![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
Corona Virus News & Info
- Thread starter stAGgering
- Start date
2 minute segment of a conference featuring a German who states that "oligarchs" including those in the US (and gave Google as an example) benefit from the lockdowns and that they are not science based, and are harming the children etc. I would like to watch the whole video -it's a breath of fresh air.
Last edited:
Virus particle size ranges from 70–90 nm.
The size of contaminants and particles are usually described in microns, a metric unit of measure where
- one micron is one-millionth of a meter
- 1 micron = 10-6 m = 1 μm
- 1 inch = 25400 microns
- 1 micron = 1 / 25400 inch
Typical size of contaminants and particles are indicated below. Note that the values varies widely depending on how the products are processed. By example milling corn starch in 30 minutes can reduce the average diameter of starch particles from 10 to 0.3 microns (μm, 10-6 m). Further milling may produce particles even smaller than 0.1 microns.
- one micron is one-millionth of a metre
- 1 micron = 10-6 m
- 1 micron = 1000 nano metre
if I've got this right... to avoid comparing apples to oranges...
"nm" - Nanometer = One thousandth of a micron
100 Nanometers to Microns = 0.1
So according to your chart... with more than 2 lines for "smoke", confusing the "issue"...
A virus size range is just below one tenth of a micron
Smoke from natural substances is between 0.01 and 0.1 microns, and from "wood" up to 2.5 microns, so from one 100th to one 10th (to 2.5x) of a micron, so from much smaller to 2.5 larger than a virus...
So you'd essentially need a more performant mask for smoke than for viruses, i.e. "canister industrial masks"...
"nm" - Nanometer = One thousandth of a micron
100 Nanometers to Microns = 0.1
So according to your chart... with more than 2 lines for "smoke", confusing the "issue"...
A virus size range is just below one tenth of a micron
Smoke from natural substances is between 0.01 and 0.1 microns, and from "wood" up to 2.5 microns, so from one 100th to one 10th (to 2.5x) of a micron, so from much smaller to 2.5 larger than a virus...
So you'd essentially need a more performant mask for smoke than for viruses, i.e. "canister industrial masks"...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
If you haven't found it yet, here you go:
And Robert Kennedy Jr. speaking at the Festival:
Berlin Festival for Freedom and Peace - Anti-CV19 Government (14 min 57 sec):
And Robert Kennedy Jr. speaking at the Festival:
Robert F. Kennedy jr., speech at the Festival for Freedom and Peace, Germany Berlin, August 29, 2020 (12 min 25 sec):
Published on Aug 30, 2020 by Samuel Degen
virus .01 to .3 micron distribution typical (this is a simplification because endotoxin or parts of the virus could cause unwanted reactions). Coronavirus is around 0.1 micron
smoke, much wider distribution but as small as 0.01
the misnomer is that you can’t directly compare particle sizes when speaking about filtration because
1) affinity (propensity of particles to dimerize or stick together)
2) hydrophobicity (Degree of water repellency)
3) shape (not all virus and bacteria are round)
the rule of thumb in filtration is the barrier needs to be 2-3 times smaller than the retentate because of pore size variation in the filtration media
for viruses, they are in the moisture particles when people cough, which effectively makes them easier to retain by mask than a dehydrated smoke particle because the moisture mist size is much larger. Stop the mist and the virus is stopped.
the danger is the concept of absolute filtration (I.e sterility). No one rates UF at 100%. If a virus or two get through they can replicate. A rouge particle of smoke = meh
smoke, much wider distribution but as small as 0.01
the misnomer is that you can’t directly compare particle sizes when speaking about filtration because
1) affinity (propensity of particles to dimerize or stick together)
2) hydrophobicity (Degree of water repellency)
3) shape (not all virus and bacteria are round)
the rule of thumb in filtration is the barrier needs to be 2-3 times smaller than the retentate because of pore size variation in the filtration media
for viruses, they are in the moisture particles when people cough, which effectively makes them easier to retain by mask than a dehydrated smoke particle because the moisture mist size is much larger. Stop the mist and the virus is stopped.
the danger is the concept of absolute filtration (I.e sterility). No one rates UF at 100%. If a virus or two get through they can replicate. A rouge particle of smoke = meh
Last edited:
But not all are retained. Most will float free because of leakage around the edges of the masks. If they are not tight fitting, the air will take the path of least resistance. Ie: around the edge.
Once in the air, it might get trapped in someone elses mask. Once retained there, those moisture particles begin to dry out. Once that happens, it leaves the actual virus particle ready to be picked up in the next breath of air.
Once in the air, it might get trapped in someone elses mask. Once retained there, those moisture particles begin to dry out. Once that happens, it leaves the actual virus particle ready to be picked up in the next breath of air.
yes, mask fit is everything
if you’ve ever had respirator or formal fit testing you learn this pretty Quickly
they pop foul smoke near your face and it either fits or you know it. this is the day everyone usually decides they don’t want facial hair anymore
cloth masks are ridiculous. N95 is the minimum functional option.
i was trying to describe the size and filtration mechanism
if you’ve ever had respirator or formal fit testing you learn this pretty Quickly
they pop foul smoke near your face and it either fits or you know it. this is the day everyone usually decides they don’t want facial hair anymore
cloth masks are ridiculous. N95 is the minimum functional option.
i was trying to describe the size and filtration mechanism
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,774
- Likes
- 15,493
https://news.yahoo.com/former-federal-prosecutor-trump-admitted-190200145.html
Former fed prosecutor says Trump should face 190,000 charges of 2nd degree murder for covid response.......talk about jumping the shark....the Fonz would be proud
Former fed prosecutor says Trump should face 190,000 charges of 2nd degree murder for covid response.......talk about jumping the shark....the Fonz would be proud
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 11,259
- Likes
- 21,708
Went to a flea market today. 80 deg warm day. Guessing 1500-2000 people while I was there. Vendors were down by 1/3. People were down by 1/3.
Probably 1500-2000 people there. Maybe 10% mostly older people wearing masks. Half of those wearing masks were wearing them wrong with their noses hanging out or off their ear or whatever.
Probably 1500-2000 people there. Maybe 10% mostly older people wearing masks. Half of those wearing masks were wearing them wrong with their noses hanging out or off their ear or whatever.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
Could the beer virus be an exercise to formally bankrupt the overt governments of the world? There is more than a small possibility the "stimulus" spending by governments the world over (all borrowed) they are undertaking is not able to be repaid.
What triggered this train of thought was a little snippet I heard regarding the stimulus being provided in the EU. To be upfront, I haven't been able to verify it but what I did hear on DW (Deutsche Welle) radio was that there were foreclosure provisions specifically listed in the paperwork associated with the stimulus packages in Germany. My understanding is that if true, this is a first as T-bills or other bonds have been the sole means of raising funds for governments in excess of taxation.
This is an exceptionally dangerous scenario.
What triggered this train of thought was a little snippet I heard regarding the stimulus being provided in the EU. To be upfront, I haven't been able to verify it but what I did hear on DW (Deutsche Welle) radio was that there were foreclosure provisions specifically listed in the paperwork associated with the stimulus packages in Germany. My understanding is that if true, this is a first as T-bills or other bonds have been the sole means of raising funds for governments in excess of taxation.
This is an exceptionally dangerous scenario.
Nebraska to end nearly all social distancing restrictions
By GRANT SCHULTE
September 10, 2020
FILE - In this Aug. 20, 2020 file photo, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts addresses Republican supporters during the opening of the Nebraska Trump Victory Office in Omaha, Neb. Ricketts will end nearly all of his state's social-distancing restrictions on Monday, Sept. 14, 2020, even as the number of new coronavirus cases has trended upward over the last few months. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik File)
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts will end nearly all of his state’s social-distancing restrictions on Monday even as the number of new coronavirus cases has trended upward over the last few months.
The new rules will still limit the size of large indoor gatherings, such as concerts, meeting halls and theaters, but will drop all other state-imposed mandates in favor of voluntary guidelines, as other conservative states have done.
“We are loosening the restrictions further on Sept. 14,” Ricketts said at a news conference.
State officials said they made the decision based on the availability of hospital beds and ventilators, in keeping with the Republican governor’s goal of not overwhelming medical facilities.
“The goal has always been to protect hospital capacity, and capacity remains stable,” said Ricketts spokesman Taylor Gage.
Nebraska’s hospitals have 36% of their regular beds, 31% of their intensive care unit beds and 81% of their ventilators available, according to the state’s online tracking portal. Those numbers have changed little in the last few months.
The new rules will apply statewide except in Lancaster County, which includes the state capital of of Lincoln, home to the University of Nebraska’s flagship campus. They’ve already been in effect in 27 of Nebraska’s 93 counties, but those areas are overwhelmingly rural and have seen few confirmed cases.
Nebraska will also allow smaller indoor facilities, such as bars, restaurants, churches, gyms and hair salons, to operate with no formal restrictions. State guidance still recommends limiting crowd sizes, but those guidelines aren’t enforceable.
Under the new rules, larger indoor venues such as concert halls can allow gatherings of up to 75% of their rated capacity, up from 50%. Additionally, Ricketts said people who want a gathering of 500 people or more will have to get approval from their local public health director.
The state’s shift won’t affect mask requirements in Omaha and Lincoln. Both cities still require people to wear face coverings in most indoor spaces when they aren’t able to stay at least 6 feet (2 meters) apart.
Lincoln-Lancaster County Public Health Director Pat Lopez has said her county won’t ease its restrictions this month because of a recent increase in cases driven by returning college students and the reopening of Lincoln Public Schools, the state’s second-largest school district.
“This is the time not only to stay the course, but also to redouble our efforts in Lancaster County,” Lopez said. “We need to do what is best for our community to overcome the impacts of this virus.”
Nebraska has confirmed 36,917 coronavirus cases and 421 deaths since the pandemic began, according to the state’s tracking portal.
Nebraska saw a sharp spike in cases on Tuesday and Wednesday, but that was the result of a glitch that slowed the reporting of test results. For several days before that, the state’s public health data system wasn’t receiving results even though laboratories were processing tests.
Even so, the number of confirmed cases has trended upward since early July. Nebraska ranks 15th highest in the rate of positive cases as of this week, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.
Neighboring Iowa and South Dakota have seen even higher rates. On Sunday, the White House coronavirus task force sent a report saying Iowa had the third-highest rate of new cases in the country over the previous week. A week earlier, Iowa had the nation’s steepest rate of new cases.
___
Follow Grant Schulte on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GrantSchulte
By GRANT SCHULTE
September 10, 2020
FILE - In this Aug. 20, 2020 file photo, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts addresses Republican supporters during the opening of the Nebraska Trump Victory Office in Omaha, Neb. Ricketts will end nearly all of his state's social-distancing restrictions on Monday, Sept. 14, 2020, even as the number of new coronavirus cases has trended upward over the last few months. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik File)
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts will end nearly all of his state’s social-distancing restrictions on Monday even as the number of new coronavirus cases has trended upward over the last few months.
The new rules will still limit the size of large indoor gatherings, such as concerts, meeting halls and theaters, but will drop all other state-imposed mandates in favor of voluntary guidelines, as other conservative states have done.
“We are loosening the restrictions further on Sept. 14,” Ricketts said at a news conference.
State officials said they made the decision based on the availability of hospital beds and ventilators, in keeping with the Republican governor’s goal of not overwhelming medical facilities.
“The goal has always been to protect hospital capacity, and capacity remains stable,” said Ricketts spokesman Taylor Gage.
Nebraska’s hospitals have 36% of their regular beds, 31% of their intensive care unit beds and 81% of their ventilators available, according to the state’s online tracking portal. Those numbers have changed little in the last few months.
The new rules will apply statewide except in Lancaster County, which includes the state capital of of Lincoln, home to the University of Nebraska’s flagship campus. They’ve already been in effect in 27 of Nebraska’s 93 counties, but those areas are overwhelmingly rural and have seen few confirmed cases.
Nebraska will also allow smaller indoor facilities, such as bars, restaurants, churches, gyms and hair salons, to operate with no formal restrictions. State guidance still recommends limiting crowd sizes, but those guidelines aren’t enforceable.
Under the new rules, larger indoor venues such as concert halls can allow gatherings of up to 75% of their rated capacity, up from 50%. Additionally, Ricketts said people who want a gathering of 500 people or more will have to get approval from their local public health director.
The state’s shift won’t affect mask requirements in Omaha and Lincoln. Both cities still require people to wear face coverings in most indoor spaces when they aren’t able to stay at least 6 feet (2 meters) apart.
Lincoln-Lancaster County Public Health Director Pat Lopez has said her county won’t ease its restrictions this month because of a recent increase in cases driven by returning college students and the reopening of Lincoln Public Schools, the state’s second-largest school district.
“This is the time not only to stay the course, but also to redouble our efforts in Lancaster County,” Lopez said. “We need to do what is best for our community to overcome the impacts of this virus.”
Nebraska has confirmed 36,917 coronavirus cases and 421 deaths since the pandemic began, according to the state’s tracking portal.
Nebraska saw a sharp spike in cases on Tuesday and Wednesday, but that was the result of a glitch that slowed the reporting of test results. For several days before that, the state’s public health data system wasn’t receiving results even though laboratories were processing tests.
Even so, the number of confirmed cases has trended upward since early July. Nebraska ranks 15th highest in the rate of positive cases as of this week, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.
Neighboring Iowa and South Dakota have seen even higher rates. On Sunday, the White House coronavirus task force sent a report saying Iowa had the third-highest rate of new cases in the country over the previous week. A week earlier, Iowa had the nation’s steepest rate of new cases.
___
Follow Grant Schulte on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GrantSchulte
A social engineering app, potential 'social scoring' app, contact tracing app, which accepts body function 'feedback' transmitted from Qdots(vaccine injected 'nano-chips'). It's already implemented in China... We're the next target....
What the END GAME of this Entire "EVENT" Actually is. W/Dr Carrie Madej
What the END GAME of this Entire "EVENT" Actually is. W/Dr Carrie Madej
https://triblive.com/local/regional...-wolfs-shutdown-orders-were-unconstitutional/
Federal judge rules Gov. Wolf’s shutdown orders were unconstitutional
PAULA REED WARD | Monday, September 14, 2020 12:29 p.m.
Join the conversation ( 176 )
AP
EMAIL NEWSLETTERS
TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.
A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Monday found that orders issued by Gov. Tom Wolf restricting the size of gatherings and closing non-essential businesses to protect against the spread of covid-19 were unconstitutional.
In a statement, Wolf said his office will seek an immediate stay to halt the order and file an appeal.
U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV wrote in his 66-page opinion that even though the actions taken in the spring by Wolf and Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine were laudable, they violated the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
“It’s a complete and total victory for the counties, the businesses and the representatives,” said attorney Thomas W. King III, who represented the plaintiffs in the case. “You can’t order the entire population of Pennsylvania to stay at home.”
Federal judge rules Gov. Wolf’s shutdown orders were unconstitutional
PAULA REED WARD | Monday, September 14, 2020 12:29 p.m.
Join the conversation ( 176 )
AP
Gov. Tom Wolf
EMAIL NEWSLETTERS
TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.
A federal judge in Pittsburgh on Monday found that orders issued by Gov. Tom Wolf restricting the size of gatherings and closing non-essential businesses to protect against the spread of covid-19 were unconstitutional.
In a statement, Wolf said his office will seek an immediate stay to halt the order and file an appeal.
U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV wrote in his 66-page opinion that even though the actions taken in the spring by Wolf and Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine were laudable, they violated the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
“It’s a complete and total victory for the counties, the businesses and the representatives,” said attorney Thomas W. King III, who represented the plaintiffs in the case. “You can’t order the entire population of Pennsylvania to stay at home.”
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
Judge: Pennsylvania's pandemic restrictions unconstitutional
https://www.wtae.com/article/judge-...lf-shutdown-orders-unconstitutional/34013103#
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 11,259
- Likes
- 21,708
The paper is at link.
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X1_kGtR7mpp
September 14, 2020 Journal article Open Access
Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.
https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.X1_kGtR7mpp
September 14, 2020 Journal article Open Access
Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
YouTube Censors White House Health Advisor Scott Atlas
AIER Staff – September 14, 2020
https://www.aier.org/article/youtube-censors-white-house-health-advisor/
AIER Staff – September 14, 2020
https://www.aier.org/article/youtube-censors-white-house-health-advisor/
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 11,259
- Likes
- 21,708
Good luck with that!
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/1...ans-a-vaccine-wont-end-covid-19-restrictions/
Fauci Spills The Beans: A Vaccine Won’t End COVID-19 Restrictions
Anthony Fauci is always the harbinger of additional suffering to be inflicted by state and local governments. Count on governors parroting the new expectation.
By Georgi Boorman
September 14, 2020
Dr. Anthony Fauci just spilled the beans: contrary to the implicit promise numerous politicians made that COVID-19 restrictions would only last “until there’s an effective vaccine,” Fauci says the arrival of a vaccine won’t mean life will return to normal, perhaps for more than a year.
“If you’re talking about getting back to a degree of normality which resembles where we were prior to COVID, it’s going to be well into 2021, maybe even towards the end of 2021,” said the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases on Friday.
A safe and effective vaccine produced this quickly would be a stunning scientific accomplishment that could save thousands of lives. But Fauci warned that widespread distribution and getting “the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected” won’t happen until perhaps the end 2021, and therefore means we cannot be free from oppressive lockdown measures until at least that point.
Aside from Fauci being a reliable harbinger for politicians moving the COVID-19 goal posts, we have three very good reasons to doubt the understanding promoted by politicians so far about returning to normal when a vaccine is deployed: 1) politicians already moved the goalposts far away from “flatten the curve” and “15 days to slow the spread” and thus can’t be trusted 2) they’ve ignored their promise of reopening if effective treatments were found, and 3) the newly discovered phenomenon of COVID-19 reinfection gives panic-pushers an excuse to keep lockdown measures until some new target of vaccine efficacy or compliance is met.
In short, we have every reason to believe Fauci might even be understating the persistence of lockdown measures and almost no reason to believe previous political promises.
As I’ve written before, the slide from “flattening the curve” to make sure hospitals weren’t overwhelmed to goals as ambitious as “stopping the spread” happened about as fast as the decline in bad news about COVID-19 this spring. With nary an explanation as to why meeting the first goal wasn’t good enough to reopen American life as they had promised, politicians and journalists gaslit the public into accepting months of lockdowns.
No one this disingenuous can be trusted, which brings us to point number two: some governors have implied relief from lockdowns upon getting “effective treatment” as recently as this month. According to the Desert Sun, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in late August that the coronavirus “isn’t going away any time soon,” and that Californians need to “‘live with this fundamental truth until there is a vaccine’ or therapeutics help manage the spread of the virus” (emphasis added).
Similarly, the August 20 version of Washington’s Safe Start Reopening plan says, “Until there is an effective vaccine, effective treatment or herd immunity, it is crucial to maintain some level of community interventions to suppress the spread of COVID-19” (emphasis added). Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said on September 1 that Oregon can’t return to normal “until we reach the day that there is an effective vaccine or treatment for this disease” (emphasis added).
Except we already have cheap, safe, effective therapeutics to help manage the spread of the virus that have been shown to clear the viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases in about a week. Both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been in use for more than half a century and have favorable safety profiles (extremely high dosages notwithstanding).
Numerous studies of hydroxychloroquine, sometimes in combination with azithromycin, show significant reduction in mortality. Ivermectin is newer to the COVID-19 treatment scene, but research so far indicates an impressive level of efficacy in eliminating the virus. If we’re “at war” with COVID-19 and if shortening the contagious period is so important, as Newsom claims, then there’s no reason not to encourage widespread use of these treatments by doctors.
Yet the West Coast governors haven’t even tied a promise of reopening to confirmation of efficacy with these or any other drug currently being evaluated for COVID-19, something it makes perfect sense to do if they were serious about reopening with an effective treatment.
So should residents of these states trust their governors’ implicit promise they can return to normal when there’s an “effective” vaccine? And just how effective must it be to trigger a return to normal? Government officials have conveniently refused to determine metrics for that, leaving open the opportunity to move the goalposts yet again.
More importantly, now that we know reinfection with other strains of SARS-CoV-2 may be possible (albeit mild in effect, so far as we know), politicians can now say the rules of the game have changed, if and when it suits their agenda. While governors who imposed harsh pandemic restrictions, like Inslee, Cuomo, and Murphy, have been quiet so far on what reinfection means for policy, it will be easy for them to spin mild and asymptomatic reinfection as a cause for alarm, particularly if their case counts begin trending upwards again.
Rather than pushing politicians to lift social distancing and mask restrictions, as Forbes Policy Editor Avik Roy hopes the nature of the reinfections will do (since a COVID-19 vaccine will likely have very limited efficacy, as with the flu), governors and public health officials could argue the asymptomatic and mild cases of reinfection are all the more reason to “lock down again,” since we may experience a wave of reinfections before a vaccine has been widely administered.
Given that asymptomatic individuals have been made into the “superspreader” bogeymen of the pandemic, they can be touted as an additional reason to make everyone who appears healthy, including people who’ve already had the disease, continue distancing and wearing masks in perpetuity.
Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it would only greenlight vaccines for deployment that have more than a 50 percent efficacy rate. If none of the vaccine candidates meet that standard, governors could inflict a range of social distancing policies until there is one, perhaps years down the road.
The goalposts are moving yet again. Contrary to Roy’s conclusion that ineffective vaccines will rob non-pharmaceutical interventions of their political and public health experience, it’s likely vaccination rates will become the new target for governors. Even if the FDA lowers the bar and accepts 30 percent efficacy as good enough for deployment (a rate we sometimes see with the seasonal flu vaccine), governors who think we can’t go back to normal until the virus is “stopped” will put even more pressure on getting as much of their state vaccinated as possible.
Even before Fauci’s pronouncement that we needed to get at least a majority of Americans vaccinated, signs were emerging that the goalposts would move to vaccination rates. Before the first confirmed reinfection case even came to light, Virginia Health Commissioner Dr. Norman Oliver said he plans to mandate the yet-to-be-released COVID-19 vaccine for all Virginians, with no exceptions except for medical reasons.
Experience thus far tells us we should expect that if significant portions of the public are reticent to take the COVID-19 vaccine, many governors will attempt to institute a universal mandate, and keep lockdown measures until everyone is vaccinated. It isn’t hard to envision at least several states enacting travel restrictions and bans on school entry for those who refuse the coronavirus vaccine, even though the disease is almost never deadly to those under the age of 45.
If Joe Biden wins the presidency, we could see a federal attempt to mandate the vaccine. The Democratic nominee has already voiced his support for “nationwide mask mandates” and willingness to “do whatever it takes” and “shut [the country] down” if some experts tell him he should. A vaccine mandate would solidify mass compliance as the condition for returning to normal.
Keeping COVID-19 restrictions “until there’s a vaccine” was always an empty promise, meant to keep the public submissive for a few more months. If the deployment of an effective vaccine doesn’t end COVID-19 restrictions, you know there is no lie pro-lockdown government officials won’t sell us to hold onto their power. Voters would do well to take this into account when casting ballots this November.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/1...ans-a-vaccine-wont-end-covid-19-restrictions/
Fauci Spills The Beans: A Vaccine Won’t End COVID-19 Restrictions
Anthony Fauci is always the harbinger of additional suffering to be inflicted by state and local governments. Count on governors parroting the new expectation.
By Georgi Boorman
September 14, 2020
Dr. Anthony Fauci just spilled the beans: contrary to the implicit promise numerous politicians made that COVID-19 restrictions would only last “until there’s an effective vaccine,” Fauci says the arrival of a vaccine won’t mean life will return to normal, perhaps for more than a year.
“If you’re talking about getting back to a degree of normality which resembles where we were prior to COVID, it’s going to be well into 2021, maybe even towards the end of 2021,” said the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases on Friday.
A safe and effective vaccine produced this quickly would be a stunning scientific accomplishment that could save thousands of lives. But Fauci warned that widespread distribution and getting “the majority, or more, of the population vaccinated and protected” won’t happen until perhaps the end 2021, and therefore means we cannot be free from oppressive lockdown measures until at least that point.
Aside from Fauci being a reliable harbinger for politicians moving the COVID-19 goal posts, we have three very good reasons to doubt the understanding promoted by politicians so far about returning to normal when a vaccine is deployed: 1) politicians already moved the goalposts far away from “flatten the curve” and “15 days to slow the spread” and thus can’t be trusted 2) they’ve ignored their promise of reopening if effective treatments were found, and 3) the newly discovered phenomenon of COVID-19 reinfection gives panic-pushers an excuse to keep lockdown measures until some new target of vaccine efficacy or compliance is met.
In short, we have every reason to believe Fauci might even be understating the persistence of lockdown measures and almost no reason to believe previous political promises.
As I’ve written before, the slide from “flattening the curve” to make sure hospitals weren’t overwhelmed to goals as ambitious as “stopping the spread” happened about as fast as the decline in bad news about COVID-19 this spring. With nary an explanation as to why meeting the first goal wasn’t good enough to reopen American life as they had promised, politicians and journalists gaslit the public into accepting months of lockdowns.
No one this disingenuous can be trusted, which brings us to point number two: some governors have implied relief from lockdowns upon getting “effective treatment” as recently as this month. According to the Desert Sun, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in late August that the coronavirus “isn’t going away any time soon,” and that Californians need to “‘live with this fundamental truth until there is a vaccine’ or therapeutics help manage the spread of the virus” (emphasis added).
Similarly, the August 20 version of Washington’s Safe Start Reopening plan says, “Until there is an effective vaccine, effective treatment or herd immunity, it is crucial to maintain some level of community interventions to suppress the spread of COVID-19” (emphasis added). Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said on September 1 that Oregon can’t return to normal “until we reach the day that there is an effective vaccine or treatment for this disease” (emphasis added).
Except we already have cheap, safe, effective therapeutics to help manage the spread of the virus that have been shown to clear the viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases in about a week. Both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been in use for more than half a century and have favorable safety profiles (extremely high dosages notwithstanding).
Numerous studies of hydroxychloroquine, sometimes in combination with azithromycin, show significant reduction in mortality. Ivermectin is newer to the COVID-19 treatment scene, but research so far indicates an impressive level of efficacy in eliminating the virus. If we’re “at war” with COVID-19 and if shortening the contagious period is so important, as Newsom claims, then there’s no reason not to encourage widespread use of these treatments by doctors.
Yet the West Coast governors haven’t even tied a promise of reopening to confirmation of efficacy with these or any other drug currently being evaluated for COVID-19, something it makes perfect sense to do if they were serious about reopening with an effective treatment.
So should residents of these states trust their governors’ implicit promise they can return to normal when there’s an “effective” vaccine? And just how effective must it be to trigger a return to normal? Government officials have conveniently refused to determine metrics for that, leaving open the opportunity to move the goalposts yet again.
More importantly, now that we know reinfection with other strains of SARS-CoV-2 may be possible (albeit mild in effect, so far as we know), politicians can now say the rules of the game have changed, if and when it suits their agenda. While governors who imposed harsh pandemic restrictions, like Inslee, Cuomo, and Murphy, have been quiet so far on what reinfection means for policy, it will be easy for them to spin mild and asymptomatic reinfection as a cause for alarm, particularly if their case counts begin trending upwards again.
Rather than pushing politicians to lift social distancing and mask restrictions, as Forbes Policy Editor Avik Roy hopes the nature of the reinfections will do (since a COVID-19 vaccine will likely have very limited efficacy, as with the flu), governors and public health officials could argue the asymptomatic and mild cases of reinfection are all the more reason to “lock down again,” since we may experience a wave of reinfections before a vaccine has been widely administered.
Given that asymptomatic individuals have been made into the “superspreader” bogeymen of the pandemic, they can be touted as an additional reason to make everyone who appears healthy, including people who’ve already had the disease, continue distancing and wearing masks in perpetuity.
Furthermore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it would only greenlight vaccines for deployment that have more than a 50 percent efficacy rate. If none of the vaccine candidates meet that standard, governors could inflict a range of social distancing policies until there is one, perhaps years down the road.
The goalposts are moving yet again. Contrary to Roy’s conclusion that ineffective vaccines will rob non-pharmaceutical interventions of their political and public health experience, it’s likely vaccination rates will become the new target for governors. Even if the FDA lowers the bar and accepts 30 percent efficacy as good enough for deployment (a rate we sometimes see with the seasonal flu vaccine), governors who think we can’t go back to normal until the virus is “stopped” will put even more pressure on getting as much of their state vaccinated as possible.
Even before Fauci’s pronouncement that we needed to get at least a majority of Americans vaccinated, signs were emerging that the goalposts would move to vaccination rates. Before the first confirmed reinfection case even came to light, Virginia Health Commissioner Dr. Norman Oliver said he plans to mandate the yet-to-be-released COVID-19 vaccine for all Virginians, with no exceptions except for medical reasons.
Experience thus far tells us we should expect that if significant portions of the public are reticent to take the COVID-19 vaccine, many governors will attempt to institute a universal mandate, and keep lockdown measures until everyone is vaccinated. It isn’t hard to envision at least several states enacting travel restrictions and bans on school entry for those who refuse the coronavirus vaccine, even though the disease is almost never deadly to those under the age of 45.
If Joe Biden wins the presidency, we could see a federal attempt to mandate the vaccine. The Democratic nominee has already voiced his support for “nationwide mask mandates” and willingness to “do whatever it takes” and “shut [the country] down” if some experts tell him he should. A vaccine mandate would solidify mass compliance as the condition for returning to normal.
Keeping COVID-19 restrictions “until there’s a vaccine” was always an empty promise, meant to keep the public submissive for a few more months. If the deployment of an effective vaccine doesn’t end COVID-19 restrictions, you know there is no lie pro-lockdown government officials won’t sell us to hold onto their power. Voters would do well to take this into account when casting ballots this November.
University of Pittsburgh scientists discover antibody that 'neutralizes' virus that causes coronavirus
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have isolated the biomolecule
By Alexandra Deabler | Fox News
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have isolated “the smallest biological molecule” that “completely and specifically neutralizes” the virus that causes coronavirus.
The antibody component is 10 times smaller than a full-sized antibody, and has been used to create the drug Ab8, shared in the report published by the researchers in the journal Cell on Monday. The drug is seen as a potential preventative against SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers are also “thinking outside the box” for how the drug could be administered, stating it may be able to be inhaled or through a superficial injection, instead of an IV. (iStock)
According to the report, the drug has been “highly effective in preventing and treating” the SARS-CoV-2 infections in mice and hamsters during tests. The drug also reportedly does not bind to human cells, which suggests it will not have negative side-effects in people.
“Ab8 not only has potential as therapy for COVID-19, but it also could be used to keep people from getting SARS-CoV-2 infections,” said co-author John Mellors, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Pitt and UPMC. “Antibodies of larger size have worked against other infectious diseases and have been well tolerated, giving us hope that it could be an effective treatment for patients with COVID-19 and for protection of those who have never had the infection and are not immune.”
Xianglei Liu of Pitt is also co-lead author of the study.
Researchers are also “thinking outside the box” for how the drug could be administered, stating it may be able to be inhaled or through a superficial injection, instead of an IV.
According to the report, the team at University of Texas Medical Branch Center for Biodefense and Emerging Diseases and Galveston National Laboratory tested Ab8 and found it blocked the virus from entering cells. In mice trials, those treated with Ab8 had 10-fold less of the amount of infectious virus compared to those that were untreated.
Alexandra Deabler is a Lifestyle writer and editor for Fox News.
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have isolated the biomolecule
By Alexandra Deabler | Fox News
Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine have isolated “the smallest biological molecule” that “completely and specifically neutralizes” the virus that causes coronavirus.
The antibody component is 10 times smaller than a full-sized antibody, and has been used to create the drug Ab8, shared in the report published by the researchers in the journal Cell on Monday. The drug is seen as a potential preventative against SARS-CoV-2.
Researchers are also “thinking outside the box” for how the drug could be administered, stating it may be able to be inhaled or through a superficial injection, instead of an IV. (iStock)
According to the report, the drug has been “highly effective in preventing and treating” the SARS-CoV-2 infections in mice and hamsters during tests. The drug also reportedly does not bind to human cells, which suggests it will not have negative side-effects in people.
“Ab8 not only has potential as therapy for COVID-19, but it also could be used to keep people from getting SARS-CoV-2 infections,” said co-author John Mellors, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Pitt and UPMC. “Antibodies of larger size have worked against other infectious diseases and have been well tolerated, giving us hope that it could be an effective treatment for patients with COVID-19 and for protection of those who have never had the infection and are not immune.”
Xianglei Liu of Pitt is also co-lead author of the study.
Researchers are also “thinking outside the box” for how the drug could be administered, stating it may be able to be inhaled or through a superficial injection, instead of an IV.
According to the report, the team at University of Texas Medical Branch Center for Biodefense and Emerging Diseases and Galveston National Laboratory tested Ab8 and found it blocked the virus from entering cells. In mice trials, those treated with Ab8 had 10-fold less of the amount of infectious virus compared to those that were untreated.
Alexandra Deabler is a Lifestyle writer and editor for Fox News.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 9,624
- Likes
- 18,490
White House COVID adviser responds to criticism from the left
Sep. 15, 2020 - 4:31 - Dr. Scott Atlas, Hoover Institution senior fellow and former Stanford neuroradiology chief, joins Laura Ingraham on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6190811058001#sp=show-clips
Sep. 15, 2020 - 4:31 - Dr. Scott Atlas, Hoover Institution senior fellow and former Stanford neuroradiology chief, joins Laura Ingraham on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6190811058001#sp=show-clips
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...entist-who-published-paper-alleging-covid-was
Twitter Suspends Account Of Chinese Scientist Who Published Paper Alleging Covid Was Created In Wuhan Lab
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2020 - 14:44
On Sunday afternoon we asked how long before the twitter account of the "rogue" Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who yesterday "shocked" the world of establishment scientists and other China sycophants, by publishing a "smoking gun" scientific paper demonstrating that the Covid-19 virus was manmade, is "silenced."
We now have the answer: less than two days. A cursory check of Dr Yan's twitter page reveals that the account has been suspended as of this moment.
Twitter Suspends Account Of Chinese Scientist Who Published Paper Alleging Covid Was Created In Wuhan Lab
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2020 - 14:44
On Sunday afternoon we asked how long before the twitter account of the "rogue" Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who yesterday "shocked" the world of establishment scientists and other China sycophants, by publishing a "smoking gun" scientific paper demonstrating that the Covid-19 virus was manmade, is "silenced."
We now have the answer: less than two days. A cursory check of Dr Yan's twitter page reveals that the account has been suspended as of this moment.
COVID-19 Fatality Rate “Worst Miscalculation” in Human History – PhD Student in Epidemiology
on August 28, 2020
By Arjun Walia
IN BRIEF
Not long ago, Brown published a paper in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, titled “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.”
In the paper he provides data and information he collected from his research, he compared informational texts from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to data from independent scientists and Congressional testimony. He states that “Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.”
Below is a statement Brown recently gave to John C. A. Manley, a journalist who was the first to cover the story:
He points out that “the accuracy of coronavirus tests rushed into production during the pandemic were unknown.” And he explores how the media began focusing on an increase in coronavirus cases while ignoring the decrease in death rates.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” They cite an article explaining the science. You can read more about that here.
Why This Is Important. Dr. Brown is not the only one raising these points, yet it seems nobody really knows these facts because they are constantly ignored by mainstream media, who is simply presenting us with one perspective that doesn’t seemed to be based on science and data at all in my opinion. It makes one wonder, what’s really going on here?
Why are deaths not a result of the coronavirus being marked as coronavirus deaths, even when it’s clear that that the coronavirus was not the cause? This has been observed across the globe.
A number of the world’s doctors and top experts in the field have been raising their concern with regards to the measures taken to combat the novel coronavirus. For example, Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University recently criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the pandemic. You can read more about that here.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, expressing the same sentiment. They came together to investigate the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are justified and not causing more harm than good.
You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.
This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.” To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it. You can read more about the story here.
Another example would be a recent report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
Reported case fatality rates, like the original official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, caused horror, panic and hysteria and were also meaningless.
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
This list goes on, and on, and on, and on..So why don’t we hear anything about it? Why are scientists, doctors and experts being heavily censored for sharing this information? Why are media outlets like us being punished and demonetized for writing about it? What’s going on here? Is there another agenda at play? Is NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden right about the fact that governments are using this pandemic to place more measures upon the population that take away our rights, all under the guise of good will? Why haven’t these measures been taken for other respiratory viruses that infect just as many, and kill just as many people and more than Covid-19 every single year?
These are important questions to ask and have a discussion around, especially when our right to even speak is slowly being taken away.
Facebook fact-checkers have made it quite clear that any information that does not come from the WHO or federal health regulatory agencies should not be considered as reliable.
on August 28, 2020
By Arjun Walia
IN BRIEF
- The Facts:
Ronald B. Brown, Ph.D., from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada says, based on his research, that the coronavirus fatality rates we were/are given represents “Worst Miscalculation in Human History." - Reflect On:
Why do perspectives and evidence that are presented in this article never see the light of day in big media? Why are we beamed with a specific perception/narrative when so much other information and data clearly opposes it?
Not long ago, Brown published a paper in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, titled “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.”
In the paper he provides data and information he collected from his research, he compared informational texts from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to data from independent scientists and Congressional testimony. He states that “Results of this critical appraisal reveal information bias and selection bias in coronavirus mortality overestimation, most likely caused by misclassifying an influenza infection fatality rate as a case fatality rate.”
Below is a statement Brown recently gave to John C. A. Manley, a journalist who was the first to cover the story:
The subject of this article is disruptive, to say the least, although it is not as obvious from the title. The manuscript cites the smoking-gun, documented evidence showing that the public’s overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic was based on the worst miscalculation in the history of humanity, in my opinion. My manuscript underwent an intensive peer-review process. You are the first media guy who has responded to my invitation.
Dr. Brown added that CDC and WHO documents show that the case fatality rate for influenza was similar to the coronavirus, implying that the lockdowns were pointless. His paper questions why the 2017-2018 influenza season in the United States did not “receive the same intensive media coverage as COVID-19.”He points out that “the accuracy of coronavirus tests rushed into production during the pandemic were unknown.” And he explores how the media began focusing on an increase in coronavirus cases while ignoring the decrease in death rates.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” They cite an article explaining the science. You can read more about that here.
Why This Is Important. Dr. Brown is not the only one raising these points, yet it seems nobody really knows these facts because they are constantly ignored by mainstream media, who is simply presenting us with one perspective that doesn’t seemed to be based on science and data at all in my opinion. It makes one wonder, what’s really going on here?
Why are deaths not a result of the coronavirus being marked as coronavirus deaths, even when it’s clear that that the coronavirus was not the cause? This has been observed across the globe.
A number of the world’s doctors and top experts in the field have been raising their concern with regards to the measures taken to combat the novel coronavirus. For example, Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University recently criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the pandemic. You can read more about that here.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, expressing the same sentiment. They came together to investigate the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are justified and not causing more harm than good.
You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.
This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.” To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it. You can read more about the story here.
Another example would be a recent report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
Reported case fatality rates, like the original official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, caused horror, panic and hysteria and were also meaningless.
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “is close to 0 percent” for people under the age of 45 years old. You can read more about that here. He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, and published their reasoning in a study last month. You can find that study and read more about that story here.This list goes on, and on, and on, and on..So why don’t we hear anything about it? Why are scientists, doctors and experts being heavily censored for sharing this information? Why are media outlets like us being punished and demonetized for writing about it? What’s going on here? Is there another agenda at play? Is NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden right about the fact that governments are using this pandemic to place more measures upon the population that take away our rights, all under the guise of good will? Why haven’t these measures been taken for other respiratory viruses that infect just as many, and kill just as many people and more than Covid-19 every single year?
These are important questions to ask and have a discussion around, especially when our right to even speak is slowly being taken away.
Facebook fact-checkers have made it quite clear that any information that does not come from the WHO or federal health regulatory agencies should not be considered as reliable.