Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, along with many other world leaders, have all described the plight we are in and the peril we face as fighting a war, just against an invisible enemy. To my knowledge this has been the only truthful thing which has escaped the lips of the leading choir in what has been a global chorus of mendacity.
War and invisible. Remember these words. In a series of articles, I will debunk the coronavirus scare, purport to show why it is happening, the mechanics of how, dissect what and who is responsible, and crucially, what we can do about it. Though the narrative presented will be linear, each part is self-contained and can be read amputated from the body of argument.
Part 1 – Tyranny by numbers
“There are three kinds of falsehoods, lies damned lies and statistics”
– James Arthur Balfour
Summary:
- Every single case thus far has not reliably tested positive for any infectious disease; the test in question is a non-binary test with an arbitrary threshold which merely identifies DNA material common to a family of viruses classified under the rubric of coronavirus;
- Because this test is not looking for the entire sequence of COVID-19, merely a nucleate common to all coronaviruses;
- We all have this DNA material in our bodies. The human body houses around 380 trillion viruses, with one of the most common types being the coronavirus;
- Authorities are conflating every respiratory condition with COVID-19;
- Coronavirus deaths in at least 6 different countries are being inflated by extraordinary new audit practices;
- The official COVID-19 numbers are completely meaningless;
- In the countries listed, all-cause mortality is consistent with the averages in previous years. In the UK deaths are now being counted more than once;
- Alarmist models that predicted significant excess mortality have all been withdrawn;
- The lockdown is catastrophic for public health.
Some necessary background. The common cold and influenza, aka the common flu, are viral infectious diseases. Hundreds of known viruses cause the diseases which fall under the common cold and influenza umbrellas. The main difference, although there is a degree of overlap, is that the common cold is typically a milder respiratory illness than influenza. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) distinguishes the two here. The type and severity of symptoms varies on a case by case basis.
Both the common cold and influenza can be caused by viral strains that can transmit from animals to humans. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that Coronaviruses are “a large family of viruses that may cause illness in animals or humans”. Two examples: ‘HCoV-229E’, which is described as one of the viruses responsible for the common cold; and ‘HCoV-NL63’, which a recent study estimated to be present in 4.7% of common respiratory illnesses.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a prominent professor of pulmonology in Germany and former Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, has estimated that about 5-14% of all flu and common cold cases are caused by existing coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel strain. COVID-19 is the disease this strain can, but not necessarily, will cause.
The first coronavirus was discovered in the 1960s. But they have been circulating for time unknown. Perhaps forever. For example, though only discovered in 2004, it is thought ‘NL63’ mutated from ‘229E’ about 1,000 years ago. So, science is far behind nature in terms of detection.
Current science can’t even test for the presence of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus or its disease in the sense that it can’t reliably differentiate it from other coronaviruses. It is assumed that science has established that COVID-19 is an infectious disease under Robert Koch’s 4 postulates and subsequent adaptations, such as the Bradford Hill Criteria – identify and isolate biological matter in a petri dish and demonstrate a causal link between a presumed cause and an observed effect (this has in no way been publicly demonstrated) – but the tool medical professionals are using to test for the disease does not distinguish between coronaviruses and it does not determine whether someone is infected by a coronavirus.
The test in question, the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), looks for a piece of nucleate in the body by magnifying biological material and tries to match that biological material to a coronavirus nucleate. The test is based upon a formula for DNA magnification, and the concept of “reiterative exponential growth processes”.
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment”
– Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test
The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993, emphatically argued against using PCR as a diagnostic tool. Because it is, in his words, a qualitative and not a quantitative test – “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron”. The results are entirely contingent on the level of multiplication.
For example, the official American version of the PCR COVID-19 test, which is named with characteristic technocratic drivel – the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel – uses what is called a “Real-Time” modification of PCR, described as a “major development of PCR technology that enables reliable detection and measurement of products generated during each cycle of PCR process”. But the “threshold is an arbitrary level of florescence chosen on the basis of the baseline variability”. And “Threshold can be adjusted for each experiment so that it is in the region of exponential amplification across all plots.
In other words, the degree of amplification is discretionary. And the degree of amplification, of course, will ultimately be the deciding factor in the end result. Hence Mr Mullis’ – and many others – impassioned pleas for it not to be used as a diagnostic aide.
Though it is an indispensable technique with a broad variety of applications, such as biomedical research and criminal forensics, it is unreliable in terms of establishing infection. Because it is non-binary and relies upon formulas with arbitrary thresholds of magnification. It doesn’t reliably distinguish between positive or negative, like with a pregnancy test. It doesn’t determine whether you have something or you don’t. I suggest this is why so many asymptomatic people are testing positive for this ‘disease’. They are not infected. They merely have slightly more of this DNA material than others.
Indeed, depending on degree of amplification, everyone, irrespective of condition, can test positive or negative with the PCR test. Because practically everyone has these DNA strands in their bodies. Astonishingly, the PCR test is not looking for the entire sequence of COVID-19, merely a nucleate common to all coronaviruses. Quite remarkable when you consider that the human body contains around 380 trillion viruses, with one of the most common types being the coronavirus. The ‘NL63’ coronavirus strand alone, remember, is present in significant quantities in up to 5% of all respiratory illnesses.
Whatever your preferred origins theory, our immune system is perfectly calibrated to operate in this environment. It is adapted to co-exist with viruses and other parasitic biological material. Viruses actually work with the immune system to keep us healthy. Infection only occurs when a virus starts to use our own cell machinery to replicate itself, and the immune system is unable, at least initially, to supress that viral replication. Symptoms then develop when the immune system attacks the pathogen and by doing so, attacks all the tissues the virus is in, damaging cells in significant quantities. This is when a virus triggers an inflammatory response – an infection.
But just testing for the existence of piece of nucleate in the body by magnifying biological material and then trying to match that with a coronavirus nucleate does not establish infection. And it certainly does not establish whether it is contagious. And I must repeat, the test doesn’t even look for the entire COVID-19 sequence, only a nucleate common to all coronaviruses, which we all have in our body in very small quantities. Amplify the DNA material enough and everyone tests positive.
According to one paper this degree of amplification has an “indeterminate” range. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals across the world are all using different sensitivity standards of the PCR coronavirus test. Because being “indeterminate”, there is no gold standard. Indeed, the WHO has left the diagnostic specifications to the discretion of the medical practitioners. Not just with the PCR test, which is merely one of two diagnostic codes they have set.
The second diagnostic code, as dictated by an organization with all the gravitas of having World in its name, is that well, if it sort of looks like COVID-19, you can diagnose it as COVID-19. Quite extraordinary. COVID-19 symptoms, of course, are so generic as to be completely indistinguishable from a huge number of other respiratory illnesses.
The WHO has stated that those who have had the ‘infection’ are not immune from re-infection. Which begs the question, if you had the infection and were cured, why didn’t your body develop the antibodies to stop you being re-infected? Perhaps because that would mean you wouldn’t need some mandated medicine in the form of a magic concoction called a “vaccine”? I digress. But it is self-evident that a positive diagnosis does not establish any positive coronavirus infection. Least of all, a COVID-19 infection. And this is actually tacitly admitted in WHO’s bizarre claim that those who have been ‘infected’ can be re-infected by the same viral strain.
Kevin Ryan’s excellent blog, ‘Dig Within’, reported that a peer-reviewed study about the first COVID-19 cases was published in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology on March 5th, 2020. Its data-driven conclusion was that “nearly half or even more” of patients testing positive for SARS-COV-2 did not actually have the virus. Therefore, half the results were false positives. The study was later mysteriously withdrawn a few days after publication. It was apparently, according to the lead researcher, a “sensitive matter”.
Another study out of China, which is still available online, though the English abstract has now been withdrawn from the PubMed database, found that up to 80% of asymptomatic people who tested positive for coronavirus were false positives.
Remember, there are people who have tested dozens of times for this ‘disease’, test negative every time, then eventually test positive, in what is a non-binary test, and all the negative tests don’t matter, the positive test is definitive. The extent of the quackery here is truly something to behold.
This is not some abstract point. Some major public policy decisions are being made on the back of an inherently flawed ‘diagnostic’ tool. Soberingly, the second in command of the the WHO, Michael Ryan, has suggested that individuals could even be “removed” “dignifiedly” from their families and quarantined should they test ‘positive’. And the test is not the only enumerator. Authorities have given themselves the mandate, with the full support of WHO, to conflate countless respiratory illnesses with COVID-19 from only a vague account of the symptoms. As we know, there are no trademark clinical features of a COVID-19 infection.
As if the testing is not bad enough, official coronavirus fatality figures are being accidently or more likely, deliberately padded by authorities across the globe by questionable and unprecedented practices.
There is a phrase you may be hearing in the media a lot of at the moment: “she/he died after testing positive for coronavirus”. Not, “as a result of” or “because of”, but “after testing positive”. The official guidelines across 5 jurisdictions provide some context to this peculiar framing of words.
For example, the worst affected country in Europe is said to be Italy. But the Italian Institute of Health (ISS) surveyed the first several hundred COVID-19 deaths in northern Italy and concluded that “maybe 2-3” of those first several hundred deaths were caused by COVID-19. And the survey wasn’t sure about one of those “2-3” because apparently their history “wasn’t available”.
A more recent official report from Italy has surveyed thousands of coronavirus deaths. The average age of people dying in Italy from coronavirus is 81 – 82 is the national average – and 99.2% have at least one co-morbidity. Most have multiple co-morbidities. Professor Walter Ricciardi, advisor to the Italian Minister of Health, explained these statistical curiosities were caused by the “generous” way the Italian government has been tabulating coronavirus deaths:
“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with [my emphasis] the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus”.
In other words, the Italian government does not differentiate between those who have been killed by a coronavirus and those who merely have any coronavirus in their body (but not necessarily infected).
In case there is any lingering doubt about this the President of the Italian Civil Protection Service made the following comment about Italian fatality figures in a morning briefing on 20th March:
“I want you to remember these people died with the coronavirus and not from the coronavirus”
The German health agency is engaged in a similar practice. The President of Germany’s Robert Koch Institute confirmed on the same day that Germany counts:
“Any deceased person who was infected with coronavirus as a COVID-19 death, whether or not it actually caused death”
In the US they are not even confining confirmed cases to a ‘positive’ test. This briefing note from the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System states:
“It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 19, or Covid-19, should be reported for all decedents where the disease caused or is [my emphasis] presumed to have caused or contributed to death”
The picture is the same across the UK. Northern Ireland’s HSC Public Health Agency defines a COVID-19 death as:
“Individuals who have died within 28 days of first positive result, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death”
In England and Wales, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), on account of a “rapidly changing situation”, have reserved the right to include COVID-19 deaths “in the community” in their statistics. Including “those not tested for COVID-19” and where “suspected COVID-19 is presumed to be a contributory factor”.
Not only for cases “in the community”, the official guidelines are leaving the door open for practitioners to list COVID-19 as a death even when a patient has not tested ‘positive’ (in a non-binary test that doesn’t distinguish between COVID-19 and DNA material we all have in our bodies). Here is the official NHS guidance for doctors filling out death certificates:
“If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement”
Before recent changes to the law any death attributed to a “notifiable disease” had to be referred to a coroner. This would have included COVID-19 cases. But the Coronavirus Act 2020 alters the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to specifically exempt COVID-19 deaths from jury inquests.
And it gets worse. According to the office of the Chief Coroner, the new legislation means that these deaths do not have to be referred to a coroner at all. (Page 3):
“….there will often be no reason for deaths caused by this disease to be referred to a coroner”
The Coronavirus Act 2020 means that any deaths wrongly attributed to COVID-19 will never be corrected. It gives medical practitioners the power to sign off a cause of death for a body they have never seen, provided they “suspect” COVID-19 after using their “clinical judgement”.
There’s a pandemic! COVID-19 is everywhere. But under such prejudicial testing conditions, and diagnostic practices, it of course will be. The official figures across the world, whether confirmed cases or confirmed deaths, are at best, statistical noise, which do not even have the merest semblance of reality, and, at worse, are a very dishonest and devious attack on public health and well-being.
Indeed, the data demonstrates there have been a huge number of coronavirus deaths in Italy, Germany and US this year but in proportion to there being far fewer deaths from other causes. It’s the equivalent of saying we are inundated with a flood of new people named ‘Roberto’, ‘Jurgen’, ‘Brad’ etc after renaming 5% of those populations respectively. It is merely a re-tabulation of deaths which would likely have happened anyway.
In England and Wales, there isn’t a huge drop in deaths from other causes primarily because in the Office of National Statistics (ONS) weekly audit deaths can have more than one cause:
“Note: Deaths could possibly be counted in both causes presented. If a death had an underlying respiratory cause and a mention of COVID-19 then it would appear in both counts”
Clearly, given the statistical chicanery at play for all matters pertaining to COVID-19, in which it seems quite impossible to glean anything of value, what is especially significant is the all-cause mortality figures. They make for interesting reading.
EuroMomo, a central database which publishes “all-cause mortality levels [per country] for 24 European countries”, including Italy, Spain and France, reports no additional deaths over the last few weeks in almost all countries compared to previous years, and no significant increase in Italy.
The EuroMomo database addresses this anomaly in a weekly bulletin:
“The mortality figures for the most recent weeks must be interpreted with some caution. Although increased mortality may not be immediately observable in the EuroMOMO figures, this does not mean that increased mortality does not occur in some areas or in some age groups, including mortality related to COVID-19”.
What an extraordinary statement. Where overall mortality figures haven’t increased, if they have significantly increased in some areas and in some age groups, it must mean they have significantly decreased in other areas and in other age groups. So, if COVID-19 has caused a public health crisis in some sections of society the likes of which we haven’t seen for generations, that must also mean that COVID-19 has been absolutely fantastic for the health of other sections of society the likes of which we haven’t seen for generations. In other words, the explanation is total nonsense.
This week (week 15) there has been an increase in the EuroMomo figures in some areas, but we should definitely “interpret” this sudden rise in all-cause mortality with “some caution”.
As the graph shows, up until week 13 the overall deaths recorded in England and Wales was quite normal. Then in week 14 there was a sharp increase, the highest weekly total recorded in 10 years, and hugely unusual for this time of year. Definitive proof of a public health crisis? Well, in a word, no.
For the last 10 years the ONS has counted, not the number of people who die every week, but the number of deaths registered per week. This obviously leads to some delay in the accurate audit of numbers as the registration process can take more than a few days.
In week 12 the ONS made a special mention of COVID-19, explaining that because of a national health ‘emergency’ and a “rapidly changing situation” it will change the way it will report the numbers in future weeks:
“To allow time for registration and processing, these figures are published 11 days after the week ends. Because of the rapidly changing situation, in this bulletin [my emphasis] we have also given provisional updated totals based on the latest available death registrations, up to 25 March 2020. These deaths will be included in the dataset in a subsequent week”
This amendment to the procedure, which did not exist at any time prior to week 12 this year, gives the ONS scope to count the same deaths twice – provisional deaths the previous week “will be included in the dataset in a subsequent week”. It explains the big jump in deaths.
Naturally, the media made no mention of this change to the ONS methodology of collating data when it reported the huge spike in deaths. There were only hysterical reports replete with statistical gibberish terrifying the public afresh with yet more fearmongering. A common theme. Though it may be hard to imagine, apparently as a class journalists can’t read or, at least, don’t bother reading.
Frankly, the true number of overall deaths are, at this stage, anybody’s guess. In the UK – everywhere for that matter – the goal posts are constantly changing like shifting dunes in a desert. But what we can say is that the numbers are a pure political product; they are judgement calls completely unrooted from sound empirical data.
In fact, it is certainly questionable whether there is a public health crisis at all. Despite a daily deluge of public statements from Health ministers, the ongoing media hysteria, and unverifiable and unsubstantiated testimony, there’s every reason to suspect that hospitals are not overflowing. Many citizen journalists, in the absence of investigative work from the cartel of media organisations which dominate ‘news’ dissemination, have shown discrepancies between the official line and local hospitals.
Fresh reports are emerging in the UK of “sinfully empty” private hospitals, which have been commandeered for specialist COVID-19 use by government mandate. Furthermore, London’s “underused” specialist unit Nightingale Hospital, purpose built for the COVID-19 outbreak, had, according to a recent leaked report, 19 active patients over the Easter weekend in a facility with 4,000 beds.
Now, if I had to say which was telling the truth about society, a speech by a minister of health or the actual activity in the hospitals, I should believe the hospitals. And we shouldn’t conflate that activity with mainstream media’s reports of that activity. The two are not the same. In times of ‘war’, the media are no strangers to total fabrication, especially when it comes to charting worthy victims who support a governmental position.
If the empirical data is so suspect, both the diagnostics – which can’t reliably determine infection and can’t distinguish COVID-19 from some of the most common infectious diseases – and the fatality figures, then how are we to trust the mathematical models and their alarming projections which precipitated this entire crisis? Well, we can’t. Because, remarkably, they have already been withdrawn.
Several days before the UK went on lockdown COVID-19’s status as a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) was downgraded by the government. Not upgraded but downgraded. The government’s extraordinarily heavy-handed approach of enforcing an open prison, coincided with the government saying: “As of 19th March, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK”. Yes, you did read that right.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a veritable giant among men in the field of immunology, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and one of the lead members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, has stated that the virus could kill millions of US citizens. But recently he’s had this article published in the New England Journal of Medicine. He slyly states: “….the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza”. In other words, it’s not anywhere near as serious as what his public statements have led us believe; public statements uniform with the grim outlook upon which the current draconian measures are being based.
The key US model has since been revised down and now ‘predicts’ 60,000 deaths. On mathematical models themselves Dr. Fauci had this to say to Fox News on 11th April:
“I am somewhat reserved and skeptical about models because models are only as good as the assumptions that you put into the model. And those assumptions start off when you don’t have very much data at all or the data you have is uncertain, you put these assumptions in and you get these wide ranges of calculations of what might happen….but then you start to accumulate data….data, in my mind, always trumps any model”
Dr. Fauci very helpfully confirming what all of us unqualified idiots already knew. Models are not worth the paper they’re written on.
Dr. Neil Ferguson, the Professor behind Imperial College London’s study that UK government strategy has been predicated upon, as well as other governments around the world, also admits he got it wrong. I’ll repeat that. The professor of the study instrumental in the current lockdown has remodelled the data and concluded that they got it wrong. Not a bit wrong. Not somewhat wrong. Not even largely wrong. According to Dr Ferguson’s new model they got it 98% wrong. It’s been scaled back to about 2%-4% of the original findings. He said that experts are now expecting around 20,000 deaths in the UK, although it may even turn out to be “a lot less” than this, rather than the 500,000 deaths originally predicted by the study.
20,000. Where have we heard that before? Ah yes. That’s roughly around the average deaths in England and Wales alone (18,000) every year from the common flu (bottom of page 51). The common flu, an illness caused by viral strains that the official COVID-19 test can’t differentiate COVID-19 from. (Incidentally, the revised US figure of 60,000 is also the typical fatality rate of the common flu).
The study’s retraction has quietly gone through the news media (in a country that’s currently in lockdown largely as a result of its predicted model) without so much as raising an eyebrow. To point out the significance of this retraction, other studies, like the one commissioned by Oxford University, have run models estimating that 50% or more of the population have already had the virus. Which would obviously completely debunk the lethality of the virus (that’s really quite apparent anyway) and render the lockdown egregiously unnecessary; implemented only on the basis that over 99% have yet to contract the virus.
Dr. Ferguson has since taken to Twitter to clarify the revision. Essentially, but for the extreme controls enacted by the UK government the figure could be a lot higher than the revised total.
Could. Is there a word in the English language more loaded with hidden mischief? What Dr. Ferguson and extremely well-funded members of his profession (Ferguson’s department at Imperial College London received a $79 million donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation this year alone – more on this in future articles) are basically presenting is an unfalsifiable position. If it weren’t for our recommended measures the situation would be far worse. Of course, there’s no way of verifying this. Though it is couched in scientific jargon, it is in fact decidedly unscientific, as it is divorced from experimentation and evidence.
For example, there’s no evidence the lockdown is even an effective strategy to combat the spread of the virus. Countries with fewer restrictions or no restrictions, such as Sweden, are faring better than countries who have established an open prison. As of 23rd April, the official UK coronavirus deaths are 18,738 and Sweden’s are 2,021. The UK population is about 6 times larger than Sweden’s (approx’ 67 million to 11 million). Meaning there are less deaths in Sweden per capita than in the UK. Sweden is a very urbanized country, so a more sparsely populated territory doesn’t explain the discrepancy. That’s not to legitimize the numbers, they are, as demonstrated above, total bunk, but even by the official figures, the imposition of a lockdown is highly suspect.
Could is certainly the favourite weapon of those whose business is fear. What is human history but thousands of years of people being entrapped by a form of bio-debt, created by those who simulate every conceivable thing that could happen, yet hasn’t? It seems to me that current science here is effectively the secular version of a very old scam, perpetuated generation after generation by those who wish to control the rest of society. Create a scare and then save people from that scare. The capricious serpent god will come down and swallow the sun unless we do some magic ritual and save everyone. The mechanics of this is no different.
While a new dawn will always rise in the east, Farr’s Law states that “the curve of cases of an epidemic rises rapidly at first, then climbs slowly to a peak from which the fall is steeper than the previous rise”. Both phenomena occur irrespective of human intervention. But in both cases human intervention is presented as the causal factor, bereft of any empirical support.
The irony is that those who are so eager to reject religion as superstitious hogwash are invariably the first in the queue to sign up for scientific catastrophizing. For these people it is considered objectionable if religion encroaches on personal freedoms, yet when science does the same, they embrace the restrictions, never querying the saintly priestly class in lab coats. They never question their financial incentives, because naturally, these people will never have any reason for skewing results or for making anything hyperbolic and alarmist in order to scare people into accepting various policies, except of course for all the times when they have demonstrably done exactly that.
Thus far, COVID-19 is doing a much better job of attacking our liberties than attacking our bodies, with the body politic succumbing to the disease, as intended. Speaking of which, without a shred of irony, The Guardian described the Belarusian president, who has kept business going as usual in Belarus because, in his words, “this is just the flu”, as a “dangerous authoritarian”. Meanwhile, in the UK little old ladies are being pursued by drones, are shamed by the police for walking their dogs alone in national parks and are barked at to stay at home.
Lest we forget how beneficial fresh air is for the lungs. You don’t need to read many classic Russian novels to know how it is a great antidote to respiratory illness, which is why sanatoriums were in the countryside or the mountains, with consumptive patients (TB) kept largely outside. In a world of lies reality is often inverted to such a point where the truth is considered an aberration.
The public are on lockdown, yet airports remain open, with people coming in from supposed crisis spots without being molested. Airports are a breeding ground for illness. In a country on lockdown, passenger travel, especially from highly infected regions, would be suspended or rigorously monitored. The authorities are therefore either lying about the level of emergency, they’re completely incompetent or both.
It’s yet another incongruity. But this isn’t unusual. A dysfunctional society is forever teeming with incongruities. Because there are many ways of telling a lie, but only one way of telling the truth.
I’m not saying there is no novel virus because there are novel viruses every year. I’m not even saying that this virus isn’t a nastier strain of the more common variety, though that argument can definitely be raised. But clearly there must be a damned good reason for shutting down a country. There’s nothing in the official data that comes anywhere close to justify this approach, alarmist studies full of mathematical masturbation have since been slyly retracted, and the World Health Organization’s 3.4% estimated mortality rate is an outrageous lie.
But what do you expect from an organization with a former Marxist revolutionary as a Director-General? Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, whose career highlights include covering up a cholera outbreak in Ethiopia, and nominating Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe for a humanitarian award. Award-winning journalist, Reeyot Alemu wrote in 2017 that “[He is] one of the top human rights violators making life miserable to the people of Ethiopia”.
All of this is being done in the interests of public health. Which begs the question, when has power ever shown so much concern for public well-being? If it did, it would shut down the fracking industry, permanently; 5G installation, which is apparently classed as “essential” work because masts are surreptitiously being erected in countries on lockdown, would be halted until studies could show it was a safe technology; fluoride would no longer be added to the water supply; clean and organic food production would be supported.
The effects of shutting down the economy, on a private level and at a national health level, are absolutely devastating. Services require funding. If the country is not generating wealth – this really is rudimentary – in the medium to long term the system will be debilitated, and that will lead to catastrophic consequences the economists are already ominously describing as “the greatest depression”. The destruction is incalculable.
In the UK, a government report estimated that 150,000 deaths could result from the shutdown, which is significantly more deaths than the government’s revised total for COVID-19. Though we’ve discovered that government forecasts are often spurious and drafted by errand boys and girls taking orders from above, this report’s predictions are at least grounded in extraordinary circumstances that will have consequences, as opposed to merely claiming the circumstances are extraordinary.
The notion that governments care about public health is simply preposterous. Fear induces stress which is one of the main inhibitors of the immune system, our number one tool in counteracting viral replication and staying healthy. When a threat is perceived cortisol is secreted by the adrenal gland and this triggers the body’s fight or flight response. Blood is pumped away from the core to the peripheries – the arms and legs. When this happens regularly the body’s energy is unevenly distributed, suppressing the normal functioning of the immune system. The truth is that terrorizing the public hourly with tall tales of bogeymen and pathogens is a bio-attack.
The number one cause of good health and longevity? According to a study published in 1988, it is physical interaction and outside activity. Social isolation was found to be worse than high blood pressure, worse than obesity, worse even than smoking. Dr. Steven Cole’s research with monkeys paints a similar picture. When you socially isolate monkeys, at the gene expression level, genes that are inflammatory are upregulated, and genes that are anti-inflammatory are downregulated. The research found that social isolation in monkeys and humans leads to an increased chance of viral infection, cancer, and other diseases. Everything in this world is upside down.
“Hang on, Eddie’s Blog isn’t an accredited source. And just who is Edward Black and what qualifies him to have his say? I’ll listen to the experts, not some random blogger on the internet”. Every fallacy is largely based upon assumption and this is no different. It’s the assumption there is a consensus among the experts, and, in the absence of a large consensus, that the political economy is faithfully following the best advice. There are no grounds for making either assumption. Who I am is also irrelevant. Rationale and evidence are relevant. Though proven expertise is a good starting point, what matters is the end point. The Truth is not discriminate of starting points, which are manifold, but it is discriminate of an end point, which is singular. What you’ll find is that typically, those interested in pursuing Truth, play the ball, those who are not, play the man.
Here is an excellent compilation of experts who have vehemently disputed current policy from the outset, and here is another compilation. They are more erudite and eloquent on the matter than I could ever be.
“We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day….
(The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.
All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook”
– Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi. A former professor of microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
I started with this astute quote attributed to James Arthur Balfour: “There are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damned lies and statistics”. On the whole I think this is largely true. Standing on the shoulders of his insight, I’ll humbly add that there are three kinds of liars: standard liars, damned liars and politically approved experts.
They’re soldiers for a global technocratic system. Soldiers in the real invisible war.
Eddie’s Blog 
Wow, thanks EddieB.
Your knowledge and article on this issue is astounding and an eye opener to all that take the time to read it.
I believe it is a MSM propaganda campaign driven by hype based on Inaccurate computer Virus Models and have panicked ignorant politicians and this caused panicking bureaucrats into Ill-advised Lockdowns.
One struggles to understand the response of the public and citizens of so many countries and that allow themselves to be dictated to by politicians. It is complete and utter madness.
I thank you for your in depth essay on this issue that clearly show that the response of Governments throughout the world is based on what is aptly described by Prof Denis Rancourt of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as a typical response using the precautionary principal.
“”The “precautionary principle” means nothing else than allowing government to act on a propaganda-strengthened bias that is anchored in engineered fear, without any reliable data.
It is a fancy term for exactly that.””
What is of concern is this going to be tolerated everytime a new virus is discovered. That is something we (freedom loving individuals) all need to put a stop to immediately. The devastation to our lives due to the disruption of our means of survival will cause incalculable harm to all humans that occupy this planet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, much appreciated. Media hysteria and the cynical way in which governments around the world are manufacturing the data has induced a panic the likes of which I don’t think anybody has ever seen. The reaction has been totally out of proportion to the threat – real or not. Which means, of course, that the whole thing stinks. I think prof Rancourt is right. The precautionary principle effectively gives powerful people carte blanche to do as they please, provided they can wrap their interests in an emergency. None of this can happen without the majority’s consent. So, a large part of what we see at any one time is social engineering. The worry is that, from this, new habits will be normalised, and new precedents set. Whenever a small class of individuals want to put the squeeze on the rest of society – clearly the climate change nonsense hasn’t been as effective as they had hoped – they can roll out the next contagion and people will largely acquiesce to new rules and restrictions. It’s a pity that the parable of the boy who cried wolf doesn’t seem to be in much evidence in wider society. Thanks for reading and commenting. Best wishes to you and yours
LikeLike
>>>> expecting around 20,000 deaths in the UK,
May, 15- UK COVID-19 related deaths: 33.693
LikeLike
The official UK COVID-19 fatality figures are being arbitrarily inflated by the new audit practices outlined in the article. For example, deaths “in the community” can be listed as caused by COVID-19 without the deceased ever being tested or even seen by a medical practitioner. Recent changes to the law means that this ‘diagnosis’ is not even subject to a coroner’s report.
40% of all COVID-19 deaths are in care homes according to the Office of National Statistics:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-40-of-recent-covid-19-deaths-in-england-and-wales-occurred-in-care-homes-ons-11986899
It doesn’t take a great intellect to unravel this; yet here we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent! I have spent weeks trying to make sense of whats going on and my daughter is an acute medical doctor in the UK, so I had 1st hand evidence of empty wards . I discovered the Perspectives on the Pandemic 4 parts on you tube. 3 US epidemiologists explaining the phenomena of pandemics and how we should respond to them.
‘Un-herded and Scattered’ is my simple summation.
One existential threat to the herd – many threats to the scattered. The sum of the many potentially way greater than the original – one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eddie. Just to add that the simple herd immunity perspective I offered does not mean to say that I do not think that the flatten the curve/ lock down policies of the Coronavirus Act are not being driven by some agenda other than controlling a pandemic. I believe the evidence you present about the data manipulation and the testing reliability strongly suggest something very very worrying is afoot. Looking forward to your next post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Helen. I think we’ve all been scrambling to try and make sense of this! Thanks for the recommendation – I will check out the Perspectives on the Pandemic series as soon as I can. There really is a deluge of information to digest. It seems to me that recent developments are more alarming from a social and economic perspective than they are from the threat of a pathogen. Sometimes – in fact, often – our reactions to things are worse than the things themselves. Shutting down the country is by far the most extreme measure a government can take. I think it risks everyone’s well-being, including the immunocompromised. Which is what makes it, in my mind, so inexplicable, particularly when you consider that we now understand more about the disease and can deduce it’s not nearly as bad as what was first feared. Yet here we are; still in lockdown. Thanks again for reading, commenting and the recommendation. Best wishes
LikeLike
Have a look for Dr Judy Mikovitis, 40 years as a microbiologist, she worked at the fort Dietrich us army medical research bioweapons unit in 1999 , developing Ebola into a more deadly pathogen https://youtu.be/X8rbY7ampII
Thanks for your words ,concise and well thought out , I’am thinking along your lines .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Richard, I appreciate the recommendation. I’ll look into it. What I’m discovering about infectious diseases and vaccination programs has shocked me. It can only help the more we all research and spread the word. Thanks so much for reading and commenting. Best wishes.
LikeLike
Edward , what I’ve learnt of the vaccine industry truly is shocking , all with the help of politicians , the vaccines contain particles of aborted lungs of foetuses , viruses from mice, they have a 10 year life expectancy, I’ve had measles and mumps as a child which will hopefully give a lifetime of antibodies , in the US Pharma cannot even be sued for the damage the vaccines create ,they are exempt from responsibility and if your successful the case is against the DOJ , in the UK of which I’am resident when the MMR was introduced the single vaccination’s licences were withdrawn , fortunately for myself , I refused the vaccinations for my children at that time ,autism incidence has gone from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50 in 20 years .
Another Dr to look for is Rashid Buttar , he’s listed on utube , a lot of channels are being censored , so channels are moving to bitchute , there is plenty there on the Drs.
I’am not saying there is not a threat from this virus, but that threat is vastly amplified, look at the data from Iceland on the worldometers page, their population is 335,000 , they tested over 10% of them , they have 1790 tested positive (if you believe that) extrapolate that to the total population and say 16,000 but probably more as nearly everyone will test positive and they only have ten deaths , the reason I use Iceland is they are the only country that jailed bankers after the 2008 financial collapse , which demonstrates their politicians serve their people and Iceland has the highest rates of tests per head in the world .
The MSM is controlled , the politicians are controlled , most of the medics are controlled, I think there is more sinister things afoot and I only see the dark forces of the world with their hands over this .
Thank you for your time .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Richard. Thanks for the information. As you say, there’s a strong correlation between increased vaccine use and autism, but also with an increase in autoimmune disorders. Though there’s obviously a lack of appetite to investigate the link more thoroughly, many studies that have show that non-vaccinated groups are in better health. The hugely controversial HPV vaccine, for example, which is supposed to protect against cervical cancer, seems to increase the likelihood of getting cervical cancer. Worryingly, there are many vaccines on the market that haven’t gone through any double-blind trials. It seems there’s just far more red tape to get a drug on the market than a vaccine, hence the pharmaceutical companies devoting more time and money into vaccine research and development. The business model is so much stronger, especially if you can mandate them. And the idea of a universally mandated medicine just seems so fishy. This is all quite aside from the moral implications of injecting kids with fetal tissue. I have to agree with you. I think the industry is awash with witch doctors in white lab coats being sycophants for grant money with huge combinations of capital acting in bad faith behind the scenes. I think people should be asking far more questions of those who they entrust with their health and their children’s health. I will check out Dr. Buttar’s YouTube content – I think I’ve come across him before. I agree, the Iceland example, on its own, completely debunks SARS-CoV-2’s lethality and contagiousness. It’s increasingly clear that this is purely a political agenda in a world where science, politics and money are basically the same. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. All the best.
LikeLike
Hiya Edward , I’ve discovered an interesting You Tube channel , “Pearless Reads “ , it’s by a mathematician, who correlates the government’s data and comes to some revealing trends , well worth a look and in line with your stance .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Richard, I really appreciate the recommendation. His videos are a very thorough takedown of official dogma. He deserves a far larger audience. Hopefully reason and common sense will get us out of this death grip, sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
You are just straight up incorrect, and likely intentionally deceitful.
You cite a lot of sources but must have forgot to cite your main point: that we have no tests specific for sars-cov-2. Woopsie. Lucky for you, I found one.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf?sfvrsn=a9ef618c_2
If we turn to page 4 and 5, it looks like the CDC has known specific PCR tests for sars-cov-2 since January 17. The sars-cov-2 test is not only based specifically on the fully sequenced genome of this specific virus, but has a 95% hit rate of detecting the virus. And on page 7, we can see how these PCR tests have NO REACTIVITY with previous known strains of Coronavirus.
You take a non sequitur philosophical dive into if sickness vs. wellness is a true dichotomy, or if different concentrations of the virus produce different levels of sickness.That philosophical questions exists for every illness and every test ever. You don’t hear complaining that the “high” in “high blood-pressure” is an arbitrary cutoff therefore I get to disregard the accuracy of the results entirely. You still don’t fucking want high blood pressure, and the test still does tell you about your blood pressure.
You conspiracy that other deaths are being maliciously counted toward the covid toll is based on false data. First off, your chart only goes to week 10 of the year which lets see, is early March. According to you, thousands of of pneumonia deaths we’re being mislabeled as COVID deaths in early March, when there were only 50 deaths. Right… Not to mention your data completely disagree with the CDC website https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm showing a stark increase in pneumonia deaths. The death toll of covid is probably HIGHER than recorded because in the beginning of April, weekly deaths assigned only to pneumonia were higher than average by 5000.
Of course countries without lockdowns are faring better. Lockdown is a REACTION politicians in your country take when your country starts to get hit hard. I can’t believe I have to explain this. Of course lockdown is to some degree effective at slowing viral spread. Do you not believe the germ theory of disease?
I don’t have the time to fact check your hundreds of bogus sources. Your entire premise, that we can’t reliably test for sars-cov-2 is completely debunked by a simple google search. I have archived this webpage. I’m no youtuber, but I want to make a YouTube video debunking this stupidity. You’re either intentionally deceitful, or so dumb you think citing all tangentially related sources while leaving your main arguments completely unsourced makes a good argument.
LikeLike
To protect against spam and abuse all comments await approval.
“Looks like the CDC has known specific PCR tests for sars-cov-2 since January 17”. I’m sure this statement is true. However, it seems the CDC has been following its own rules as per the testing of SARS-CoV-2, as have other jurisdictions. The CDC test kit originally included three primers, all targeting one gene: the N gene of SARS-CoV-2. The primers were N1, N2 and N3:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-panel-primer-probes.html
Unfortunately, there seemed to be a problem with the 3rd of these markers, revealed at the CDC coronavirus briefing on 12th February:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html
“…..some public health labs at states were getting inconclusive results and what that means is that test results were not coming back as false positive or false negatives, but they were being read as inconclusive. Now, these were not tests being run on actual clinical specimens from potential patients. These were part of the verification process, and because of that we are — when we evaluated what the issue is, we think that there might be an issue with one of the three assays and we think that maybe one of the reagents wasn’t performing consistently, so it’s a long story to say that we think that the issue at the states can be explained by one reagent that isn’t performing as it should consistently and that’s why we are re-manufacturing that reagent…”
But instead of re-manufacturing the N3 primer as originally planned, on March 15th the CDC simply told everyone who had the kit to remove the N3 primer. This made the test kit even less specific – now only looking for 2 primers of one gene. The N gene is highly generic across coronavirus species and is therefore not very specific to SARS-CoV-2.
I hope that provided some clarification.
“You take a non sequitur philosophical dive into if sickness vs. wellness is a true dichotomy” How so? I merely quoted the inventor of the PCR technology who said that the test is qualitative and not quantitative. You, on the other hand, have surmised that the whole piece is erroneous because you believe you have “debunked” the “main” point. You didn’t. And even if you did, that is a non sequitur.
In the US it is estimated that around 2.7million people die annually. From your link the National Center for Health Statistics records 693,128 total deaths from beginning of Feb to the end of April. This is within the range of what you would expect at this time of year. Exactly my point about the re-tabulation of deaths in the article.
I hope you make that YouTube video. Thank you for your reply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is the mechanism in HPV vaccine that would increase the likelihood to get cervical cancer ? You expect that young women start to behave reclessly ? Do you have any peer reviewed studies about it ? At least there seems to be some studies that confirm the lower precancer prevalence after HPV vaccination?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry that was a rather flippant comment. Given the subject matter, I should have been more specific.
This paper found no evidence that the HPV vaccine was efficacious in reducing cervical cancer rates:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076819899308
James Lyons-Weiler found an increase in cervical cancer rates for those who had taken the vaccine since 2006, after extrapolating the incidence to date relative to the rates in 1995:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer-rates-uk-1995-2015-james-lyons-weiler/
As you say, it may be linked to promiscuity (I believe the vaccine only targets some HPVs out of over 150 types. These are rarer but are associated with cancer).
This article came to similar conclusions:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4635939/
“However, vaccinated women had a higher prevalence of high-risk nonvaccine types”
Cancer research UK, a major cancer charity, predicts an increased incidence of cervical cancer by 2035 despite widespread use of the HPV vaccine:
Click to access proj_inc_asr_Cer.pdf
So, there are some suggestions that the HPV vaccine could increase rates of cervical cancer. Whether this is linked to lifestyle choices or the vaccine itself has yet to be ascertained.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer in the comment above.
LikeLike
Perspectives on the Pandemic Ep.5 came out yesterday
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing. This series has been excellent. Prof Wittkowski had some choice remarks about Dr. Ferguson, Bill Gates, the media, and the madness that envelops us all. I hope more people listen to him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s great to see and read, that not everyone has lost their analytical capacity in the midst of this world pandemic of total madness and fear. Thank you for your articles sir, they are a pleasure to read. God bless, Godspeed. Freedom Always.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, I really appreciate those kind words. I pray that the people will unplug themselves from this mass hallucination and claim back what is theirs, sooner rather than later. Thanks again. God bless.
LikeLike
Outstanding Sir, if I may say so.
The only point I think I can add, in addition to this very thorough and well researched piece (it should be widely read) is regarding the actual existence of Sars-Cov2. As a layman myself I was delighted to find the work of Dr Andrew Kaufman on youtube, he has since done quite a few interviews including the Richie Allen show and some others. His work I think gets to the root of the problem – there is no scientific validity for the existence of “sars-cov2” (or its predecessor) or that it can cause disease, ie NO SCIENCE, right? I think you implied this above but we can go further I think by drawing on Dr Kaufman. He, as an “expert” (and I totally agree by the way that assessing the quality of opinion on the basis of title rather than quality of argument is nothing more than ad hom, but in any case…), has done the legwork and analysed all of the papers claiming to have “discovered” sars-cov. They have not, they are practising pseudoscience by claiming science when they have none. This answers the criticism from Ronquavius Ligins above – the RNA sequence is GENERIC always. There is NO gold standard – there is no purified isolated form of the “virus” and certainly as you state, Koch’s or Rivers criteria have NOT been met for establishing cause and effect – once again, this is pseudoscience and we should not hold back from exposing these liars who have co-opted and inverted the scientific method and present nothing but mumbo jumbo.
I would label this as nothing but a piece of circular reasoning – generic genetic material taken from a sick person ASSUMED to have “covid-19”, mapping the genetic sequence of whatever random genetic material found and then comparing this to other random genetic material found in another person. I have butchered this terribly I know, you did a much better job and I cannot recommend Dr Kaufman enough. He very convincingly shows that the “virus” is in fact a natural response to toxins, or ‘insults’, to the body – exosomes, produced by cells, that have the same characteristics as that assigned to “sars-cov2”.
The Dr Kaufman Richie Allen show interview – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSri-fx5pq0&t=2319s
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the great comment! I totally agree that there is zero evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been identified and isolated using the criteria established by Koch’s postulates and subsequent variations, and has been proven to be the cause of the observed effects. But even amidst the distortions and clear corruption, I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt on this, mostly to present a more persuasive argument. People – wrongly in my view – tend to be immediately dismissive of what they perceive to be an outlandish proposal, even if they have absolutely no basis on which to approximate outlandishness. The notion that the virus is a total hoax is a much harder sell than its threat being deliberately exaggerated for political purposes. I do think the test is suggestive that it’s a hoax – implied in the title, “the invisible war”. As you say, it’s a classic case of circular reasoning. I will listen to Dr Kaufman’s opinions with interest. I really appreciate you sharing it and the great comment. Best wishes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That approach makes perfect sense, yes people do indeed fly off the handle at the notion of “it’s all made up”! I tend to ask the question – show me the scientific evidence, then it can be checked.
cheers, I look forward to new posts
LikeLiked by 1 person
An interesting post and always important to look at the facts and challenge what we’re being told. I’ve nominated you for a Liebster Award. Feel free to take part if you want to 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. That’s incredibly kind. I won’t take part with the award because, though I love to read other people’s blogs, I started this blog as an outlet to write about philosophy and current affairs, not to write about myself. I really do appreciate the nomination. You’re a wonderful writer and I’ll look forward to reading more from you in the future. Best wishes
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you 😊
LikeLike
Hello Eddie,
in order to make things complicated, may i state my opinion, that differs?
I am no native English-speaker.
After i started about Corona i had first locked down whole countries in January to not even let the virus spread.
understanding your article, i know all the details you talk about.
But your article has a graphs: dropping pneumonia deaths, etcs.
you could probably add this fact, in case you reply:
how do you explain the number of deaths by infections (flu, coronavirus, …) has quadruple as much as in a normal season, despite a complete lockdown.
could this be a very stark hint, that the truth is what is talked about in the media?
And wont the current lockdown prove, that it also decreased all other infections very strongly?
fitting all your details in your article and connecting these to reality, to educate your viewrs how despite reasoning, you could come to your conclusing would totally delight people, to see extreme insight into how reasoning works:
they could understand (look at the reply: “wow, thanks for your very detailed and professional analysis …) how they believed all your facts and now we could fiddle it back to see, how errors happen.
instead of doubting by various reasoning, which is a tool, taht will unsettle persons from their life and will eventually cost them their life, it would be sanely good to be able to deconstruct an erratic doubting.
Thanks for your article, i like that you think for yourself and try to find out more.
But probably the result was already found, before you did the work, right? and therefore the statistics you quoted are to interprete due to aforementioned reasons.
i hope you publish this fairly. Thank you. J.K.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jens K. Thanks for your reply.
Firstly, I never censor non abusive comments. If the comment is abusive but at least contains a semblance of an argument, I will publish it. I don’t believe in censorship.
All of the information contained in this article was freely available on the internet. I have simply read through official government statistics, data collection procedures and recent changes to the law, have presented them in the article and purport to show discrepancies. The other material has been sourced from mainstream news sources.
“The number of deaths from infections has quadrupled to that of a normal season”. Where? And what is the source?
But this is important to understand, and was probably lost in translation in the article: given that people dying “with” COVID-19 (in a highly flawed test which does not establish infection nor distinguishes between different viral strains) are deemed to die “of” COVID-19, irrespective of underlying health conditions, and given that COVID-19 is an infectious disease, we should therefore expect that deaths from infectious diseases will go up considerably as compared to a normal season. As the article stated, across the world there are extraordinary new audit practices that enable authorities to list COVID-19 as the cause of death even if it was not the cause of death. This is unprecedented. By way of example, as the article states (source above), in Italy, the worst affected country in Europe, over 99% of the people who died “of” COVID-19 had underlying health conditions. Most had multiple underlying health conditions (co morbidities – other causes of death). The average age of COVID-19 mortality was bang on the average life expectancy.
There has been a lockdown and yet infections have risen dramatically. Why? It’s because of the unreliability of the RT-qPCR test and the re-tabulation of existing deaths explained in the article (and above).
For example, a new study of 1,000 people found that 66% of new coronavirus cases admitted to New York hospitals are people who were on lockdown:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8293417/66-New-York-coronavirus-hospitalizations-people-staying-HOME.html
How can this be explained? An infectious disease infecting large numbers of people who are in isolation. It’s because the human body in trace amounts contains the nucleic acids the CDC RT-qPCR tests are reacting with (and other jurisdictions). The test is not sequencing the entire SARS-CoV-2 strand, only a gene (N gene) common to all coronaviruses, which are very common. Wellness is not a dichotomy – the human body houses hundreds of trillions of viruses which it coexists with. We only develop mild symptoms of a respiratory condition once 20-30% of the cells in the upper or lower respiratory tract are destroyed or damaged due to viral replication and inflammation. But in a non-binary test, to merely find a nucleate common to all coronaviruses, which we all have, and from that infer the presence of SARS-CoV-2, is fallacious. Remember, we have hundreds of trillions of viruses in our systems which are only kept in check by a healthy and functioning immune system. People who are already ill will have suppressed immune systems thereby increasing the chances of viral replication. They will therefore more likely test positive on a non-binary test for the coronavirus nucleate. Here, most haven’t “caught” an infection, their immune systems were simply suppressed through illness (staying indoors and stress is terrible for health) and viral replication wasn’t inhibited.
I know this isn’t your first language. Some of this is quite technical and requires a good understanding of English to follow. Please feel free to get back to me if you need further clarification.
Kind regards
LikeLike
No, they will not completely distribute a vaccine for free… 7 600 000 000 (people on the planet) x $50 US$’s (to create, produce, package, market & distribute) = 380 billion US$’s! Who will actually profit when we’re forced to be vaccinated? …not you or I. A sliver of this money would make most men terribly evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article was about the total unreliability of the numbers and the deliberate exaggeration and politicisation of the ‘covid-19’ scare. I think a potential vaccine will probably cost more than $50 per dose to develop and bring to market. Overall, worldwide, it may be in the trillions. Whether it will be mandated remains to be seen, though I suspect there will be every political effort to do so. Thanks for reading and commenting.
LikeLike
Excellent information. Thank You very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for reading and commenting.
LikeLike
Hey Eddie,
Really great stuff here. When can we expect part 2?
Cheers,
H
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. Part 2 should be up by the weekend.
LikeLike
Hi Eddie, I strongly suggest reading The Invisible Rainbow by scientist and journalist Arthur Firstenburg. Tens of thousands of scientists around the world petitioned against the 5G roll out and there are several papers detailing the health effects. I believe we are seeing the effects of this under the cover story of a coronavirus. As we all know, symptoms began in Wuhan in Nov 2019, which happened to be the same time as switch on. Wuhan was the test bed city.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Emma, thanks for the recommendation. I’ve added the book to my reading list. Regarding 5G my main concerns up until now have been about privacy and the so-called Internet of things. It’s a very worrying development, especially in a society with no respect for the truth. I agree that the health concerns are also hugely troubling. It’s certainly something we’ll have to keep an eye on because, as we know, we can’t rely on the traditional media to do that for us. Thanks again for the recommendation. Best wishes
LikeLike
Hi Eddie , just looking at the latest comment and your reply , I don’t know if your interested , but here is a link to a professor of virology working out of Barcelona university who correlates the covid outbreak with were 5g is implemented , https://gumshoenews.com/2020/05/04/study-shows-direct-correlation-between-5g-networks-and-coronavirus-outbreaks/
Looking forward to your latest update ,
Thank you 👍
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Richard. Thanks for the information.
This as my far as my knowledge on this issue stretches. If 5G technology is emitted at 60 GHz, which is apparently the spectrum that oxygen molecules are absorbed in the blood, it means that it can theoretically be deployed as a weapon against targeted individuals and groups. People will die very quickly if they can’t absorb oxygen. And as we know, there have been reports of covid-19 patients suffering from an illness similar to that of the effects of altitude sickness.
It’s very troubling. And as the author of the article you linked noted, the lack of transparency regarding 5G safety checks suggests that governments are quite happy to risk public health for full scale 5G implementation. That’s rather ironic considering the current rhetoric – the lockdowns were ostensibly intended to keep people “safe”. Incidentally, I must add that Corona in physics means “the glow round a conductor at high potential”. A curious coincidence.
I think links between an illness that shares commonalities with altitude sickness and 5G are credible. And Dr. Bartomeu Payeras research, though only correlational, are certainly worthy of further investigation. In a sane and honest world 5G installation would stop immediately. But obviously we don’t live in a sane and honest world.
I really appreciate the link Richard. Thanks
LikeLike
Wow what a bunch of garbage, your body is and has been since you were born exposed to tons of background radiation and other magnetic forms of radiation forever. There are particles right now shooting through you, so how could you possibly determine that another improvement in technology could possibly expose you to any new forms of radiation your body has not experienced before. And we dont even have 5G in our own country so how would it be possible for people in our country to be affected by something we have yet to fully implement. Something that most of this country does not have access to, in addition, the cruses that had all those people on them who got sick when they were out at sea dont have 5 G capability and wont for a while. If you can explain how many people on cruises got sick at sea when they were no where near a 5G cell tower, then I would happily acquiesce. Get a clue you are spreading false information, and you should stop it.
LikeLike
Tracy,
The article wasn’t about 5G. In a reply to someone else, I noted that the technology hasn’t been tested for its health effects and thus could theoretically pose a health risk. This is self-evident. The rest was informal conjecture, not a formal postulation. I didn’t link 5G installation to the effects of the ‘virus’. My main concerns about the technology involve personal privacy and state intrusion and control.
LikeLike
Here is a link to an article published yesterday Friday 29/05 in the Guardian
Coronavirus excess deaths: UK has one of highest levels in Europe. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/may/29/excess-deaths-uk-has-one-highest-levels-europe?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I think this is an interesting example of how graphs (data) can be used to explain a chosen thesis. The chosen thesis here is that the precise timing of lockdown has a causal relationship to %age excess deaths in each country and by selecting 2 countries Austria and Netherlands they thereby prove their thesis.
The authors overlook the possibility that the virus might have been infecting people in a country before the first positive tested patient was identified. Unless a study of the causes of deaths in the run up to lockdowns was carried out its not possible to exclude the possibility that lockdowns were later in the spread of the virus than indicated by these graphs. But even then it might not be possible to tell which is no excuse for not mentioning the possibility.
The authors explain the difference in methods of reporting and recording of deaths but they do not discuss the most interesting feature that their graphs show. It is the comparison between the data for Sweden and all the others. Sweden had no lockdown (no removal of basic rights as here in Germany and UK) and yet the outcome in terms of peak %age excess deaths was better than the other counties except for Austria, Denmark and Germany. So why was lockdown even necessary never mind its timing?
I am looking forward to your next post
Helen
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Helen. Thanks for posting your thoughts.
I agree with you. Data will always be more disposable to one’s interests when placed under the lens of subjectivity. As you rightly point out, the Guardian engages in a classic case of cherrypicking.
“Patterns in the data show countries that locked down earlier tended to have fewer deaths”. It goes on to contrast Austria with the Netherlands. Austria had a peak excess death rate far lower than the Netherlands, it surmises, because the authorities were more proactive in implementing a lockdown. But as you say, that doesn’t explain why countries that did not go on lockdown, such as Sweden, have fewer deaths per capita than countries that did.
Without knowing the specifics of how the data is collated in each country makes it extraordinarily difficult to meaningfully compare and contrast figures. The goal posts also keep changing.
In the U.K., for instance, which the Guardian practically boasts as having the worst record out of the 11 countries analysed, the Office of National Statistics has amended its audit procedures to list provisional deaths AND registered deaths.
“….we have also given provisional updated totals based on the latest available death registrations, up to 25 March 2020. These deaths will be included in the dataset in a subsequent week”
As I wrote in the article, this significant change started from week 13, and correlates with both the lockdown and the increase in deaths. Now, it doesn’t mean that the ONS is definitely adding the same death more than once – although it does literally say that – but this amendment to the processes does give it scope to add the death more than once (week 12’s total didn’t change nor week 13 and so on so forth after the subsequent week’s data was published). So, we must ask, how much of one of the worst excess mortality records in Europe during this pandemic can be simply explained by the audit processes and not governmental strategy and the virus itself? It’s hard to ascertain the true number of deaths without having recourse to death registrations. Something I’m sure intrepid researchers will investigate in the months ahead.
Other countries like Denmark, Iceland and Rep. Ireland all record a reduced mortality this year. This is again hard to explain in terms of biology – a novel virus is not discriminate of populations in the northern hemisphere, save for degree of urbanisation, standard of healthcare infrastructure, and of course lockdown strategy and various other indices – but it is a bit more explainable in terms of politics. It would suggest that differences in national data collection practices are influential in the results between nations.
I need to go through the data presented in the Guardian more vigorously. It quotes the Human Mortality Database as the main source, which I need to review. But it also says that the data from Italy and France has been obtained from the Economist. I’ve looked at the original data, a series of spreadsheets, but the original source is not forthcoming.
Though there’s understandably been all the political will in the world to justify the lockdown after the fact, there doesn’t seem to me much evidence of its efficacy, especially when you consider the incalculable human costs of the lockdown, which the Guardian and other outlets generally neglect to mention.
Thanks again for sharing the article and your thoughts Helen. It’s much appreciated
LikeLike
Yes their citizens had the brains to follow social distancing rules and to wear masks more readily and not gripe about it as we have here in the US, and they are still losing people. Its not like they actually dont have any deaths at all or any new infections. And they are a much healthier society than we are here in America and since it really causes death with people who have co morbidity such as obesity and diabetes which are rampant in our country, its no wonder they in Sweden have had much fewer deaths.
Furthermore, you keep talking about how they test, how can they produce an antibody test if there is no such thing as COVID-19 and please explain why they are able to use Convalescent Plasma as a treatment to save peoples lives? How could they test for such a thing? You state its because they are only testing for the common features in all corona viruses, but that’s not true, you need to read more about how these tests are conducted and recognize that this is not junk science but how all testing for various pathogens works. Here is a link go read it and then correct the information you have printed here, because you are telling lies. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/molecular-based-tests/#sec1-detect
LikeLike
Tracy,
“….please explain why they are able to use Convalescent Plasma as a treatment to save peoples lives?”
https://www.uscovidplasma.org/
Where it states: “COVID-19 convalescent plasma has not yet been demonstrated to provide clinical benefit in patients affected by this disease”.
I did not say there was no COVID-19. I said that the tests were not reliable and figures were being padded.
More on the testing. Yes you are correct that there are different versions of the RT-qPCR test. As in my reply to a reader above, the test essentially transcribes RNA, a single strand nucleic acid, into DNA, which is a double strand nucleic acid, using an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. This is called “extraction”. After this, the DNA is used as a template for amplification using qPCR, allowing the original quantity of target RNA to be determined.
Now, this amplification is not done on the entire sequence but on segments that are expected to be representative of the specific genome of interest and, correspondingly, not representative of other genetic materials that could be present. Amplification is a mathematical formula that enables the specific genome to be isolated from other genetic material and magnified.
Synthetic primers and fluorescent probes are identified to match up with the target genetic segments to facilitate amplification and detection. The primers are small nucleotide sequences that bind to the target segments of the DNA genetic sequence. The primers used are of course critical and issues with primer design can lead to variation in results.
The WHO recommended primers first target the E gene of SARS-COV-2. The E gene is considered highly divergent and therefore more specific to the different coronaviruses. As seen in this article:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-sars-cov-2-tests-work-and-whats-next-in-covid-19-diagnostics-67210
The recommended guidelines are that in the case of a positive test on the E gene, a lab should do confirmatory testing targeting other areas of the virus genome. Because even the E gene is present in all coronaviruses, but there is a degree of variation which makes positives more reliable. But to avoid false positives, “every positive test should be confirmed with whole genome sequencing, viral culture, or electron microscopy.”
But the CDC has been following its own rules as per the testing of SARS-CoV-2, as have other jurisdictions. The CDC test kit originally included three primers, all targeting one gene: the N gene of SARS-CoV-2. The primers were N1, N2 and N3. This is a version of the CDC RT-qPCR test targeting the N gene:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/rt-pcr-panel-primer-probes.html
Unfortunately, there seemed to be a problem with the 3rd of these markers, revealed at the CDC coronavirus briefing on 12th February:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0212-cdc-telebriefing-transcript.html
“…..some public health labs at states were getting inconclusive results and what that means is that test results were not coming back as false positive or false negatives, but they were being read as inconclusive. Now, these were not tests being run on actual clinical specimens from potential patients. These were part of the verification process, and because of that we are — when we evaluated what the issue is, we think that there might be an issue with one of the three assays and we think that maybe one of the reagents wasn’t performing consistently, so it’s a long story to say that we think that the issue at the states can be explained by one reagent that isn’t performing as it should consistently and that’s why we are re-manufacturing that reagent…”
But instead of re-manufacturing the N3 primer as originally planned, on March 15th the CDC simply told everyone who had the kit to remove the N3 primer. This made the test kit even less specific – now only looking for 2 primers of one gene.
The N gene is highly generic across coronavirus species and is therefore not very specific to SARS-CoV-2. They are also not doing any confirmation testing. Nobody is.
The human body in trace amounts contains the nucleic acids the tests are reacting with. Because coronaviruses are very common.
The test in question has q – quantitative in the title. But this is misleading because it is a qualitative test. The threshold is arbitrary. The amplification is usually done anywhere between 35-40 cycles. But at 50 cycles almost everyone would react with the test…far fewer cycles and nobody would react to it, even someone who definitely has ‘it’ and is fighting for their life on a ventilator.
This is different to a pregnancy test because, although this is also a non binary test, false positive pregnancy test results are very rare, usually as a result of a reaction to drugs which have the hCG molecule. The body is less likely to react to the test than the coronavirus qPCR test because, in the latter case, practically everyone will have trace amounts of the material in their body.
Elsewhere, developing nations are using tests donated by China or by the WHO, whose tests are largely manufactured by Chinese companies. They seem even less reliable than the US tests:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania-idUSKBN22F0KF
Back to the US, to press home the point, how can this be explained if the CDC test specifically targets features unique to SARS-CoV-2:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8293417/66-New-York-coronavirus-hospitalizations-people-staying-HOME.html
In May it was reported that 66% of New York state coronavirus hospitalisations are those who were in home isolation. Here we have an infectious disease infecting large numbers of people who are not coming into contact with large numbers of people, if anybody for that matter. The reason for this is because the human body in trace amounts contains the nucleic acids the CDC RT-qPCR tests are reacting with.
In a non-binary test, to merely find a nucleate common to all coronaviruses, which we all have, and from that infer the presence of SARS-CoV-2, is fallacious. We have hundreds of trillions of viruses in our systems which are only kept in check by a healthy and functioning immune system. People who are already ill will have suppressed immune systems thereby increasing the chances of viral replication. They will therefore more likely test positive in a non-binary test for a common coronavirus nucleate. Most in New York didn’t “catch” an infection, their immune systems were simply suppressed through illness (staying indoors and stress is terrible for health) and viral replication wasn’t inhibited.
LikeLike
I am revising this article in detail and will be contacting our provincial lab to directly ask them about these inconsistencies next week. Where I live, everyone is still brainwashed because they trust our local governments, so I will bring this global information to a local level and seek answers directly from the source.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. I hope you will keep me updated. Good luck and best wishes
LikeLike
Dumb af, get a epidemiology degree and then we may talk. BY the dumb for the dumb.
LikeLike
This is an argument from authority Kalikin. The reason why this is a logical fallacy is that it makes a lot of presumptions – presumption is anathema to truth and reason.
Btw I should add that to make “lots of presumptions” is a great partial definition of idiocy.
Have a great day.
LikeLike
Weak arguments,
LikeLike
Interesting. In what way are they “weak”, Jan?
LikeLike