Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cou ... than-good-

Making a diagnosis used to be a well understood and practised procedure: take a history from someone presenting with symptoms, examine them and do some tests to arrive at an overall diagnosis. It requires substantial training and experience to put this into practice. William Osler, known as one of the founders of modern medicine, often directed his trainees to ‘listen to the patient, he/she is telling you the diagnosis'.

With Covid-19, however, clinical diagnosis is seemingly a secondary consideration in the face of mass testing. All you require is a positive PCR test; no symptoms, no signs, no other diagnostic proof. But our limited understanding of mass testing and PCR suggests this might not suffice.

Detection of viruses using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus is another matter. RT-PCR uses enzymes called reverse transcriptase to change a specific piece of genetic material called RNA into a matching piece of genetic DNA. The test then amplifies this DNA exponentially; millions of copies of DNA can be made from a single viral RNA strand.

A fluorescent signal is attached to the DNA copies, and when the fluorescent signal reaches a certain threshold, the test is deemed positive. The number of cycles required before the fluorescence threshold is reached gives an estimate of how much virus is present in the sample. This measure is called the cycle threshold (Ct). The higher the cycle number, the less RNA there is in the sample; the lower the level, the greater the amount in the initial sample.

In a recent BMJ rapid response, doctors in Wales set out these problems when using the PCR test when there is low viral circulation in the population. Routine testing found 26 low-level positive results for SARS-CoV-2. The number of cycles required to reach the threshold in these patients ranged from 36 to 43. Nineteen of these weakly positive tests were repeated, and all 19 were negative on repeat testing.

The importance of the cycle threshold is shown in a Canadian study of 96 samples from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients that reported live virus was only detected when the cycle threshold was less than 24. The difference in a threshold might not look like much, but samples can differ by more than a million more copies of viral RNA per millilitre. Some of the testing threshold used is attempting to detect one viral copy in the sample, which further exacerbates the problems.

Out of the 19 individuals who tested positive, one had been PCR positive three months earlier and was also antibody positive. The immune system works to neutralise the virus and prevent further infection. The infectious stage lasts about a week. Inactivated RNA, however, degrades slowly: it can be detected weeks after infectiousness has gone. In one case, RT-PCR continued to pick up fragments of RNA until the 63rd day after symptom onset. The duration of faecal shedding of viral RNA in one patient was up to 47 days from symptom onset.

PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its limitations are understood; while it detects RNA in minute quantities, caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect the infectious virus. This detection problem is ubiquitous for RNA viruses detection. SARS-CoV, MERS, Influenza Ebola and Zika viral RNA can also be detected long after the disappearance of the infectious virus.

Why does this matter? Because when it comes to Covid-19, insufficient attention has been paid to how PCR results actually relate to disease. The harms of false-positive results can be substantial: operations can be delayed or cancelled; patients are kept in hospital, just in case; further testing is required; in some cases, it drives local lockdowns. The results of our recent systematic review on viral infectiousness indicate that cycle thresholds are essential to understand who is infectious, and consequently, the extent of any outbreak and for controlling transmission.

When it comes to dealing with this ongoing pandemic, it is clear that Covid-19 – and our limited understanding of it – is testing our decision-making skills to the limit when it comes to diagnosing infections. And without a better understanding of what test results really show us, it seems that while coronavirus is at a low prevalence in our communities, mass testing might cause more harm than good if the nuances of test threshold are not understood.

[stickdog99]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stu ... us-mystery

Studying sewage could help solve a coronavirus mystery

There are plenty of mysteries about how coronavirus spread around the world so quickly. But could we shed some light on this by looking in an unusual place? Several studies have been doing just that: tracing the emergence of covid-19 by investigating frozen faeces samples from sewage. This analysis cannot tell us where the virus originated from, nor can it tell us whether the recovered micro-organisms are still infectious. But they can give us ideas about how long we have been living alongside a virus which has so far killed more than half-a-million people.

Coronavirus has been found in sewage from several countries predating the detection of the first confirmed cases in those areas: in Barcelona, in March 2019; Santa Catalina, Brazil in November 2019; and Milan, in February 2020. As more stool samples are assessed there are only likely to be more of these revelations.

So why was coronavirus in sewage before the virus was known to exist in those places? It seems unlikely that the virus spread through sewage, given the existence of modern sanitation systems. Instead, there might be a more straightforward answer.

Coronaviruses and a clutch of other known respiratory viruses do not spontaneously appear or disappear; they are likely to be already with us. At some point, they mutate into their pre-clinical form (i.e. before they start causing symptomatic illnesses) and spread unrecognised at a low level. The relatively slow rate of mutation of some of these viruses points to the possibility that this coronavirus has been around undetected for decades.

These viruses then spread, at different concentrations, via bats or other animals or on surfaces. Our current lack of knowledge about coronaviruses means they go undetected – that is until we start looking for them. When a cluster of people suddenly fall ill with strange symptoms, it takes a suspicious and competent doctor, like Zhang Jixian, in Wuhan, to work out that something is afoot. As with many things, it is only when humans are affected that we start paying attention.

There is ample evidence that viruses which are not yet harmful are everywhere around us. A study in two nurseries in Copenhagen found viruses on most surfaces, like toys, pillows and sofas. The most common viruses found were coronaviruses. These were followed by bocaviruses and adenovirus (which is spread through infected faeces). Although some of the viruses found were alive and viable, many were remnants of dead viruses. As a result, illnesses in the children attending the nurseries involved were few and far between. So once we accept that viruses are with us – and sometimes for a lot longer than a decade – then what becomes important is discovering why all of a sudden covid-19 caused isolated and unconnected global outbreaks.

Why would Wuhan become the focal point in late December and Codogno in Italy in mid-February? The idea that this disease was spread simply by people travelling between those places cannot fully explain why the first cases identified in Codogno and Vò Euganeo had little or no connection or link to travellers from south east Asia.

If traces of coronavirus were in the sewage system of Barcelona a year before, then it also follows that neither of the two Italian cases can be the European source of the outbreaks. So what is going on?

If this coronavirus really did rear its head in different places far away from each other simultaneously, it wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened. There are other well-documented instances of synchronous outbreaks of the same disease, thousands of miles apart. In 1918, this happened in the USA with Spanish flu, and it's hard to blame mass air travel.

At the moment, there is no answer as to what caused coronavirus’s sudden virulence and infectivity. But while the world’s attention is now focused squarely on the pandemic and vast medical resources are concentrated on finding out more about coronavirus, the simple truth is that this is still too little, too late.

When Italian researchers reviewed the water habitat of the then-known coronavirus on the eve of the pandemic, they found only twelve separate similar studies since coronaviruses were first identified in the 1960s. Caught in the warp of other real or perceived emergencies, the scientific community has not devoted resources to studying viruses, their ecology, history and adapting capacity. And now, we’re all paying the price.

[stickdog99]

Note that nothing in terms of actual data that would change the conclusions of any unbiased Evidence Based Medicine evaluator has actually changed since this article was posted 14 months ago, either.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-masks-on-or-off/

April 20th, 2020

COVID 19 – Masks on or off?
April 17, 2020

Tom Jefferson, Carl Heneghan

Masks act as a symbol for society – you are protected. The evidence says you may not be.

Seventeenth-century depictions of “plague physicians” show them wearing a long beak-like mask, tied with rope and carrying a disinfectant flame in the beak.

The flame was supposed to prevent plague miasmata from entering the physician’s body, but carry a mask he did.

The question which is now being hotly debated is whether in the current pandemic we should all be wearing wear masks or not and if so in what circumstances.

Thirteen years ago one of us co-authored what was (to our knowledge) the first systematic review of physical interventions to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. The review was updated in 2009 and again in 2011 and is now accessible free of charge from the Cochrane website.

Our first review had an evidence nucleus of 7 case-control studies carried out in the Far East during the 2003 SARs 1 epidemic. The studies were mostly carried out in an emergency situation with researchers under a lot of pressure to provide answers for decision-makers.

The evidence they provided showed that multiple interventions such as barriers, distancing and hygiene decreased the risk of infection. However, the bulk of the evidence came from healthcare workers settings, with only one case-control looking at family clusters, within their dwellings. In the following updates, we added a few more observational studies and the number of randomised studies increased, but not by much.

This year we have produced a further update. Because of the expected greater number of studies and the haste of our funders for answers, we decided to split the review update into two parts. We were confident that we would have a number of trials to answer our questions with greater precision than case-control studies. The first part includes evidence of the effects of face masks, eye protection and person distancing as single interventions, not in combination.

Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures.

However, our findings cannot be the final word.

For starters, most of the trials were poorly reported and carried out during seasons of influenza-like illness when viral circulation is variable, but probably way below that in the Lombardy areas at the beginning of March. The design and execution of some of the trials were also questionable and as most were cluster-allocated, blinding was difficult, if not impossible.

The trials carried out “in the community” were in fact in specific settings such as halls of residence, family clusters or worshipping pilgrims.

The evidence was also mostly generated by two groups of researchers and the harms of masks were under-reported and no one reported in detail on non-compliance and possible reasons for it.

It is often more difficult to breathe while wearing masks (particularly the respirator masks), which can exacerbate other health issues. An overview of 84 articles found that protective facemasks also negatively impact respiratory and dermal mechanisms of human thermoregulation, making it hard for many to wear constantly.

Thinking you’re protected, means you may put yourself at higher risk, and as individuals, we will change our behaviour in response to the perceived levels of risk. We are more careful if the level of risk is high and less careful if it is low. Measures we can take can include washing hands, avoiding touching, social distancing, school closures and self -isolating when unwell. You may also end up touching your face more often.

A mask can become dirty with excessive moisture, and contaminated with airborne pathogens. And because your voice is muffled; individuals may have to get closer to people, particularly the elderly, to hear from you. ...

The answer is simple: we do not know. That being the case, and since there is a pandemic underway we are in an ideal situation to carefully record “natural experiments” on a global scale, comparing rates of infection and transmission between states at different stages of lockdown and with different masking and distancing policies.

Ideally, we should carry out global trials testing the effects of the absence of masks, but we doubt politicians would be willing to take the risk that Max Von Pettenkopfer did when he swallowed a suspension of Vibrio cholerae to test the bacterial causal theory.

So we got into this situation unprepared with a faulty evidence base and hotly debated practices, after two decades of “pandemic preparedness”.

Society has choices: find out if they work or not, and in what circumstances, or recommend their use, with or without other measures, or use those non-pharmacological interventions where there is more evidence of benefit.

[stickdog99]

https://physiciansqualitycare.com/patie ... -study.pdf

Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a
significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places.
But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?

Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark which hopes to answer that
very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 3,000 participants,
when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in
place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled
trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.

Around half of those in the trial received 50 disposable surgical face masks, which they were
told to change after eight hours of use. After one month, the trial participants were tested using
both PCR, antibody and lateral flow tests and compared with the trial participants who did not
wear a mask.

In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and
those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19. 1.8 per cent of those wearing
masks caught Covid, compared to 2.1 per cent of the control group. As a result, it seems that any
effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.

Some people, of course, did not wear their masks properly. Only 46 per cent of those wearing
masks in the trial said they had completely adhered to the rules. But even if you only look at
people who wore masks ‘exactly as instructed’, this did not make any difference to the results: 2
per cent of this group were also infected.

When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of
airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like
illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers
and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to
whether you get influenza or not.

But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19. There have
only been three community trials during the current pandemic comparing the use of masks with
various alternatives – one in Guinea-Bissau, one in India and this latest trial in Denmark. The
low number of studies into the effect different interventions have on the spread of Covid-19 – a
subject of global importance – suggests there is a total lack of interest from governments in
pursuing evidence-based medicine. And this starkly contrasts with the huge sums they have spent
on ‘boutique relations’ consultants advising the government.

The only trials which have shown masks to be effective at stopping airborne diseases have been
‘observational studies’ – which observe the people who ordinarily use masks, rather than
attempting to create a randomised control group. These trials include six studies carried out in
the Far East during the SARS CoV-1 outbreak of 2003, which showed that masks can work,
especially when they are used by healthcare workers and patients alongside hand-washing.
But observational studies are prone to recall bias: in the heat of a pandemic, not very many
people will recall if and when they used masks and at what distance they kept from others. The
lack of random allocation of masks can also ‘confound’ the results and might not account for
seasonal effects. A recent observational study paper had to be withdrawn because the reported
fall in infection rates over the summer was reverted when the seasonal effect took hold and rates
went back up.

This is why large, randomised trials like this most recent Danish study are so important if we
want to understand the impact of measures like face masks. Many people have argued that it is
too difficult to wait for randomised trials – but Danmask-19 has shown that these kind of studies
are more than feasible.

And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows
that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection

[Wombaticus Rex]

Thank you for this excellent series of contributions on the absolute central question; alarming and fascinating in equal measure. Especially the bit about defining "cases," something that has been bothering me from the start.

I don't think we English-speaking hominids have solid enough data yet to be hurling pejoratives and epithets at each other about this mess.

These dynamics always escalate quickly and the frustration is perfectly natural; just the same, though, there is surely enough of this to be had whichever social media platform you prefer.

[stickdog99]

WHO Eyes ‘Protecting’ Ivermectin from Use for COVID

WHO’s STAG positions that medicines such as ivermectin that are not proven must be “protected” from diversion, meaning used by health authorities, such as in Indonesia where the national drug regulator has authorized use of ivermectin to combat COVID-19 during this latest intense spike of the pandemic there.

Interestingly, WHO anticipates the possibility that ivermectin will be deemed effective, declaring “and that even in the event of efficacy of such drugs against COVID-19 being established, the agreement of medicine donors for repurposing be obtained before the donations are used for that purpose.”

Is the WHO preparing to control the distribution of the drug for targeted use against SARS-CoV-2?

[stickdog99]

The article at the link below unpacks a lot but perhaps what is most eye-opening is the very low death rate of supposedly scary Delta variant.

https://trialsitenews.com/the-lies-by-t ... e-contain/

We have preliminary data from England on the dominant Delta variant, which shows that the variant is much more infectious, yet far less lethal. It is causing less severe illness and this is seen by the non-impact on hospitalizations which have remained flat while infections have risen appreciably

Figure 1: Case numbers, proportion, death, and case fatality of variants of concern and variant under consideration from 1st October 2020 to 7th



Strong reports are coming in that some of these reactions are extremely serious and particularly so for boys. The reality is that myocarditis can kill you or do permanent heart damage (Figure 2).



Figure 2: VAERS preliminary myocarditis reports following dose 2 of the mRNA vaccination, expected numbers versus observed numbers with a 7-day risk window (June 11th 2021)



Let us look at the infection and death data in the UK where it is estimated that 80% of the infections are now due to the Delta variant (Figure 3). What do we see? Well, there is a slight uptick in infections as is expected, for this variant is highly contagious but less lethal and we see it in the mortality which has been flat and stayed flat. We would expect after a two- to three-week time lag behind infections, that deaths would increase the infection increase but it has not (to June 13th 2021).

Figure 3: Infections and deaths in UK as the Delta variant dominates



These duplicitous mendacious public health officials know that viruses do what viruses do, they mutate. They do so even spontaneously and once we put selection pressure on them by the vaccine program itself and the lockdown strategies. This SARS-CoV-2 is the same and the Delta variant is a consequence of a natural next step where the mutations will produce much milder variants. But we have to ask, is the rise in Delta positive infections due to increased testing? Is the same RT-PCR cycle count threshold (Ct) of 40 to 45 being used that detects viral dust and fragments and non-consequential non-viable, non-culturable, non-infectious virus? We argue a combination of these factors may well be at play as they were throughout this pandemic. The flawed PCR test with the high Ct values and high false positives have created much of the panic and false fear in this pandemic. It has been used subversively. It served to drive fear and a positive test result which is near 100% a likely false positive due to a Ct of 40 is not a ‘case’. A case is whereby the person is sick and has symptoms and needs care. A positive test most often does not become a case yet in COVID-19 it did. Something other than science is at play for 16 months now.

We actually argue that the Delta variant is a great thing, at this time, based on all that we have seen! A very good sign indeed for its CFR is much lower than traditional variants and it is akin to a common cold or mild flu. The virus does not seek to mutate to a more lethal version else it will kill the hosts it seeks to infect with low-level illness/symptoms. It is a biological evolutionary necessity for it to mutate into a non-lethal, highly infectious variant. It seeks to replicate and it is maladaptive to kill its host. The host being ‘you’ and as it approaches an ‘endemic equilibrium’ state (herd immunity with R0 of 1), it becomes more and more harmless, more infectious, but non-lethal. It is biologically driven and a near-absolute must to do this, namely mutate downward in lethality and upward in infectiousness.

The Delta is the case in point, it is far less deadly than the original parental Wuhan strain/variant (some estimates are 1/28th based on an overall CFR of 2.8% in UK and thus 0.1/2.8=0.036 so 1/28th). Moreover, the CFR of the Delta is 0.1% which is approximately 75% less than that for the seasonal influenza. It, Delta, does seem to have a greater secondary attack rate than earlier variants. Highly more transmissible, but highly less lethal and can be regarded as almost like a common cold or mild influenza. It is not more harmful than any prior variant and actually far less so yet Dr. Fauci and the media and the television medical experts continue their hysteria and irrational behavior to scare you. It is a depth of academic sloppiness and cognitive dissonance that is averse to any science or evidence that differs or questions their often unscientific and unsound positions. One can argue that it is far safer for a young, healthy person to get infected from the delta variant COVID and become naturally immune, than to receive an mRNA vaccine and risk severe illness from the vaccine e.g. myocarditis.

[stickdog99]

https://trialsitenews.com/are-asymptoma ... n-healthy/

Are Asymptomatics Sick Until Proven Healthy?

Across the globe, official public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic has been underpinned by the concern that people without disease symptoms may transmit the virus. This has led to recommendations such as universal mask-wearing, social distancing, mass testing, stay at home orders, and school and business closures.

“Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling.” (Ref)

many further references available at link ...

A person showing no symptoms of COVID-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen:

The test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (Ref) (the person is not infected);

The person may have recovered from COVID-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test);

The person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms; or

The person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity (Ref) and will never develop symptoms.

In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics. As Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated in March 2020:

“In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person”.

A study in May 2020 found that all 455 contacts of an asymptomatic individual did not become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the researchers concluded that “the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.” (Ref). A recent study shows the minimal effect of asymptomatic transmission within the same household. 1000 asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals lead to 7 new infections, while 1000 symptomatic individuals lead to 180 new infections (Ref). The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals. The risk of asymptomatic spread outdoors would be even more insignificant.

The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility” (Ref). Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect (Ref).

A sensible recommendation is to ask sick individuals to stay at home until they are recovered, which may last for about eight days (Ref). This age-old commonsense practice would have saved the world incredible collateral damage. Instead of wasting resources by focusing on the healthy, it’s time to shift our attention to the vulnerable to improve their prognosis and survival. This strategy involves three key components: prevention (Vitamin D supplementation, healthy lifestyle, avoiding crowded indoor places during the peak of outbreaks, and safe and efficacious vaccination), early treatment of symptoms in the high-risk group, and effective treatment protocols in the event of hospitalization.

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/gp- ... -vaccines/

Barred – a GP with the courage to say No to vaccines

A GP who resigned his ‘job for life’ as a partner with a Hampshire practice because of his doubts about Covid-19 vaccines has been suspended by NHS England for questioning coronavirus protocol. ...

He said: ‘It’s hard to go against the grain like this, but when I found out they were going to start testing the vaccine on children, I couldn’t sleep. I knew it didn’t matter what the results of the trials were, negative or positive, they would begin injecting children regardless. A healthy child is more likely to be struck by lightning than die of Covid. They don’t need an experimental vaccine that has no proven benefit.

‘The risks from the vaccine are completely unknown because it’s barely been tested. But reactions are beginning to come to light. Adolescent boys seem to be developing myocarditis – heart inflammation – which can permanently damage the heart. The risks could be potentially devastating compared with them contracting Covid and surviving it. I began waking up in a cold sweat. I was so anxious that I ended up calling in sick. That was back in March, and I never went back.’ ...

Dr White explained in a heartfelt resignation video that went viral after he posted it to Twitter on Friday June 4.

‘I had to go because of all the lies. They’re so vast it’s been impossible to stomach. I became a doctor because I wanted to help people and make a difference. Since the pandemic was announced, I’ve had my hands tied behind my back. There are safe treatments that I have researched and there is good science behind them, proven treatments, but we’re not allowed to use them.’ ...

‘After the vaccine programme began, I started to see more people with vaccine damage than with Covid. I effectively left my practice three months after the rollout but before I left, I saw eight vaccine injured patients, they felt feverish and short of breath post-vaccination, and one was hospitalised in his 50s. He’d had Covid-19 so he didn’t need the vaccine, but no one had checked his medical notes. When I got his discharge letter back from A&E, it just said Covid-19, not that he’d had a reaction to the injection.’ ...

It has affected his personal relationships and is a divisive subject within his family, who all have their roots in healthcare.

As painful as the response from his family has been, the outpouring of support from strangers on social media has been phenomenal. He said: ‘Before I posted the video, I had 100 followers on Instagram which increased to 37.5k after my video. I had 11 followers on Twitter and now I have over 8k, but Instagram are taking down my posts. I put up a list of vitamins I take for boosting immunity. I didn’t even mention Covid, and they labelled it: “Covid-19 misinformation. False treatments. WARNING”.' ...

Initially, he turned down their offer of a partnership because he said: ‘Being a GP is a mill, you’re seeing 40 patients a day, a third of your day is spent doing paperwork, a lot of it is meaningless. It’s what we call tick-box medicine. What I felt was that I was, if I can be frank with you, a bitch for Big Pharma.

‘If you take someone coming in with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the agenda is to get them on a drug for the diabetes, get them on a different drug for their blood pressure, it’s not about reversing type 2 diabetes which you can do by changing their diet.’

Since he walked away from general practice, he feels lighter and is excited for the future. Dr White is now focusing on functional medicine, from which he is not suspended – a biology-based approach to healthcare that identifies and addresses the root cause of disease, for example poor diet and lifestyle.

He wants to cure people, not just control their symptoms with drugs with side effects that can potentially harm.

The vaccines, and the Armageddon he, and many other doctors and scientists, fear they could cause, are never far from his thoughts though. He has this advice for people undecided about whether to have a Covid vaccination or not: ‘Please don’t have this because you think they will let you go on holiday. Your ability to travel should not be impeded for a virus with a survival rate of 99.7 per cent. It makes no sense.’

[stickdog99]

Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the most eminent physicians and scientists in the US, and reputed to be the most published cardiologist in history. With a number of others, he devised a treatment protocol for Covid-19, which was shown to be effective in preventing up to 85 per cent of deaths. Having spent the best part of a year seeing all discussion of these treatments suppressed, resisted and censored by the authorities, media and Big Tech, he has come to a shocking conclusion:

‘I believe that we’re under the application of a form of bioterrorism that’s worldwide, that appears to have been many years in the planning. The first wave of the bioterrorism was a respiratory virus that spread across the world and affected relatively few people, but generated great fear . . . The entire program as this bioterrorism Phase 1 was rolled out was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be Phase 2 of a bioterrorism operation.’

https://www.bitchute.com/video/iTnvKuUIYezR/

[stickdog99]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/worl ... icide.html

Emergency room visits following suspected suicide attempts by teenage girls spiked in the first months of 2021, compared with rates in 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Friday.

The new study, which relied on data from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program, showed that visits to emergency rooms for suspected suicide attempts rose about 51 percent on average for girls aged 12 to 17 in the four weeks ending March 20, compared with the same period in 2019. The rate began rising in summer of 2020, the researchers said.

The numbers of suspected suicide attempts among boys the same age and adults of both genders aged 18 to 25 remained relatively stable, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, the study found.

“The findings from this study suggest more severe distress among young females than has been identified in previous reports during the pandemic, reinforcing the need for increased attention to, and prevention for, this population,” the C.D.C. said.

The report comes on the heels of other recent research that suggested higher rates of mental health problems among teenagers, including self-harm, suicide attempts and suicidal ideation, which some experts worry could be related to stressors from the pandemic.

[stickdog99]

https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/29/pseudopandemic/

Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza.

The pseudopandemic was a psychological operation (psy-op) designed to terrorise the public. The objective was to accustom the people to draconian system of government oppression by familiarising them with the mechanisms of a biosecurity state.

The pseudopandemic was based upon an influenza like illness which, regardless of its origin, was not and is not a disease which can legitimately be considered the cause of a “pandemic.” The only way it could ever be described as such was by the removal of any reference to mortality from the World Health Organisation’s definition.

COVID 19 is a disease which has a mortality age distribution profile indistinguishable from standard mortality. Unlike influenza, which disproportionately impacts the young, in terms of threat to life, COVID 19 was and is a wholly unremarkable illness.

Were it not for political theatrics and mainstream media propaganda, which began in China, no one, outside of the medical profession and COVID 19 sufferers, would have remarked on this disease.

The illusion of overwhelmed health services was created by massively reducing their capacity and staffing levels while simultaneously reorienting healthcare to treat everyone who presented with a respiratory illness as viral plague carriers.

In reality the pseudopandemic saw unusually low levels of hospital bed occupancy. However, due to the additional policies and procedures heaped upon them, healthcare services were thrown into into disarray.

This was combined with the use of tests, incapable of diagnosing anything, as proof of a COVID 19 “case.” This enabled governments around the world to make absurd claims about the threat level. They relied upon fake science and junk data throughout. As symptomatic illness and resultant disease mortality was relatively low, they asserted that people without any signs of illness (the asymptomatic) were spreading the contagion.

This was abject nonsense. There was no evidence that the asymptomatic infected anyone. Those at risk of severe illness were the small minority of people who already had serious comorbidities, often due to their age.

The mass house arrests (lockdowns) and other measures, such as wearing face masks, were then used to increase the infection risk, to reduce broad levels of population immunity and give the false impression of an extraordinary public health threat. The removal of health care for every other disease, including cancer and ischaemic heart disease, coupled with the health costs of increasing deprivation and immunosuppressant policies, were then exploited to bolster the illusion of a pandemic.

This does not mean that COVID 19 didn’t kill people but those who died of the disease were a small percentage of the total numbers claimed. COVID 19 had no discernible impact upon all-cause mortality. The increase above one of the lowest ever 5 year mortality averages was mainly caused by the withdrawal of health services, as increasing numbers of people died in their own homes or in overburdened care settings, without receiving normal medical attention.

Despite these efforts, mortality in 2020 was still only the 9th highest in the first two decades of the 21st century and one of the lowest age-standardised mortality rates in the last 50 years.

COVID 19 presented virtually no risk to those of working age an none at all to the young. There was no evidence that children were either at or presented any risk. The school closures were part of the pseudopandemic psy-op. They gave the misleading impression of an emergency and provided fraudulent justification for vaccinating children.

The pseudopandemic was planned to lead to the complete transformation of our culture and society. It has irrevocably changed our relationship with governments, has caused catastrophic economic disruption, shutdown global trade and saw millions become reliant on government subsidies. The pseudopandemic was the opening salvo in a global coup d’état.

The new pseudopandemic biosecurity apparatus is designed to control our behaviour as we are forced through a global transformation. Those behind the pseudopandemic intend to change the International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) and establish global governance in the shape of technocracy. Technocracy is a neofeudal, totalitarian system based upon communitarian principles.

We will be offered the illusion of participatory democracy through our required participation and belief in “civil society.” Civil society will be a “stakeholder” in the Technocracy. However, civil society will only be allowed to pursue polices set at the global level.

Applied psychology was used throughout the pseudopandemic to fix our “choice environment.” We were conditioned to believe that following the rules was the responsible and moral choice. In reality our behaviour was being deliberately altered to ensure our compliance with the diktats of the biosecurity state, preparing society for the transition to technocracy.

The new global IMFS is built upon carbon trading and a $120 trillion carbon bond market is currently under construction. Assets are being defined in terms of their Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics which rate investments depending upon their environmental, social and governance (ESG) score.

These metrics have been established by the World Economic Forum working in partnership with the central banks, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other stakeholder capitalists, such as the investment firm BlackRock.

The global system of central banks, headed by the BIS, are “going direct” by directly funding government policy. They have linked monetary policy to fiscal policy which means ultimate control of all government spending by the BIS. The Financial Services Board of the BIS regulates ESG’s and determines the value of sustainable financial assets.

In this way, the global technocracy will facilitate the continuation of crony capitalism, as only the right stakeholders will receive the approved ESG rating. Those who don’t will not be able to raise the investment capital they need and will be forced out of business.

“Going direct” began before the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global pandemic. All of the economic and financial responses to the pseudopandemic, such as furlough and business support packages, were agreed as part of the “going direct” plan in August 2019.

The so called economic stimulus of Quantitative Easing (QE) is a fraud. It is based upon the unbridled monetisation of debt on an unprecedented scale. Going direct means that the toxic junk assets of the financial institutions have been taken on to the balance sheets of the central banks. Thus creating unimaginable levels of public debt that can never, and will never, be repaid.

The QE money, created out of absolutely nothing, has been pumped into the financial markets for the continued enrichment of the right stakeholders. The vast expansion of the money supply will shortly lead to hyperinflation. The mass unemployment that will occur as a result of the austerity, caused both by the staggering levels of debt and our transition to a new IMFS, will create stagflation.

The new net zero carbon economy will mean permanent austerity for the majority. The Technate will provide a universal basic income (UBI), or some variation of the concept, to be paid in Central Bank Digital Currency (CDBC). This will mean that no one will have their own money, other than the chosen stakeholders, as all transactions will be monitored and controlled by the central banks.

Those who oppose the neofeudal authority of the corporate, stakeholder Technate and refuse to comply with the imposition of biosecurity obligations will have their CBDC restricted or switched off. The pseudopandemic has established the framework of the biosecurity state that will control all our lives. The vaccine passports are the gateway to full biometric identity for every citizen in the new normal Technate.

We will be required to show our biometric ID on demand. Access to goods and services will be monitored and restricted as desired by the Technate. UBI and CBDC combined with biometric ID will ensure our compliance. The central planners of the Technate will oversee the AI controlled system which will automatically limit the freedoms of those who defy the rules decreed by the stakeholder capitalists.

Money, as we currently understand it, is no longer required by those behind the pseudopandemic. The net zero carbon economy enables them to seize control of the “global commons.” This means that they will have dominion over all of the Earth’s natural resources. All land, the oceans, the atmosphere and even space is being converted into assets via Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics.

Not only will we have no money of our own, we will be unable to access the resources we need to survive without permission from the Technate. While this system of technocracy has been planned for more than a century, it was the financial collapse in 2008 that led the pseudopandemic planners to increase the pace of transformation. The monetisation of debt had long been the source of their authority but this IMFS was unsustainable. As all money was debt, its eventual collapse was inevitable. It passed the point of no return in 2008.

With their going direct plan in place, the stage was set for the pseudopandemic. SARS-CoV-2 provided the perfect opportunity and the core conspirators behind the pseudopandemic had trained extensively in readiness for the operation. We were then barraged by a mainstream media propaganda campaign and military’s information warfare units were deployed to control our “choice environment.”

Scientific and medical doubts were censored as the suspension of normal democratic processes was exploited to introduce the biosecurity state. Laws were passed to allow government to commit any crime it wished in pursuit of stakeholder capitalist sustainable development goals. Laws to end the right of protest and censor free speech are moving unopposed through the legislature as national governments, who are no more than stakeholder partners within the new normal technocracy, prepare us for the coming Technate.

For the core conspirators of the pseudopandemic this is the realisation of their long held dream of global governance. They are steeped in the mythology of eugenics and population control. Once they have total control of the global commons they will no longer need us as consumers and are intent upon significant population reduction.

As insane as this all sounds the evidence, explored in pseudopandemic, is overwhelming. We are facing global neofeudalism unless we act now. Herein lies our hope.

The core conspirators have no real power. It is an illusion that they are desperate to maintain. They invest billions in propaganda, hybrid warfare and security systems because they are terrified that we will realise what they are doing.

Their plan can only succeed if we believe their lies and comply with their orders. If we don’t there is nothing they can do about it.

We can reset the world.

[stickdog99]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaca ... le/2781600

Myocarditis Occurring After Immunization With mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines

David K. Shay, MD, MPH1; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA1,2; Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH2

JAMA Cardiology. Published online June 29, 2021

Two reports in the current issue of JAMA Cardiology describe cases of acute myocarditis that occurred among persons who received the BNT162b2-mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the US. During the clinical evaluations of these patients, alternative etiologies for myocarditis were not detected.

The first report describes 4 cases of myocarditis with symptom onset 1 to 5 days after receipt of a second dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (2 receiving the BNT162b2-mRNA vaccine and 2 receiving the mRNA-1273 vaccine) who were evaluated in a single tertiary care medical center (Duke University Medical Center) that attempted to define its catchment population.1 Three cases occurred in men aged 23 to 36 years and the fourth in a 70-year-old woman; details about the medical history of the fourth patient were not provided, but she received coronary angiography during her evaluation and no atherosclerosis was found. All presented with severe acute chest pain, had abnormal electrocardiogram results, and had evidence of myocardial injury demonstrated by elevated troponin levels. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed in these 4 patients on days 3 through 5 after vaccine receipt, and the findings were consistent with acute myocarditis as defined by recent expert consensus guidelines

The second, larger case report comes from the US Military Health System and describes 23 individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination.2 All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median (range) age was 25 (20-51) years; 20 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical presentations and laboratory findings were similar to those described in the smaller case series1; 8 of 23 patients in this series received cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and all 8 demonstrated findings again consistent with acute myocarditis.

A separate case report published by Marshall et al4 provides additional context in a younger population. They report 7 US male adolescents aged 14 to 19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the BNT162b2-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. These adolescents were found to have elevated troponin levels, abnormal electrocardiogram results, and findings on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging consistent with acute myocarditis.

Although the extent of the search for alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis varied for each patient in these 3 reports,1,2,4 no evidence of common causes of acute myocardial injury in healthy persons was found, and findings of tests for enterovirus and adenovirus infection were negative. The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization. Myocarditis or pericarditis were not detected in the clinical trials for these vaccines; however, it is possible that any association is too rare for recognition in a clinical trial enrolling less than several hundred thousand participants. The patients described in these US-based case series had resolution of symptoms or are recovering after receipt of brief supportive care and continue to be monitored during recovery from the acute illness. ...

[stickdog99]