It seems to me, in the long run, it may become evident to a majority, but the eerie thing here is how fast it may come to be and what kind of regulations accompany it. The only thing I can think of is if someone can grab enough legal muscle to make the whole thing plain as outright grafting. If someone (Johnson and Johnson) can be guilty of over-prescribing opiates, then someone (Johnson and Johnson) can be guilty of over-prescribing vaccines. Promoting, making widely available, etc. There are other names attached, with Moderna being a glaring example of it. I could not come up with anything more scandalous in a Faustian farce, and so I hope the message does something a little more forceful than "pick up the swing vote" and that some kind of fraud, conflict of interest, etc., will actually stick to it.

    Even if that happens, I am pretty sure that perhaps someone else's vaccine will at least be available in the stores like anything else. I don't think it will completely go away. But I think the worst brunt of it can be blocked, again as the last line there are probably at least a few sheriffs who would not allow something physically mandatory, and maybe the circle of those involved in the worst collusion will take a serious beating.

    This really has to go over our heads and find more dissident doctors able to make cases that would be going up against what I am sure is not exactly a cheap legal team. Maybe the right judge. I can see it now, we'll get a trial on live tv where it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that "Billy Gates, you've had your finger in the apple pie ever since you were six minutes old" and the judge will say "Ok Bill, that's $14.72, go about your business". It will take something really strong to keep his philanthropy where it belongs, at his house.

    So yeah, I hope that people in general will start listening to professionals with other views, at the same time I hope these guys blow by the time lapse of public opinion and cripple what appears to be trying to stand up.

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to shaberon For This Post:

    greybeard (25th May 2020), kfm27917 (26th May 2020), onawah (25th May 2020), pueblo (25th May 2020), wavydome (25th May 2020), wondering (25th May 2020)

  29. Link to Post #335
    United States Avalon Member wavydome's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th January 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    817
    Thanks
    2,218
    Thanked 2,743 times in 711 posts

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

    Quote Posted by shaberon (here)
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    There are no good or safe vaccines imho. I posted that article because Gary Null is a more mainstream name and so may reach more people who are still undecided.
    I hope so, I hope that overall a different message will prove itself to the public's eyes that "you don't necessarily need all this" including various concoctions generally claimed to produce effective relevant anti-bodies.
    For more than 20 years now I've heard Gary Null shows online or on FM radio before webcasting began, as he was always spreading the message of natural health backed by extensive science-sources, and then increasingly criticizing the unhealthy profiteering of authoritarianism, and always phrased with kindness and calm, so as not to depress people. I expected this could at some point promote humanitarian trends, but I was wrong here.

    In this last decade I am increasingly struck by Nikola Tesla's statements that he is, (and by example all of us are), automaton(s) or machines(s). I first read these statements in the 1970s and as a youth had to dismiss this as unclear, despite that his work so impressed me otherwise. In recent years the better parts of scattered, readings also point out this issue, and furthermore the subdivision which defines the mental, the emotional and the physical robotic composition, which finally gives me more to work on internally.

    Most of governance particularly including forced vaccination functions on the emotional core of people. There is no way to overcome this lower emotionality except by higher emotionality or by higher mentality, (such as scientific debating, if ever that is achieved today). Both of which are hard to give away, when lower emotionality captivates physicality, and away these go, saturating the lower neural centers, (chakras).

    I wonder if we cannot put together a list of scientifically undeniable links, just the links with several key words each, to easily look up, and share on social media, except that this always collides with that emotionality of our audiences, so that only by our personal touches can we reach out to people we know, (with the simple key subject #).

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wavydome For This Post:

    greybeard (25th May 2020), onawah (25th May 2020), wondering (25th May 2020)

  31. Link to Post #336
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    More Evidence CV-19 Narrative Fake News, Media Covered up
    As Riots Continue, More Evidence that COVID-19 Narrative Was Fake News and Deliberately Covered up by the Corporate Media
    June 2, 2020
    by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
    https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/as-ri...rporate-media/



    "As riots continue across the U.S. today, more and more evidence is surfacing that the months of lock downs were based on a false narrative propagated by the corporate media, which is where the real fake news originates these days, as their Big Tech partners work hard to suppress the truth about Coronavirus from publications like Health Impact News and others in the alternative media.

    The publication Off-Guardian ran a story yesterday (May 31, 2020) with three examples where the media got caught trying to hide the truth about Coronavirus.

    On May 26th Dr Alexander Myasnikov, Russia’s head of coronavirus information, gave an interview to former-Presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak in which he apparently let slip his true feelings.

    Believing the interview over, and the camera turned off, Myasnikov said:

    “It’s all bull**** […] It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality […] Why has the whole world been destroyed? That I don’t know.”

    According to an e-mail leaked to Danish newspaper Politiken, the Danish Health Authority disagree with their government’s approach to the coronavirus. They cover it in two articles here and here (For those who don’t speak Danish, thelocal.dk have covered the story too).

    There’s a lot of interesting information there, not least of which is the clear implication that politicians appear to be pressing the scientific advisors to overstate the danger (they did the same thing in the UK), along with the decision of some civil servants to withhold data from the public until after the lockdown had been extended.

    But by far the most important quote is from a March 15th e-mail [our emphasis]:

    The Danish Health Authority continues to consider that covid-19 cannot be described as a generally dangerous disease, as it does not have either a usually serious course or a high mortality rate,”

    Earlier this month, on May 9th, a report was leaked to the German alternate media magazine Tichys Einblick titled “Analysis of the Crisis Management”.

    The report was commissioned by the German department of the interior, but then its findings were ignored, prompting one of the authors to release it through non-official channels.

    The fall out of that, including attacks on the authors and minimising of the report’s findings, is all very fascinating and we highly recommend this detailed report on Strategic Culture (or read the full report here in German: https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...l-false-alarm/).

    We’re going to focus on just the reports conclusions, including [our emphasis]:

    The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
    The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
    During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.
    After being attacked in the press, and suspended from his job, the leaker and other authors of the report released a joint statement, calling on the government to respond to their findings.

    Read the full article at Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/31/...LtEyxbthZYe6zk



    On May 29, 2020, The Strategic Culture Foundation also covered the story of the leaked document in Germany, and the attempts by the media there to do “damage control.”

    Germany’s federal government and mainstream media are engaged in damage control after a report that challenges the established Corona narrative leaked from the interior ministry.

    Some of the report key passages are:

    The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
    The people who die from Corona are essentially those who would statistically die this year, because they have reached the end of their lives and their weakened bodies can no longer cope with any random everyday stress (including the approximately 150 viruses currently in circulation).
    Worldwide, within a quarter of a year, there has been no more than 250,000 deaths from Covid-19, compared to 1.5 million deaths [25,100 in Germany] during the influenza wave 2017/18.
    The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
    A reproach could go along these lines: During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.
    So far, so bad. But it gets worse.

    The report focuses on the “manifold and heavy consequences of the Corona measures” and warns that these are “grave”.

    More people are dying because of state-imposed Corona-measures than they are being killed by the virus.

    The reason is a scandal in the making:

    A Corona-focused German healthcare system is postponing life-saving surgery and delaying or reducing treatment for non-Corona patients.

    Read the full article at The Strategic Culture Foundation: https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...l-false-alarm/

    Of course, the same thing is happening here in the U.S. Could part of the reason people are taking to the streets and rioting these past few days be because many are waking up to the fact that they have not been told the truth about why so many of them had to lose their jobs and freedoms?

    Stay tuned, as we prepare to report more on this issue."

    Comment on this article at:
    https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/as...rporate-media/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    greybeard (3rd June 2020), Philippe (2nd June 2020), wondering (2nd June 2020)

  33. Link to Post #337
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    12,693
    Thanks
    29,724
    Thanked 55,817 times in 11,198 posts

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

    H.R. 6666: $100 Billion in Taxes to Fund Your Persecution?
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    June 02, 2020
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=885306761

    "This new bill calls for $100 billion of our taxpayer money to fund our own persecution - despite the fact this COVID-19 virus isn't particularly lethal for those under the age of 80, and has an overall survival rate of about 99%. Take action today and help us stop it.STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, May 1, 2020, by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-III
    The bill authorizes CDC to award grants for testing, contact tracing, monitoring and other activities to address COVID-19
    The government grants — $100 billion of taxpayer money for 2020 alone — would be used by “eligible entities” to hire employees and buy the supplies needed to conduct testing and contact tracing, including sending employees to the residences of citizens to conduct COVID-19 testing
    H.R. 6666 does not ensure privacy. It also sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights, including the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth amendments
    Contact your Congressional representative today, and ask them to oppose H.R. 6666: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...acing-app.aspx


    As if vaccine passports, COVID-19 contact tracing apps https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...acing-app.aspx
    ... and the Rockefeller Foundation's plan to reopen America https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rtificate.aspx
    ...don’t already pose enough of a threat to civil liberties and democratic society, here comes a new bill, H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.1

    The bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., May 1, 2020. As of May 25, 2020, the bill has 64 cosponsors — all Democrats. Originally, there also was one Republican, but he withdrew his sponsorship May 15. According to the summary of the bill:2

    “This bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to award grants for testing, contact tracing, monitoring, and other activities to address COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019).

    Entities such as federally qualified health centers, nonprofit organizations, and certain hospitals and schools are eligible to receive such grants. In awarding the grants, the CDC shall prioritize applicants that (1) operate in hot spots and medically underserved communities, and (2) agree to hire individuals from the communities where grant activities occur.”

    H.R. 6666 — A ‘Monstrously Unconstitutional’ Bill
    Needless to say, many an eyebrow are being raised over the “6666” in the resolution. It seems both unfortunate and ironically apt. As noted by Cheryl Chumley in a May 12, 2020, Washington Times article:3

    “Mark of the beast. Mark of the beast for a beastly, monstrously unconstitutional bill. After all, what’s more devilishly un-American than launching one of the most massive government surveillance programs of private citizens in U.S. history, all under the guise of protecting people from the coronavirus?”

    The government grants — a whopping $100 billion of taxpayer money for 2020 alone — would be used by “eligible entities” to hire employees and buy the supplies needed to conduct testing and contact tracing. This includes sending employees to the residences of citizens to conduct COVID-19 testing.

    Entities eligible for grant money include federally qualified health centers, school-based clinics, disproportionate share hospitals, academic medical centers, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, high schools and any other entities determined to be eligible by the Health and Human Services Secretary.

    If you test positive, you would then be quarantined either at a mobile health unit or in your own home. Contact tracers would also collect information about anyone you may have come into contact with so that they can be tested and, if needed, quarantined.

    As noted by Chumley, just how the government intends to ensure compliance with quarantine remains an unanswered question. We now know that up to 80% of people who test positive remain asymptomatic,4 and for people who feel fine, being locked up, whether at home or in a mobile unit, for two weeks or more may not be a welcome proposition at this point.

    COVID-19 Does Not Warrant Proposed Tracking Measures
    In a nutshell, H.R. 6666 calls for taking $100 billion of our taxpayer money to fund our own persecution. I say “persecution,” considering this virus isn’t particularly lethal for people under the age of 80, and has an overall survival rate of about 99% and therefore doesn’t pose a significant threat for the vast majority of the population.

    At present, most data are still unreliable, seeing how “suspected” cases are lumped into mortality statistics. But two situations for which we have more complete data suggest the risk from SARS-CoV-2 is minimal.

    For example, of the roughly 4,800 crew on the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, 840 tested positive,5 but 60% were asymptomatic,6 meaning they had no symptoms. Only one crewmember died.7

    Similarly, among the 3,711 passengers and crew onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 712 (19.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5% were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptoms, only 9.7% required intensive care and 1.3% (nine) died.8

    Military personnel, as you would expect, tend to be healthier than the general population. Still, the data from these two incidents reveal several important points to consider. First of all, it suggests that even when living in close, crowded quarters, the infection rate is low.

    Only 17.5% of the USS Theodore Roosevelt crew got infected — slightly lower than the 19.2% of those onboard the Diamond Princess, which had a greater ratio of older people.

    Second, fit and healthy individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic than not — 60% of naval personnel compared to 46.5% of civilians onboard the Diamond Princess had no symptoms despite testing positive.‘Devilish’ in Its Substance
    While H.R. 6666 may not be satanic, it’s certainly “devilish,” Bob Barr writes in a May 20, 2020, Marietta Daily Journal op-ed.9 Barr, president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation, is a former U.S. Congressman for Georgia’s Seventh District.

    “Make no mistake … the bill is a dangerous piece of legislation, not because of its number, but because of its substance,” Barr writes. “It is the latest in a long line of legislative vehicles … to increase the federal government’s power to gather and database private information on citizens ...

    In this latest effort, House Democrats have employed the tradecraft for which the Congress has become notoriously adept — hiding the true purpose of legislation behind a façade of protecting people from a known or perceived danger …

    The specific provisions within H.R. 6666 pose a very real danger; not only as a stand-alone bill … but as a possible amendment that could be slipped into the most recent, massive COVID-19 ‘stimulus’ bill that passed the House last week.

    The administration already has signaled support for some version of a Phase IV relief package, and whatever that final document looks like, it is certain to be long and complicated, making it a perfect vehicle in which to hide a provision for ‘contact tracing’ similar perhaps to what Rush’s TRACE Act would do ...

    Those of us who are concerned about the growth of government surveillance and data-basing of personal information must be vigilant against measures like the TRACE Act, regardless of their surface appeal. We must demand the Congress and the Administration aggressively oppose any such measures.”

    WARNING: Apple, Android Updates Include API for Tracing Apps
    Considering the latest iPhone and Android updates make the phones contact-tracing ready, the bill has, in pragmatic terms, already come to pass.

    As reported by Global World Trends,10 Apple’s iOS 13.5 update contains a built-in Exposure Notifications API, which will “allow governments and public health agencies to develop apps that alert you if you've come into contact with someone who later tests positive for Covid-19 and that person anonymously logs their positive result into a database.”

    API stands for “application programming interface.”11 It’s essentially a set of functions that allow apps to access certain data or features of the operating system. That said, you would still have to download a contact tracing app in order to participate in a contact tracing program, according to an Apple representative.12

    HR 6666 Sets Us on a Dangerous Path
    As detailed by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in a recent “Action Alert” emailed to users of NVIC’s Advocacy Portal:13

    “H.R. 6666 is a federal funding bill. It proposes to create a surveillance infrastructure that can be used by the federal government, as well as local and state governments and private businesses, to require medical testing and tracking of all citizens.

    This is in violation of fundamental civil liberties as set forth in the Bill of Rights, which include the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and limit the power of the government.

    H.R. 6666 lacks safeguards and conditions related to funding of the proposed surveillance operation to prevent it from being applied to intrusive programs mandating testing and surveillance without an individual’s voluntary consent.

    If this legislation is passed by Congress and enacted into law, it could lead to denial of an individual’s right to appear in public spaces and travel; the right to employment and education or participation in government-funded services, and the right to receive care in a government funded hospital or other any other medical facility.

    H.R. 6666 specifically allows for funded entities to home quarantine a person against their will, even while they are healthy. Once a vaccine is available, the testing and tracing results potentially could be used to force individuals to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine against their will.”

    As noted by NVIC, while the bill specifies that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,” H.R. 6666 in no way guarantees privacy.

    HIPAA “has always allowed disclosure of private health information to government officials and other government approved entities including foreign governments without the knowledge or consent of the individual for the purpose of conducting public health surveillance, investigations or interventions,” NVIC writes.14

    Public Health Crisis Does Not Suspend Bill of Rights
    NVIC also highlights the fact that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution cannot be suspended or ignored by state or federal government during public health emergencies.

    As noted by the U.S. Department of Justice in a recent Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs in the case of Temple Baptist Church against the City of Greenville and its mayor, which banned drive-in church services and slapped attendees with fines:15

    “There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, ‘individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.’

    In re Abbott, — F.3d —, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.”

    Indeed, H.R. 6666 “sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights,” NVIC notes, including the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth amendments:

    •The Fourth Amendment16 right of American citizens is to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As explained by NVIC:

    “The bill does not allow individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to be safe in their homes free from warrantless government intrusion, and does not provide for voluntary refusal of testing and monitoring by a government funded entity.

    The bill also does not set forth how the contacts of persons with COVID-19 will be traced and whether the Constitutional rights of those infected with COVID-19, as well as their contacts, will be upheld.”

    •The Fifth Amendment17 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

    “This legislation provides government funding of entities that will enforce testing and potentially enforce vaccination of healthy individuals, who are suspected of having come into contact with COVID-19 positive persons whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms, without requiring the voluntary consent of the individual,” NVIC writes.

    •The Eighth Amendment18 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of citizens. In this case, as noted by NVIC:

    “The proposed law provides government funding to entities that will create and implement programs that trace, monitor and support the enforced quarantine of healthy individuals, who are suspected of coming into contact with COVID-19 persons, whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms and whether or not they may already be immune.”

    •The 9th Amendment19 of the U.S. Constitution bestows upon the people rights not specifically set forth in the Constitution.

    “H.R. 6666 provides funding for entities to create and implement undefined ‘related activities’ to COVID-19 testing and unnamed ‘other purposes.’”

    Take Action Today!
    “H.R. 6666 should be opposed because it provides federal funding to entities to create and enforce unrestricted surveillance, testing, tracing and quarantine mechanisms and has no set end date. There is simply no way to know how many inalienable rights protected under the U.S. Constitution could be infringed upon or taken away from citizens if this bill becomes law,” NVIC says.

    I urge you to take action today and help us stop this nasty bill. Call and email your U.S. congressional representative and ask them to vote against H.R. 6666, the “COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.”

    Feel free to select a few salient points to personalize your message. Keep in mind that many staffers are still working remotely, so be prepared to leave a coherent phone message.

    If you’re unsure who your representative is, or don’t have their contact information, you can look them up on the NVIC’s Advocacy Portal. https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/National.aspx Just enter your zip code and click on the names listed to get their contact information. If you happen to live near a district office, you may also consider setting up a longer phone call, video chat or face-to-face meeting with your representative or staff.

    The nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is the largest and oldest consumer-led organization in the U.S. disseminating information on vaccines and infectious diseases and advocating for protection of the legal right to make voluntary vaccination decisions. NVIC researches and publishes referenced information you can trust and use for talking points when you speak with your legislators.

    I urge you to register as a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal so you can receive timely email Action Alerts from NVIC tailored to your state and access state and federal legislation action items and updates on the Portal website. NVIC constantly reviews and updates the status of pending vaccine-related bills so you can take action to protect your rights.

    “Bills can change many times over the legislative process and your timely visits, calls, and emails directed at the correct legislators are critical to this process,” NVIC writes. Lastly, take a moment to forward this newsletter to your friends and family, and ask them to share their concerns with their elected representatives as well." "

    + Sources and References1 Congress.gov HR 6666
    2 Congress.gov HR 6666, Summary tab
    3 Washington Times May 12, 2020
    4 CEBM.net April 6, 2020
    5 Fox News April 23, 2020
    6 Business Insider April 17, 2020
    7 NBC San Diego April 16, 2020
    8 CDC.gov MMWR March 27, 2020; 69(12): 347-352, Diamond Princess
    9 Marietta Daily Journal May 20, 2020
    10 Global World Trends May 20, 2020
    11 MuleSoft, What Is an API?
    12 Wusa9.com May 22, 2020
    13, 14 NVIC May 15, 2020
    15 Justice.gov, US Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:20-cv-64-DMB-JMV (PDF)
    16 US Constitution Amendment 4
    17 US Constitution Amendment 5
    18 US Constitution Amendment 8
    19 US Constitution Amendment 9
    Last edited by onawah; 2nd June 2020 at 21:50.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    greybeard (3rd June 2020), wondering (2nd June 2020)

  35. Link to Post #338
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    1,143
    Thanks
    374
    Thanked 4,591 times in 1,003 posts

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

    A nurse exposes covid fraud at a New York City hospital, where testing negative = confirmed case of covid. Just listen to the 5 minutes starting here (54 min to 59min):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLYT...outu.be&t=3273
    Last edited by TomKat; 12th June 2020 at 12:03.

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Sunny (12th June 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst 1 7 17

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