Covid19 - Dissenting views from around the world.

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3116019/china-eu-investment-deal-landmark-treaty-greeted-shrug

China-EU investment deal: ‘landmark’ treaty greeted with a shrug by underwhelmed analysts



USA CDC says, "Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available"

so are those who are saying that there is no virus correct...

if so, what a deal. the imf will be hq in beijing soon enuf and usa gets accelerated into reaching the point of no return where all tax revenues will be needed to pay the interest on debt much earlier. but a deal with the devils will always have blowback.

see page 39

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Performance Characteristics
Analytical Performance:
Limit of Detection (LoD): LoD studies determine the lowest detectable concentration of 2019-nCoV at which approximately 95% of all (true positive) replicates test positive. The LoD was determined by limiting dilution studies using characterized samples.

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the
2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

Samples were extracted using the QIAGEN EZ1 Advanced XL instrument and EZ1 DSP Virus Kit (Cat# 62724) and manually with the QIAGEN DSP Viral RNA Mini Kit (Cat# 61904). Real-Time RT-PCR assays were performed using the ThemoFisher Scientific TaqPath™ 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG (Cat# A15299) on the Applied Biosystems™ 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument according to the CDC 2019-nCoV RealTime RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel instructions for use.
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-admits-pcr-tests-give-false-results-prepares-ground-biden-virus-rescue-miracle

FDA Admits PCR Tests Give False Results, Prepares Ground For Biden To "Crush" Casedemic

BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, JAN 05, 2021 - 4:55
The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr.Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR-Test used to define whether an individual is a COVID "Case" or not.

This matters significantly as it fits perfectly with the 'fake rescue' plan we have previously described would occur once the Biden admin took office. But before we get to that 'conspiracy', we need a little background on how the world got here...


author in a way argues that as biden got voted in by even the dead to be potus, so dun nid electoral college, the hype on sars-covid2-2009 should be dying down ... though still got vaccine to sell ...

the 11 of you need to learn to neutralise a vaccine while in the syringe rather than deal with it after administered. more efficient.

the dear hanuman still not stirring yet.


https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/11/09/dr-fauci-told-the-truth-about-covid-19-tests-in-july-and-has-been-misleading-the-public-ever-since-n1131938

Dr. Fauci Told the Truth About COVID-19 Tests in July and Has Been Misleading the Public Ever Since
BY STACEY LENNOX NOV 09, 2020 12:43 PM ET

One of the most frustrating aspects of COVID-19 coverage has been the emphasis on “cases,” reinforced by Dr. Anthony Fauci. In fact, he was wringing his hands about rising “case” numbers on CNN in early October. These numbers are actually positive tests. The New York Times and several experts admitted in late August that up to 90% of positive PCR tests were not indicative of the active illness that could be transmitted to others.

As it turns out, Fauci expressed a similar opinion in July.
As I have reported several times before, the cycle threshold (Ct), or the number of times the test sample is amplified, is too high. According to Just the News, Dr. Fauci acknowledged this in an interview with “This Week in Virology”:

Joining the hosts of This Week in Virology in July, Fauci directly responded to a question about COVID-19 testing, specifically how patients with positive tests might determine whether or not they are actually infectious and need to quarantine.

“What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard,” Fauci said, is that “if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-[competent] are minuscule.”

“It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians,” he continued, when “somebody comes in, and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like [a] 37 cycle threshold, but you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle.”

So, I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”


He also noted that the Ct count is not provided to patients and physicians automatically. The tests are simply returned as positive or negative. The entire idea of “asymptomatic” cases dissolves once you understand this. Especially when you understand there is a level of immunity in the population because of T-cell reactivity. This is long-term immunity related to exposure to other coronaviruses. People who have this reaction would have the same presentation as a recovered patient.

Obviously, the CDC knew there was an issue with picking up inert viral RNA. In July, the agency discouraged retesting recovered patients who suffered mild-to-moderate illness. Here was the rationale:

Recovered persons can continue to shed detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA in upper respiratory specimens for up to 3 months after illness onset, albeit at concentrations considerably lower than during illness, in ranges where replication-competent virus has not been reliably recovered and infectiousness is unlikely.

It looks like the FDA was aware of this glitch in the PCR test as well. In the Emergency Use Authorization for Panther Fusion’s COVID-19 PCR test, it is noted under “Limitations”:

A positive result indicates the detection of nucleic acid from the relevant virus. Nucleic acid may persist even after the virus is no longer viable.

Also:

The Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay may be used to test asymptomatic individuals, although performance has not been demonstrated in an asymptomatic population. This assay has been shown to exhibit high sensitivity when tested with the FDA reference panel.

Granted, Panther is one of many PCR tests. However, The New York Times‘ reporting, the CDC guidelines, and Dr. Fauci’s comments confirm these principles can be applied to PCR testing generally. Experts interviewed by The New York Times suggested a cutoff of 30 Ct would be appropriate. If Dr. Fauci arrived at this conclusion in July, why are labs in the United States still using up to 40 Ct. as the standard when it appears the right Ct is somewhere between 30 and 35?

Dr. Fauci and other “experts” like former FDA Director Dr. Scott Gottlieb are constantly pushing positive tests and lamenting a rise in their numbers. They erroneously refer to these numbers as cases, which they are not under any previous definition. It is also clear there is likely some significant number of false positives. So what gives?

COVID-19 was obviously used as a rhetorical weapon to club President Trump. It became clear late in the election that Dr. Fauci was more political than he portrayed when he essentially endorsed Joe Biden.

Further, some segment of the public health establishment wants widespread vaccination and other policies like mask mandates and rolling lockdowns. High “case” numbers allow them to push these policies. High positive test numbers also create a higher R-naught, which is the measure of contagiousness. These policies are easier to push if the public believes COVID-19 is horribly contagious, making it seem a danger to at-risk loved ones.

Perhaps most deceptive, the Ct is a simple lever to pull to keep you in line and make Joe Biden look like a hero. His new COVID panel will develop and implement a plan. Then positive cases will magically drop, not because these policies were effective but simply because they will dial down the Ct with clear guidelines.

However, this will cement the supremacy of “experts” in the minds of many Americans who have not seen the dishonest little man behind the curtain. Don’t be one of those people.
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
moar n moar intelligent whistleblowing on the issue of koch postulates not fulfilled

https://peopleforjusticecanada.com/2021/01/05/canadian-public-health-officials-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-performed-anywhere-ever/

Canadian public health officials have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification performed anywhere, ever
By Christine Massey, M.Sc.

The request is for records describing the isolation (aka purification) of the alleged “COVID-19” virus, from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with additional genetic material (typically monkey kidney cells and fetal bovine serum). The same request has been submitted to 16 Canadian institutions in total.

Without this isolation step having been performed (followed by controlled experiments and other necessary steps), there is no way to claim scientifically that the alleged “novel coronavirus” blamed for widespread death/disease/lockdown measures actually exists.

Without this step having been performed, and followed by the necessary controlled experiments, and independently replicated, all claims of this alleged virus are nothing but wild, unscientific, fraud-based speculation backed only by fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses.

Before we go further, it is important to note that these requests for records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation were not limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records held by the institution (including scientific studies downloaded from the Internet) describing isolation of “SARS-COV-2” by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever.

Institutions are not required to provide records that are publicly available, however citations were requested for any such records that are available to the public elsewhere.

As I write this on January 4, 2021, 14 Canadian institutions have provided their responses and 2 are long overdue. None have provided, or cited, any such records, from anywhere in the world, ever.
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
yes yes, i know of the stuff like the following.

https://www.virology.ws/2010/01/22/kochs-postulates-in-the-21st-century/

Koch’s postulates in the 21st century

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro1311

Following Koch's example


BUT ...

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/130359270-post389.html

"The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix."

moar n moar intelligent whistleblowing on the issue of koch postulates not fulfilled

https://peopleforjusticecanada.com/2021/01/05/canadian-public-health-officials-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-performed-anywhere-ever/

Canadian public health officials have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification performed anywhere, ever
By Christine Massey, M.Sc.

The request is for records describing the isolation (aka purification) of the alleged “COVID-19” virus, from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with additional genetic material (typically monkey kidney cells and fetal bovine serum). The same request has been submitted to 16 Canadian institutions in total.

Without this isolation step having been performed (followed by controlled experiments and other necessary steps), there is no way to claim scientifically that the alleged “novel coronavirus” blamed for widespread death/disease/lockdown measures actually exists.

Without this step having been performed, and followed by the necessary controlled experiments, and independently replicated, all claims of this alleged virus are nothing but wild, unscientific, fraud-based speculation backed only by fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses.

Before we go further, it is important to note that these requests for records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation were not limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records held by the institution (including scientific studies downloaded from the Internet) describing isolation of “SARS-COV-2” by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever.

Institutions are not required to provide records that are publicly available, however citations were requested for any such records that are available to the public elsewhere.

As I write this on January 4, 2021, 14 Canadian institutions have provided their responses and 2 are long overdue. None have provided, or cited, any such records, from anywhere in the world, ever.
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://internationalman.com/articles/covid-tests-gone-wild-an-epidemic-of-covid-positive-tests/

COVID Tests Gone Wild—An Epidemic of COVID Positive Tests

...

You can think of a test’s sensitivity like this: In a group of 100 people who absolutely have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many people does the test actually report as “positive?” For a test that is 95% sensitive, 95 of these 100 patients with the true disease will be reported by the test as COVID positive and 5 will be missed.

Specificity: In a group of 100 people who absolutely do not have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many will be reported by the test as “negative?” For a test that is 95% specific, 95 of these healthy people will be reported as COVID-negative and 5 will be incorrectly reported as COVID-positive

Sensitivity and Specificity are inherent characteristics of a test, not of a patient, not of a disease, and not of a population. These terms are very different than Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV). PPV and NPV are affected not only by the test’s sensitivity and specificity but also by the characteristics of the people chosen to be tested and, particularly, the patients’ underlying likelihood of actually having true Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. The Positive Predictive Value—the chance a positive test actually indicates a true disease—is greatly improved if you test people who are likely to have COVID, and, importantly, avoid testing people unlikely to have COVID.

If you do a COVID test with 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity in 1,000 patients who are feverish, have snot pouring out of their noses, are coughing profusely, and are short of breath, then you are using that test as a diagnostic test in people who currently have a reasonable up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. Let’s say 500 of them do actually have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, and the others have a common cold. This 95% sensitive test will correctly identify 475 of these people who are truly ill with COVID as being COVID-positive, and it will miss 25 of them. This same test is also 95% specific, which means it will falsely label 25 of the 500 non-COVID patients as COVID-positive. Although the test isn’t perfect it has a Positive Predictive Value of 95% in this group of people, and is a pretty good test overall.

But what if you run this very same COVID test on everyone in the population? Let’s guesstimate that the up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID in the US at this moment is about 0.5% (suggesting that 5 out of 1000 people currently have the actual transmittable disease right now, which is a high estimate). How does this same 95% sensitive/95% specific test work in this screening setting? The good news is that this test will likely identify the 5 people out of every 1000 with Relevant Infectious COVID! Yay! The bad news is that, out of every 1000 people, it will also falsely label 50 people as COVID-positive who don’t have Relevant Infectious COVID. Out of 55 people with positive tests in each group of 1000 people, 5 actually have the disease. 50 of the tests are false positives. With a Positive Predictive Value of only 9%, one could say that’s a pretty lousy test. It’s far lousier if you test only people with no symptoms (such as screening a school, jobsite, or college), in whom the up-front likelihood of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease is substantially lower.

The very same test that is pretty good when testing people who are actually ill or at risk is lousy when screening people who aren’t.

In the first scenario (with symptoms), the test is being used correctly for diagnosis. In the second scenario (no symptoms), the test is being used wrongly for screening.

A diagnostic test is used to diagnose a patient the doctor thinks has a reasonable chance of having the disease (having symptoms like fever, cough, a snotty nose, and shortness of breath during a viral season).

A screening test is used to check for the presence of a disease in a person without symptoms and no heightened risk of having the disease.

A screening test may be appropriate to use when it has very high specificity (99% or more), when the prevalence of the disease in the population is pretty high, and when there is something we can do about the disease if we identify it. However, if the prevalence of a disease is low (as is the case for Relevant Infectious COVID) and the test isn’t adequately specific (as is the case with PCR and rapid antigen tests for the COVID virus), then using such a test as a screening measure in healthy people is forcing the test to be lousy. The more it is used wrongly, the more misinformation ensues.

Our health authorities are recommending more testing of asymptomatic people. In other words, they are encouraging the wrong and lousy application of these tests. Our health officials are doing what a first-year medical student should know better than to do. It’s enough of a concerning error that it leaves two likely conclusions: 1) that our leading government health officials are truly incompetent and/or 2) that we, as a nation, are being intentionally gaslighted/manipulated. Or it could be both. (Another conclusion you should consider is that my analysis of these tests is incorrect. I’m open to a challenge.)

...
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
chosens ... but for what exactly, this time round...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-vaccinates-more-than-10-of-its-population-first-country-to-reach-that-mark-11609691727

Israel Vaccinates More Than 10% of Its Population in Two Weeks
Government aims to immunize majority of people by early spring, accelerating its vaccination drive after early hiccups led to wasted shots

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/294852

This is not a vaccine
The Israeli people haven't been given information required for a sufficient risk-benefit analysis in this extraordinary endeavor. Opinion
Ilana Rachel Daniel , Jan 13 , 2021 3:42 PM

The nation of Israel is at this moment engaged in a historic and decisive juncture that will determine the trajectory of this people now and for the foreseeable future. It is an undertaking that cannot be overstated.

As is now widely publicized, revealed initially by former PM Ehud Barak [1] and then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself [2], a deal has been made. In Israel, Pfizer has found a home for its experimental pilot program of expansive human trials. According to Barak, Pfizer has chosen our country for its decades of meticulously recorded medical and vaccination records, which allow it to explain adverse reactions to its product by pointing to previously existing conditions within the patient.

In effect, Bibi has signed up his people, all seven million citizens aged 12 years and over [3], without our informed consent, to become the first country in its entirety to do human testing on a technology which has been, for many decades, attempted and failed in the laboratory. Thus far, the pilot study is moving at truly astonishing speed; some two million people have already been injected under a program that runs daily from early morning until late night, even on Shabbat. [4]

However, the Israeli people have not been given the information required to make a sufficient risk benefit analysis in this extraordinary endeavor. In fact, they have been given little information at all and that includes complete opacity of data on the unfolding outcomes of adverse reactions currently taking place.

Our citizens must first and foremost define the discussion in order to accurately weigh their choices. What they are being asked to inject is not a vaccine as defined by the CDC as “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.” [5] Rather, it is an experimental and novel technology. By definition of the FDA [6] as a component used as treatment to affect a body’s function, it is in fact a medical device, a physical device that comes in a molecular sized package. Erroneously referring to this intervention as a vaccine exploits the public's ingrained trust of the vaccination program to solicit knee jerk response and action. It keeps us entrenched in needless debate in place of taking the necessary measures to investigate the impact on our health.

DNA is, in short, the basis for our genetic structure. Inside each cell are codes which transfer its information to make proteins through messenger RNA. Messenger RNA is an intermediary between gene and protein and the protein elicits the immune response, not the RNA. The contents of this shot being given on an experimental basis is a synthetic messenger RNA that is inserted into the human system to activate the cell to manufacture, in this case, a spike protein. [7] An mRNA vaccine is not a vaccine, because it does not elicit an immune response. What it is, is genetic engineering.

There are a number of prominent concerns of serious adverse reactions of which include, in brief summary, some of the following:

In previous clinical trials since the 1960’s [8] attempts to vaccinate against RSV, [9] Dengue, [10] SARS and MERS, the studies each failed during the animal phase. Cats, ferrets, monkeys, and rabbits each and every time experienced Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), also known as pathogenic priming or a cytokine storm. This occurs when the immune system creates an uncontrolled and overwhelming inflammatory response upon being confronted with the pathogen in the real world, and the outcome, tragically, is death. The same immune system overreaction took place in a number of infants in clinical trials who received an attempted RSV shot, as well as some six hundred Filipino children who died following early vaccination against Dengue [11] and it remains a viable concern today. [12]

Autoimmune disease occurs when the body's immune system can't tell the difference between its own cells and foreign cells, and causes the body to attack its normal cells. [13] It has been suggested that "molecular mimicry" may contribute to this problem, with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 cross-reacting with structurally similar host protein sequences and raising an acute autoimmune response against them. [14]

Scientists have determined that the same spike protein found in SARS viruses are also responsible for the development of the placenta in mammals, including humans, and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy. If a woman’s body is primed to attack these protein spikes, the immune system may prevent a placenta from being formed, which would render that woman infertile. [15]

Drs Yeadon and Wodarg further explain; “To my knowledge, Pfizer/BioNTech has yet to release any samples of written materials provided to patients, so it is unclear what, if any, information regarding (potential) fertility-specific risks caused by antibodies is included. According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention). This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post vaccination infertility could be observed.” [16]

We have additionally heard the reports of multiple cases of Bell's Palsy in both trials [17] and administration, numerous cases of anaphylaxis shock even when no previous allergies were detected, as well as several announced incidents of “false positive” HIV tests. [18]

The remaining elephant in the room is that of the greatest unknown, of tampering with the human genome. There is much we have yet to comprehend of the complexity of the human body and immune system. Science has gotten it wrong many times before, having made assumptions about its ability to exert its dominance over nature. It is still and always nature which has the final say. In the human genome project they tried genetic engineering by changing a singular gene which they believed was the defect in the genetic process. Unexpectedly, instead of correcting, it caused a domino effect of uncontrolled regulation onto multiple other genes.

Of the media press release of 95% efficacy taken as gospel and repeated as fact, Peter Doshi of the British Medical Journal posits whether the study trials were designed too poorly not to fail. With 3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID 19 in the overall study population accounted for makes a relative risk reduction of 19%, far below the 50% required for emergency use authorization. [19]

Pfiizer, Moderna, Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, have made it abundantly clear that the novel mRNA strand entering the cell is not intended to stop transmission but rather as a treatment. However, were we at long last permitted to hold public discourse on the profoundly viable and formerly ubiquitous treatments such as Ivermectin, [20] for one example, and were these treatments not denied us both in access and scientific data but disseminated to the global community, we might not have had need for an emergency use technology at all.

If this experiment does prove to cause any or combination of these problems in a year’s time or a few more and has already been administered to billions worldwide it will be too late. It cannot be removed and it cannot be turned off, it has been irretrievably unleashed into the cellular system. And there is not a government in the world nor the manufacturer himself who will be held accountable if you find yourself come to grave harm. [21]

In a multitude of monumental changes that have taken place over the course of the last year the one thing that has remained consistent is that the mortal risk a Covid-19 infection poses is, with exception, to those above 65 years or with comorbidity. There is not in existence a reasonable scientific or medical indication to inject an experimental technology forever into the veins of anyone outside that narrow group. I argue that to do so it is a reckless and cynical display of disregard for human life and well being in the perverted name of saving a particular few.

We claim an unbridled love of science and yet we are missing the crater sized gaps in reason. A tremendous risk of known and “known unknown” issues is considered against the singular benefit to avert symptoms in questionable potential at best. Tested on an uninformed populace, this is not a flag for public health. The use of the word “vaccine” and the magic bullet it has come to represent confounds the discussion as does its expeditious administration alongside an exponentially changing world. The brevity with which this technology was so recently produced is long forgotten and I, with many others, face the sobering fact that with a now live totalitarian Green Passport initiative, must choose which of my freedoms to concede, the loss of my self determination or my autonomy of body itself.

I stand for your right to understand the risks and choose to take this intervention. I ask you to stand, equally and emphatically, with my right to understand them and choose not to. However forcefully you may disagree with my perspectives, the risks of my being wrong don't touch the risks of removing the freedoms to choose them. Free choice is what breathes living into life. It is what gives us the opportunity to learn. It is what gives us hope for the future. These are the greatest challenges we will ever meet. Whatever you are called to do to make change, do it soon, do it now. Your choice matters.

Ilana Rachel Daniel is a Health and Wellness Counselor in Jerusalem and dedicates her time to research health and advocacy. www.choicesources.com

[1] Sones M (2021) Is Israel a Pfizer test subject?, Arutz Sheva, Accessed on the 12th January from /News/News.aspx/294410

[2] Holmes O (2021) Netanyahu touts Pfizer deal as 20% of Israelis get Covid jab, The Guardian, accessed on the 12th January from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...fizer-deal-after-20-of-israelis-get-covid-jab

[3] Central Bureau of Statistics, Population - Statistical Abstract of Israel 2020 - No.71, 2.3 Population, by Population Group, Religion, Sex and Age, accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/publicati...tatistical-Abstract-of-Israel-2020-No-71.aspx

[4] Batito E (2020) Controversy erupts around Health Ministry plan to vaccinate on Shabbat, Jerusalem Post, Accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/c...-ministry-plan-to-vaccinate-on-shabbat-653253

[5] CDC Website, Vaccines & Immunizations, Immunization: The Basics accessed on the 12th January from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

[6] US Food and Drug Administration Website, Medical Device Overview, accessed on the 12th January from https://www.fda.gov/industry/regulated-products/medical-device-overview#What is a medical device

[7] CDC Website (2020) Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines, accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mRNA.html

[8] Su, S., Du, L. & Jiang, S. Learning from the past: development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. Nat Rev Microbiol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-00462-y

[9] World Health Organisation Website, Standardization of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccines, accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://www.who.int/biologicals/areas/vaccines/RSV/en/

[10] Trial Site News (2020) Philippine Dengue Vaccine Criminal Indictments Includes President of Sanofi Pasteur & their FDA, accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://trialsitenews.com/philippin...cludes-president-of-sanofi-pasteur-their-fda/

[11] Trial Site News (2020)

Philippine Dengue Vaccine Criminal Indictments Includes President of Sanofi Pasteur & their FDA, accessed on the 12th January from https://trialsitenews.com/philippin...cludes-president-of-sanofi-pasteur-their-fda/

[12] Trial Site News (2020) Philippine Dengue Vaccine Criminal Indictments Includes President of Sanofi Pasteur & their FDA, accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://trialsitenews.com/philippin...cludes-president-of-sanofi-pasteur-their-fda/

[13] John Hopkins Medicine Website, What Are Common Symptoms of Autoimmune Disease?, Accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...hat-are-common-symptoms-of-autoimmune-disease

[14] White S (2020) Rapid Response: Could COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases?, Letter to the British Medical Journal, accessed on the 13th January 2020 from https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4347/rr-6 White S (2020) Rapid Response: Could COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases?, Letter to the British Medical Journal, accessed on the 13th January 2020 from https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4347/rr-6

[15] Petition from Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Co Petition from Dr. Michael Yeadon to the European Medical Association, Administrative/Regulatory Stay Of Action on the December 1st 2020, page 5, accessed on the 12th January from https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/upl...01DEC2020_signed_with_Exhibits_geschwarzt.pdf

[16] Petition from Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and Co Petition from Dr. Michael Yeadon to the European Medical Association, Administrative/Regulatory Stay Of Action on the December 1st 2020, Page 5, accessed on the 12th January from https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/upl...01DEC2020_signed_with_Exhibits_geschwarzt.pdf

[17] FDA Briefing Document, (2020) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting December 10, 2020, Page 38 and 43, accessed on the 12th January 2021 from https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

[18] Rettner R (2020) Why an Australian COVID-19 vaccine caused false-positive HIV test, Live Science, accessed on the 12th January from https://www.livescience.com/australia-covid-19-vaccine-false-positive-hiv-tests.html

[19] Doshi P (2021) Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data, British Medical Journal, accessed on the 13th January 2021 from https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/0...ccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/

[20] Kory, P., MD, Meduri, G. U., MD, Iglesias, J., Varon, J., Berkowitz, K., MD, Kornfeld, H., MD, Marik, P. E. (2020, November 13). Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wx3zn

[21] Sigalos M (2020) You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won't compensate you for damages either, CNBC, accessed on the 12th January from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/cov...IP3v_W0PuRPdMmrFnZ-tgFNT8H9D4O1nEWde5PMQjkuhA
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
we'll stop using so many cycles ...
ezpz :s8:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/wall-street-declares-beginning-end-covid-crisis

Wall Street Declares "The Beginning Of The End Of The COVID Crisis"
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, JAN 20, 2021 - 18:25

One month ago, we said that the beginning of the end of the covid pandemic would mysteriously coincide with the Biden inauguration, and sure enough that's precisely what has just happened.

...

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-admits-pcr-tests-give-false-results-prepares-ground-biden-virus-rescue-miracle

FDA Admits PCR Tests Give False Results, Prepares Ground For Biden To "Crush" Casedemic

BY TYLER DURDEN
TUESDAY, JAN 05, 2021 - 4:55
The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr.Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR-Test used to define whether an individual is a COVID "Case" or not.

This matters significantly as it fits perfectly with the 'fake rescue' plan we have previously described would occur once the Biden admin took office. But before we get to that 'conspiracy', we need a little background on how the world got here...
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/right-cue-biden-who-admits-high-cycle-pcr-tests-produce-massive-covid-false-positives

Right On Cue For Biden, WHO Admits High-Cycle PCR Tests Produce COVID False Positives
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, JAN 21, 2021 - 6:30

...

Today, within an hour of Joe Biden being inaugurated and signing an executive order mandating masks on all federal property, the WHO sent out a notice to lab professionals using the PCR test. It said:

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1).

The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load.

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

literally one hour after Biden takes the oath, the WHO admits that PCR testing at high amplification rates alters the predictive value of the tests and results in a huge number of false positives pic.twitter.com/iDtXmappRw

— Andy Swan (@AndySwan) January 20, 2021

None of this was for your health. It was to get rid of Orange Man Bad.

now they will drop the cycle rates and you can watch the curve go negative... like magic... because the new magic man isn't the bad man and the masks he ordered worked!!!!!

— Andy Swan (@AndySwan) January 20, 2021

...

As Stephen Lendman noted previously, claiming “lockdowns stopped flu in its tracks, (outbreaks) plummet(ting) by 98% in the United States” ignored that what’s called COVID is merely seasonal influenza combined with false positives (extremely high Ct) from PCR-Tests.

And for that reason, the great 2020 disappearing flu passes largely under the mass media’s radar. Media proliferated mass deception and the power of repetition get most people to believe and having successfully "killed the flu", they will now do the same with COVID... and, if allowed by our betters, we will all return to the new normal they desire.



we'll stop using so many cycles ...
ezpz :s8:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/wall-street-declares-beginning-end-covid-crisis

Wall Street Declares "The Beginning Of The End Of The COVID Crisis"
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
WEDNESDAY, JAN 20, 2021 - 18:25

One month ago, we said that the beginning of the end of the covid pandemic would mysteriously coincide with the Biden inauguration, and sure enough that's precisely what has just happened.

...
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES
THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 UNEMPLOYMENT SHOCK ON
LIFE EXPECTANCY AND MORTALITY RATES
Francesco Bianchi
Giada Bianchi
Dongho Song
Working Paper 28304

http://www.nber.org/papers/w28304
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
December 2020


The Long-Term Impact of the COVID-19 Unemployment Shock on Life Expectancy and
Mortality Rates
Francesco Bianchi, Giada Bianchi, and Dongho Song
NBER Working Paper No. 28304
December 2020
JEL No. C32,E32,I14,J11

ABSTRACT
We adopt a time series approach to investigate the historical relation between unemployment, life expectancy, and mortality rates. We fit a Vector-autoregression (VAR) for the overall US population and for groups identified based on gender and race. We find that shocks to unemployment are followed by statistically significant increases in mortality rates and declines in life expectancy. We use our results to assess the long-run effects of the COVID-19 economic recession on mortality and life expectancy. We estimate the size of the COVID-19-related unemployment to be between 2 and 5 times larger than the typical unemployment shock, depending on race/gender, resulting in a 3.0% increase in mortality rate and a 0.5% drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years for the overall American population. We also predict that the shock will disproportionately affect African-Americans and women, over a short horizon, while white men might suffer large consequences over longer horizons. These figures translate in a staggering 0.89 million additional deaths over the next 15 years.

Francesco Bianchi
Social Sciences Building, 201B
Department of Economics
Duke University
Box 90097
Durham, NC 27708-0097
and CEPR
and also NBER
francesco.bianchi@duke.edu

Dongho Song
Johns Hopkins University
Carey Business School
100 International Drive
Baltimore, MD 21202
dongho.song@jhu.edu

Giada Bianchi
Division of Hematology, Department of
Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital
Harvard Medical School
4 Blackfan Circle
HIM 742
Boston, MA 02115
GBIANCHI1@BWH.HARVARD.EDU
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://www.aier.org/article/what-they-said-about-lockdowns-before-2020/

What They Said about Lockdowns before 2020
Amelia JanaskieAmelia Janaskie
micha gartzMicha Gartz
– January 13, 2021

In 2020, beliefs about how to handle a new virus shifted massively. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, maiInstream epidemiology and public health entities doubted – or even rejected – the efficacy of lockdowns and mass quarantines because they were considered ineffective. This all changed in March 2020, when sentiment flipped in support of lockdown measures. Still, there is a vast body of evidence explaining their original stance and why these mandates do not work.

Fauci said that shutting down the country does not work. (January 24, 2020)
Early into 2020, Fauci spoke to reporters saying, “That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States, I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles, but the judgement on the part of the Chinese health authorities is that given the fact that it’s spreading throughout the provinces… it’s their judgement that this is something that in fact is going to help in containing it. Whether or not it does or does not is really open to question because historically when you shut things down it doesn’t have a major effect.”

World Health Organization Report discusses NPIs and why quarantine is ineffective. (2019)
In a table, WHO lists their recommendations of NPIs depending on severity level. Quarantine of exposed individuals is categorized as “not recommended in any circumstances.” The report explains that “home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”

WHO acknowledges social-distancing did not stop or dramatically reduce transmission during the 1918 influenza pandemic. (2006)
The WHO authors ultimately conclude that NPIs, including quarantining, require better and more focused methods to make them more effective and less “burdensome.” “Ill persons,” the authors assert, “should remain home when they first become symptomatic, but forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.” Summarizing reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic the WHO cites Lomé (British-occupied Togo) and Edmonton (Canada) as places where “isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed.” Yet, despite additional measures (Lomé halted traffic, and Edmonton restricted business hours) in both cases “social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission.” A United States, comprehensive report on the 1918 pandemic also concluded that closures “[were] not demonstrably effective in urban areas but might be effective in smaller towns and rural districts, where group contacts are less numerous.”

A study in the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology regarding the 1918 influenza pandemic in Canada also concluded quarantines do not work. (2003)
The study simulated different levels of travel and found that travel limits could be effective but “that a policy of introducing quarantine at the earliest possible time may not always lead to the greatest reduction in cases of a disease.” The authors conclude that, “quarantine measures limiting intercommunity travel are probably never 100% effective, and simulation results suggest that such a situation may actually make things worse, especially in the absence of strong efforts to keep infectious individuals isolated from the rest of the population.”

Popular author and Tulane adjunct professor John M. Barry, a strong opponent of the Great Barrington Declaration, argued that quarantines do not work in the case of the Spanish Flu. (2009)
Over a decade ago, Barry found that historically quarantines have been unsuccessful: “This author supports most proposed NPIs except for quarantine, which historical evidence strongly suggests is ineffective, and possibly school closing, pending analysis of recent events.” And instead promotes commonly touted measures, such as remaining home when unwell (and isolating from family members while doing so), frequently washing hands, and wearing a mask if you are sick. On the latter point he warns against healthy people wearing masks, noting: “Evidence from the SARS outbreak suggests that most health care workers infected themselves while removing protective equipment.”

Seton Hall’s Center for Global Health Studies Director says travel restrictions did not delay the transmission of SARS. (2009)
Yanzhong Huang acknowledges that “travel restrictions and quarantine measures have limited benefit in stopping the spread of disease […] affecting travel and trade, dissuading the very kind of transparency and openness essential for a global response to disease outbreaks.” These measures ultimately undermine a country’s surveillance capacity because “people who show symptoms might choose to shun public health authorities for fear of quarantine or stigmatization [and squander] limited health resources […] Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations [noted] by July signs of fatigue and resource depletion had already set in most of the world.

A study from Wake Forest University encounters ‘self-protection fatigue’ in simulated epidemic. (2013)
Study uses a multiplayer online game to simulate the spread of an infectious disease through a population composed of the players. The authors find that “people’s willingness to engage in safe behavior waxes or wanes over time, depending on the severity of an epidemic […] as time goes by; when prevalence is low, a ‘self-protection fatigue’ effect sets in whereby individuals are less willing to engage in safe behavior over time.” They say this is “reminiscent of condom fatigue—the declining use of condom as a preventive measure—in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention.”

In Biosecurity and Bioterrorism journal, Johns Hopkins epidemiologists reject quarantines outright. (2006)
In an article titled, “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza,” JHU epidemiologists note problems with lockdowns: “As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable.” Their concluding remark emphasized, “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.”

In a top journal, American Journal of Epidemiology, authors explain the conditions when quarantine would be effective, which do not align with the characteristics of Covid-19. (2006)
Specifically, they note that quarantines will only be effective when: (1) isolation is not possible; and (2) asymptomatic spread is significant and timed in a narrow way (none of which is the case for Covid). They conclude that “the number of infections averted through the use of quarantine is expected to be very low provided that isolation is effective.” And if isolation is ineffective? Then it will only be beneficial “when there is significant asymptomatic transmission and if the asymptomatic period is neither very long nor very short.” But, should mass quarantine be used it would “inflict significant social, psychological, and economic costs without resulting in the detection of many infected individuals.”

In the Epidemiology Journal, Harvard and Yale professors Marc Lipsitch and Ted Cohen say delaying infection can leave the elderly worse off. (2008)
They explain how delaying the risk of infection can work counterintuitively when the pathogen is more lethal for older populations. They say, “Reducing the risk that each member of a community will be exposed to a pathogen has the attendant effect of increasing the average age at which infections occur. For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals.” Based on this analysis, Covid-19, which disproportionately harms the older more than the young, is better handled by allowing the community to be exposed, whether through natural infection or vaccination.

A team of Johns Hopkins scholars say quarantines don’t work but are pursued for political reasons. (September 2019)
In the report, they explain how quarantine is more political than related to public health: “During an emergency, it should be expected that implementation of some NPIs, such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence.” Later on, they explain the ineffectiveness of quarantine: “In the context of a high-impact respiratory pathogen, quarantine may be the least likely NPI to be effective in controlling the spread due to high transmissibility.”

In March 2020, Michael Osterholm – now Biden’s Covid-19 advisor – also argued that lockdowns are not a “cure” for the pandemic, listing multiple costs from a lockdown. Yet, Osterholm’s New York Times article in August reveals a contrasting viewpoint, stating that “we gave up on our lockdown efforts to control virus transmission well before the virus was under control” by opening “too quickly.” Osterholm and (Neel) Kashkari promote a mandatory shelter-in-place “for everyone but the truly essential workers.”

Also in March 2020, these findings from the listed works and many others culminated in an open letter to vice-president Mike Pence signed by 800 medical specialists from numerous universities throughout the country which pointed out: “Mandatory quarantine, regional lockdowns, and travel bans[…] are difficult to implement, can undermine public trust, have large societal costs and, importantly, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable segments in our communities.”

While expert consensus regarding the ineffectiveness of mass quarantine of previous years has recently been challenged, significant present-day evidence continuously demonstrates that mass quarantine is both ineffectual at preventing disease spread as well as harmful to individuals. Learning the wrong lesson – assuming that mass quarantines are both good and effective – sets a dangerous precedent for future pandemics.
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2021/01/18/helsinki-committee-israel-government-pfizer-lead-illegal-experiment-on-humans-report/

Helsinki Committee: Israel Government, Pfizer Lead Illegal Experiment On Humans, Report
The contract signed between the Israeli government and Pfizer shows clearly and unequivocally that this is a clinical study on humans - The agreement is attached

“Reading the contract signed between the Israeli government and Pfizer shows clearly and unequivocally that this is a clinical study for all intents and purposes, and thus, it had to be approved by the Helsinki Committee,” a senior official told Calcalist.

“There is nothing wrong with clinical trials,” the official said, “but clinical trials (human trials) must get the committee’s approval, and of course, from the people on whom the trial is being conducted while giving them the right to refuse to be part of a trial. These are fundamental things.”

The Supreme Helsinki Commission is expected to submit its opinion to the Ministry of Health stating that the immunization process led by the Israeli government together with Pfizer is fundamentally clinical research – the code name for human trials – and thus, had to receive explicit and detailed approval of the committee, according to Calcalist.

The opinion is expected to be handed over to the director-general of the Ministry of Health, Hezi Levy – possibly even today.

Prof. Eitan Friedman, chairman of the Helsinki Committee, told Calcalist that the committee would convey its position to the government not through the media.

Since the committee is a statutory committee (established by virtue of the law), the practical meaning is that it will determine that the experiment on humans that Pfizer is currently conducting in Israel is illegal.


On January 6, the “Cooperation Agreement for the Collection of Epidemiological Information from the Real World” was signed, in which Pfizer promised the State of Israel vaccines that would vaccinate all residents except children and those who could not be vaccinated. In return for advancing Israel over other countries, the State of Israel will provide Pfizer with epidemiological information that will allow it to assess the effectiveness of the vaccine.

The question that arose in the Israeli public was: what medical information the State of Israel would be given to Pfizer? What exactly would it be used for?

Many allegations have been made about the risk of violating the privacy of the country’s residents, and the lack of transparency in not disclosing the contract. The Ministry of Health said that it would give Pfizer only general epidemiological information, but then why did Pfizer sign an agreement to obtain such information, which is exposed in any case. The Ministry of Health agreed to publish the full agreement. However, parts in the agreement are hidden under black marks. Why?


https://govextra.gov.il/media/30806/11221-moh-pfizer-collaboration-agreement-redacted.pdf
 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
Canadian doctors, Dr. Chris Shaw and Dr. Stephen Malthouse share their frontline experience.

 

DFR6868

Master Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,764
Reaction score
11
another data oddity... but what the heck, there are billions to be made, full steam ahead.

nothing works like true trickle down economics :s13:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/astrazeneca-lied-patients-about-dosing-mistake-during-trial

Once the interim results were in following the dosing debacle, the picture got even more muddy: 90% efficacy was seen for people that received the first half dose while the rate for those who received two full doses was 62%, totally confounding researchers. Altogether, the efficacy for both groups combined was 70.4%.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top