• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Corona Virus News & Info

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
64,182
Reaction score
128,835
so check this out....

our county had only 4 cases for a long time and then we spiked up to 40 something this fall

so I messaged the county health office and asked a few questions

it sounds odd that there are zero cases of the flu this year but plenty of the China virus to go around

mynext task is to find out how many cases of the flu that this county has had in the last five years

i have a hunch the numbers will not jive


i am Clutch Cargo , CW is the town of Cheyenne Wells where the county seat sits ...I live in Kit Carson which is 20 miles away




View attachment 190431
Telling, very telling yet many people are still afraid of what they don't understand!
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,043
Reaction score
15,021
Location
Instant Gratification Land
mynext task is to find out how many cases of the flu that this county has had in the last five years
You won't be able to get any hard numbers on how many had the flu. Almost all the data on how many catch the flu is based on estimates.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
Just a thought........
In Ohio 80+ year olds are 53% of the deaths, 70 year olds are 25%. Yea, yea nursing homes, bad health, other issues....... bla bla bla......
What do most 80 year olds do?
Take medications.
Who makes medications?
CHINA!

gates and fauci tied to China, tied to research, tied to medications as a distribution chanel........... is this a world wide holocaust?
It don't have to be 100%. Say medication batches are "salted" with some tampered drugs........ great distribution system that is untraceable like a huge game of Russian roulette.
Some people play games & some play to WIN AT ANY COST.
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,935
Reaction score
17,005
Location
On a mail train.
so now we have the Colored Charts again and our county is under Code Orange starting this Friday at 5pm sharp


this chit looks and feels like something out of the past in nazi Germany....

3955E93B-CAC8-48B6-AAE1-81D34D197E52.jpeg
7893A8FC-903C-4ED8-A9CD-3D1BA885524D.jpeg
48D79A66-6841-4C9B-A174-79C2EC428C36.jpeg
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,260
Reaction score
18,924
Indy's mayor has the chinaflu now. Oh Dear Sweet Jesus Please we need a Martyr!
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-new...ent-for-essential-businesses/5933458/?cat=519

New Mexico launches COVID testing, contact tracing agreement for essential businesses
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Health and Department of Environment are working together for a new voluntary surveillance testing and contact tracing agreement. Essential businesses following the agreement will "not be considered for closure."
The agreement requires regular COVID-19 testing among all employees, as well as contact tracing. If someone tests positive, under this agreement, the state's rapid response will not count toward the usual 14-day closure requirement in the public health order.

“We’re empowering businesses to stay open by contributing to critical public health efforts,” Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “By incentivizing businesses to participate in a regular surveillance testing program, we are keeping New Mexicans safe, slowing the spread of COVID-19, and preventing additional closures of essential businesses.”
To join the program, a business must submit a plan to both departments about how surveillance testing and contact tracing efforts will be conducted. Officials said a plan must be submitted for each business location.

“Proactive testing is an essential tool in combating the spread of this virus,” Department of Health Acting Secretary Billy Jimenez said. “Partners in the private sector through these agreements will make a significant and positive impact in curbing COVID-19 in New Mexico.”
If a business is already under a 14-day closure, the agreement could also allow them to reopen early.
To see the current COVID-19 watchlist, click here. To read the agreement in its entirety, click here.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
10,317
Reaction score
22,329
Location
North Carolina
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-new...ent-for-essential-businesses/5933458/?cat=519

New Mexico launches COVID testing, contact tracing agreement for essential businesses
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Health and Department of Environment are working together for a new voluntary surveillance testing and contact tracing agreement. Essential businesses following the agreement will "not be considered for closure."
The agreement requires regular COVID-19 testing among all employees, as well as contact tracing. If someone tests positive, under this agreement, the state's rapid response will not count toward the usual 14-day closure requirement in the public health order.

“We’re empowering businesses to stay open by contributing to critical public health efforts,” Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “By incentivizing businesses to participate in a regular surveillance testing program, we are keeping New Mexicans safe, slowing the spread of COVID-19, and preventing additional closures of essential businesses.”
To join the program, a business must submit a plan to both departments about how surveillance testing and contact tracing efforts will be conducted. Officials said a plan must be submitted for each business location.

“Proactive testing is an essential tool in combating the spread of this virus,” Department of Health Acting Secretary Billy Jimenez said. “Partners in the private sector through these agreements will make a significant and positive impact in curbing COVID-19 in New Mexico.”
If a business is already under a 14-day closure, the agreement could also allow them to reopen early.
To see the current COVID-19 watchlist, click here. To read the agreement in its entirety, click here.

So voluntarily participating keeps you from being considered for closure

Nice business you got there, would be a shame if anything happened to it
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
Weaponized business licenses, liquor licenses etc....... you will comply........ or we will kill them all. There is no middle ground.
THIS IS WAR!
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
New Mexico goober
1606416580852.png
 

hammerhead

Morphing
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
13,975
Reaction score
20,453
Location
USSA
https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-new...ent-for-essential-businesses/5933458/?cat=519

New Mexico launches COVID testing, contact tracing agreement for essential businesses
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The New Mexico Department of Health and Department of Environment are working together for a new voluntary surveillance testing and contact tracing agreement. Essential businesses following the agreement will "not be considered for closure."
The agreement requires regular COVID-19 testing among all employees, as well as contact tracing. If someone tests positive, under this agreement, the state's rapid response will not count toward the usual 14-day closure requirement in the public health order.

“We’re empowering businesses to stay open by contributing to critical public health efforts,” Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said. “By incentivizing businesses to participate in a regular surveillance testing program, we are keeping New Mexicans safe, slowing the spread of COVID-19, and preventing additional closures of essential businesses.”
To join the program, a business must submit a plan to both departments about how surveillance testing and contact tracing efforts will be conducted. Officials said a plan must be submitted for each business location.

“Proactive testing is an essential tool in combating the spread of this virus,” Department of Health Acting Secretary Billy Jimenez said. “Partners in the private sector through these agreements will make a significant and positive impact in curbing COVID-19 in New Mexico.”
If a business is already under a 14-day closure, the agreement could also allow them to reopen early.
To see the current COVID-19 watchlist, click here. To read the agreement in its entirety, click here.
I order a pizza to go the other night. It was from a sports bar. When I went in to pick it up, the place was empty, no tvs on, no patrons at the bar, just kitchen workers and two wait staff. I was told I needed to write my name and phone number on a sheet of paper. I got as far as putting down the date when my pizza arrived. Paid and exited. Same thing when I went to the beach earlier this year. Not sure where the list of people ended up as there were many pages of info.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
125,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
I was 'splainin to a young school psychologist (masters degree) that while the CV is real, the 250K dead is not.

I said @ 12K died FROM cv19, whereas 240K died WITH cv19,

He replied as any liberal is wont to do: "If a person with heart disease dies in a house fire, what killed him? Heart disease, or the fire?"

There's a logical fallacy in there equating X with Y, but I was too tired to figure it out.
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
3,850
Reaction score
6,063
^ Did old mate twitch after he said his line? It's a false equivalency, one so bad it's not even wrong.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
10,560
Last edited:

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
64,182
Reaction score
128,835
This article was posted then deleted


https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...1/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020
83ddb0f4-0b8a-4259-8bc0-8da2d0b2eab5.sized-1000x1000.png

COURTESY OF GENEVIEVE BRIAND
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.
According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
https://notthebee.com/article/a-few...-then-deleted-it-read-it-here-in-its-entirety

A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety.

71ac22bf-4be1-4092-ad95-fdc180ef681a.jpg





Nov 26th, 2020 10:32 pm

Johns Hopkins published this study on Sunday which posits that Covid is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is. I would summarize it for you or offer pull-quotes but honestly you just have to read it yourself because it's mind-blowing. The original article is now deleted from the Johns Hopkins website ... for some reason. Luckily the internet is forever and it's available via the Wayback Machine. Here is the article in its entirety:
* * *

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master's degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled "COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data."
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
"The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals," Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
"This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes," Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
article-5fc07083ac090.jpg



Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
article-5fc0709dca4bf.jpg



Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.
The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary," Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
"If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn't give us a choice but to point to some misclassification," Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand's view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master's candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand's concluding remarks.
"At the end of the day, it's still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant," Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.
* * *
Facebook and Twitter will certainly block this article within hours of its publication. Just like Johns Hopkins deleted it from its site. The question is ... why?

A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety.

71ac22bf-4be1-4092-ad95-fdc180ef681a.jpg





99d8e8f9-2efb-4a40-94d4-73ef3d59eeea.jpg

Doc Holliday


Nov 26th, 2020 10:32 pm

Johns Hopkins published this study on Sunday which posits that Covid is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is. I would summarize it for you or offer pull-quotes but honestly you just have to read it yourself because it's mind-blowing. The original article is now deleted from the Johns Hopkins website ... for some reason. Luckily the internet is forever and it's available via the Wayback Machine. Here is the article in its entirety:
* * *


Experience 5G at Metro

Ad by Metro by T-Mobile


See More
https://platform-cdn.sharethrough.c...geted advertising from Sharethrough's partner

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master's degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled "COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data."
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
"The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals," Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.
"This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes," Briand pointed out.
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
article-5fc07083ac090.jpg



Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
article-5fc0709dca4bf.jpg



Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.
The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary," Briand concluded.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
"If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn't give us a choice but to point to some misclassification," Briand replied.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand's view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.
Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.
The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.
According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master's candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand's concluding remarks.
"At the end of the day, it's still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant," Dharmasena said.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.
* * *
Facebook and Twitter will certainly block this article within hours of its publication. Just like Johns Hopkins deleted it from its site. The question is ... why?





* * *
UPDATE: JHU tweeted that they deleted the article because it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic."

Importantly, they didn't say anything in the article was incorrect. So we're just memory-holing studies that don't align with the narrative? Got it.



* * *
UPDATE: JHU tweeted that they deleted the article because it "was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic."

Importantly, they didn't say anything in the article was incorrect. So we're just memory-holing studies that don't align with the narrative? Got it.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/25/new-evidence-on-the-effectiveness-of-lockdown/

New evidence on the effectiveness of lockdown

A few weeks back I wrote an article about an observational study published in Lancet that, among other things, looked at whether there was any correlation between stringency of lockdown and the number of people who died of covid. It didn’t find any correlation, which suggests that lockdowns don’t work. That study did have some major limitations however.

First of all, it was observational, based on analysis of statistics, and so can only show patterns (or lack of patterns), not cause and effect, and retrospective, meaning that the researchers based their analysis on existing data that had been produced for other purposes. This is a relatively low quality form of evidence. Second, the follow-up period was short, with data only being gathered until May 1st. It could be argued that this is too short a time period to see an effect of lockdown on mortality.

Now, however, we have some new data that addresses both of these limitations. The first comes in the form of a prospective cohort study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. A prospective cohort study is a study in which a group of people are recruited and then followed over time to see what happens to them. This is better than a retrospective study, because there is no way of looking at the end result before you begin, and thereby less scope for “cheating”. It’s not as good as a randomized controlled trial (the gold standard in terms of scientific methodology) because you’re not in control of all the variables, and you don’t have a control group, but it is a big step up from just looking at national statistics and trying to draw conclusions from them.

The study was funded by the US Defence Health Agency and DARPA (the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), and the purpose of the study was to see if quarantine rules that had been implemented in the US Marine Corps were effective at preventing spread of covid-19. The intervention involved many different parts, so we’re going to go through it in some detail. The group that was studied was new Marine Corps recruits, who were going through their initial training period.

The new recruits were asked to self-quarantine at home for the two weeks immediately prior to arriving at the base to begin their service in the Marine Corps. When they did arrive, they were placed in a further two week quarantine at a college campus that was being used exclusively for this purpose. During the second quarantine period, the recruits were required to wear face masks at all times except when eating and sleeping, to always be at least six feet apart, and they were prohibited from leaving the campus. They had to wash their hands regularly, and were not allowed access to electronics or other items that might contribute to surface transmission of the virus. Furthermore, they spent most of their time outdoors.

The campus was organized in such a way that all movement was unidirectional, and every building had separate entry and exit points, to keep people from getting too close to each other or bumping in to each other. During their time in campus, recruits only had direct contact with other members of their platoon and their instructors. They were not allowed to interact with any of the on-site support staff (cooks, cleaners, etc).

The recruits lived two to a room, ate together with their platoon in a communal eating area, and used shared bathrooms. They were required to disinfect the bathrooms with bleach between after each visit, and the dining hall was cleaned with bleach in between meals.

All recruits had their temperature taken daily and were asked on a daily basis about symptoms. At any sign of symptoms or a raised temperature, they were put in isolation and not allowed to return to their platoon until a PCR test came back negative.

A total of 1,848 marine recruits were enrolled in the study and the average age of the participants was 19. PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 were carried out on arrival at the campus, and on days 7 and 14 of the two week on-campus quarantine. Anyone who tested positive at any of these time points was immediately placed in isolation. A further 1,619 recruits declined to participate in the study or were excluded because they were under 18. However, the 1,619 individuals who declined to participate in the study followed the exact same restrictions as the study group, except for the fact that they didn’t have PCR tests taken on arrival or on day 7. They therefore cannot be used as a control group, which is unfortunate.

So, what were the results?

16 out of 1,847 recruits (0,9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on arrival at the campus. All of them claimed to have quarantined at home for the full two weeks before arrival and had not been exposed to anyone with symptoms during that period. 5 of these 16 individuals had antibodies to covid, and were thus most likely not infectious (antibodies generally develop around two weeks after infection, at which point people usually are no longer infectious). Only one of the 16 had symptoms. All 16 were isolated from the rest of the recruits as soon as their results came back positive (within 48 hours).

On day 7, a new round of PCR testing was carried out and a further 24 recruits had become positive to SARS-CoV-2, of which three were symptomatic. On day 14, a final round of PCR testing was carried out, and 11 more recruits had become positive, of which one was symptomatic.

Overall, 1,9% of participants became PCR positive during the two week period, in spite of all the measures taken to prevent spread, although only four people developed symptomatic covid. It is important to note that the infected people were not spread evenly throughout the platoons. Some platoons had a lot of infections, and others had none.

The researchers followed up by looking at which specific covid strains were present among the recruits, in order to figure out where people became infected, and from whom. Not surprisingly, infection happened within platoons, and more specifically, to a large extent within shared bedrooms. In spite of the fact that different platoons were walking in the same corridors, using the same bathrooms, and eating in the same mess hall, no infection happened across platoons – all infections happened within platoons (with one exception, where two people from different platoons were sharing a bedroom).

Another interesting result from the viral genome mapping is how many people a single infected person could go on to infect, in spite of all the measures in place to prevent spread. In two separate platoons, one person brought the virus in from outside, and spread the infection to eight other individuals within their platoon over the course of the two week period.

In some ways I find this the most interesting result of the whole study. The fact that you can go from a single infected person to nine infected people in one platoon over the course of a two week period, in spite of the use of extraordinarily stringent methods to prevent spread, shows how unbelievably infectious SARS-CoV-2 can be.

What can we conclude from all this?

First of all, it is important to note that this study has one problematic aspect, and that is the use of PCR without some kind of follow-up to confirm that a positive result really is a true positive (for example with a viral culture). A second problem is that there is no control group, so it’s impossible to say what would have happened had there been no lockdown-like restrictions.

That being said, this study clearly shows how effectively the virus spreads even when extremely repressive methods are being used to contain it. In spite of strict physical distancing, rigorous hand and surface hygiene, face masks, PCR based screening, daily symptom checks, and two weeks of quarantine before even arriving at campus, the virus still snuck in and was still able to spread effectively among the recruits. The stringency of the measures that were put in place among the recruits was far more extreme than anything that could be accomplished in a civilian setting. And yet, in two of the platoons, the virus still spread like wildfire.

Having said that, it would have been nice to have had a control group to compare with. Hopefully a proper randomized controlled trial will come out at some point that clarifies the remaining question marks, and gives a more definitive answer to the question of what effect, if any, stringent lockdowns have in terms of stopping the spread of covid-19.

There are three other aspects of this study that I find interesting. The first is that it suggests that pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread does happen with covid, since anyone showing the slightest symptoms was immediately isolated, and in spite of this, the virus still spread. And the two individuals who were thought to be the index patients for the two big clusters never developed any symptoms themselves

The second is that it gives further credence to the idea that most people with covid are not very infectious, while a small number of people are “super spreaders”. If we presume that the five people who were both PCR and antibody positive on arrival no longer had active infections, then that means 11 people had active covid infections on arrival at the campus. Two weeks later, an additional 38 people had been infected. Of those, 16 were infected by just two people, which means that the remaining 22 were infected by some combination of the other nine. So, two individuals were clearly far more infectious than the rest.

The third aspect that is interesting is that infection only happened within platoons, not between them. That is in spite of the fact that different platoons were using the same spaces, only at different times. To me this suggests that SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t hang around in the air and maintain the ability to infect people who come in to the same space at a later time point, as some people have been suggesting (one recent Swedish study had found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in a hospital attic and this led to fear-mongering articles in the Swedish media). Rather, it seems from this study that covid-19 only spreads through close and immediate personal contact.

Next up, we have a study that was recently published in Frontiers in Public Health. The authors received no specific funding for the study and reported no conflicts of interest. Like the Lancet study I wrote about a few weeks back, this was an analysis of global statistics. The difference between this study and the previous one is that this one looked at a lot more countries (every country that had at least 10 covid deaths at the end of August was included, which means that 160 countries were included in total), and looked at a much longer time frame. While the earlier study only gathered data up to May 1st, this one gathered data until the end of August. If lockdowns do affect mortality, there should certainly be a visible effect by that time.

So, what were the results?

The was no correlation between the stringency of lockdown and the number of covid deaths. Strong positive correlations with covid deaths were seen with the proportion of the population that is obese, and with the level of sedentary behavior in the population. In other words, the results are perfectly in line with the earlier study published in Lancet. Other factors that were found to correlate positively with covid mortality were age, proportion of the population with cardiovascular disease, and proportion of the population with cancer.

Two factors that showed a strong negative correlation with covid mortality were the general prevalence of infectious diseases in a population, and the average Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This makes sense to me, since poorer countries have more infectious diseases generally, and they also have younger, less obese populations, that are less likely to succumb to covid if infected.

Two other factors that correlated negatively with covid mortality were average temperature and average level of sunlight. Given that covid seemed to disappear in many countries during the summer, and now seems to have returned in autumn, the virus appears to act in a highly seasonal manner, so it makes sense that these correlations would exist. No correlation was seen, however, between humidity and death rate from covid.

What can we conclude from these two studies?

I would say that these studies strengthen the conclusions from my previous article. Lockdown appears to be largely ineffective. Ensuring good overall population health by encouraging a healthy diet and regular exercise does appear to be effective.

But if it is the case that lockdown is ineffective, how come Sweden had so many more covid deaths than other nordic countries?

That is a topic I will come back to in the near future.

You might also be interested in my article about how deadly covid is, or my article about the accuracy of the covid-19 tests.


I am rolling out a ton of new science-backed content over the coming months, including:
- Analyses of the benefits and risks of all common supplements and medications
- The keys to a longer, healthier life (possibly quite different from what you may have heard)
- A long-term follow-up of the health consequences of the covid pandemic and global lockdown.
Please provide your e-mail address below and you will get all this content straight to your inbox the moment it is released.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
11,994
Reaction score
26,226
Okay, it took five days to fall another tenth of a percent. Now the fatality rate is at 2.1%

View attachment 189787

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

View attachment 189788

The fatality rate has fallen another tenth of a percent as of this morning's numbers. Fatality rate is now at 2.0%

FR201127.jpg


FR201127b.jpg


https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
10,560
Pandemic Exposes How Science Is Suppressed for Political, Financial Gain

Suppressing science is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones.
****************

Politicization of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandise and enrich those in power. And, as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed.

When good science is suppressed, people die.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
125,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
Gretchen Whitmer CALLED OUT For Hilarious Ability To FAIL UPWARDS...Dems Are A JOKE.

Liberal Hivemind
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
125,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
Hushed-Up Report: “COVID-19 has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
By Kelly
-
Nov 27, 2020

83ddb0f4-0b8a-4259-8bc0-8da2d0b2eab5.sized-1000x1000.png-1-500x313.jpeg

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.


Apparently the news was politically unacceptable so Johns Hopkins pulled it down. But as the guy says – the internet lives forever! Click on the link below to read it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...1/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
10,560
Here's Why You Should Skip the Covid Vaccine
MIKE WHITNEY • NOVEMBER 28, 2020

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”
Albert Einstein

The new Covid vaccines will make billions of dollars for the big pharmaceutical companies, but here’s what they won’t do:

The vaccines will not cure Covid
The vaccines will not prevent people from contracting Covid
The vaccines will not prevent Covid-related hospitalizations
The vaccines will not prevent Covid-caused deaths

Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “If the vaccine does not protect me from getting Covid (or dying from Covid), then why should I take it?”

And the answer is: “You shouldn’t. It makes no sense at all, especially in view of the fact that new vaccines pose considerable risks to one’s health and well-being.

***

Inadequate Assessment of the Public Health Risk from a Covid Vaccine

In a recent letter to the British Medical Journal (BMJ), physician Arvind Joshi warned against the disaster that could result from this misguided policy and outlined the serious risks involved to the public and other serious issues that are being taken if a Covid Vaccine is rushed out without thorough and adequate safety and efficacy testing:

“Adverse effects like Subacute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis, Ascending Polyneuritis, Myopathies, Autoimmune Diseases, and rarer chance of triggering development of malignancies are most dreaded possibilities.“...“The rush for the Vaccines should not lead to disaster.” (Note: There is a more comprehensive list of potential ‘bad outcomes’ in the link to the article.)
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
125,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
From deaths to cases
Screen Shot 2020-11-29 at 3.22.35 PM.png
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
10,560
And here's where all this leads...

 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
10,560
It's a dammed lie, no doubt, but it isn't a joke.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
11,994
Reaction score
26,226
RP201129.jpg
 

ABC123

Mother Lode Found
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
10,163
Reaction score
22,276
Amazing!!! Only 41 confirmed cases of the flu in the entirety of the US in week 46…



It’s almost as if the hospitals and clinics are getting paid extra if the diagnosis of….something else….instead of the flu…

We all know the medical community would never, ever falsify data for government money….

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm
 

Voodoo

Midas Member
Midas Member
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,845
Reaction score
7,603
Location
Deep Underground Bunker
Amazing!!! Only 41 confirmed cases of the flu in the entirety of the US in week 46…



It’s almost as if the hospitals and clinics are getting paid extra if the diagnosis of….something else….instead of the flu…

We all know the medical community would never, ever falsify data for government money….

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

Covid is a FAR better vaccine against the Flu than the Flu vaccine. I guess we don't need that shot anymore.
 

viking

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
2,214
Reaction score
2,969
Hushed-Up Report: “COVID-19 has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
By Kelly
-
Nov 27, 2020

83ddb0f4-0b8a-4259-8bc0-8da2d0b2eab5.sized-1000x1000.png-1-500x313.jpeg

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.


Apparently the news was politically unacceptable so Johns Hopkins pulled it down. But as the guy says – the internet lives forever! Click on the link below to read it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020112...1/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

Just donated to archive.org
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
11,994
Reaction score
26,226

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15,681
Reaction score
34,702
1606820777072.png
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
60,858
Reaction score
125,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
The Plan Is Unfolding for How Vaccines Will Be Monitored
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
  • Operation Warp Speed (OWS), a joint operation between U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense, continues to be shrouded in secrecy
  • OWS is a public-private partnership tasked with producing therapeutics and a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine — 300 million doses’ worth that are intended to be made available starting in January 2021
  • OWS has plans to engage an “active pharmaco vigilance surveillance system” to track Americans for 24 months following vaccination
  • One of OWS’ four key tenets is “traceability,” which includes confirming which of the approved vaccines were administered regardless of location (public or private), reminding recipients to return for a second dose and ensuring that the correct second dose is administered
  • Google and Oracle, a multinational computer technology corporation headquartered in California, in the heart of Silicon Valley, have been contracted to “collect and track vaccine data” as part of OWS’ surveillance systems
  • OWS, rather than being directed by public health officials, is heavily dominated by military, technology companies and U.S. intelligence agencies, likening it to a successor for Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program that sprang up after the 9/11 attacks but was quickly defunded following public backlash over privacy concerns
Operation Warp Speed (OWS), a joint operation between U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense, continues to be shrouded in secrecy, but little by little information is emerging that long-term monitoring of the U.S. public is part of the plan.

At face value, OWS is a public-private partnership tasked with producing therapeutics and a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine1 — 300 million doses' worth that are intended to be made available starting in January 2021.2

But it appears the involvement doesn't end there. Rather than just ensuring a vaccine is produced and made available for those who want it, Moncef Slaoui, the chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, dubbed the coronavirus vaccine czar,3 said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the rollout will include "incredibly precise … tracking systems."4,5

Their purpose? "To ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects."6 In an interview with The New York Times, Slaoui described it as a "very active pharmaco vigilance surveillance system."7

What Will the Vaccine Monitoring System Entail?
This is the No. 1 question, and one that hasn't been answered, at least not officially. "While Slaoui himself was short on specifics regarding this 'pharmacovigilance surveillance system,'" news outlet Humans Are Free reported, "the few official documents from OWS that have been publicly released offer some details about what this system may look like and how long it is expected to 'track' the vital signs and whereabouts of Americans who receive a Warp Speed vaccine."8

One of the documents, titled "From the Factory to the Frontlines: The Operation Warp Speed Strategy for Distributing a COVID-19 Vaccine," was released by HHS.9 It also mentions the use of pharmacovigilance surveillance along with Phase 4 (post-licensure) clinical trials in order to assess the vaccines' long-term safety, since "some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans."10

The report, which lays out a strategy for distributing a COVID-19 vaccine, from allocation and distribution to administration and more, continues:11

"The key objective of pharmacovigilance is to determine each vaccine's performance in real-life scenarios, to study efficacy, and to discover any infrequent and rare side effects not identified in clinical trials. OWS will also use pharmacovigilance analytics, which serves as one of the instruments for the continuous monitoring of pharmacovigilance data.
Robust analytical tools will be used to leverage large amounts of data and the benefits of using such data across the value chain, including regulatory obligations. Pharmacovigilance provides timely information about the safety of each vaccine to patients, healthcare professionals, and the public, contributing to the protection of patients and the promotion of public health."
Similar language was reiterated in an October 2020 perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), written by Slaoui and Dr. Matthew Hepburn.12

Hepburn is a former program manager for the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), where he oversaw the development of ProfusA,13 an implantable biosensor that allows a person's physiology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity. ProfusA is also backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world.

Writing in NEJM, the duo writes, "Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies."14

'Traceability' a Key Tenet of Operation Warp Speed
Humans Are Free also references an OWS infographic,15 which details the COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration process. One of the four key tenets is "traceability," which includes confirming which of the approved vaccines were administered regardless of location (public or private), reminding recipients to return for a second dose and ensuring that the correct second dose is administered.

That word — pharmacovigilance — is used again, this time as a heading inferring that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be involved in "24-month post trial monitoring for adverse effects/additional safety feature." Pharmacovigilance, also known as drug safety, generally refers to the collection, analysis, monitoring and prevention of adverse effects from medications and other therapies.16

Passive reporting systems for adverse events, like the Vaccines Adverse Event Reporting System, already exist and are managed by the FDA and CDC.

However, a report released by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security suggests that passive systems that rely on people to send in their experiences should be made into an "active safety surveillance system directed by the CDC that monitors all vaccine recipients — perhaps by short message service or other electronic mechanisms — with criteria based on the World Health Organization Global Vaccine Safety Initiative."17,18

What's more, according to Humans Are Free, "Despite the claims in these documents that the 'pharmacovigilance surveillance system' would intimately involve the FDA, top FDA officials stated in September that they were barred from attending OWS meetings and told reporters they could not explain the operation's organization or when or with what frequency its leadership meets."19 STAT News further reported:20

"The Food and Drug Administration, which is playing a critical role in the response to the pandemic, has virtually no visibility into OWS — but that's by design … The FDA has set up a firewall between the vast majority of staff and the initiative to separate any regulatory decisions from policy or budgetary decisions.
FDA officials are still allowed to interact with companies developing products for OWS, but they're barred from sitting in on discussions regarding other focuses of OWS, like procurement, investment or distribution."
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security, by the way, has ties to Event 201, a pandemic preparedness simulation for a "novel coronavirus" that took place in October 2019, along with Dark Winter, another simulation that took place in June 2001, which predicted major aspects of the subsequent 2001 anthrax attacks.

Hepburn also reportedly "ruffled feathers" during a June 2020 presentation to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices because he offered no data-rich slides, which are typically part of such presentations, and, STAT News reported, "Several members asked Hepburn pointed questions he pointedly did not answer."21

Google and Oracle Contracted to Collect Vaccine Data
Google and Oracle, a multinational computer technology corporation headquartered in California, in the heart of Silicon Valley, have been contracted to "collect and track vaccine data" as part of OWS' surveillance systems,22 a partnership Slaoui reportedly revealed in his Wall Street Journal interview.23 According to Humans Are Free:24

"If the Warp Speed contracts that have been awarded to Google and Oracle are anything like the Warp Speed contracts awarded to most of its participating vaccine companies, then those contracts grant those companies diminished federal oversight and exemptions from federal laws and regulations designed to protect taxpayer interests in the pursuit of the work stipulated in the contract.
It also makes them essentially immune to Freedom of Information Act requests. Yet, in contrast to the unacknowledged Google and Oracle contracts, vaccine companies have publicly disclosed that they received OWS contracts, just not the terms or details of those contracts. This suggests that the Google and Oracle contracts are even more secretive."
In an interview with investigative journalist Whitney Webb (see Mercola hyperlink above under "Dark Winter"), it's also revealed that Slaoui, a long-time head of GlaxoSmithKline's vaccine division, is a leading proponent of bioelectronic medicine, which is the use of injectable or implantable technology for the purpose of treating nerve conditions.

The MIT Technology review has referred to it as hacking the nervous system. But it also allows you to monitor the physiology of the human body from the inside.

Slaoui is also invested in a company called Galvani Bioelectronics, which was cofounded by a Google subsidiary. "So, you have Google being contracted to monitor this pharmacovigilance surveillance system that aims to monitor the physiology and the human body for two years," Webb says.

"And then you have the ties to the ProfusA project," she adds, "which oddly enough is supposed to work inside the human body for 24 months — the exact window they've said will be used to monitor people after the first [vaccine] dose."

The conflict of interest is massive, in part because Google owns YouTube, which has been banning our videos, a majority of which are interviews with health experts sharing their medical or scientific expertise and viewpoints on COVID-19, since June 2020. As noted by Humans Are Free:25

"With Google now formally part of OWS, it seems likely that any concerns about OWS's extreme secrecy and the conflicts of interest of many of its members (particularly Moncef Slaoui and Matt Hepburn) as well as any concerns about Warp Speed vaccine safety, allocation and/or distribution may be labeled 'COVID-19 vaccine misinformation' and removed from YouTube."
Is Total Surveillance Set to Become the New Normal?
OWS, rather than being directed by public health officials, is heavily dominated by military, technology companies and U.S. intelligence agencies, likening it to a successor for Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program managed by DARPA that sprang up after the 9/11 attacks.

At the time, TIA was seeking to collect Americans' medical records, fingerprints and other biometric data, along with DNA and records relating to personal finances, travel and media consumption.26 According to Webb (again, refer to the Mercola hyperlink earlier, "Dark Winter"):

"We now know, for example, that the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security are directly involved in Operation Warp Speed, but they won't really say exactly what parts they're doing. But there are some indications as to what they could be involved with.
And the fact that Silicon Valley companies that have been known to collaborate with intelligence [agencies] for the purpose of spying on innocent Americans — Google and Oracle, for example — are going to be involved in this surveillance system … for everyone that gets the vaccine.
It's certainly alarming, and it seems to point to the fulfillment of an agenda that was attempted to be pushed through or foisted on the American public after 9/11, called Total Information Awareness, which was managed, originally, by DARPA.
It was about using medical data and non-medical data — essentially all data about you — to prevent terror attacks before they could happen, and also to prevent bioterror attacks and even prevent naturally occurring disease outbreaks.
A lot of the same initiatives proposed under that original program after 9/11 have essentially been resurrected, with updated technology, under the guise of combating COVID-19."
A key difference is that TIA was quickly defunded by Congress after significant public backlash, including concerns that TIA would undermine personal privacy. In the case of OWS, there's little negative press and media outlets are overwhelmingly supportive of the operation as a way to resolve the COVID-19 crisis.

But what if it's not actually about COVID-19 at all, but represents something bigger, something that's been in the works for decades? As Humans Are Free puts it:27

"The total-surveillance agenda that began with TIA and that has been resurrected through Warp Speed predated COVID-19 by decades.
Its architects and proponents have worked to justify these extreme and invasive surveillance programs by marketing this agenda as the 'solution' to whatever Americans are most afraid of at any given time. It has very little to do with 'public health' and everything to do with total control."

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.

Think Globally, Act Locally
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up to date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and will get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call-to-action items you need at your fingertips. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

JOIN THE NVIC ADVOCACY PORTAL

Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
  • Vaccine Requirements and Exemptions by State — Vaccine laws vary from one U.S. state to another. By knowing the specific policies where you live, you’ll learn how you can get exemptions and better protect your right to make informed vaccine choices.
  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims — View descriptions and photos of children and adults who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions — Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall — View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
  • Vaccine Failure Wall — View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...&cid=20201201_HL2&mid=DM734805&rid=1024273991
 
Last edited:

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,670
Reaction score
10,560
De Mattei: The Safest Vaccine Against The Coronavirus

Roberto de Mattei
RadioRomaLibera
November 24, 2020

1606901252425.png


Over the last few weeks several of the world’s most important pharmaceutical companies have announced the imminent production of vaccines against Covid 19. Commenting on this news, an esteemed Italian virologist, Professor Andrea Crisanti, issued a statement of supreme common sense. In response to the question whether he would take the vaccine or not, he replied: “Normally it takes about five to eight years to produce a vaccine. For this, without available data, I wouldn’t take the first vaccine that should be arriving in January. I’d like to be sure that this vaccine has been tested properly and that it satisfies the safety and efficacy criterion. As a citizen I have this right and I’m not willing to accept shortcuts.”

It is an answer of complete common sense, sound, for that matter, with the principle of precaution, invoked so much today for the protection of the environment and it is not clear why this shouldn’t be applied in the field of health as well. Prof. Crisanti is not against vaccines, but retains correctly, that the press releases by the pharmaceutical companies are not enough to guarantee safety and so he is waiting for the scientific data, which the regulatory agencies will verify. As a result of these prudent words he’s been demonized by the mass-media and some of his colleagues.

Cristanti defended himself with a letter published in the Corriere della Sera of November 23, wherein among other things, he states: “The custodians of scientific orthodoxy do not admit hesitations or vacillations; they demand a leap of faith from those who don’t have access to privileged information. ‘The vaccine will work’, they thunder indignantly. I’m the first to hope this is true; nonetheless, allow me to object: the vaccine is not a sacred object. Let’s leave faith to religion and doubt and discussion to science which are its stimulus and guarantee.”

Continue