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

[Agape]

This too looks like new promising pathway for developing effective antivirotics, from Brazilian researchers (2009):

Mechanism of virus resistance and potential anti-viral activity of snake venoms

I can imagine new generation of anti-virotics that would target and dissolve specific proteins thus destroy the virus “on spot” could emerge from the snake venom research.

Unfortunately and due to the “Big Pharma” money ruling and sometimes running genuine medical practices,
very little attention is payed to seeking new efficient treatments from nature.

[greybeard]

Why Are Covid-19 Cases Soaring In NZ? PCR Test Update


Dr Sam Bailey talks about what is happening in NZ in regards to COVID-19 and important information you should know about the COVID-19 PCR Test.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kcONxyAJ8S4

James Delingpole: "No sane informed person would wear a face mask"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_3iXEk_629E

[ExomatrixTV]

Lockdown 2 🇬🇧 BREATHTAKING NEW Undeniable FACTS - Please SHARE:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=py9l7e4dS9M

Alex Belfield - THE VOICE OF REASON (118K subscribers)

I genuinely can’t believe what I’m seeing. This is total insanity...

[norman]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sSBQUIEUbQ8

ZERO Evidence that COVID Fulfills Koch's 4 Germ Theory Postulates - Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Sayer Ji

In this interview, Dr. Kaufman explores a new study published in NATURE which claims to establish COVID-19 related pathogenicity in an animal model, but which does not fulfill Koch's postulates for germ theory, and may overtly misrepresent the truth.

[Tintin]

As Patrick Henningsen (21st CenturyWire) rightly pointed out, the responses really are quite revealing. Matt Hancock, one of the Devil's many concubines, may wish to review his use of Twitter. He's doing us a service being active there though - do please browse through the feedback.

[avid]

Another rare family reunion wrecked due to this damnable dodgy app, someone somewhere miles from family member was within a mile of a person who may have been near someone else..... Oh, but it’s okay to go to school where the originator perpetrated the ghastly deed of not washing hands 😱😱😱 ffs! Apols for being very angry, the whole scenario reeks of deliberate incompetence, but the puppeteers are NOT pulling MY strings. When is enough - enough?

As my late wondrous Dad said, “put your foot down with a firm hand” He would be so disappointed these days after all the sacrifices he and his friends made under the auspices of ‘saving us’ in the manipulated ‘World Wars’. Disgraceful. Despicable.

Sorry, but I am aware of the ‘big picture’, but will never ever stop trying to save those who are teetering on the edge of complete slavery or annihilation.

Off for a pleasant camomile tea, feet up, and deciding which plants to move around my garden 😜

[TargeT]

Posted by Tintin (here)
As Patrick Henningsen (21st CenturyWire) rightly pointed out, the responses really are quite revealing. Matt Hancock, one of the Devil's many concubines, may wish to review his use of Twitter. He's doing us a service being active there though - do please browse through the feedback.

Wish I could say I was shocked.......

[Delight]

Putting this here as it is a lecture on the historic background from pharmaceutical studies of using statistics etc. in a biased way. Before the banning others experienced, in 2019, Malcolm Kendrick was banned from wikipedia as he was already evidencing dangerous divergence from the party lines.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has long been an outspoken skeptic with regard to the medical status quo. “It’s just not possible to believe much of the clinical research that’s published,” he says.

Just one week prior to this talk, delivered at CrossFit HQ during a CrossFit Health event on Dec. 15, 2018, Kendrick’s Wikipedia page was deleted because, as he explains, “I’m now considered dangerous enough to be removed from public consumption.” In this talk, he shares one thread of his “dangerous” thinking — a thread that follows the distortion of data pertaining to cholesterol and statin research, which he explores in greater detail in his second book, Doctoring Data.

Kendrick explains that he wrote the book to:
• show how data from clinical studies are distorted;
• allow people to make informed decisions about the interventions and drugs they receive;
• highlight some of the really bad advice we are given about fat and carbs;
• stop believing that “experts” know what they are doing or saying; and,
• reduce the fear and anxiety that now seems to stalk the land.

He describes several ways in which data become distorted and focuses in particular on the strategic use of relative and absolute risk factors in the data from the famous JUPITER trial, previously discussed on CrossFit.com.

He also highlights some of the reasons why data get distorted. While money is a contributing factor, he explains, a much more potent and insidious explanation relates to researchers’ attachment to ideas.

People become emotionally attached to ideas, he observes, and worse: “Facts have very little effect on what people believe.”

I know this last statement is the case from talking with many about their medical treatments. I cannot believe myself that so many who have injury STILL think the medication they receive is MORE IMPORTANT. If people cannot begin to see clearly, they are going to be targets. IMO these cases of willful ignorance are more frightening than all germs everywhere.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=T3ldcRYadR4

[Chester]

Kulvinder Kaur MD

[DaveToo]

Posted by onawah (here)
MUST SEE!! Great data compilation.
Stanford University Nobel Prize Winner Biophysicist Michael Levitt says the pandemic is over, though according to the mainstream media, the "casedemic" continues. As much data from him and many other experts as anyone could wish in this video.I give the first part of this video an A+, despite all the religious beliefs shared at the end, but easy to skip through.
https://www.facebook.com/veritasmedi...4536836892730/

https://www.facebook.com/veritasmedi...4536836892730/
https://www.facebook.com/veritasmedi...4536836892730/
More about Dr. Michael Levitt: https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/nobel-...aved-no-lives/

( I will ask the Mods if this got embedded--I can't always tell. Or if not, to embed it, and please save it to the library asap, in case it gets removed.

Yeah I've been plotting the graphs of cases vs. deaths for many months now of 100+ countries.
I realized the 'pandemic' was over a couple of months ago already.

Too bad the MSM doesn't get it yet. LOL!!!

[onawah]

It's not so much a question of the MSM not getting it, as not being allowed to report the truth (although no doubt some of MSM mouthpieces really are that oblivious>..)

Posted by DaveToo (here)
Too bad the MSM doesn't get it yet. LOL!!!

[Chester]

"Magic Letter" says "Is it about the election?"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV6xJ6jV8gM

[onawah]

When will hysterical defenders of “science” face up to the destruction the US medical system is causing? \
by Jon Rappoport
September 28, 2020
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020...em-is-causing/

"Millions of masked people, who border on hysteria, believe they know COVID science.

On closer examination, these people believe what their television sets tell them. They believe Fauci because he’s on television, and he’s talking from the White House, and he disagrees with Trump. These elements are not exactly what Galileo had in mind when he challenged the Roman Church on the issue of the Earth revolving around the sun.

Of the millions who believe in Fauci television science, there are many who will say science is “studies.” They are quite sure these studies back up what Fauci and Redfield are spouting, and any contradictory studies would be artifacts dreamed up by secret minions of Trump. This sort of argument is not exactly what Galileo had in mind, either.

I recently analyzed COVID-19 from the point of view of false data.

COVID case numbers and death numbers are being fraudulently inflated to the skies. That’s an enormous crime, because the lockdowns and the economic devastation have been based on these data.

Now I want to apply that same direct analysis to the entire US medical system. In this instance…

True data are buried, hidden, and ignored.

What data? Actual numbers of deaths and maiming CAUSED by medical treatment.

When you see the dimensions of this crime and this mass human tragedy, you’ll also see further implications—titanic insurance fraud, tax fraud, and, indeed, millions upon millions of work-hours irretrievably lost to the nation’s economy.

Insurance companies are paying out billions of dollars for medical treatment that is destructive, not helpful.

Insurance companies are also paying billions in death benefits as a result of doctors, not diseases, killing people.

And all this medical destruction is being subsidized by the taxpayer.

No one has calculated the $$ cost. No one can calculate the tragic human cost.

Now here is the analysis. Understand that the vital data in these mainstream reports have been briefly revealed, then hidden.

ONE: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.

THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.

FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.

The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Medical crimes.

Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.

No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.

But of course, you can believe everything leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID.

You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.

Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…

Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…

Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.

Indeed, here is a stunning quote from a woman who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any doctor in the world:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: “Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

Sure, Tony, sure.

Now put on your mask and get lost."

Also posted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1380542

[Tintin]

[08:34]:

Yeadon People like Prof. Carl Heneghan in Oxford has been has been banging the drum on this for ages that they should not use this protocol without revision.

Now let me tell you Julia (interviewer) last week the [UK] government put out an edict to revise the PCR protocol so that weak positives will be retested but there was no media on this. This is a major U-turn because, let me just say this, were it not for the test data that you get on the tv all the time you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over and nothing much is happening.

Of course some people go to hospital. We'll be moving into the autumn season, but remember, I've said there's no science that suggests the second wave should happen at all.

[Interviewer - Julia Hartley-Brewer]: Go back over. so those of us who are not medical experts just in terms of the swab tests, these are the tests that people are getting when you go to..you're in the community you think, "Oh i've got a bit of a persistent cough, got a temperature. i might be in contact with someone. I'll go and get one of these tests the government's made available." And we know there are some false positives but ..the concern is that a lot of these are called weak positives. The way they are carrying out these tests, they are able to take/detect the tiniest tiniest taste of the virus which may be months and months old, so these people may well have had the virus - may have come in contact with it months ago. They're not at risk of infecting anyone else or themselves getting ill, but we are basing a government policy an economic policy, a a civil liberties policy in terms of limiting people to six people, and meeting and, like, all based on what may well be completely fake data about the spread of the virus....Anyway or do you think they have honest reason to believe that we are in a second wave and we're about to start it?

Yeadon:Yes. When, when this episode started it was entirely fine when 30 of the samples were genuinely positive and people were ill, it wasn't a problem that maybe half or one percent were false positives - it didn't matter.

But I'm afraid now the ONS survey shows, that the general prevalence of the virus, how many people have it in the community is about 10 times lower than the false positive rate.

To say it again, when you run the test you'll find 10 times more false positives than actually exist in reality. And so they finally come to their senses and last week said we have to change this protocol because we don't essentially.. they've admitted.. we don't really know how many true positives we've got so I'm demanding that SAGE and the government to pause introducing any new restrictions until they've made the change that they've recognized is necessary And then tell us what whether we really have an uptick in cases or not.

__________________________

Dr Mike Yeadon former chief scientific adviser for Pfizer on Talk Radio September 11th, 2020 making some very pertinent points around the premise, probably a false one, on a 'second wave'. He's very lucid, very knowledgeable and it's a balanced 11 minutes of commentary.

He reaffirms the natural immunity of 30%-50% of the population through T cell circulation/priority immunity, and reasserts that mostly every clinical epidemiologist and virologist accepts this as good science. Remember the virus isn't quite as 'novel' as was originally promoted as it is closely related (a laboratory construct) to at least four other coronaviruses. The pandemic is essentially over.

As many of us here have intuited, and considered from reading some good scientific research, this is likely just one continuous wave which is effectively petering out.

He also covers the PCR virus amplification test anomalies.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Su0wMysBYPM

[onawah]

Coronavirus Cases Plummet When PCR Tests Are Adjusted
by Barbara Cáceres
Published September 29, 2020
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/...-are-adjusted/

"Health experts now say that PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus associated with the illness COVID-19, is too sensitive and needs to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their system.1 The test’s threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.2

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found.3

Manufacturers and Labs Set Criteria for Positive COVID-19 Test Results
The reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test used to identify those people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses a nasal swab to collect RNA from deep within the nasal cavity of the individual being tested. The RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA and amplified through 40 or more cycles, or until virus is detected.4 The result is reported as a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether someone is infected.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials state they do not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own threshold ranges.5

PCR Test Threshold for COVID-19 Positivity Is Too Sensitive
Any test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 is too sensitive, says Juliet Morrison, PhD, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result worth acting on.6

The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.7

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus—that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.” But “yes” or “no” isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.8

The number of people with positive results who aren’t infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “That worries me a lot, just because it’s so high,” he said.9

SARS-CoV-2 Positive Case Numbers Drop When Cycle Threshold is Adjusted, Removing Need for Contact Tracing
Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to CT values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles. With a cutoff of 35 cycles, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

“I’m really shocked that it could be that high—the proportion of people with high CT value results,” said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”10

“Gold Standard” PCR Tests Leave Many Unanswered Questions Due to Knowledge Gaps
A positive PCR test does not tell doctors whether the person is currently ill or will become ill in the future, whether they are infectious or will become infectious, whether they are recovered or recovering from COVID, or whether the PCR test identified a viral fragment from another coronavirus infection in the past. The CDC reports that a person who has recovered from COVID-19 may have low levels of virus in their bodies for up to three months after diagnosis and may test positive, even though they are not spreading COVID-19.11

CT Value Adds Context to PCR Results, Personalizes Care
Although the cycle threshold (CT) is not reported on PCR tests, new evidence suggests the CT value could help to better inform clinical decisions, particularly when testing in the absence of symptoms for COVID-19. When SARS-CoV-2 virus is detected after fewer amplification cycles, that indicates a higher viral load and a higher likelihood of being contagious, while virus detected after more amplifications indicates a lower viral load.

“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the CT values from all these tests—that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added.12

In a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in May, 2020,13 the authors suggested that viral load based on CT cutoff could establish whether inpatients have transmissible disease or need to be retested. This would conserve valuable testing capacity, reagents, and personal protective equipment (PPE), and determine when a patient could discontinue isolation. Taking the CT value into account may also help justify symptom-based strategies recommended by the CDC. CT values may enable contact tracers to focus only on persons most likely to be infectious, which will become increasingly important as asymptomatic screening expands.

Another study14 found that patients with positive PCR tests at a CT above 33-34 are not contagious and can be discharged from the hospital or strict confinement at home.

Evidence from both viral isolation and contact tracing studies supports a short, early period of transmissibility. By accounting for the CT value in context, RT-qPCR results can be used in a way that is personalized, highly sensitive, and more specific.15

FDA Approves Rapid, Less Sensitive Coronavirus Antigen Test
Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, Dr. Mina said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it—even if the tests are less sensitive. “It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the super spreaders.”

The FDA noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these infections. That problem is easily solved, Dr. Mina said: “Test them again, six hours later or 15 hours later or whatever,” he said. A rapid test would find these patients quickly, even if it were less sensitive, because their viral loads would quickly rise. People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.16

When a patient is tested for the coronavirus, doctors typically tell them to stay home until the results come in. If a patient tests positive and faces a two-week quarantine, that means they could spend a total of three weeks in isolation. That’s a long time for anybody who has bills to pay or kids to care for, and it’s understandable that some people will continue working until the results come in. The problem is that anybody who does this with a serious infection is putting others at risk.17 Rapid tests can be helpful in these situations.

In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn’t need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.18 The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus’s genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do."19
References:

Angela Rasmussen, Ashish Jha, Association of Public Health Laboratories, Barbara Cáceres, bbot Laboratories, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Columbia University, coronavirus, COVID-19, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Global Health Institute, Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health, Juliet Morrison, National Vaccine Information Center, NVIC, PCR tests, personal protective equipment, PPE, reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, RT-qPCR, SARS-CoV-2, The Vaccine Reaction, Wadsworth Center

[DaveToo]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words...
Here are a few pics, so that means a few thousand words.

Cases on top, deaths below.
The 'second wave' is a big fat nothing burger. A flop.












These are graphs that you will never see in the MSM.

[holistic1]

Here is another excellent link I found
http://tapnewswire.com/2020/09/ultim...w-world-order/

[onawah]

Another Testing Debacle
22,541 views•Sep 29, 2020
Pamela Popper
106K subscribers
Subscribe to Dr. Pam’s weekly newsletter and video clips here! https://wellnessforumhealth.com/news/

(Lawsuit in Ohio is being filed re the lockdown, which is mentioned in the first part, the rest is focused on testing and how invalid and inaccurate the statistics are.)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EYnfF60XBRA

[onawah]

The COVID Danger You Haven’t Heard About
OCTOBER 1, 2020
CATEGORY: STOP POISONING OURSELVES
https://anh-usa.org/the-covid-danger...t-heard-about/

"Chemicals found in the disinfectants that are being used extensively during COVID could be undermining our health. Action Alert!

Some researchers are raising the alarm about quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, that are commonly found in the disinfectants, hand sanitizers, and sanitizing wipes being used by households and businesses to protect against the COVID-19 virus. Quats are being linked with fertility problems as well as other endocrine disrupting effects. We must demand that these chemicals be pulled from the market so they can be studied properly for safety.

Published studies have found that mice exposed to quats produced fewer pups than those that were not exposed to the chemicals. Other research has found that quats are potent compounds at inhibiting mitochondrial activity.

Animal studies and cellular studies are demonstrating the harm these chemicals can cause, and our exposure to them is increasing dramatically on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, restaurants are required to sanitize customer areas after each sitting with disinfectants, including the table cloth, chairs, table tops, and condiment holders. Grocery stores are spraying and wiping shopping carts after each use. These chemicals are everywhere. Quats stay active on surfaces for up to two weeks.

The Environmental Protection Agency has given industry a pass on these chemicals for decades. Quats entered the market in the early 20th century, before legislation was passed in 1976 allowing for the regulation of potentially dangerous chemicals. Because quats were on the market when the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act was passed, they were allowed to stay on the market without being evaluated for safety. The EPA is currently updating risk assessments for quats, which will be released for public comment in 2021. How many of us will have been exposed to unsafe levels of these chemicals by then, given their extensive use in public and private spaces?

Quat disinfectants aren’t only dangerous, they are unnecessary. Soap and water is sufficient to protect against the coronavirus. Additionally, rubber gloves can be worn when shopping to protect the skin, but this won’t protect against sprayed droplets in the air. The EPA needs to act now by pulling these chemicals from the market. At the very least, the EPA should remove these chemicals from the list of approved disinfectants the agency recommends for COVID-19, which currently includes 235 quat products.

As we’ve been writing over the past few months, this isn’t the only example of simple and safe solutions to protect us against COVID being largely ignored. The FDA and the FTC are actively working to keep information from the public about how natural medicine can help protect us from COVID-19 infection. This is costing us lives and has to stop.

Action Alert! Write to the EPA, telling them to pull quats from the market immediately given the increased use and the documented dangers of these chemicals. Please send your message immediately. By sending this message, you will also be supporting our petition to ungag doctors so that they can share with patients the benefits of supplements and natural treatments for COVID."
https://anh-usa.org/the-covid-danger...t-heard-about/

NOTE: I noticed that Alexandra Bruce of Forbidden Knowledge ( https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/archive/page/3/ )has been featuring a non-toxic disinfectant cleaner in her email updates. See: https://getnuturell.com/alexandra/

[onawah]

Sweden Spared Surge as SARS-CoV-2 Infections Stay Low
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 01, 2020

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=977368482

"STORY AT A GLANCE
While health experts in the U.S. and many other countries are warning of a second wave of COVID-19 as we move into fall and winter, Sweden does not expect a reemergence of widespread contagion as herd immunity appears to have been established
Rather than locking down the whole country, Sweden only temporarily closed high schools and colleges, banned gatherings of more than 50 people and asked seniors over the age of 70 to self-isolate
Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden’s coronavirus response says the primary goal has been to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming medical services
As of mid-September 2020, Sweden’s infection rate had reached an all-time low and COVID-19 related deaths were at zero; 22 of 31 European countries, most of which enacted strict lockdowns, had higher infection rates
As a result of their sensible approach to the pandemic, Sweden has also largely escaped the financial ruin and skyrocketing mental health problems experienced in other areas, including the U.S.

While health experts in the U.S. and many other countries are warning of a second wave of COVID-19 as we move into fall and winter, one nation that does not appear to worry about a resurgence of people testing positive for the virus and/or hospitalizations and deaths attributable to COVID-19 is Sweden.

Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden's coronavirus response, has stated1 he does not believe Sweden will see a second wave with widespread contagion as the country is seeing a rapid decline in positive tests, indicating herd immunity has been achieved.2

Sweden's Trajectory Shows How Unnecessary Lockdowns Are
Sweden, one of the few countries that did not shut down schools and businesses or mandate strict social distancing or mask wearing rules, choosing the route of natural herd immunity development instead, has been sharply criticized by many over the past several months.

Rather than locking down the whole country, Sweden only temporarily closed high schools and colleges, banned gatherings of more than 50 people and asked seniors over the age of 70 to self-isolate. All others were simply asked to respect physical distancing recommendations, and to work from home whenever possible.

Tegnell told The Guardian3 that the primary goal has been to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming medical services. As you may recall, this was the original plan just about everywhere. The difference is, Sweden actually stuck to the original goal, whereas other nations have twisted response plans to, apparently, prevent infection transmission altogether, even among those for whom the risk of such an infection is vanishingly minor.

At this point, Sweden is proving to be a valuable test case, demonstrating just how ineffective and unnecessary the global shutdowns have been. Countries that enacted draconian freedom-restrictions are faring no better than Sweden, which allowed its citizenry to largely go about their business as usual. As noted by the National Review back in April 2020:4

"In theory, less physical interaction might slow the rate of new infections. But without a good understanding of how long COVID-19 viral particles survive in air, in water, and on contact surfaces, even that is speculative ...

It is possible that the fastest and safest way to 'flatten the curve' is to allow young people to mix normally while requiring only the frail and sick to remain isolated.

This is, in fact, the first time we have quarantined healthy people rather than quarantining the sick and vulnerable. As Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels, wrote5 in The Spectator (U.K.) last week:

'The theory of lockdown, after all, is pretty niche, deeply illiberal — and, until now, untested. It's not Sweden that's conducting a mass experiment. It's everyone else.'"

UK Enacts New Restrictions in Face of Mounting 'Cases'
Despite Sweden's tactical success, many countries are continuing to enforce and even enact new lockdown restrictions due to new upticks in positive tests. For example, September 22, 2020, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced6 new restrictions, which he predicts may remain in place for the next six months, warning that if Britons fail to follow the rules, they may be looking at a second lockdown.

This, even though there's no concomitant rise in hospitalizations or deaths. The vast majority of people testing positive at this point remain asymptomatic.

Johnson's announcement came on the heels of dire — and completely implausible — predictions by professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance, whose models predict the U.K. may be looking at 50,000 new "cases" (i.e., positive tests) per day by mid-October unless new restrictions are put into place.

In the video below, journalist Ben Swann reviews why such predictions are likely to be a gross overestimation, and one that is unlikely to result in a dramatic increase in hospitalizations or deaths.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ATOCTSrF58

Sweden's Death Rate Hits Zero
Meanwhile, in Sweden, infection rates have reached an all-time low. As reported by The Guardian, September 16, 2020:7

"According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the Scandinavian country's 14-day cumulative total8 of new cases was 22.2 per 100,000 inhabitants on Tuesday, against 279 in Spain, 158.5 in France, 118 in the Czech Republic, 77 in Belgium and 59 in the UK, all of which imposed lockdowns this spring.

Twenty-two of the 31 European countries surveyed by the ECDC had higher infection rates. New cases, now reported in Sweden only from Tuesday to Friday, are running at roughly the rate seen in late-March, while data from the national health agency showed only 1.2% of its 120,000 tests last week came back positive …

Thirteen Covid-19 patients are in intensive care in Swedish hospitals, and its seven-day average of coronavirus-related deaths is zero."

The two graphs from The Guardian, below, show Sweden's infection rate and deaths per million, compared to other countries that enforced stricter lockdown rules.





High Mortality Was Due to Nursing Home Failures
Initially, Tegnell's approach came under fire as Sweden's death toll soared five to 10 times higher than its neighboring countries, Denmark, Norway and Finland. However, Tegnell insists this early spike in deaths was not due to a lack of lockdowns or social distancing in general, but rather due to a failure to prevent infection in nursing homes, where a majority of the deaths actually occurred.

"The strategy in Sweden is to focus on social distancing among the known risk groups, like the elderly. We try to use evidence-based [measures]." ~ Emma Frans, epidemiologist, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
"Of course something went wrong there," Tegnell told The Guardian.9 Other than that, Swedish authorities insist the strategy to encourage and trust citizens to take personal responsibility for their health and well-being has been the correct one.

Contrary to other nations, Sweden's decision has also resulted in consistent public messaging about disease prevention, thereby avoiding the confusion, frustration and distrust that comes from getting mixed messages.

In April 2020, Emma Frans, science communicator and a postdoctoral researcher in medical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, told the National Review:10

"The strategy in Sweden is to focus on social distancing among the known risk groups, like the elderly. We try to use evidence-based [measures]. We try to adjust everyday life. The Swedish plan is to implement [measures] that you can practice for a long time."

The Vanishing Middle-Class
As a result of their sensible approach to the pandemic, Sweden has also largely escaped the financial ruin experienced in other areas, including the U.S. This also means they've minimized the impact of the pandemic on mental health. As Tegnell told11 The Daily Mail, April 4, 2020, "We can't kill all our services. And unemployed people are a great threat to public health. It's a factor you need to think about."

Indeed, preventing healthy people from working is upending the middle-class in the U.S. and elsewhere, and has (as expected) resulted in a massive rise in suicide and other tragedies. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in "How the Government Uses Fear to Control," research from the 1980s found that for every 1-point rise in unemployment there were 37,000 excess deaths, 4,000 excess imprisonments and 3,300 excess admissions into mental institutions.

Kennedy also cites recent data from a hospital in San Francisco that stated they saw one year's-worth of suicides in a single month, a 1,200% increase, and British research showing that while there were 30,000 excess deaths in nursing homes during a five-week period during the lockdown, only one-third of them were due to COVID-19.

In other words, the death rate from isolation was double that of the virus itself. People didn't get the proper medical care for chronic conditions and so on. Kennedy also rightly points out that what we will see — and are already seeing — is the obliteration of the middle-class and the shift of wealth from the poor to the already ultra-rich.

A September 20, 2020, article12 in The Wall Street Journal highlights the financial devastation experienced by the American "loan-laden white-collar" middle-class. Journalist AnnaMaria Andriotis tells the story of Alysse Hopkins, a Rockland County, New York foreclosure and personal-injury lawyer:

"In a good year, the 43-year-old lawyer and her husband, Ian Boschen, 41, together brought in about $175,000, the couple said — enough to cover the mortgage, two car leases, student loans, credit cards and assorted costs of raising two daughters in the New York City suburbs.

After the coronavirus halted many foreclosures and closed courts, her work dried up. Unemployment benefits have helped, Ms. Hopkins said, but the family is running low on savings and can't keep up with $9,000 in monthly debt payments including mortgage installments. 'It frustrates me to not be able to earn a living,' she said. 'I have a law degree, almost 20 years of practice' …

While lower-wage workers have borne much of the brunt, the crisis is wreaking a particular kind of havoc on the debt-laden middle class … The coronavirus has spared few industries and expanded unemployment benefits designed to replace the average American income didn't cover all the lost pay of higher-earning workers, especially in or near expensive cities.

The extra $600 weekly payments expired in July, putting them even further behind. 'What I see happening here is a core assault on successful college-educated families, which are the new breed of middle-class American families,' said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. 'There's a professional workforce that's getting slammed.'"

Lockdowns Have Likely Done More Harm Than Good
So far, most efforts to curb COVID-19 infection have proven to be ill advised. Evidence shows the illness spreads mostly indoors,13,14,15 for example, casting doubt on the sanity of closing parks and beaches, especially during the summer.

Importantly, the total all-cause mortality is not significantly different than in previous years, as discussed by my interview with Denis Rancourt. Many other deaths have been shifted to COVID-19, bringing a high spike in deaths, but when you look at the area under the curve for total deaths, it really doesn't differ from previous years.

This statistic has also been highlighted by the American Institute for Economic Research.16 As early as April 2020, they referred to the COVID-19 pandemic as "An egregious statistical horror story" that resulted in "a vandalistic lockdown on the economy," which:

" … would have been an outrage even if the assumptions were not wildly astronomically wrong. Flattening the curve was always a fool's errand that widened the damage …

The latest figures on overall death rates from all causes show no increase at all. Deaths are lower than in 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2015, slightly higher than in 2016. Any upward bias is imparted by population growth.

Now writing a book on the crisis with bestselling author Jay Richards, [statistician William] Briggs concludes: 'Since pneumonia deaths are up, yet all deaths are down, it must mean people are being recorded as dying from other things at smaller rates than usual.' Deaths from other causes are simply being ascribed to the coronavirus.

As usual every year, deaths began trending downward in January. It's an annual pattern. Look it up. Since the lockdown began in mid-March, the politicians cannot claim that their policies had anything to do with the declining death rate.

A global study17 published in Israel by Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, chairman of the Israeli Space Agency and Council on Research and Development, shows that 'the spread of the coronavirus declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it.'

In fact, by impeding herd immunity, particularly among students and other non-susceptible young people, the lockdown in the U.S. has prolonged and exacerbated the medical problem."

- Sources and References
1 Metro August 24, 2020
2 The Sun August 24, 2020
3, 6 The Guardian September 22, 2020
4, 10 National Review April 6, 2020
5 The Spectator April 1, 2020
7, 9 The Guardian September 16, 2020
8 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
10 National Review April 6, 2020
11 Daily Mail April 4, 2020
12 Wall Street Journal September 20, 2020 (Archived)
13 The Atlantic May 26, 2020
14 Harvard Gazette June 29, 2020
15 Nola.com July 1, 2020
16 American Institute of Economic Research April 24, 2020
17 The Times of Israel April 19, 2020