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

[Tintin]

Rob Slade, who did some wonderful research of his own around the "Skripal Affair" (remember that?) shares this on his Twitter feed today:

[Sue (Ayt)]

It pays to keep in mind that winter months have always been the "reaping" months for the elderly and infirm. When care-taking my parents, grandparents, and others, I always get a feeling of dread come November, wondering who will be taken each winter, and who would make it through for another year.
I think the higher death and hospitalization rates likely reflect this trend.
(After all, pneumonia has historically been known as "The old man's friend.")

Another trend to keep in mind is that of the aging population. The proportion of elderly in the population has grown, so obviously there will proportionately be more deaths recorded each winter for a while. (the baby boom bulge is working its way through the snake)

So anyway, the death rates likely reflect these two trends combined, and will continue to do so each year, I suspect.
----

More People Die In Winter Than Summer

Every year, roughly 2.8 million Americans shuffle off this mortal coil. In 2017, the CDC recorded exactly 2,813,503 deaths for an average of 7,708 deaths per day.

But averages can be misleading. You can drown in a body of water that has an average depth of one foot. The reason is because some parts are really deep and other parts are really shallow. The same logic applies to the average number of daily deaths. While the average is 7,708 per day, there is wide variability depending on the time of year.

Specifically, people are far likelier to die during the winter. New data released from the CDC show very clearly that the heart of winter -- December, January, and February -- are the deadliest months of the year. This may seem counterintuitive, given how much the media hypes summer heat waves. But the reality is that the summer months are actually the safest.


The CDC says that the average number of deaths in January, February, and December are 8,478; 8,351; and 8,344, respectively. By contrast, the summer months of June, July, and August recorded 7,298; 7,157; and 7,158 average daily deaths, respectively. The other months had daily averages somewhere in between those extremes, but it is notable that the relatively cooler spring and fall also exhibited a greater number of deaths than the summer.

What Can We Conclude from This Data?

It's tough to draw any conclusions from this data alone. So, we will need to rely upon some outside information. In general, we can draw three conclusions:

1) Summer heat waves are deadly, but winter is deadlier. This data does not imply that people should ignore summer heat waves. They can indeed be deadly. A heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 was thought to have killed 30,000 people. But while heat waves grab headlines, winter is the more insidious killer.

2) Winter is deadlier because of cold temperatures and influenza. Cold weather is inherently deadly. But it can kill indirectly, as well. It is thought that cold temperatures suppress our immune systems, making us likelier to get sick. (Yep, mom was right.) Perhaps that's why the flu season is almost always in the winter, with February often being the absolute worst month.

3) Any projections about the impact of climate change on weather-related deaths must take #1 and #2 into account. Usually, when the media discusses climate change, there is a focus on the increased number of deaths that may be caused by heat waves and catastrophes like floods. However, it should be kept in mind that winter is the deadliest season, so if global temperatures increase, we would expect fewer deaths during those months.*

*Update on 18-Jul-2019 @ 1:34 am PT. It was brought to my attention that this pattern of seasonal deaths is only to be expected in the rich world. Many of the poorer and more populated parts of the world are in or near the tropics, where summers are sweltering and winters are mild (or nonexistent). Thus, an increase in global temperatures would cause more deaths in these areas.

Source: "QuickStats: Average Daily Number of Deaths, by Month — United States, 2017." MMWR 68 (26): 593. Published: 5-July-2019. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6826a5
link

https://www.wolffardis.com/blog/

[Gwin Ru]

The UK PCR test Ct is 45 cycles. Let's envisage the amplification this applies...

By: malterwitty
Tags:

• SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE

On a 4K TV the screen resolution is 3840 x 2160px, which gives a total of 8,294,400px.

Imagine the first pixel is white, and the rest are black. The white pixel represents a DNA fragment, and just like the fragment it represents it's all but invisible on the black screen.

Now let's apply the PCR amplification method to this pixel. After 1 cycle there are 2 white pixels, after 2 cycles there are 4 white pixels, after 3 cycles there are 8 white pixels etc.

After 23 cycles all pixels on the TV are white. [There are ~94K additional white pixels, but for the sake of simplicity let's ignore these]

@24 cycles all pixels on 2 TVs are white.

@30 cycles all pixels on 128 TVs are white.

@35 cycles all pixels on 4,096 TVs are white.

@40 cycles all pixels on 131,072 TVs are white.

@45 cycles all pixels on 4,194,304 TVs are white.

Is it any wonder there is a casedemic?

[Gwin Ru]

Coronavirus scandal breaking in Merkel's Germany affects the whole world

F. William Engdahl New Eastern Outlook
Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00 UTC

Dr. Christian Drosten © Unknown

The widely-praised German model of the Angela Merkel regime to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic is now engulfed in a series of potentially devastating scandals going to the very heart of the testing and medical advice being used to declare draconian economic shutdowns and next, de facto mandatory vaccinations. The scandals involve a professor at the heart of Merkel's corona advisory group. The implications go far beyond German borders to the very WHO itself and their global recommendations.

The entire case for WHO-mandated emergency lockdown of businesses, schools, churches and other social arenas worldwide is based on a test introduced, amazingly early on, in the Wuhan, China coronavirus saga. On January 23, 2020, in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, of the EU Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charite Hospital, along with the head of a small Berlin biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, published a study claiming to have developed the first effective test for detecting whether someone is infected with the novel coronavirus identified first only days before in Wuhan. The Drosten article was titled, "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR" (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020).

The news was greeted with immediate endorsement by the corrupt Director General of WHO, Tedros Adhanom, the first non-medical doctor to head WHO. Since then the Drosten-backed test for the virus, called a real-time or RT-PCR test, has spread via WHO worldwide, as the most used test protocol to determine if a person might have COVID-19, the illness.

On November 27 a highly-respected group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for Eurosurveillance to retract the January 23, 2020 Drosten article. Their careful analysis of the original piece is damning. Theirs is a genuine "peer review." They accuse Drosten and cohorts of "fatal" scientific incompetence and flaws in promoting their test.

To begin with, as the critical scientists reveal, the paper that established the Drosten PCR test for the Wuhan strain of coronavirus that has subsequently been adopted with indecent haste by the Merkel government along with WHO for worldwide use - resulting in severe lockdowns globally and an economic and social catastrophe - was never peer-reviewed before its publication by Eurosurveillance journal. The critics point out that, "the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On January 23rd 2020 the paper was online." Incredibly, the Drosten test protocol, which he had already sent to WHO in Geneva on 17 January, was officially recommended by WHO as the worldwide test to determine presence of Wuhan coronavirus, even before the paper had been published.

As the critical authors point out, for a subject so complex and important to world health and security, a serious 24-hour "peer review" from at least two experts in the field is not possible. The critics point out that Drosten and his co-author Dr. Chantal Reusken, did not disclose a glaring conflict of interest. Both were also members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. Further, as reported by BBC and Google Statistics, on January 21 there were a world total of 6 deaths being attributed to the Wuhan virus.

They ask,

"Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?"

Another co-author of the Drosten paper that gave a cover of apparent scientific credibility to the Drosten PCR procedure was head of the company who developed the test being marketed today, with the blessing of WHO, in the hundreds of millions, Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol in Berlin, but Landt did not disclose that pertinent fact in the Drosten paper either.

Certainly nothing suspicious or improper here, or? It would be relevant to know if Drosten, the Merkel chief scientific advisor for COVID-19, Germany's de facto "Tony Fauci," gets a percentage for each test sold by Tib-Molbiol in their global marketing agreement with Roche.

False Positives?
Since late January 2020, world mainstream media has inundated us all with frightening hourly updates on "the total number of coronavirus infected." Usually they simply add each daily increase to a global total of "confirmed cases," presently over 66 million. Alarming, but for the fact that, as Pieter Borger and his fellow scientific collaborators point out, "confirmed cases" is a nonsense number. Why?

The Borger report identifies what they call "ten fatal problems" in the Drosten paper of last January. Here we take up the most glaring that can easily be grasped by most laypeople.

Drosten & co. gave confusing unspecified primer and probe sequences. The critics note:

"This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories. These six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not relate to SARS-CoV-2... the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally."

They add that "RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis."

Amplification Cycles
But even more damning for Drosten is the fact that he mentioned nowhere of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result! The Borger report notes:

"These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP (Standard Operational Protocol), including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected... scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35."

The WHO and Drosten recommend a Ct of 45 cycles and, reportedly, presently the German health officials do as well. Little wonder that as the number of tests is ramped up in the onset of winter flu season, PCR "positives" in Germany and elsewhere explode. As the critical authors point out, were the health authorities to specify 35 cycles maximum, the number of corona positive would be only less than 3% the present number! They note:

"an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.

"The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus."

In simple English, the entire edifice of the Gates foundation, the Merkel government, the WHO and WEF as well as the case for de facto forced untested vaccines, rests on results of a PCR test for coronavirus that is not worth a hill of beans. The test of Drosten and WHO is more or less, scientific crap.

Missing Doctor proof too?
This devastating critique from twenty three world leading scientists, including scientists who have patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, and a former Pfizer Chief Scientist, is damning, but not the only problem Professor Dr. Christian Drosten faces today. He and the officials at Frankfurt's Goethe University, where he claims to have received his medical doctorate in 2003, are being accused of degree fraud. According to Dr. Markus Kühbacher, a specialist investigating scientific fraud such as dissertation plagiarism, Dr. Drosten's doctor thesis, by law must be deposited on a certain date with academic authorities at his University, who then sign a legal form, Revisionsschein, verified with signature, stamp of the University and date, with thesis title and author, to be sent to the University archive. With it, three original copies of the thesis are filed.

Kühbacher charges that the Goethe University is guilty of cover-up by claiming, falsely, Drosten's Revisionsschein, was on file. The University spokesman later was forced to admit it was not filed, at least not locatable by them. Moreover, of the three mandatory file copies of his doctor thesis, highly relevant given the global importance of Drosten's coronavirus role, two copies have "disappeared," and the remaining single copy is water-damaged. Kühbacher says Drosten will now likely face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title.

Whether that is to pass, it is a fact that a separate legal process has been filed in Berlin against two people responsible for a German media site, Volksverpetzer.de, for slander and defamation, brought by a well-known and critical German medical doctor, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. The court case demands of the defendants €250,000 in damages for defamation of character and material damages to Wodarg by the accused in their online site, as well as in other German media, claiming they viciously and without proof, defamed Wodarg, calling him a "covid-denier," falsely calling him a right-extremist (he is a life-long former parliament member of the Social Democratic Party) and numerous other false and damaging charges.

The attorney for Dr Wodarg is a well-known German-American attorney, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. In his charges against the defendants, Fuellmich cites in full the charges against the Drosten test for coronavirus of Dr. Pieter Borger et al noted above. This is in effect forcing the defendants to refute the Borger paper. It is a major step on the way to refute the entire WHO COVID-19 PCR testing fraud.Already an appeals court in Lisbon, Portugal ruled on 11 November that the PCR test of Drosten and WHO was not valid to detect coronavirus infection and that it was no basis to order nationwide or partial lockdowns.

If the stakes were not so deadly for mankind it would all be material for a comedy of the absurd. The world health Czar, WHO chief Tedros is no medical doctor whose WHO is financed massively by a college dropout billionaire computer manager, Gates, who also advises the Merkel government on COVID-19 measures. The Merkel government uses the Drosten PCR test and Drosten as an "all-wise" expert to impose the most draconian economic consequences outside wartime. Her Health Minister, Jens Spahn, is a former banker who has no medical degree, only a stint as a lobbyist for Big Pharma. The head of the German CDC, called the Robert Koch Institute, Lothar Wieler, is not a virologist but an animal doctor, Tierarzt. With this crew, Germans are seeing their lives destroyed by lockdowns and social measures never before imagined outside Stalin's Soviet Union. There is science and then there is science. Not all "science" is valid however.

About the Author:
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".

SOTT Comment:
To peruse the Corman-Drosten Review Report submitted 27th November, 2020, go here. Included are: a detailed analysis of mistakes, a put-forth of concerns and a summary of errors found in the paper.

Related:

• Austrian lawmaker denounces 'medical tyranny' after cola drink returns positive result for coronavirus

• Good idea! Germany's Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigative Commission launching a class action suit against corona criminals

• Flawed paper behind Covid-19 testing faces being retracted, after scientists expose its ten fatal problems

• The test set: Another brick in the covid-19 disinformation game plan

[pueblo]

Good interview with the PCR test inventor, Kary Mullis.

They way he scathingly disparages Fauci is enough to cast doubt in my mind about the actual cause of his death (he died in August 2019 at the age of 74, death listed as pneumonia) just before Event 201 in October 2019.

If he had been alive for the Plandemic he would have been a major pain in the ass for the controllers, there is no doubt.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=f6ArP1iEro8

[norman]

The Propaganda Report - A Conversation w/Greg Carlwood of The Higherside Chats
This conversation is sparky and bright and covers the casedemic scam very well.

[norman]

The Scam Has Been Confirmed: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2


The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.

[Tintin]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)

• Good idea! Germany's Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigative Commission launching a class action suit against corona criminals

Here's a follow-up to this action: https://twitter.com/HowardSteen4/sta...82976320991233

And the Vimeo video

[Gwin Ru]

WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’

by John O'Sullivan
Published on December 17, 2020

In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.

This WHO-admitted “Problem” comes in the wake of international lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for purpose.

[pueblo]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’

by John O'Sullivan
Published on December 17, 2020

In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.

This WHO-admitted “Problem” comes in the wake of international lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for purpose.

They know the jig is up and they are now going to start back pedalling fast imo.

[meat suit]

Posted by norman (here)
The Scam Has Been Confirmed: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2


The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.

powerful article, very much what David Icke said way back when it all started.
question is, what is that illness if not covid 19 ?

[greybeard]

Posted by meat suit (here)

Posted by norman (here)
The Scam Has Been Confirmed: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2


The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.

powerful article, very much what David Icke said way back when it all started.
question is, what is that illness if not covid 19 ?

Seasonal Flu which mutates every year, meat suit
Call it by any name the symptoms and mortality rate similar to traditional flu.
Really flu or virus can not be escaped -- it can be delayed.
A lot on this site from top professionals.
Chris
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/

[Gwin Ru]

...

... probably already posted somewhere but worth bumping:

BELARUS IS FREE 🎈 - NO MASKS NO COVID THEATER, NOBODY DROPPING DEAD 16:24

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z447a8bDRTOr

First published at 09:31 UTC on December 6th, 2020.

B - 2020 🍀 B

Via Airaguma: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bi3z9C5JHTkf/

In white Russia: no masks, no lock downs. Restaurants, bars, clubs are open and PEOPLE ARE NOT DROPPING LIKE FLIES! Billy Six headed from Germany to Belarus and witnessed it with his own eyes.

#scamdemic, yes it is...!!!
------------

Sep 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong:

" Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:

• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank.

This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this! Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world!

The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!

-----------

🗣️ Liverpool, Operation Moonshot update: NO CASES WITHOUT THE PCR TEST! https://www.bitchute.com/video/piBmPprmGBAr/

🔖 Recommended:
Jon Rappoport: THE CREATION OF A FALSE EPIDEMIC:

** Episode 1: HOW IT STARTED >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/q5h0CeSrnwWs/

** Episode 2: THE MEDICAL CIA, COVERT OPS >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/CD2fctN9l7hJ/

** Episode 3: THE TRUE GOAL OF THE FALSE PANDEMIC >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/qX2M0umDu10S

BLAME IT ON A CONTAGIOUS VIRUS #SCAMDEMIC

** Dr. Lanka - 'germ theory' = scientific fraud. https://www.bitchute.com/video/aOKX9wR1PMxA/

** Dr. Lanka Measles Court Case: https://www.bitchute.com/video/5GINdlpUSW8E/

** Aajonus Vonderplanitz dismantles the virus myth: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UHFNVCXgOA37/

** Kary Mullis - PCR Test but not a test. https://www.bitchute.com/video/LsD3GfigvsJX/

** You cannot catch a virus! https://www.bitchute.com/video/VeImUAiLlmcv/

** DR. WILLNER INJECTS HIMSELF WITH HIV ON TV: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Yo5o98vppwIN/

** ROBERTO GIRALDO - EVERYBODY IS HIV POSITIVE https://www.bitchute.com/video/nkMN1kr0eukR/

** INFLUENZA 1918 SCRIPT; RINSE REPEAT > COVID-19: https://www.bitchute.com/video/6eKF4nzGcXiP/

** Dr. Papadopulos: HIV was never proven to exist: https://www.bitchute.com/video/MVabU0seKNMH/

** MD OFFERS $5000 FOR PROOF THAT COVID EXISTS: https://www.bitchute.com/video/cgjcIdY4mMhZ/

** Virus Mania: C. Markolin, Ph.D. (pt.2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/0SIeRUxrgW1n/

** Virus Mania: C. Markolin, Ph.D. (pt.1) https://www.bitchute.com/video/XRCxanRMLGkT/

** Deconstructing The AIDS Myth - Gary Null docu: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2Q83yDG115oC/

** House of Numbers - the HIV/AIDS story: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lohmnsGaLy2X/

** Dr. Köhnlein interview House of Numbers: https://www.bitchute.com/video/FTytxqTeXNxe/

** HIV / AIDS = FAUCI'S FIRST FRAUD: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xwKIEPpPpmzv/

** The Infectious Myth - David Crowe: https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbjP8sO2qCq2/

** Germs, The Terrain & our Future, A. Kaufman: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Hh4k27cXPxv/

Related:

• 
  Catherine Austin Fitts Full Interview Planet Lockdown 48:31
  
  Dec 29, 2020

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LCiIc6i81uM

C.A. Fitts would seem to agree with Charlie Ward that this whole thing is to distract from a deep state global financial reset.

[pueblo]

Fauci's crystal ball was firing on all cylinders back in 2017...

Fauci: ‘No doubt’ Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak

January 11, 2017

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is “no doubt” Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.

Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak.

During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.

“The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with,” he said.

While observers have speculated since his election about how Trump will respond to such challenges, Fauci and other health experts said Tuesday that preventing disease pandemics often starts overseas and that a proper response means collaboration between not only the U.S. and other countries, but also the public and private health sectors.

“We will definitely get surprised in the next few years,” he said.

‘Risks have never been higher’

Trump, the real estate developer-turned-Republican politician, has worried some infectious disease experts with controversial and sometimes unclear views on certain health issues.

Ronald Klain, who coordinated the U.S.’s Ebola response for the Obama administration, said Trump’s virtual silence about the Zika outbreak and harsh comments about American volunteers infected during the West African Ebola outbreak is “not the kind of leadership we need in our next president.”

https://www.healio.com/news/infectio...sease-outbreak

[Tintin]

Posted by pueblo (here)
Fauci's crystal ball was firing on all cylinders back in 2017...

Fauci: ‘No doubt’ Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak

January 11, 2017

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is “no doubt” Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.

Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak.

During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.

“The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with,” he said.

While observers have speculated since his election about how Trump will respond to such challenges, Fauci and other health experts said Tuesday that preventing disease pandemics often starts overseas and that a proper response means collaboration between not only the U.S. and other countries, but also the public and private health sectors.

“We will definitely get surprised in the next few years,” he said.

‘Risks have never been higher’

Trump, the real estate developer-turned-Republican politician, has worried some infectious disease experts with controversial and sometimes unclear views on certain health issues.

Ronald Klain, who coordinated the U.S.’s Ebola response for the Obama administration, said Trump’s virtual silence about the Zika outbreak and harsh comments about American volunteers infected during the West African Ebola outbreak is “not the kind of leadership we need in our next president.”

https://www.healio.com/news/infectio...sease-outbreak

Not half, as we may say here

I'll double-check when my librarian's hat goes back on again, any day soon now, but I'm pretty certain I've saved that entire presentation he made in the 'Coronavirus' directory there. When the library's back up and running a search on 'fauci' should return the evidence.

[Tintin]

Mike Yeadon continues to speak out at the data manipulation in plain view.

Here, as if any of us really needed further reminding, he points out the glaring anomalies in actual NHS real data versus the daily propaganda bombardment of nonsense. There's still plenty of capacity it seems.

We know that thousands of elective surgeries were 'cancelled'/postponed back in spring here in the UK. Of course admissions are up along with seasonal norms.

[TomKat]

How to lie with statistics re covid.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=z_5roxNcUik

[Tintin]

More positive news here it seems relating to immunity - very encouraging.

This study article accepted December 26th 2020 for publication before going through the usual typesetting and house-style formatting for The Journal of Infection.

https://www.journalofinfection.com/a...781-7/fulltext

---------------------------

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection

Source: https://www.journalofinfection.com/a...2820%2930781-7



HIGHLIGHTS

• Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection confers immunity to reinfection is uncertain
• The ‘second wave’ of transmission offered an opportunity to examine this
• We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers
• This apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months
• Further studies are required to define immunological mechanism(s) and durability

[Tintin]

This is pretty damning.

Unfortunately The Times newspaper is stuck behind a subscription paywall but this does seem to be a bonafide cutting from their December 26th 2020 issue.



Source: The Times

[onawah]

Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 13, 2021

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1058242680

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive (noninfectious) viral particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. The false appearance of a lethal pandemic has been manufactured using cycle thresholds (CTs) that are too high
The higher the CT — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. Research shows that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically
The SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was developed based on a genetic sequence published by Chinese scientists, not the viral isolate. Missing genetic code was simply made up
November 30, 2020, 22 international scientists published a review challenging the scientific paper on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 that was adopted as the standard across the world. The scientists are calling for the so-called Corman-Drosten paper to be retracted due to its numerous errors
The flaws of PCR testing have been capitalized upon to incite fear in order to benefit the Great Reset agenda developed by a technocratic elite
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought us many harsh lessons. Importantly, it has shown us how easy it is to manufacture panic and control entire populations through deceptive means. Topping the list of deceptive strategies is the use of a test that falsely labels healthy individuals as sick and infectious. This allows mass testing to drive the narrative that we're in a lethal pandemic.

Of course, I'm talking about the now infamous reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.1

This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others. Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive."

The Crucial Detail That Nullifies Most PCR Test Results

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=S_1Z8cSXI-Q

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. Due to its tiny size, it must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold (CT).

The higher the CT, the greater the risk that insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

Many scientists have noted that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible.2,3,4 A September 28, 2020, study5 in Clinical Infectious Diseases revealed that when you run a PCR test at a CT of 35 or higher, the accuracy drops to 3%, resulting in a 97% false positive rate.

Yet, a test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles,6,7,8 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend running PCR tests at a CT of 40.9

The question is why, considering the consensus is that CTs over 35 render the test useless. When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you clearly end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we're really dealing with is a "casedemic"10,11 — an epidemic of false positives.

Many are now questioning whether this was done on purpose to crash the global economy and provide cover for the implementation of what's known as the Great Reset, which is nothing less than a global totalitarian takeover by unelected technocrats who seek to gobble up all the world's assets.

Indeed, it seems quite clear we're not dealing with a lethal pandemic in any real sense. Mortality statistics further prove this is the case, as overall mortality statistics have remained stable in 2020 and in line with previous years.12,13,14

In other words, people are dying from COVID-19, yes, but the illness is not killing an excess number of people. The same number of people would have died anyway, from something. Indeed, CDC data15 released August 26, 2020, showed only 6% of so-called COVID-19 deaths had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause on the death certificate.

"For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death," the CDC stated, and any one of those comorbidities could have killed those people even if COVID-19 was nonexistent.

For Accuracy, Much Lower CTs Must Be Used
Now, if CTs above 35 are scientifically unjustified, just how low of a CT should be used? Quite a few studies have investigated this, so there's no shortage of data at this point. The fact that the WHO, FDA and CDC still have not changed their CTs downward in light of all these data tells us they're not interested in getting an accurate picture of the infection rate.

For example, an April 2020 study16 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases showed that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.

More recently, a December 3, 2020, systematic review17 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases assessed the findings of 29 different studies — all of which were published in 2020 — comparing evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the CTs used in testing.

Five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. What's more, in order to produce live virus culture, a patient whose PCR test used a CT at or above 35 had to be symptomatic.
As reported by the authors, "12 studies reported that CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture." In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.

"Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT," the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. What's more, in order to produce live virus culture, a patient whose PCR test used a CT at or above 35 had to be symptomatic.

So, to summarize, if you have symptoms of COVID-19 and test positive using a PCR test that was run at 35 amplification cycles or higher, then you are likely to be infected and infectious.

However, if you do not have symptoms, yet test positive using a PCR test run at 35 CTs or higher, then it is likely a false positive and you pose no risk to others as you're unlikely to carry any live virus. In fact, provided you're asymptomatic, you're unlikely to be infectious even if you test positive with a test run at 24 CTs or higher.

Fearmongering Success Hinges on Incorrect Use of PCR Test

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6ny9nNFHQsY

The video above includes several interviews with experts who have openly criticized the use of PCR testing to diagnose infections such as COVID-19. These include:

The inventor of the PCR test, the late Kary Mullis (he has spoken about the test for other infections, such as HIV, but died in August 2019, a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out)

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Oxford University Center for Evidence-Based Medicine

Emeritus professor of immunology Beda M. Stadler, former head of the Bern Institute of Immunology

Clare Craig, a consultant pathologist

Stephen A. Bustin, professor of molecular medicine and a world-renowned expert on the PCR test

In 1993, Mullis spoke about the use of the PCR test to diagnose HIV. He explained that all the test does is amplify molecules into something you can detect, but it cannot tell you whether those particles actually pose a risk to your health.

He also points out that, using PCR, you can essentially find just about anything in anyone because most of us are walking around with pathogens of all sorts, but the load is either too low to be of concern or the particles are just dead debris that pose no risk.

Bustin points out that when you get a positive result using a CT of 35 or higher, you're looking at the equivalent of a single copy of viral DNA. The likelihood of that causing a health problem is minuscule. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that using a PCR test with a CT above 35 renders it more or less useless because at that point, you're just detecting dead nucelotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high.

Fatal Errors Found in Paper on Which PCR Testing Is Based
November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review18 challenging the scientific paper19 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman. The Corman-Drosten paper was quickly accepted by the WHO and the workflow described therein was adopted as the standard across the world.

According to Reiner Fuellmich,20 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,21 or ACU),22,23 Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to "fatal errors,"24 one of which is the fact that it was written (and the test itself developed) before any viral isolate was available. All they used was the genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.

The fact that the paper was published a mere 24 hours after it was submitted also suggests it didn't even undergo peer review. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper's retraction, stated:25

"Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It's like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID test.

When Drosten developed the test, China hadn't given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.

In the fish market, it's like giving you a few bones and saying 'that's your fish.' It could be any fish ... Listen, the Corman-Drosten paper, there's nothing from a patient in it. It's all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren't there they made up.

They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That's what genetics is; it's a code. So, its ABBBCCDDD and you're missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in ... This is basically a computer virus.

There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper ... But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn't correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it 'donut ring science.' There is nothing at the center of it. It's all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …

There have since been papers saying they've produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: 'Here's the viral isolate.' Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who'd been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it's all full of holes, the whole thing."

The conclusion of the review reads, in part:26

"A decision to recognize the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimize human cost and suffering going forward. Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility."

The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by a November 20, 2020, study27 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in PCR-positive cases at all. The study evaluated data from 9,865,404 residents of Wuhan, China, who had undergone PCR testing between May 14 and June 1, 2020.

A total of 300 tested positive but had no symptoms. Of the 34,424 people with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive a second time. Yet, when they did virus cultures on these 407 individuals who had tested positive (either for the first or second time), no live virus was found in any of them!

Antibody Tests Are Equally Unreliable
Antibody tests are also turning out to have their share of quality problems. If you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, that would be evidence that your immune system successfully overcame the virus at some point in the past. However, the COVID-19 antibody test may also turn out positive if you have antibodies against common cold viruses.

June 30, 2020, the CDC admitted that prior exposure to coronaviruses responsible for the common cold can result in a positive COVID-19 antibody test, even if you've never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 specifically.28

The saving grace is that studies29,30,31 suggest antibodies produced following exposure to coronaviruses that cause the common cold also appear to provide some general and long-lasting resistance against SARS-CoV-2.

One such study,32,33 published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell, found 70% of samples from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-19 had resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level, as did 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

According to the authors, this suggests there's "cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating 'common cold' coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2." In other words, if you've recovered from a common cold caused by a particular coronavirus, your humoral immune system may activate when you encounter SARS-CoV-2, thus rendering you resistant to COVID-19.

Another study34 discovered SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are only found in the most severe cases — about 1 in 5. So, a negative antibody test doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that you've been infected and didn't get sick. In fact, this finding suggests COVID-19 may actually be five times more prevalent than suspected — and five times less deadly than predicted.

In a letter to the editor35 published in the July 1, 2020, issue of American Family Physician, Drs. Mark Ebell, deputy editor for evidence-based medicine for the journal, and Henry Barry, reviewed some of the available data, noting that:

"When assessing whether patients had a previous infection and may be immune, it is important to avoid false-positives so that patients do not think they are immune when they are not.

Table 1 summarizes the false-positive rates at various population prevalence for the Cellex test and for a hypothetical test that is 90% sensitive and 99% specific. At relatively low population prevalences, which likely reflect current conditions in the United States and elsewhere, we would argue that false-positive rates are unacceptably high with the Cellex test."

antibody testing for covid-19
Ebell and Barry pointed out that many of the antibody tests that have provisional approval from the FDA still have not even been evaluated for accuracy. They also recommended that labs report test results "in a way that reflects the local population prevalence based on widespread testing and include the false-positive rate," as this information "is needed to help family physicians better inform shared decision-making regarding previous infection and return to work or school."

At present, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone including that data in their reporting, and the way things are going, I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation of such helpful numbers being included in the future either.

High Time to End Mass Testing Scam
If the vast majority of people who test positive for COVID-19 infection have no symptoms, don't feel sick and don't look sick, is COVID-19 really a "deadly" disease? Or, is it more like HPV — a viral infection that most people have without knowing it, and which 90% are able to eliminate without treatment?

The primary justification for the tyrannical governmental interventions of COVID-19 was to slow the spread of the infection so that hospital resources would not be overwhelmed, causing people to die due to lack of medical care.

These interventions were not about stopping the spread altogether or even reducing the number of people that would eventually get infected. They certainly were never meant to prevent all death. Any rational analysis would rapidly conclude that this simply isn't possible, under any circumstance.

Short-term stay-at-home orders and business closings were only intended to slow down the spread so that, eventually, naturally-acquired herd immunity — the best kind — would prevent it from reemerging. Yet the goal posts keep shifting as we go along.

Two-week lockdowns turned into months in some areas. Eventually, we were told everything would go back to normal as soon as a vaccine became available. But once the vaccines started rolling out, the narrative changed again, and we were told we'd still need masks, social distancing and lockdowns well into 2021 or even 2022 even with a vaccine. What, exactly, is going on?

The only rational reason for why government interventions continue is because they're meant to erode our personal freedoms and civil liberties and transfer wealth to unelected technocrats who are controlling the pandemic narrative. It's all fearmongering based on a combination of wildly manipulated data and flawed tests.

Aside from PCR testing data, there's no evidence of a lethal pandemic at all. As mentioned, while there is such a thing as COVID-19, and people have and do die from it, there are no excess deaths due to it.36,37,38 The total mortality for 2020 is normal.

So, unless we think we should shut down the world and stop living because people die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, the flu or anything else, then there's no reason to shut down the world because some people happen to die from COVID-19.

What You Can Do
The good news is the hoax is starting to be exposed. In November 2020, a Portuguese appeals court ruled39,40 that the PCR test is "not a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2" and that "a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection." Therefore, "any enforced quarantine based on the results is unlawful."41 The court also noted that forcing healthy people to self-isolate could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.

As detailed in "Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun" and "German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation," additional legal cases are also to be expected, all of which will help expose the fraud perpetrated. As for what you can do in the meantime, consider:

Turning off mainstream media news and turning to independent experts — do the research. Read through the science.
Continue to counter the censorship by asking questions — arm yourself with mortality statistics and the facts on PCR testing, so you can explain how and why this pandemic simply isn't a pandemic anymore.
If you are a medical professional, especially if you're a member of a professional society, write an open letter to your government, urging them to speak to and heed recommendations from independent experts.
Sign The Great Barrington Declaration,42 which calls for an end to lockdowns.
Join a group so that you can have support — Examples of groups formed to fight against government overreach include Us for Them, a group campaigning for reopening schools and protecting children's rights in the U.K., and the Freedom to Breathe Agency, a U.S. team of attorneys, doctors, business owners and parents who are fighting to protect freedom and liberty."

+ Sources and References
1 CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)
2 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
3 Jon Rappaport’s Blog November 6, 2020
4 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020
5 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491
6 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)
7 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)
8 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045
9 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35
10 PJ Media October 27, 2020
11 AAPS October 7, 2020
12, 36 YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
13, 37 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
14, 38 Johns Hopkins Newsletter November 26, 2020 (Archived)
15 CDC.gov August 26, 2020
16 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39: 1059-1061
17 Clinical Infectious Diseases December 3, 2020; ciaa1764
18, 26 Corman Drosten Review Report
19 Eurosurveillance, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus by real-time RT-PCR
20 Fuellmich.com, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Bio (German)
21 Acu2020.org Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
22 Acu2020.org Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, English
23 Algora October 4, 2020
24, 25 Undercover DC December 3, 2020
27 Nature Communications November 20, 2020; 11 Article number 5917
28 CDC Test for Past Infection
29 Biorxiv preprint DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.26.115832 (PDF)
30 Daily Mail June 12, 2020
31 Science Times June 12, 2020
32 Cell May 14, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
33 Wall Street Journal June 12, 2020 (Archived)
34 Off-Guardian June 12, 2020
35 American Family Physician July 1, 2020; 102(1): 5-6
39 Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, Portugese Original
40 Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, English Translation
41 Geopolitic.org November 21, 2020
42 Great Barrington Declaration