For those who may be disappointed by some of our postings, those postings that discuss a potential worsening of the Covid scamdemic, one word of clarification. We do not in the least suggest that such a possibility could be a natural development of a virus out of control. Rather, such posts are meant to warn the public of the real possibility of an escalation of the scamdemic by the same means that made it possible in the first place. The same agenda that triggered the phase one of the plandemic continues against the public, only at a more heightened level.
Former Pfizer vice president and scientific director Dr. Michael Yeadon and German lung specialist and parliamentarian Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg have filed an urgent application with the European Medicine Agency calling for the immediate suspension of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies – particularly the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Yeadon and Wodarg say the studies should be halted until a design study is available which addresses a host of serious safety concerns expressed by a growing body of renowned scientists who are skeptical of how quickly the vaccines are being developed, according to Germany’s 2020 News.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se. –2020 News
The pair also point to concerns raised in previous studies involving other coronaviruses – including (via 2020 News):
The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
Dr. Yeadon made headlines last month when he said “There is no science to suggest a second wave should happen,” and that false positive results from inherently flawed COVID-19 tests are being used to ‘manufacture’ a second wave.
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.
“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.”
He then lamented 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.
“Powers to conduct vehicle checks were afforded to police officers by the Welsh Government, under regulation 33 of the Health Protection – Coronavirus Restrictions.”
This is the follow-up full-length documentary to the short film interview of Dr. Judy Mikovits that went viral in May.
Watch and share this online while you can, but beware that it will almost certainly be throttled, black-listed and censored into ‘non-existence’. Within hours of the film’s launch, the creators’ website has already been taken down. As explained in the film itself, the Internet is now almost totally theirs to control and manipulate.
Message about the film from Pl@ndemic producer Mikki Willis:
After 3 very long months, Pl@ndemic 2: Indoctornation, is here.
What began as a follow-up to Pl@ndemic Part 1 radically evolved over time. As the world became increasingly divided over hot-button topics such as face masks, social distancing, case numbers, hydr0xychloroquine, etc., we made the decision to exclude any mention of those subjects, and instead focus on following the money.
With the help of white-collar crime expert Dr. David Martin, Pl@ndemic 2 exposes the disturbing reality of conflicts of interest, the patent game, and the deadly corruption that pervades our global health organizations.
Plandemic part 1 is still available >UPDATED 23 Aug 2020
A peer review of the paper on which most Covid testing is based has comprehensively debunked the science behind it, finding major flaws. They conclude it’s utterly unsuitable as a means for diagnosis – and the fall-out is immense.
Last week, I reported on a landmark ruling from Portugal, where a court had ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally confined four people to a hotel this summer. They had done so because one of the people had tested positive for Covid in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – but the court had found the test fundamentally flawed and basically inadmissible.
Now the PCR testing supremacy under which we all now live has received another crushing blow. A peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study, called the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid.
The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in history. What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70 percent of Covid kits worldwide. It’s cheap, fast – and absolutely useless.
The 10 deadly sins
Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:
is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design
is enormously variable
cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments
has no positive or negative controls
has no standard operating procedure
does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed
Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies.
The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing!
Heroes we deserve
The 22 members of the consortium that has challenged this shoddy science deserve huge credit. The scientists, from Europe, the USA, and Japan, comprise senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, with many decades of experience between them.
They have issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper, writing: “Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.’’ Talk about putting the pressure on.
It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about the Covid orthodoxy relies on ‘case numbers’, which are largely the results of the now widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who asserts that, in the UK, there is no ‘second wave’ and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the contrary.
The house of cards collapses
Why was this paper rushed to publication in January, despite clearly not meeting proper standards? Why did none of the checks and balances that are meant to prevent bad science dictating public policy kick into action? And why did it take so long for anyone in the scientific community to challenge its faulty methodology? These questions lead to dark ruminations, which I will save for another day.
Even more pressing is the question of what is going to be done about this now. The people responsible for writing and publishing the paper have to be held accountable. But also, all PCR testing based on the Corman-Drosten protocol should be stopped with immediate effect. All those who are so-called current ‘Covid cases’, diagnosed based on that protocol, should be told they no longer have to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and ‘infection rates’ should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry. And lockdowns, shutdowns, and other restrictions should be urgently reviewed and relaxed.
Because this latest blow to PCR testing raises the probability that we are not enduring a killer virus pandemic, but a false positive pseudo-epidemic. And one on which we are destroying our economies, wrecking people’s livelihoods and causing more deaths than Covid-19 will ever claim.
At the time of this writing, the United States currently maintains the highest number of Covid-19 deaths and ranks 11th for the highest deaths per capita. There have been approximately 262,000 recorded Covid-19 deaths in the United States, which is certainly a concerning number.
However, a new study (link removed but now available at Archive.org) published by Dr. Genevieve Briand at Johns Hopkins University notes some critical accounting errors done at the national level.
The study – which is still being vetted – simply examines the raw data that should have been questioned months ago.
The overall conclusion is that Covid-19, at least according to collected data, is not the killer disease that it is currently hyped up to be. AIER is not endorsing the study as is without further study, but we are interested in the argument being examined and discussed.
Viewing Covid-19 Deaths in Context
It is already well established that Covid-19 is a disease that is most dangerous to those over the age of 65 and who have preexisting conditions. In the United States, there has been an observed 2.1% mortality rate, with elderly individuals making up over half that number.
Young and healthy people are not by any significant capacity threatened by Covid-19.
One of the most important factors when it comes to Covid-19 is preventing excess death. According to the CDC,
“Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including deaths that are directly or indirectly attributed to COVID-19. Excess deaths are typically defined as the difference between the observed numbers of deaths in specific time periods and expected numbers of deaths in the same time periods.”
Essentially, there is an average number of deaths every year due to a variety of causes that for the most part have remained constant through the years. This includes morbidities such as heart disease, which has long been the leading cause of death, and cancer, which has long plagued our existence. For Covid-19 to be a serious cause of alarm, it would need to significantly increase the number of average deaths.
However, according to the study,
“These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
Total deaths in the United States show no significant change and even mirror past trends of seasonal illness.
Source: CDC Data, Methodology Included in this Video
According to this graph constructed using data provided by the CDC from the last 6 years, total deaths have remained relatively constant and increases can be explained by various factors such as a larger population. The spikes in deaths in 2020 are consistent with historical trends, only topping 2018 by 11,292 deaths. There have been over 262,000 deaths attributed to Covid-19 in the United States, yet total deaths have not increased in any alarming capacity; they have only mirrored existing trends. In short, according to 6 years of data collected by the CDC, Covid-19 has not led to any significant increase in deaths.
Diving Deeper
What is even more interesting if not more alarming is that the spike in recorded Covid-19 deaths seen in 2020 has coincided with a proportional decrease in death from other diseases.
“This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”
Deaths have remained relatively constant, yet reported deaths due to deadly conditions such as heart disease have fallen while reported Covid deaths have risen. This suggests that the current Covid death count is in some capacity relabeled deaths due to other ailments. According to the graph, reported Covid deaths even overtook heart disease as the main cause of death at one point, which should raise suspicion.
This aligns with many other well-established facts about the virus, such as those with comorbidities are the most at risk. According to the CDC, about 94% of Covid deaths occur with comorbidities. This suggests that it could be possible that a large number of deaths could have been mainly due to more serious ailments such as heart disease but categorized as a Covid-19 death, a far less lethal disease.
According to this graph provided by the study, deaths labeled under Covid-19 increased while deaths labeled under others decreased. It is important to note that this sample only applies to the month of April as the author notes these were the weeks with the highest reported deaths. Gu writes
“The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease…
“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” Briand replied.”
Furthermore, Briand’s research notes that the percentage of death has remained relatively constant through all age groups. Covid death statistics seem to mirror the normal distribution of death amongst age groups, further lending credence to the argument that many Covid deaths are recategorized deaths.
Briand provides this graph constructed from CDC data that shows that deaths amongst various age groups have remained relatively constant.
By simply looking at the raw data presented by the CDC Gu writes that
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.
What Do We Do With This Information?
Briand and likely many others suppose that the extreme emphasis on Covid-19 has led to the unintended classification of the disease as the cause of death. She further stresses that although this data challenges the idea that Covid is an unprecedented and lethal disease, we should still be concerned with mitigating death in general.
However, it is clear that this significant accounting error regarding Covid deaths, if true, is not productive. It has caused mass hysteria and misinformed public policy. Closing down communities to fight a virus that according to the data, has had no significant contribution to total deaths, reduces our overall capacity to build a healthy society.
[ZH: Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) noted on Twitter: “Folks: I know a lot of you are referencing this Johns Hopkins paper that’s been pulled. Unfortunately it is wrong. The excess deaths are real. Yes, they’re very, very skewed by age, but they’re real. Pretending otherwise doesn’t help.”]
Lockdowns have resulted in severe damage to our capacity to improve the general health of society.From the catastrophic economic damage that lowers the standard of living for everyone to surgeries being deemed “unessential,” our current policies are not helping in preventing deaths in general; they are likely leading to more. Suicides and substance abuse are up, mental and physical health are down, all due to lockdowns.
The late Dr. Donald Henderson, who led the eradication of smallpox, noted in 2006 that
“Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”
The hysteria over Covid-19 has likely led to the alleged accounting error noted in Briand’s study, the reclassification of expected deaths from all causes into Covid deaths.
By Peter Andrews, Irish science journalist and writer based in London. He has a background in life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in genetics.
Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.
Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be unlawful. The case centred on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.
The verdict, delivered on November 11, followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority. This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PCR test – the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore made to quarantine as well.
Unreliable, with a strong chance of false positives
The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one.
They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid.
The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.
Tested positive? There could be as little as a 3% chance it’s correct
This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).
Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus.
The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”
While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese labs was unknown, they took this as further proof that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated that there was “no way this court would ever be able to determine” whether the tourist who tested positive was indeed a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed to it.
Sshhh – don’t tell anyone
It is a sad indictment of our mainstream media that such a landmark ruling, of such obvious and pressing international importance, has been roundly ignored. If one were making (flimsy) excuses for them, one could say that the case escaped the notice of most science editors because it has been published in Portuguese. But there is a full English translation of the appeal, and alternative media managed to pick it up.
And it isn’t as if Portugal is some remote, mysterious nation where news is unreliable or whose judges are suspect – this is a western EU country with a large population and a similar legal system to many other parts of Europe. And it is not the only country whose institutions are clashing with received wisdom on Covid. Finland’s national health authority has disputed the WHO’s recommendation to test as many people as possible for coronavirus, saying it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money, while poorer South East Asian countries are holding off on ordering vaccines, citing an improper use of finite resources.
Testing, especially PCR testing, is the basis for the entire house of cards of Covid restrictions that are wreaking havoc worldwide. From testing comes case numbers. From case numbers come the ‘R number,’ the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the ‘dreaded’ R number comes the lockdowns and the restrictions, such as England’s new and baffling tiered restrictions that come into force next week.
The daily barrage of statistics is familiar to us all by this point, but as time goes on the evidence that something may be deeply amiss with the whole foundation of our reaction to this pandemic – the testing regime – continues to mount.
There are two major frauds underlying this rush to implement testing on a massive global scale that the prominent critics of the Coronavirus hysteria don’t seem to be addressing.
Dr. Yeadon, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and many other distinguished public figures have told us that there is no meaningful information to be obtained from these tests. The PCR tests look for virus fragments, but they cannot distinguish between a dead fragment of an old Corona flu virus and a live reproductive Covid virus. Only the serology test checks for antibodies, but this test is not even used in the current mass testing.
One can argue that, on the contrary, a positive test result, whether real or false, but correlated with an asymptomatic case is a sign of a healthy person who cannot be affected anymore by the virus since the person has built already its immunity against it. That’s why it is a case of asymptomatic positive.
Furthermore, if these asymptomatic cases are in fact a proof of acquired immunity, then they are the very certification for health in those individuals.
By this logic, we should consider that the people who test negative are rather the vulnerable ones to potential infections. It should be inferred that it’s the test-negative person who needs to be monitored and protected from being infected.
Now, we also know that it not necessary that simple as immunity is not a one-level line of defense within the body defenses. Even the serology test which detects antibodies in merely 40 percent of the cases, is only the first level of immunization. Then, as everybody learned, there are the T-cells that are some kind catch-all net of protection. But, again, that’s not what the PCR tests are about.
OK, so tests are misleading on several levels, top virologists and immunologists from around the world keep telling us. The logic is simple; the more tests are performed, the more we get both positive and negative results. So why are we persisting in testing? Why does this testing mania continue? Is it because of individuals like Bill Gates that are greedy to make profits out of the fear these tests induce in the population? Is it because, the medical industry is out of control in their obsessive duty? Is it because they are just stupid?
What is that these tests do achieve at great costs to society and the individuals?
The other day, supposedly two people in the city of Shanghai tested positive. And? The Chinese leaders, allegedly very focused on “zero tolerance” for even a single infection, lined up the 10 million or 20 million inhabitants for testing right away.
Among the Europeans, the 5+ million Slovakians were the first nation to be fully tested, to the last man and woman. All 5+ million! And? What did that achieve? Is the entire nation of Slovakia now better off in some way? Not really. They have to live with same restrictions as their neighbors.
So again, what information was acquired? Information about the virus? About the level of immunization of the country? They could have learned almost as much by running a test on a representative sample of the population and then simply extrapolating to the rest of the nation. This is being done every day, in all sorts of domains — including predicting election results — to a precision of half a percent.
What else could it be? What is in those testing kits that we don’t think about?
Our saliva! Our nasal pickings, our body fluids, which contain our signature DNA. They are collecting these identity particles and taking them away somewhere. They are taking them to the laboratory, together with all our personal tracing information. Name, address, phone number, Social Security number, and the lab results: all going into the one big database.
“The idea of creating a combined database of information is not a new one, having been proposed in 2014 by long-serving Minister of Internal Affairs Vladimir Kolokoltsev. Six years ago, Kolokoltsev suggested that the unified database should include DNA analysis and information, as well as vehicles and forensic records. Earlier this year, the ministry announced it would be creating a Federal Biometric Information System. When it’s launched at the end of 2021, the pilot system should be able to analyze videos to recognize criminals by their face, voice, eyes, visible tattoos, and even possibly their gait.“
The Chinese are also quite open about their database. During the G20 summit, President Xi proposed a GLOBAL health QR code system supposedly to revive coronavirus-battered trade & travel.
But the West keeps mum about this subject. Here, we’re all about human rights, individual rights, liberty and democracy; but we are testing, testing, testing. And collecting samples. And voilà, it just happens that at end of the day, we too will have a database covering every identifier of every individual: DNA, iris scans, and results from facial recognition cameras and license plate readers, on top of your name, address, phone number, and Social Security number, tracing us from one corner of the world to another. That’s the “Health” Passport they are taking about.
Isn’t that what’s going on under the cover of the illogical, irrational rush to test everyone for a Novel Coronavirus that doesn’t exist and that allegedly has a kill rate below that of the seasonal flu?
This is separate from the question of the vaccine, which for now may be just a test run. The current push for mass vaccination is just training people for the next phase of the vaccination plot.
For now it is just testing for collecting. Worldwide, each country is doing the same. No conflict here among the superpowers, China, Russia, the EU and the US they all are in agreement. Under the cover of fake trade wars, fake riots, but real economic depression, election theater, fake war mongering, etc., the elite has factored in the costs for mapping out the real DNA ID of each one of us — for future control of the animal farm once called humanity.
Remember those videos of the Chinese falling dead as they walked on the street? The mobile crematories? U-Haul trucks carting the dead to a mass grave in NYC? Pop-up hospitals and tents to treat the ‘infected’? 30,000 ventilators needed at a moment’s notice? Trailers full of ‘bodies’ waiting for processing? The war on hydroxychloroquine? 4 decades of peer-reviewed studies that prove that masks are ineffective? Fauci stating that the healthy don’t need to wear masks? “14 days to get over the curve”? Etc., et. al.?
That’s the whole point. They wouldn’t need to make it mandatory if it had a 5 or 10% mortality rate. The risk-benefit analysis would cause most people to take their chances with the vaccine even if they don’t like the idea of it. The risk that the vaccine has unexpected serious side-effects (or intentional ones) far outweighs to risk of the virus.
As enough people are maimed by the vaccine, it’ll become pretty evident the vaccines are dangerous. That’s why they want to vaccine hundreds of millions within 24 hours. It’ll be logistically impossible and they’ll end up getting exposed. Enough will escape and be unharmed, demonstrating being unvaccinated is the only way to be healthy.
Their plan will ultimately fail. But at least they’ll do us the favor of knocking off most of the retards.
Seriously would you knowingly take an mRNA vaccine with spike protein molecules uncannily similar to HIV spike proteins for a flu virus that has 99% survival rate?! AIDS in a bottle, mRNA Vaccine mandates will be tied to welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, travel, etc.
mRNA vaccine introduces the HIV spike protein and your own body produces antibodies to the HIV spike protein. Surprise surprise, HIV antibodies don’t provide immunity to the host like chicken pox or measles virus because if they did, AIDS would be cured. What really happens is the HIV spike protein mRNA will cause cellular DNA specific strain of HIV AIDS killing the idiot who took the COVID 19 vaccine. Depopulation is successfully accomplished without the serfs realizing they are dying of AIDS and the Gates Rockefeller Schwab EURO great RESET gang and their families inherit the earth while you and your family eat maggots 6 foot under the ground in your graves!
It’s likely that the plan will be to mandate and then back down, then unleash the next virus which will be a true pandemic. At which they will blame all the vaccine hesitant and then force another vaccine on the remaining population which will sterilize 1/2 the remaining popluation. Within 20 years we will be back down to approximately 2 billion people or fewer. The elites will never take any of these vaccines.
I bet they drop another Corona strain and I’m sure as hell not talking about China because they never started this, the same old September 11 perps did.
I hope they don’t back off of all of this, because if they keep up its over for this corrupt nightmare.
They’ll eventually threaten you with the ability to work, buy groceries etc. The masks will come off but you’ll need to show your ID first. Those who don’t get one will be terminated from their jobs. No school…….Child Services will eventually make it around to recover children from homes who don’t. You won’t be able to see a doctor, vote (lol), get a meal. The infrastructure is in place.
By Ben Aris, editor-in-chief of business news publication bne IntelliNews.
It seems that the struggle to find a remedy to deal with coronavirus is being overtaken by geopolitical rivalries and prejudice. Not to mention the commercial interests at stake in a market potentially worth up to $100 billion.
Another vaccine has entered the race to rid the world of the Covid-19 pandemic, but unlike the US version, when the team behind the British-produced AstraZeneca product announced its successful preliminary trial results, the company’s shares plummeted in trading on Monday.
By contrast, US pharma giant Pfizer’s earlier announcement, on November 9, saw stock markets around the world (including in Russia) rallying and analysts immediately upgraded their 2021 outlooks with a “back-to-work”optimistic scenario that sees the crisis ending in the second half of next year.
According to reports, the problem with AstraZeneca’s drug is that it was slammed in an investment bank analyst’s note that led to a big sell off in the company’s shares.
Following the announcement, Jeffrey Porges, an analyst with the American investment bank SVB Leerink, which specializes in medical and pharmaceutical assets, criticized the vaccine, accusing AstraZeneca of embellishing its results, not disclosing any statistics for side effects or severe cases, and failing to include the number of participants at risk and other details in accordance with FDA (Food and Drug Administration) requirements. “We believe this product will never be certified in the US,”Porges said.
He separately noted that using adenovirus vaccines (which place the coronavirus DNA inside another virus) against Covid-19 (the Russian Sputnik V uses similar technology) will be unreliable in principle, due to part of the population’s immunity to adenoviruses. Porges concluded that the market for adenovirus vaccines will be smaller than that of the rival RNA-formulas (which both US jabs use).
An AstraZeneca spokesman called the criticism “too harsh.” According to the company, it is in talks with the FDA to organize clinical trials on a separate sample in the United States.
Commercial competition
The accusations of shoddy science made against AstraZeneca’s vaccine echo similar claims made against Sputnik V after it reported results from its Phase Two trials. Some leading researchers wrote to the British medical journal The Lancet, claiming they had found problems with data submitted as part of the peer-reviewed paper by Russia’s Gamaleya Institute which suggested the trial results had been fabricated.
The question marks raised over Sputnik V have contributed to it being widely ignored in the Western media as a serious rival to the US vaccines. Indeed, when Pfizer’s drug was announced the market popped, but there was almost no market reaction at all to Sputnik V’s results when they were published in The Lancet, which is one of the most respected medical journals in the world.
It seems that the whole race to find a remedy to deal with what is a global public health emergency has been overtaken by geopolitical rivalries and prejudice. And that is not to mention the commercial interests, which are huge. The coronavirus vaccine market is thought to be worth up to $100 billion and Russia has said that it hopes to capture a third of that. If that happens, then Russia will earn more in a year from one drug than it currently earns from exporting arms or grain – and it is currently the biggest grain exporter in the world.
There is a lot of money on the table and commercial interests are quickly coming to the fore. A price war has already broken out. AstraZeneca’s vaccine appears to be by far the cheapest, selling for $3-$4 a dose. Russia’s Sputnik V export price is an estimated $8-$10 per dose, although presumably it will sell its vaccine on the domestic market at cost, even if the fund has not said so explicitly.
As both these drugs are based on adenovirus vaccine technology, they are more robust, whereas the US rivals rely on RNA-messenger technology that has to be kept extremely cold or it breaks down, causing major logistical problems and greatly increasing costs.
Development of the Russian drug was financed by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the sovereign wealth fund, and is a for-profit venture, but even its higher export price is still a lot less than the cost of the US RNA-vaccine rivals.
Pfizer, which filed for US approval of its formula on November 21, said earlier that a dose of its product will carry a $19.50 price tag. Moderna, thought to be close to signing a deal for a comprehensive rollout in the European Union, announced last week that it will charge between $25-$37. Both are RNA-vaccines and it is not clear if these estimates include the transport costs or not.
It is particularly unfair to rubbish AstraZeneca, as the company has said from the outset that it is a not-for-profit project and will sell its drug at cost in the interests of public health.
The US rival vaccines are produced by commercial companies and intend to grab as large a slice of the up to $100 billion vaccine market. Russia lies somewhere in the middle. AstraZeneca last summer struck a deal on joint production with Russian businessman Alexey Repik’s R-Pharm company to produce its vaccine in Russia. Its licensing deal allows for global distribution but bars distribution in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – Sputnik V’s core market. Over 50 countries have already signed pre-order deals for Sputnik V, including Hungary and Poland in the EU. Turkey is negotiating to make Sputnik V under licence.
We should be happy
Let’s be clear about a few things here. Firstly, we should welcome the fact that there are now four reportedly viable competing vaccines (five if you count the fact Russia has talked about a second vaccine, developed in Siberia, which has just started trials). That gives everyone a choice between the rival products. Don’t trust the Sputnik V? Fine. Take one of the others.
Secondly, we should celebrate the fact that this virus looks particularly vulnerable to treatment. All of the leading candidates report extremely high efficacy rates.
The US FDA demands an efficacy rate of at least 50 percent to register a vaccine for general release. The EU sets the bar higher at 75 percent. All the current corona-candidates have reported efficacies of at least 90 percent; even the Oxford vaccine reported over 90 percent when the second half of the trial group were given a smaller dose in the second jab. The reported final 70 percent result is an average of the two sets of trials.
Thirdly, being generous, there are some question marks over the data from both AstraZeneca and Sputnik V, but against that, both teams have conducted the full trial – with over 40,000 volunteers in Sputnik’s case, or roughly the same number of participants as in the Pfizer trial.
Moreover, all the trials are reporting the same efficacy rates of approximately 90 percent, meaning both technologies seem to work equally effectively. Excluding the possibility that the Russian researchers are flat out making up their results (which many will chose not to do), then the trials all show that the vaccines are similarly effective, even if they have been sloppy in their reporting in their haste to lay a claim to part of that $100 billion market.
One of Porges’ objections was that the AstraZeneca results do not disclose any statistics for side effects or severe cases, but the same can be said of all the candidates, including the US vaccines. The trials are only that – trials. The potential for malign side effects will only become clear over time. In the meantime, the sample sizes in the trials to date have been deemed sufficiently large by medical experts and both Pfizer and Sputnik V have opted for 40,000 people. Neither of these trials have thrown up significant problems. The AstraZeneca tests were halted for a month after one subject developed neurological problems, but an investigation determined the problem was unrelated to the vaccine and the process resumed.
Fourthly, and most impressively, we should be amazed that in the space of ten months that we have any vaccine at all. Vaccines are extremely hard to produce. There are multiple hurdles to overcome, and we have to bear in mind the fact that all viruses mutate as that is a basic part of their survival strategy. Normally, it takes about 18 to 24 months to produce an effective vaccine. The annual autumnal flu vaccine doesn’t have a 90 percent efficacy rate and five years on there is still no effective formula against H1N1 (bird flu), SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) or MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) – all of which belong to the coronavirus family.
There have been calls for governments to step in and buy up sufficient vaccines to inoculate the whole world, as this would be the cheapest solution to the economic damage caused by the pandemic. Several years ago, the WHO did a study that found the most productive investment a government can make into its economy is into healthcare.
The benefits are not just from reducing the cost of treating sick people – although those are significant – but mostly from the fact that by far the more productive wealth creation asset a country has is its people. Good healthcare means people work harder for longer and so they produce far more wealth than is spent on improving healthcare. And people who are still alive can obviously work even harder than those that have died from coronavirus.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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
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.
