1. People dropping dead in the streets.
This is how the media portrayed Covid19 at the beginning: a disease so dangerous that people walking along the street suddenly dropped down dead. Virtually all the UK media carried these photos. It's very odd that in the first two pictures, and variants of them in other papers, those emergency workers have no equipment with them, and appear to be just standing around doing nothing. Are these faked photos? There have been no reports of people dropping dead in the street anywhere since then. And if it had been true in China, the virus would have been noticed very quickly. We now know that the symptoms are indistinguishable from colds, flu or pneumonia. These photos were the start of the Coronapanic lies.
2. Three Percent Will Die.
The WHO put out this 3% death rate figure early on. You don't need to be a maths wizard to know that's one person in thirty. That's a serious reason to panic. We now know that the death rate is around 0.1%. That's about one in a thousand, and comparable to seasonal flu. But just as important, the figures are massively skewed towards people around eighty who have at least two existing serious conditions, and are already in a care home: people who have minimal quality of life, and little remaining expectation of life. For younger, healthy people, and younger here can mean under seventy, never mind twenty or thirty, the risk of death is vanishingly small.
3. Herd Immunity is a Dangerous Idea.
This is one of the most serious corruptions of science ever. You don't need a degree in epidemiology to know that epidemics come and go. The very definition of the word implies that. (Conversely, a disease which stays around for many years is called endemic.) You do need to know just a smidgen of epidemiology to understand why epidemics come and go. It's not rocket science. When the new disease arrives, everybody is susceptible to it, because it is new and therefore nobody has any immunity. The disease can race through the population, but as it does so it leaves immune people in its wake. As the number of immune people grows, the disease finds it harder and harder to spread. When the number of immune people reaches a certain point (which varies with different diseases) the bug can find no new people to infect, so the bug itself effectively dies. That point is called herd immunity. It is the only way to defeat a new virus. But see number 4.
4. We Need a Vaccine to Give us Herd Immunity.
Vaccines work by creating artificial herd immunity, but that's no better than natural herd immunity. And the simple fact is, as everyone knows, we don't have a vaccine. How long will it take to make one, test it properly, and roll it out? Eighteen months? Three years? Never? In any event, even if we use a vaccine before proper safety testing, it will still take longer than it does to reach herd immunity naturally. (And note that the Common Cold is also often caused by some other Coronaviruses. Still no sign of a vaccine for any of those.)
5. Lockdowns Work.
The evidence here is very, very weak. It is common sense that they must have some effect. But we have New York, with a hard lockdown and massive deaths, while Tokyo with a minimal lockdown has hardly any. Or Sweden with a very mild lockdown having a lower death rate than Britain with a draconian one. Or Spain and Portugal, which together make up the Iberian Peninsula, having massively different death rates. There is another factor, or factors, involved here, and the mass media seem to have no concern as to what they might be. Happily there are some scientists who do seek to explain the differences. Several factors have been put forward with good evidence:
1 Vitamin D plays a huge role in the immune system, and variations in deficiency certainly play a part, at least in individual cases. In fact, it is negligent of the Government not to have promoted Vitamin D supplementation on a large scale.One could tease out many other factors, but not one comes close to the Grand Deal-Breaker in Epidemiology, which is immunity. Immunity is the principal reason people do not get sick with any disease. Hence the primary factor in differential death rates must be how long different countries had the virus before they realised. As the infection travelled through populations, confused with colds and flu, it was steadily building immunity. China has a truly miniscule number of deaths given its huge population. The virus there was on the rampage right through Winter Flu Season, before they realised there was something new. When they did, they locked down, and the lockdown appeared to be very effective; but only because they were already close to herd immunity. The countries surrounding China, which have a great deal of intercourse with it, have similarly low death rates (Vietnam, nobody at all!) How and when the virus got into other countries is difficult to unravel now; but one should be aware that Wuhan Airport is a major hub, with flights all over the world. We can reasonably infer that Norway, for example, was infected early, yielding the much lower recorded deaths later. Such a conclusion is borne out by the fact that, having now eased its lockdown, cases are still going down. In other words, there is no sign of a "Second Wave". After a tight and effective lockdown preventing transmission, and also therefore preventing the growth of immunity, there should indeed be a second wave. The lack of one points very strongly to previously acquired immunity. (In all of this New York remains the ultimate outlier, and I'm no more prepared to attempt a complete explanation of NY statistics at this stage than anybody else.)
2 Flu vaccines also play a role in causing worse outcome with Coronaviruses. The mechanism is called vaccine-induced viral interference. Naturally those who make vaccines are not keen for you to know about such undesirable side-effects.
3 Obesity is a negative indicator, which will partly explain New York's high death rate. One of the oddest Covid statistics to date is that out of the small number of deaths in Japan, no less than seven are Sumo Wrestlers!
6. Lockdown Does Not Cause More Deaths than it Saves.
The leaked figure of 150,000 lockdown-caused deaths has never been refuted by the UK Government. It is only common sense that with the NHS shut down to almost everyone, there will be more deaths from other causes. Also more suicides, more domestic violence, and the array of problems that increase mortality when poverty increases. The economic crash is going to have a big effect there. And do we regard the suicide of a healthy 20-year-old as equivalent to the death of an ailing 85-year old? Lockdown is not a One-Way Street when it comes to saving lives; more likely a Wrong-Way Street.
7. Being Infected May Not (or Does Not) Make You Immune.
This is a truly bizarre assumption to make about any specific infection. (Note that the Common Cold, which is endemic, is caused by a number of different viruses.) This "fact" was allegedly based on some people who seemed to be infected twice. But the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between Colds, Flu, Covid19 and Pneumonia means this was always a ridiculous conclusion to reach. And if it were true it would be a one shot kill of the "Race for a Vaccine." Vaccines only work because they stimulate the immune system in the way a natural infection does. If Covid19 did not provoke a normal immune response, any vaccine would be useless.
8. Having Covid Means Having Serious Symptoms.
In the beginning of this sorry saga, the most serious symptom, as noted in Lie 1 above, was instant death. Now we know that it mostly has no symptoms at all, or presents like a Common Cold. All the World's highly-paid and endlessly-promoted "experts" somehow didn't notice this.
9. Masks Work.
If they do, why can't we all wear them and get back to normal? If they don't, why are we ever recommended to use them? The effectiveness or otherwise of masks has been a controversial matter for months. Some Doctors have said that healthy people wearing them outside of a clinical setting is definitely a bad idea. Is the mask controversy just another way to ramp up fear and confusion?
10. Two Meter Social Distancing is Necessary.
There is no good science behind this. In Norway, with its incredibly low death rate, they use one metre. And there is never a reference to whether you are indoors or out. If you breathe out virus indoors, it has little choice but to hang around in the room for a while. If you are outside in fairly still air, which has a speed of about 2 metres per second, the virus you breathed out 2 seconds ago is already 4 metres away. And because the air you breathe out is always warmer than the surrounding air, and warm air rises, that potentially virus-laden air will rise up outside with no ceiling to stop it. So two metres is not necessary in Norway, but it is in England, whether you are in a small room or on a breezy beach. Is this fear-mongering nonsense, or science? It is certainly not the latter.
11. Money has Nothing to do with Any of This.
The influence and mega-bucks of Bill Gates and Big Pharma is supposedly not skewing the debate. Bill Gates's donations to Prof Lockdown Ferguson's Imperial College, or to the WHO, make no difference, and Bill Gates's desire to produce seven billion doses of vaccine does not give him a financial interest. Bill Gates is a nice guy who knows a lot about computer viruses, so we should all look to him as our Saviour from this virus. I fancy there's more logic in Alice in Wonderland.
12. The Destruction of Basic Human Rights is a Price Worth Paying.
People being under virtual House Arrest, with Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Work, Freedom to attend School, all curtailed, is OK? The introduction of mass personal surveillance is a good thing? If a foreign invader threatened our Rights like that we would fight for them, and accept casualties in the process. Why are we suddenly turning that logic on its head, and deciding to give up Rights to (possibly) save lives? Do we all fondly imagine that we will soon have our Rights back? History shows that Rights are generally hard won, and once lost they are very hard to get back. And if you think you still have Freedom of Speech, try as I and others have, to put across a view that is different to the Government. Yes, you can get it across to a few. But if it reaches many more, Google, or YouTube, or Facebook will soon censor it. If you are reading this article, it is because you are one of a small number, meaning the article is still below the censor's radar, or the popularity level that triggers censorship.
In those wonderful days before Covid19, we all knew that Politicians, Journalists and Salesmen are inveterate Purveyors of Porky Pies. Now these same people are regarded as Saints and Saviours, with absolutely nothing but our best interests and well-being in their hearts. It is a fact, meaning a real one, not a fake one, that I can think of no topic ever that has had so many utterly bizarre lies told about it. It is also a fact that I cannot think of any matter where politicians around the World all suddenly started braying like donkeys with the same awful hoo-ha. And also a fact that I cannot think of any occurrence which has simultaneously destroyed human rights and wrecked the economy across the entire Globe. Is it not odd that all of those three extreme observations should apply to the very same little virus? If anyone can't see a problem here, it can only be that Coronapanic has totally obliterated their thought processes.
Reader Comments
Vaccines don't create any herd immunity at all. There have been measles and whooping cough outbreaks in 90+% vaccinated populations. Any immunity from a vaccine is very short lived and is gone once the effects of the adjuvants wear off. Of course, some of the effects of adjuvants that have no effect on immunity and result in physical and mental disabilities, are permanent.
Vaccine makers like to refer to vaccinations as "immunization". That is a bald faced lie.
If and when there is a vaccine, you can bet it will cause more damage than good.
Coronavirus and Covid-19 being used inter-changeably. They are NOT the same thing and in fact unrelated.
Coronavirus=common cold
Covid-19=genetically engineered pathogen
So beware when you read or listen to MSM. The deliberate wordplay is always right in front of your nose.
Stick that in you disestablishmentarianism pipe and smoke it.
Or superfragicagilisticiexpialidocious, what every you prefer.
Mary Poppins would be proud, because I am practically perfect, in every way. Except for all of those other ways.
Sweden has one of the higher rates per 100,000 of deaths in Europe (and the highest in Scandinavia) because of its 'herd immunity' approach becuase it didnt introduce lock-down-unlike it neighbours- its hard to see how its economy will recover any time soon with other countries not wishing to interact with its population.
Human Rights is a moveable feast. Does one have the right to inflict your potential fatal disease on others? Is having an income right now and the right to move where you please more important than your life and the life of your family members and your neighbours?
In New Zealand where I live, 99.9 % of the population willingly subscribed to intense lockdown; as an relatively well educated population we can understood the risks. We now have COVID19 under control here.
Nothing I have ever read to date talks about 'instant death" -but COVID-19 has a very high infection rate and a relatively high mortality rate- it is undoubtedly a high risk disease.
Articles like these are both foolish and dangerous
If you want to tell lies on this site, you need to learn English. STFU already.
The only curve that has been flattened is the economy, perhaps permanently. People die all the time. Nobody is going to change that. But, the quality of life and human dignity must come first, otherwise, what is the point? An authoritarian follower will never understand that.
The fact that it's 'under control' in no way implies it would have been out of control had different actions been taken.
What's abundantly clear is that the effects in non-lockdown countries are the same as in lockdown countries, so saying 'the lockdown works' is not based on any real data or facts.
To make that statement there's a LOT you are conveniently leaving out. Like perhaps, oh, how many locked down were later found to be infected? Dead, but bot of a 'virus'. Dead for speaking out, dead for organs, dead for any number of reasons.
Remember the apt building where they had people infected because they thought the "virus" was coming through the pipes? If you lock-down people and you lockdown any way for the people to communicate, how accurate can the numbers be trusted?
PURE PROPAGANDA Sensationalizing the actual data. YES YOU JUST MIGHT SEE HIGHER RATES OF PEOPLE INFECTED within SWEDEN, (THAT IS HOW YOU GET TO HERD IMMUNITY!)
Higher death tolls, perhaps, but we can't look at this from such a limited timeline. Perhaps by the fall, this will begin to show quite different stats. Then the numbers will balance out. Sweden will be well under the curve by then, and other nations will likely rise.
(that being said, I do not subscribe to the narrative about this "virus".)
If you look at this you MUST LOOK at the numbers per capita +/- firstly. Sweden has the highest population of any of the Nordic countries (10 M+) Using Europe as a comparable is bologna. To accurately measure the outcome one must use comparative statistics +over time .
Do you see what I am saying to you?
The other variable is: are we talking infected over/ mortality?
Additionally, if a country "tests" more of its population than others, this will give a lop-sided statistic. *( this depends also on the accuracy of "testing" which is at best a shot in the dark and quite shady if you ask me.
All of this is HUGELY affected by the methods in which the reporting is done.
Some countries seem to be over-reporting, and some under. There's no clear metric that is being used. Therefore impossible to create any 'universal data' that gives an accurate study.
To put a fine point on this topic;
if each country varies significantly in testing/reporting, etc. One must also conclude that the number of deaths are not being accurately reported. More importantly in the case of mortality rate accuracy. There would have to be a universal study on "lockdowns' x ACTUAL COVID deaths to see if the mortality rate is affected by so called, "lock-downs".
I believe that Sweden had the best interests of their people in mind. I do not think that they ever intended to prevent the "virus" , or to stop deaths . I think they knew that there would be deaths. And understanding that probability, they made the choice that others seemed to suggest was ill thought out. Other nations seemed to do nothing but bully and criticize Sweden for acting on interest of logic, and sparing their people of even greater suffering. They decided it best to use the metrics of time-tested examples of nature's own bio-abilities. The problem is, we have far too many politi-science agendas that are given free rein to intervene in HUMANS LIVES.
Yes, they have had deaths in Sweden. But the question is; any more so than years of severe flu? However more importantly, they did not actively contribute to more deaths by introducing archaic and medieval methods of torture and lockdowns -which in this country, and in others, has taken more lives by secondary effect. By the way, when the numbers come out, this country and others who locked down and destroyed their economies, may have as a result killed and endangered FAR MORE LIVES.
NO, I DO BELIEVE SWEDEN has made the decision that will turn out to be on-top for their population. Meanwhile, here in this upside down tyrannical loony tune theater; those who are fearfully-depriving their own immunity, are likely suppressing their most vital defenses) our own built in immune system) ( fragile sections of society have always been told to isolate themselves.)
Will the mask-wearing/isolated population have what is needed to fight off even the common flu/cold when they finally do remove the (almighty MASK)?
Perhaps that is what it is all about?
A sick population? Population control. a 2nd wave to count on?
Bottom line, Sweden just may have the last word, and come out on top of this "planned-demonic" event.
And if you're willing to sacrifice your freedom for illusory safety, then that's your right too.
You have COVID 'under control?' Hilarious! You don't prevent a virus from spreading by locking everyone down. You maybe slow the spread, but those who are going to get it, are going to get it eventually. It will spread until either enough people have immunity that this limits the spread, or it mutates into a less contagious form - whichever comes first.
You are BRAINWASHED by the word 'pandemic' being repeated over and over and over. I pray that you develop immunity to that word so you can think!
. . . and/or . . .
/end nitpicking :-)
I know these claims were made, and I could look them up, but I'd like to share this with others, who would not, and likely dismiss the claims..
Add Citations please!
As it's my job, we were following this potential threat since december in China. We had excellent data from China, the cruise ships, South Korea, and Italy long before anyone panicked here. I remember the day the switch was flipped... full-on mass public hysteria... for no factual reason. Strangest thing ever... as if there's some quantum control thread that runs through most people's brains but not mine....
Viruses and Lies
There is only one โ gold standard โ method for identifying a virus so that you can be sure what is in your test tube. It is: isolate and purify your sample so that it only contains what you want to look at. Take electron-microscope photographs of it. Compare them with electron-microscope photographs from other known viruses. Thatโs it.
ALL virologists agree on that point.
Hereโs the thing: NO ONE is claiming they have done that with HIV or COVID-19. No one. The claim of a NOVEL virus is invalid. If you think otherwise, show us your work, your electron-microscope photos, your analysis.
The โdiscovererโ of HIV, Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier (the man credited with its discovery), makes a point of saying he never did that. No one claims to have done that with COVID-19.
So, ALL claims to having identified COVID-19 in animals, including humans, are lies that they know are lies. They KNOW that their tests CANNOT be identifying COVID-19 because they havenโt IDENTIFIED COVID-19 as a novel virus. Right?
If they havenโt done that, and arenโt claiming to have done that, why not? Have they run out of money to do that after spending trillions of dollars to fight the โvirusโ?
What do their tests identify? Doesnโt matter because they are lying about COVID-19. If they will lie about that, then they will lie about everything. They know the gold standard and they arenโt using it, which means they ARE lying about everything, deaths, cases, treatments, vaccines and so forth.
Now we come to the fine tip of the spear. Would the folks lying to the world about Corona virus and everything associated with it, those same folks who then severely crippled the worldโs economy, do all of that as a prank, a joke? They know they are lying. We (who care to know) know they are lying. Why arenโt they afraid of us?
The only reason that makes sense is that they are not worried about people who donโt know how to think rationally, who are unable to think logically. They have been working for decades to provide mal-education and/or to drive people into poverty in order to limit the number of โthinkersโ so strongly that (they believe) the remaining thinkers do not pose a threat.
There is one more piece. Most people lie to themselves. Most people are afraid of being caught lying. So, when a person (who might be able to think calmly in normal times) has their fear level raised dramatically by people telling huge obvious lies to them, such a person is immediately reminded of their own lying. Then rationality, logic and reason are out of reach.
If you canโt stop lying to yourself, you canโt do anything about the people who are lying in order to wreck or control the world. If you canโt stop lying to yourself, how can you think of yourself as an honest person? More: [Link]
But a question I've always had is can they prove this new bug is what's causing the ocassional pneumonia-type spikes of disease?
In other words, there are likely 1000 or more 'novel' unsequenced viruses in and around us all the time. It'd be highly likely there are thousands of microbes in play in the human respiratory tract, most of which are benign.
So purification down to a visible common bug AND then proving that bug causes the symptoms we see.
'Cause from the spread in the US in February according to PCR, we know the c1984 was everywhere already. The odd pockets of death don't correlate with that spread.
I bet there are many bugs at play here we aren't even looking for, and probably don't need to.
So let's think this through.
A) They have NOT isolated pure COVID-19 (and actually don't claim to)
B) Without isolating it and comparing it to other properly purified and identified viruses, it CANNOT be claimed to be NOVEL (in other words, it could be any old virus)
C) So, no matter what test they come up with they don't know what it's testing because they haven't taken the right steps (at all) in the right order.
From that:
A) Some tests (by no means all) seem to identify SOME of whatever is infecting people. (could be a number of viruses circulating out there and an individual could have more than one of them at the same time.)
B) HCQ + AZ reduces the severity of symptoms of whatever people do have quicker than no treatment and positive test responses go down at the same time
First conclusion: HCQ + AZ is pretty damn good (98.7%) at controlling/eliminating whatever viruses people actually have currently.
There's the kicker. We don't know what they have and it is common for several viruses and strains of the same virus to be floating around at the same time. That is colloquially called "The Cold and Flu season."
Hypothesis: HCQ + AZ is a general cure-all for many flu viruses and cold viruses (there are a fair number of different types of both) and perhaps other viruses. Dare I say, Tamiflu that works?
Questions: Did I miss something somewhere? Is there a hole in my logic?
In a smaller hospital here HCQ/AZ did not work at all, and I live with the person preparing it. They shifted away from it pretty quickly. One possibility is that reports of HCQ/AZ working when given early could be simply that this is in fact a weak-ass disease in most people with 99%+ likely to be fine with no intervention. In other words, they were fine in spite of the HCQ. In the sicker people it seemed to have no effect in the small sample we saw.
Why they are lying, the end goal they have in mind and many other aspects of our now headless chicken society are up for debate. But, if you don't start from the fact that they are lying, you won't get far or you will be way off course.
She tells some truths, yes, but I consider her a limited hang out, a distraction from staying focused on the truth. This kind of truth is simple to understand but difficult to keep your mind wrapped around.
They claim there is a novel virus.
They never offer any proof of that, but hey, presto-chango here's a test for it.
I cannot find any credible photos of a virus that is so important that they are fucking the whole world on account of it. That's not just odd, that's impossible (if it were real).
My conclusion: They are lying about the most fundamental fact of this cock up, which means they are always lying about everything (including the odd moments when they tell the truth because it suits them).
ALL THE REST, the emotional first person stories the photos of patients, the arguing over the "correct" medical and social responses to this thing, all of it is just to distract you from seeing that they lied in the beginning and haven't (won't be) stopped.
(And I haven't noticed her saying that in over 10 interviews I've seen with her.)
And yes, why couldn't she have had it; tens of thousands already have and yeah it's a sh*tty 'flu and they're over it and back on with their lives, just like those same tens of thousands have been thru other sh*tty 'flu-s and subsequently gone on with their lives.
Good Optics (just below) confirms what I remember from the interview.
As for why it can't be the case that anyone claiming to have had COVID-19 is telling the truth (even if they don't know they aren't telling the truth:
Quoiting myself from above -- So, ALL claims to having identified COVID-19 in animals, including humans, are lies that they know are lies. They KNOW that their tests CANNOT be identifying COVID-19 because they havenโt IDENTIFIED COVID-19 as a novel virus . Right?
You can't have what doesn't exist scientifically . Are there things out there making people sick? Yes. Absolutely. Do we know what they are? Not if that means that someone has done the scientific leg work to prove their existence, because they haven't . Or, if they have, the research is certainly not publicly available. COVID-19 is just a NAME that they have attached to the illness (s) people are experiencing. It doesn't have any scientific meaning.
First, let's not confuse 'anecdotal' (rumor), with 'empirical' (data). The data from a number of trials show a positive effect overall. There do not seem to have been any honest double-blind studies. Why not?
There can be good explanations for the different results in the different trials.
It was understood even in the successful trials that earlier intervention had more success.
Unethical manipulation is another. Population treated (nursing homes vs. general public) is another yet another. Viral strain present in the test setting (we still don't know what the pathogens actually are).
BUT, only HCQ has been tested. To my knowledge, of the several thousands involved in honest trials, only an exceedingly small number of people died.
However, all that begs the question: T hey know the gold standard for virus identification. Why haven't they used it? Whatever the answer is, it cannot be based on science or ethics.
When COVID patients were first being put on ventilators, the medical workers were following protocols. Sadly, those protocols directly killed most of them by exploding their lungs with too high a pressure differential for their conditions. It may not have been malicious behavior. But you also can't say that we shouldn't use ventilators because of that. When the upper and maintenance pressures were set appropriately, patients did better. Blame the protocols and the medical chiefs of treatment for not recognizing the problem and responding immediately. Apparently a ventilator is only as 'smart' as the protocol being used.
Even in innocent settings, many of the results of whatever treatment were probably due to the protocols more than any other thing.
This may have identified a new and fatal disease: failure to convince enough smart people to work in the punishing medical system; people who understand (among other things) how and when to disregard protocols.
They've switched to high-flow O2 and have much better results although the surge has long since passed.