This video provides one of the most erudite and informative looks at Covid-19 and the consequences of lockdowns. As AIER notes, it was remarkable this week to watch as it appeared on YouTube and was forcibly taken down only 2 hours after posting.

What likely triggered the Silicon Valley censor-mongers is the fact that a former Chief Science Officer for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer says “there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.” The “Big Pharma” insider asserts that false positive results from inherently unreliable COVID tests are being used to manufacture a “second wave” based on “new cases.”

As Ralph Lopez write at HubPages, Yeadon warns that half or even “almost all” of tests for COVID are false positives. Dr. Yeadon also argues that the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower than previously thought, and may have been reached in many countries already.

In an interview last week (see below) Dr. Yeadon was asked:

“we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting…all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?”

Dr. Yeadon answered with a simple “yes.”

Even more significantly, even if all positives were to be correct, Dr. Yeadon said that given the “shape” of all important indicators in a worldwide pandemic, such as hospitalizations, ICU utilization, and deaths, “the pandemic is fundamentally over.”

Yeadon said in the interview:

“Were it not for the test data that you get from the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over, as nothing much has happened. Of course people go to the hospital, moving into the autumn flu season…but there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.”

In a paper published this month, which was co-authored by Yeadon and two of his colleagues, “How Likely is a Second Wave?”, the scientists write:

“It has widely been observed that in all heavily infected countries in Europe and several of the US states likewise, that the shape of the daily deaths vs. time curves is similar to ours in the UK. Many of these curves are not just similar, but almost super imposable.“

In the data for UK, Sweden, the US, and the world, it can be seen that in all cases, deaths were on the rise in March through mid or late April, then began tapering off in a smooth slope which flattened around the end of June and continues to today. The case rates however, based on testing, rise and swing upwards and downwards wildly.

Media messaging in the US is already ramping up expectations of a “second wave.”

The survival rate of COVID-19 has been upgraded since May to 99.8% of infections. This comes close to ordinary flu, the survival rate of which is 99.9%. Although COVID can have serious after-effects, so can flu or any respiratory illness. The present survival rate is far higher than initial grim guesses in March and April, cited by Dr. Anthony Fauci, of 94%, or 20 to 30 times deadlier. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) value accepted by Yeadon et al in the paper is .26%. The survival rate of a disease is 100% minus the IFR.

Dr. Yeadon pointed out that the “novel” COVID-19 contagion is novel only in the sense that it is a new type of coronavirus. But, he said, there are presently four strains which circulate freely throughout the population, most often linked to the common cold.

In the scientific paper, Yeadon et al write:

“There are at least four well characterized family members (229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1) which are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter. They all have striking sequence similarity to the new coronavirus.”

The scientists argue that much of the population already has, if not antibodies to COVID, some level of “T-cell” immunity from exposure to other related coronaviruses, which have been circulating long before COVID-19.

The scientists write:

“A major component our immune systems is the group of white blood cells called T-cells whose job it is to memorize a short piece of whatever virus we were infected with so the right cell types can multiply rapidly and protect us if we get a related infection. Responses to COVID-19 have been shown in dozens of blood samples taken from donors before the new virus arrived.”

Introducing the idea that some prior immunity to COVID-19 already existed, the authors of “How Likely is a Second Wave?” write:

“It is now established that at least 30% of our population already had immunological recognition of this new virus, before it even arrived…COVID-19 is new, but coronaviruses are not.”

They go on to say that, because of this prior resistance, only 15-25% of a population being infected may be sufficient to reach herd immunity:

“…epidemiological studies show that, with the extent of prior immunity that we can now reasonably assume to be the case, only 15-25% of the population being infected is sufficient to bring the spread of the virus to a halt…”

In the US, accepting a death toll of 200,000, and a survival rate of 99.8%, this would mean for every person who has died, there would be about 400 people who had been infected, and lived. This would translate to around 80 million Americans, or 27% of the population. This touches Yeadon’s and his colleagues’ threshold for herd immunity.

Finally, the former Pfizer executive and scientist singles out one former colleague for withering rebuke for his role in the pandemic, Professor Neil Ferguson. Ferguson taught at Imperial College while Yeadon was affiliated. Ferguson’s computer model provided the rationale for governments to launch draconian orders which turned free societies into virtual prisons overnight. Over what is now estimated by the CDC to be a 99.8% survival rate virus.

Dr. Yeadon said in the interview that “no serious scientist gives any validity” to Ferguson’s model.

Speaking with thinly-veiled contempt for Ferguson, Dr. Yeadon took special pains to point out to his interviewer:

“It’s important that you know most scientists don’t accept that it [Ferguson’s model] was even faintly right…but the government is still wedded to the model.”

Yeadon joins other scientists in castigating governments for following Ferguson’s model, the assumptions of which all worldwide lockdowns are based on. One of these scientists is Dr. Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist for the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who called Ferguson’s model “the most influential scientific paper” in memory, and also “one of the most wrong.”

It was Ferguson’s model which held that “mitigation” measures were necessary, i.e. social distancing and business closures, in order to prevent, for example, over 2.2 million people dying from COVID in the US.

Ferguson predicted that Sweden would pay a terrible price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden’s death count is under 6,000. The Swedish government says this coincides to a mild flu season. Although initially higher, Sweden now has a lower death rate per-capita than the US, which it achieved without the terrific economic damage still ongoing in the US. Sweden never closed restaurants, bars, sports, most schools, or movie theaters. The government never ordered people to wear masks.

Dr. Yeadon speaks bitterly of the lives lost as a result of lockdown policies, and of the “savable” countless lives which will be further lost, from important surgeries and other healthcare deferred, should lockdowns be reimposed.

Watch the full discussion below:

Yeadon’s warnings are confirmed by a new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America., summarized succinctly in the following twitter thread from al gato malo (@boriquagato)

Anyone still presuming that a Positive PCR test is showing a COVID case needs to read this very carefully:

· even 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of “positives” are not “cases.” virus cannot be cultured. it’s dead.

· by 35: 97% non-clinical.

· the US runs at 40, 32X the amplification of 35.

a lot of people still seem to not understand what this means, so let’s lay that out for a minute.

PCR tests look for RNA. there is too little in your swab. so they amplify it using a primer based heating and annealing process.

Each cycle of this process doubles the material

the US (and much of the world) is using a 40 Ct (cycle threshold). so, 40 doublings, 1 trillion X amplification.

This is absurdly high.

The way that we know this is by running this test, seeing the Ct to find the RNA, and then using the same sample to try to culture virus.

If you cannot culture the virus, then the virus is “dead.” it’s inert. if it cannot replicate, it cannot infect you or others. it’s just traces of virus, remnants, fragments etc.

PCR is not testing for disease, it’s testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot

When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really “positives” in any clinical sense.

I hesitate to call it a “false positive” because it’s really not. it did find RNA.

but that RNA is not clinically relevant.

It cannot make you or anyone else sick

so let’s call this a non-clinical positive (NCP).

· if 70% of positives are NCP’s at 25, imagine what 40 looks like. 35 is 1000X as sensitive.

· this study found only 3% live at 35

· 40 Ct is 32X 35, 32,000X 25

no one can culture live virus past about 34 and we have known this since march. yet no one has adjusted these tests.

presuming it bears out, this is a key finding.

it shows that many patients that are PCR+ for COV-19 are not shedding infectious virus.

this would imply shorter quarantine needed and provide a testable basis for discharge of isolated patients. pic.twitter.com/UvumjkxVxv

— el gato malo (@boriquagato) March 27, 2020

This is more very strong data refuting the idea that you can trust a PCR+ as a clinical indicator.

That is NOT what it’s meant for. at all.

Using them to do real time epidemiology is absurd.

The FDA would never do it, the drug companies doing vaccine trials would never do it… it’s because it’s nonsense.

And this same test is used for “hospitalizations” and “death with Covid” (itself a weirdly over inclusive metric)

PCR testing is not the answer, it’s the problem.

It’s not how to get control of an epidemic, it’s how to completely lose control of your data picture and wind up with gibberish and we have done this to ourselves before.

The last major false positive pseudo-epidemic was Swine Flu in 2009. Everyone said we would never let it happen again. pic.twitter.com/Hdif5l5Gam

— Dr Clare Craig (@ClareCraigPath) November 16, 2020

A quick word what this data does and does not mean.

Saying “a sample requiring 35 Ct to test + has a 3% real clinical positive rate” does not mean “97% of + tests run at 35 Ct are NCP’s”

People seem to get confused on this, so let’s explain:

Most tests are just amplified and run. they don’t test every cycle as these academics do. that would make the test slow and expensive, so you just run 40 cycles then test.

Obviously, a real clinical positive (RCP) that would have been + at 20 is still + at 40.

but when you run the tests each cycle as the academics do, that test would already have dropped out.

so saying that only 3% at 35 are RCP really means that 3% of those samples not PCR + at 34 were PCR and RCP + at 35.

this lets us infer little about overall NCP/RCP rate.

so we cannot say “at 25 Ct, we have a 70 NCP rate.” in fact, it’s hard to say much of anything. it depends entirely on what the source material coming in looks like.

you cannot even compare like to like.

This is what I mean by “the data is gibberish”

Today at 40 Ct, 7% PCR positive rate could be 1% RCP prevalence when that same thing meant 6% RCP prev in April.

If there is lots more trace virus around, more people who have recovered and have fragments left over, etc. this test could be finding virus you killed 4 months ago.

So if we consider RCP rate/PCR+ rate, we would expect that number to drop sharply late in an epidemic because there is more dead virus around for PCR to find, but we have no idea what that ratio is or how it changes.

This spills over in to deaths, reported hospitalization etc.

Testing is being made out to be like the high beams on a car, but when it’s snowing like hell at night, that is the LAST thing you want. It is not illuminating our way, it’s blinding us.

A bad inaccurate map is much worse than no map at all, and this is a world class bad map…

We’re basing policy that is affecting billions of humans on data that is uninterpretable gibberish.

It’s a deranged technocrat’s wet dream, but for those of us along for the ride, it’s a nightmare.

Testing is not the solution, it’s the problem.

Any technocrat or scientist that does not know this by now is either unfit for their job or has decided that they just don’t care and prefer power to morality.

This is, of course, precisely the kind of person who winds up running a gov’t agency… oopsie.

via ZeroHedge

Ever since it burst out of Wuhan, China roughly one year ago, the coronavirus has created what one economist described as a “trilemma” – that is, the struggle to balance the inevitable tradeoffs between safeguarding public health, the economy and personal freedom.

In the US (and in many spots around Europe as well), some have pointed to skepticism surrounding the accelerated development process for the myriad COVID vaccine projects as a potential obstacle to achieving herd immunity, since a lack of public confidence might force some governments to try and unduly pressure citizens to accept the vaccine.

With all this in mind, policymakers and economists are struggling to pinpoint an acceptable trade-off between public health, economic health and personal freedom. Some analysts have taken to calling these conflicting priorities the coronavirus “trilemma”. However these conflicts are resolved will be critical to the economic outlook in 2021, and with Wall Street increasingly expecting the US economy to slide back into contraction during Q4, speculation about the timing and pace of the rebound has been pushed out to next year, and 2022.

To be sure, the timing of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout will be critical in deciding how all of this plays out. But there’s another issue, more closely related to the “personal freedom” leg of the “trilemma”, that epidemiologists and policymakers may have underestimated. And that’s the question of public confidence in the vaccine.

Several Wall Street research shops have published insights on the subject, using data gleaned from YouGov and Gallup opinion polls, along with other sources. The other day, Deutsche Bank published a chart breaking down eagerness to receive the vaccine, along with opinions about whether it should be “mandatory”.

Opinion polling is clear: In the US, more than 2/3rds of the population feels receiving a COVID-19 vaccine should be voluntary. What’s more, only a small percentage of Americans would push to be vaccinated within the first month of a vaccine being widely available. Most appear content to hang back, presumably more concerned about when the economy will be allowed to reopen than when they might be able to get vaccinated.

Of course, opinions could shift substantially if something unexpected happens between now and when the FDA is due to begin reviewing the Pfizer (and, eventually, Moderna) applications for emergency-use approval. As Bloomberg’s John Authers reminds us, it’s not a done deal.

It’s also conceivable that something goes wrong with vaccine safety or the manufacturing process. Most precariously, there is what is known as “vaccine-hesitancy.” Across the world, many are reluctant to take one. These are the results of surveys conducted in the U.S. and western Europe for Deutsche Bank AG. They suggest that politicians may be forced to make vaccinations mandatory, which could make the politics of 2021 very dangerous:

Authers shared another chart from DB showing that attitudes about vaccines across Europe are mostly the same as in the US, with the UK seeing generally higher acceptance of vaccines (perhaps there might be a correlation between acceptance and levels of public hysteria driven by notably higher mortality rates?).

Over the past week, Dr. Fauci has upped the rhetoric about vaccine skeptics, labeling them as a “serious threat” to public health, while millions of Americans prepare to ignore the CDC’s guidelines and travel to see family and friends despite the situation.

Could it be that, nearly a year into the worst pandemic in a century, the public’s attitudes about the threat posed by COVID-19 are notably more lax than Dr. Fauci’s

Principa Scientific

I would like to draw your attention urgently to important issues related to the next Covid-19 vaccination. For the first time in the history of vaccination, the so-called last generation mRNA vaccines intervene directly in the genetic material of the patient and therefore alter the individual genetic material, which represents the genetic manipulation, something that was already forbidden and until then considered criminal.

This intervention can be compared to genetically manipulated food, which is also highly controversial. Even if the media and politicians currently trivialize the problem and even stupidly call for a new type of vaccine to return to normality, this vaccination is problematic in terms of health, morality and ethics, and also in terms of genetic damage that, unlike the damage caused by previous vaccines, will be irreversible and irreparable.

Dear patients, after an unprecedented mRNA vaccine, you will no longer be able to treat the vaccine symptoms in a complementary way. They will have to live with the consequences, because they can no longer be cured simply by removing toxins from the human body, just as a person with a genetic defect like Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, genetic cardiac arrest, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, Rett syndrome, etc.), because the genetic defect is forever!

This means clearly: if a vaccination symptom develops after an mRNA vaccination, neither I nor any other therapist can help you, because the damage caused by the vaccination will be genetically irreversible. In my opinion, these new vaccines represent a crime against humanity that has never been committed in such a big way in history. As Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an experienced doctor, said: In fact, this “promising vaccine” for the vast majority of people should be FORBIDDEN, because it is genetic manipulation! ”

The vaccine, developed and endorsed by Anthony Fauci and funded by Bill Gates, uses experimental mRNA technology. Three of the 15 human guinea pigs (20%) experienced a “serious adverse event”.

Note: messenger RNA or mRNA is the ribonucleic acid that transfers the genetic code of the DNA of the cell nucleus to a ribosome in the cytoplasm, that is, the one that determines the order in which the amino acids of a protein bind and act as a mold or pattern for the synthesis of that protein.

Resource:

Vaccine COVID = IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC DAMAGE – A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
DOES CORONAVIRUS EXIST OR NOT?

CLARIFICATION:

1. DOES THE VIRUS EXIST?

Yes, like many other viruses.

2. DOES IT HAVE A CURE?

Yes, if you use the proper medicines and do not leave your health in the hands of corrupt and mercantile health systems.

3. ARE THERE GOOD DOCTORS?

Yes and many, some are acting discreetly giving appropriate treatments, others have been bolder and there are many videos in the networks talking about these treatments, and many have been threatened, disqualified or silenced.

4. ARE SCIENTISTS INVESTIGATING?

Yes, and there is a world union calling for more doctors and scientists called Doctors and Scientists for Truth, to expose the falsity of the treatment they have given to the bug issue.

5. IS IT A PANDEMIC?

No. The WHO changed the term that referred to the pandemic, before the bug was launched in order to end the pandemic.

6. IS IT CONTAGIOUS?

Yes, like all flu.

7. IF I CATCH THE VIRUS, DOES IT MEAN THAT I WILL DIE?

No. If you have symptoms, just take the appropriate medicine from the first day (strengthen the immune system, take anti-inflammatory and anti-influenza) and cure yourself at home.

8. CAN IT BE PREVENTED?

Yes, being as clean as you should be, and maintaining a high immune system. And you also have: Ozone Therapy, Chlorine Dioxide with the preventive protocol.

9. ARE THE COUNT OF INFECTED AND DEAD BY THE VIRUS CERTAIN?

No. In the USA it was discovered that any data, would be in fact 10% of that number, because the causes of deaths were other diseases, and the tests are not reliable, they give false positives.

10. ARE ASYMPTOMATIC REAL CASES OF POSITIVES?

The human being has many microorganisms and viruses in the body and this does not mean that you are a sick or infected person, or that you have the virus, however, the viruses that are supposedly “so aggressive” present some symptoms in the patients because the body releases alarms from an intruder (fever, headache, vomiting, etc.) and according to Koch’s theory the answer is NO.

11. WAS THE VIRUS CREATED?

Yes, in a laboratory.

13. FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

To be the excuse to restrict freedoms, to change the current economic system to a more oppressive / enslaving, scary, blind flock obedience.

14. ARE MANY COUNTRIES PART OF THIS MALICIOUS PLAN?

Yes.

15. WILL WE GET OUT OF THIS?

Yes. And all those who contributed to the deaths and the plan will fall, and they will pay for what they did.

16. MUST I BE AFRAID?

No. Fear diminishes your immune system and makes you mentally controllable.

17. IS THE MEDIA PART OF THE PLAN?

Yes. The owners of the media are accomplices. This is called mind control.

18. WHAT SHOULD I DO?

You protect yourself, and if you get sick you already know how to heal yourself at home, or with your trusted doctor who will not commit to the abandonment protocol.

19. SHOULD I BE VACCINATED?

No. If you get healthy, vaccines bring chemicals, heavy metals and a series of “bugs” that will only affect your health more in the medium and long term, both physically and mentally. It’s your body, and it’s your right to decide about it, and about your physical and mental health. Would you trust a vaccine after a virus has been created to exterminate humanity?

20. IS THIS A WAR?

Yes! And we will be victorious! We need to stay together and wake other people up, giving a lot of information.

“Forced to wear a mask, but not to shut up.”

***
Editor’s Update: We originally mistakenly attributed this article to Robert Kennedy Jr. but have since been advised by his office that he is not the author nor associated with it. We are sorry for the error.

READ MORE COVID NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

A Daily Mail piece that poked holes in the UK government’s approach to coronavirus prompted the country’s Department of Health to cry foul, but the complaint backfired after the government failed to say what the paper got wrong.

Published under the headline ‘Covid: What They Don’t Tell You’, the articletook aim at the government’s terrifying estimate in July of 119,000 deaths from Covid-19 if a second wave coincided with winter flu, noting that the prediction has so far been wildly off the mark.

The Mail pointed out that the number of daily deaths being reported in the country is not unusually high for this time of year, adding that 95 percent of Covid-related deaths involved people with serious underlying conditions. The government’s fears of hospitals being overwhelmed by Covid-19 patients were also questioned, with the Mail reporting that only 31 percent of intensive care unit beds are currently occupied by patients that have tested positive for coronavirus.

The analysis caused a sensation on social media, and even caught the attention of the Department of Health and Social Care.

“This article is misleading. This is a global pandemic – national restrictions have been introduced to keep people safe and save lives,” the department’s official Twitter account wrote in a now-deleted reply to the piece. The message urged Britons to “follow the rules and continue to stay at home” so that the country can “get back to normality.”

The comments appear to have had the opposite of their intended effect, however, with journalists, politicians, and countless social media users challenging the Health Department to elaborate on the “misleading” nature of the piece.

“What specifically is misleading about it? It is not (yet) compulsory for the press to follow the government’s propaganda line,” journalist Peter Hitchens fired back at the department.

Radio host Mike Graham was similarly unimpressed by the department’s vague dismissal of the article.

The condemnation was echoed by countless other social media users, who accused the government of desperately trying to control the narrative surrounding the virus, while having even “less credibility than the media.”

The Daily Mail ran its own scathing retort to the department’s tweet, accusing the UK government of using “Twitter as a propaganda tool” in an attempt to undermine the paper’s reporting.

The outlet published comments from several politicians who expressed regret over the government-sanctioned social media post.

Tory MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith said it was simply “good journalism” to “highlight the problems with the [official] figures that are being produced,”and urged the Department of Health to do its job rather than pick fights with news outlets.

Another Conservative MP, Sir Graham Brady, said that “the people tell government what it can do – not the other way round,” and stressed that it is “essential” that there is an open debate about how to best deal with Covid-19.

The UK government has come under increasing scrutiny for its Covid-19 restrictions, with critics arguing that lockdowns and curfews imposed across the country to deal with a second wave of the virus will have devastating economic, social, and health effects that will eclipse any potential benefits from the policies. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is currently isolating at Downing Street after meeting with an MP who tested positive for the illness. He is expected to release a “Covid Winter Plan” next week.

The country has recorded 1,493,383 positive coronavirus tests, linked to 54,626 deaths, since the start of the pandemic. Despite an increase in testing, new cases have been dropping over the past week. Hospitalizations and deaths are still far from the peaks seen at the start of the health crisis in April.

by Igor Kuznetsov

While the study by Denmark’s leading hospital failed to see any significant protection against coronavirus transmission, the doctors admitted that the results are inconclusive due to a number of factors.

A comprehensive Danish study has found that face masks provide no clear protection from Covid-19 infection to the wearer.

The study of more than 6,000 Danes published by the Copenhagen-based hospital Rigshospitalet saw no significant protection against coronavirus transmission.

Researchers expected to see a halving of the risk of transmission in cases where subjects were wearing masks, but were surprised to see a far more modest rate of protection of up to 20 percent.

The study compared how well a “protected” group of face mask wearers fared against a second group who did not use them. In the non-mask group, 2.1 percent of participants ended up infected with the novel coronavirus, compared with 1.8 percent of participants in the mask-wearing group. The margin was deemed not substantial enough to conclude the protective benefits of using face masks with certainty.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has become the subject of widespread conspiracy theories following the outbreak of the coronavirus in March. However, new tests from the lab are reported to discredit the unfounded claims.

China’s “bat woman” claimed on Saturday that a new set of tests demonstrate that coronavirus did not originate from her virology lab in Wuhan

Shi Zhengli, who is the deputy director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and famous for her work on the virus, said that tests on infected workers from southwest China show that none of the subjects had been infected with COVID-19, The South China Morning Post reports on Saturday.

The updated tests were conducted from blood samples taken eight years ago from miners who had become sick after working in bat caves.

Her findings were published this week adding to a paper she produced February in the scientific journal Nature, according to the Hong Kong newspaper.

Known as China’s ‘bat woman ‘for her research on coronaviruses in the animals, Shi identified that the genetic properties of the viruses she’s worked on did not emulate the coronavirus spreading throughout the world.

The virology centre has become the subject of unfounded theories, including claims that the coronavirus was produced in her laboratory to a leaked bioweapon.

In May, US President Donald Trump contradicted his own intelligence agencies by suggesting that the coronavirus originated from a Chinese laboratory.

Mr Trump was asked by a reporter at the White House if he had seen anything that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the origin of the virus

“Yes, I have. Yes, I have”, said the president. “And I think the World Health Organization [WHO] should be ashamed of themselves because they’re like the public relations agency for China”.

Despite international standards surrounding the naming of viruses prohibiting titles relating to geography, Donald Trump repeatedly referred to Covid-19 as the “China Virus” in an attempt to associate the pandemic with his geopolitical rival.