Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[mentalgongfu2]

.
So you replace one strawman with another, then.

....

All that aside,
i've yet to see a substantive refutation from you on the issues raised on this topic.

What strawman argument do you believe I have made?
I'm happy to correct it.

And as far as substantive refutation, that is quite difficult unless we can agree on a shared set of data or at least a shared reality. I don't know fuckall about PCR cycle counts and I doubt many here do except what they read somewhere else. But I can link and copypasta articles and posts and pages too.

Here's one on PCR tests that refutes the assertion PCR cycles are producing bad data.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/about/blog/2021/explained-covid19-pcr-testing-and-cycle-thresholds

It's from Canada, where Jeff Wells lives.

[Grizzly]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/528701-bioweapons-attacks-cia-military/
Lee Camp: America’s impressive history of bioweapons attacks against its own people


So funny, I forgot to laugh...*

Geez, I never knew in third grade how true this would later at 50 become so god-damn serious.

[stickdog99]

.
So you replace one strawman with another, then.

....

All that aside,
i've yet to see a substantive refutation from you on the issues raised on this topic.

What strawman argument do you believe I have made?
I'm happy to correct it.

And as far as substantive refutation, that is quite difficult unless we can agree on a shared set of data or at least a shared reality. I don't know fuckall about PCR cycle counts and I doubt many here do except what they read somewhere else. But I can link and copypasta articles and posts and pages too.

Here's one on PCR tests that refutes the assertion PCR cycles are producing bad data.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/about/blog/2021/explained-covid19-pcr-testing-and-cycle-thresholds

It's from Canada, where Jeff Wells lives.

OK, I read it.

Can Ct values tell how serious an infection is?

Although Ct values do not indicate the severity of disease, they may be able to provide important information for clinical and public health decision making

Why aren’t cycle threshold reported on test results?

Like with other PCR tests (including non-COVID-19 tests), it is not recommended to provide Ct values on test results in Ontario (and Canada).

Can you spot the logical contradiction?

[Karmamatterz]

The conversation is not just about data, it's also about narratives and propaganda. The messaging and drumbeat is nonstop and has gone to wacko extremes. Donuts and free beers for getting vaxxed? A freaking million dollar lottery? Public shaming by the government and media for simply questioning? Absurdity and insanity.

Don't get lost in the data, it's a rabbit hole they want you to dive into and never come out.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Here's one on PCR tests that refutes the assertion PCR cycles are producing bad data.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/about/blog/2021/explained-covid19-pcr-testing-and-cycle-thresholds

It's from Canada, where Jeff Wells lives.

The alleged soundness of PCR tests is not a good platform to begin your attempts at substantive promotion of Establishment narratives.

Calling these data points "copypasta" won't alter the value of the info.

From a few months ago:

...

I typed the following most recently:

I discussed cycle thresholds and the flaws of the PCR tests before, numerous times within this thread. Even the NY times covered the probability of false positives with PCR tests for any Ct over ~30 -- and the majority are indeed over 30 -- though it's difficult to obtain stats on this as Ct is rarely reported or included when results are doled out. They can be throttled up or down to achieve desired results.

...

Prior to Covid, a "case" was defined as one who exhibited symptoms. This nonsense about labeling someone as a "case", based ONLY on a positive PCR result -- while showing ZERO symptoms, and REMAINING ASYMPTOMATIC -- is one of the many canards with respect to how numbers and ACTUAL case counts are manipulated.

Yesterday, you typed:

Also BelS, what do you know about RT-PCR tests and false positives?

Let's see....

.

The below update is COUNTER to all prior 'official' guidance and messaging.

...

Directly from the WHO:

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-202 ... rs-2020-05

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

The guidance warned against diagnosing someone as having the virus just because one tests positive if the individual does not present with symptoms of COVID-19. It also warned about the high risk of false positives: “The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”

“As disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. The probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity,” per the WHO.

It also describes PCR tests merely as an “aid for diagnosis” and did not place any greater weight upon the results of PCR tests. “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

The new guidance for assessing the results of PCR COVID tests effectively means that there are additional steps to be taken before reporting that someone has tested positive for the virus. The WHO notes that “a new specimen should be taken and retested” and further stipulates that “health care” workers should weigh up the test result alongside real-world information, such as symptoms or “clinical observations,” and contact with any other infected individuals.

And this, which I typed one month prior to the above updated [Jan. 2021] guidance from the WHO:

.

"cases" does not = active instance of the virus, more often than not.

How many tested during the lockdown timeframe?
Of those who tested, how do we know what the Ct rate was compared to pre-lockdown?

We'll never know as they don't publish it.

Most tests set the cycle threshold (Ct) limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/heal ... WRX4lV0XlI

I recommend fully digesting the content in the above quote. It's essentially saying that MOST "cases" are false-positive, and further, the majority are NOT carriers of the virus.

Since Ct utilized in a given region are rarely, if ever, disclosed, it also means they can tweak the cycle count as preferred, which in turn would raise or lower 'positive cases' dramatically.

...

....

We've already seen that the CDC has changed the Ct thresholds for those vaccinated:

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/h ... cases.html

Why is this not also in play for unvaccinated PCR tests? This distinction -- relying on a Ct value of ≤28 -- would have dramatically reduced positive "cases" that have been reported from the onset.

And:

https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/feature ... rstanding/

Excerpt:

2. Cycle Threshold. Ct values are set by test kit manufacturers and by testing laboratories.14 They are not standardized within provinces or countries which adds to the unreliability of the COVID-19 test.12 Recent papers have suggested that a Ct greater than 24 should not be used to infer the presence of a “live or infectious” virus since above that level the exquisite sensitivity of the test will amplify sequences of viruses from other sources.8,15 The sources could be; “dead or non-infectious” SARS-CoV-2, general cell debris, endemic coronaviruses, other pathogens, and from contamination during collection, transportation and preparation of samples.12

The CDC accepts a Ct of around 40.10 In Canada the Ct levels range from a low of 33 in Newfoundland to a high of 45 in Quebec.16 In Ontario the Ct ranges from 38-45. 16 The Canadian levels appear to be high since the increase in cycles between 24 and 45 would increase by billions the amount of RNA which might include not only the unique gene sequence purported to represent SARS-CoV-2 but “foreign RNA” from the sources previously noted. According to a recent Canadian investigation, “an individual who tests positive with cycle count of 35-40 is very likely not contagious and would not require self-isolation, because their viral load would be extremely low.”16 This concurs with a statement by Dr. A. Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In a July 16th 2020 podcast for “This Week in Virology” he clearly implied that tests performed at Ct levels of 35 or above do not reliably indicate the presence of live infectious viruses. On July 30th, 2020, Dr. Barbara Yaffe (Director of Communicable Disease Control, Toronto Public Health) told the media that, “In fact, if you are testing in a population that doesn’t have very much COVID, you’ll get false positives almost half the time. That is, the person actually doesn’t have COVID, they have something else. They may have nothing.”16 In theory a negative COVID-19 test could be converted from negative to positive simply by raising the Ct value. The opposite is also true. For example, a person testing positive after 38 cycles in Ontario would test negative following 33 cycles in Newfoundland.

With Ct levels in Canada varying from 33 to 45, it is not surprising that, “up to 90% of the Canadian COVID cases could be false positives…”16 Since Canadian test results are recorded simply as RT-PCR positive or negative (yes or no) without indicating the Ct level, the interpretation of a result is fraught with ambiguity. An article in the July 2020 edition of the Journal of Medical Virology expressed caution about using the RT-qPCR test as the sole means of diagnosing COVID-19 without evidence of confirmatory clinical signs and symptoms.17

For all of the above reasons, a healthy dose of scepticism should be applied to all cases labelled as COVID-19 solely on the basis of a positive test result.

3. Clinical Implications. The RT-qPCR test amplifies converted RNA enough times allowing it to be detected. Mullis was quite adamant that PCR-viral load tests do not detect free infectious viruses, but rather identify genetic sequences of viruses.18 Recently Bullard emphasized that conclusion by stating, “RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus…”15 It is not the whole virus that is being amplified but bits of its genetic sequence which, without the protein coat, are not infectious. Therefore, it is a mistake to infer that the test identifies whole infectious virus. In addition, the test assumes that the small gene segments are unique to SARS-CoV-2. However, since no acceptable viral isolates are available to confirm this relationship, the assumption is highly questionable. As noted above, the RNA sequences that are being amplified by surrogate DNA could be from sources other than SARS-CoV-2.

The many problems associated with the COVID-19 test have been identified by the CDC which in a recent publication noted that:

The presence of viral RNA in the sample might not indicate the presence of infectious virus;
The presence of viral RNA does not necessarily imply that SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of COVID-19;
The test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens;
The test is not suitable for screening blood and blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2;
If the virus mutates in the predetermined target region, the test is invalid;
The optimum time to detect peak viral levels during an infection has not been established.10

Conclusions
The failure to satisfy Koch’s modified viral postulates and the inability to satisfactorily isolate SARS-CoV-2 should casts doubts on the efficacy of any test that purports to identify the causative agent of COVID-19. In highly technical reports authorities bemoan the absence of clearly defined standards for the collection, transportation and preparation of samples which lead to errors in the interpretation of results.8,9,12,14 This dilemma is exaggerated by the absence of internationally accepted validation criteria. Until all of the above are corrected Bustin is of the opinion that testing programs for SARS-CoV-2 are, “wholly inadequate, poorly organized and surrounded by confusion and misinformation.”

One of many flawed procedures since the onset of this "pandemic".


I'll leave you with a call-back to this long-since-forgotten news item, back when Trump was president and the news media was AGAINST rushed rollout of experimental "vaccines". They quickly changed the narratives as the end of year approached, of course.

https://news.yahoo.com/doctors-alarmed- ... 53624.html

Yahoo News
Doctors alarmed as FDA floats 'emergency use' of COVID-19 vaccine, bypassing trials


Suzanne Smalley

September 1, 2020

Epidemiologists and vaccine experts are alarmed by Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn’s recent assertion that he will consider approving a coronavirus vaccine before the completion of late-stage clinical trials.

The FDA commissioner can issue a so-called emergency use authorization (EUA) on his own if he determines that the benefits of rushing the vaccine into production outweigh the risks, but several vaccine experts told Yahoo News they are deeply concerned by the idea. No vaccine has ever been approved on an EUA basis, said Dr. Peter Hotez, a top vaccine expert, except once to overcome unusual technicalities on a military anthrax vaccine.

“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines,” Hotez said. “It’s a lesser review, it’s a lower-quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”

On Aug. 23, President Trump called a press conference to announce an EUA for convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19, which was controversial in its own right, but the people who might receive it are already sick; vaccines by definition are given to healthy people. In that light, it is vital that clinical trials be allowed to run their course, especially given the novel approaches some labs are employing in their coronavirus vaccine efforts, said Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and the dean of the School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.

Hotez said he is troubled by the mixed messages coming from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and has led the coronavirus response. The president’s Operation Warp Speed effort to find a vaccine by the end of the year has further confused the public, Hotez said, since there has been little to no communication about what is happening behind the scenes.

...

For example, one of the early rotavirus vaccines was found to cause a rare but serious side effect called intussusception, which leads to a telescoping of the intestines, Rutherford said. A surgical emergency in children, intussusception occurred in about 1 in 100,000 patients. Rutherford said this side effect wasn’t seen until after trials were completed, “so that’s something that’s racking around in everybody’s minds about rare side effects.”

“Sometimes the side effects are so rare that they don’t show up until 100,000 people have gotten it,” Rutherford said. “I think that’s the sort of stuff that we really have to be careful about.”

News reports have suggested that Trump is hoping to pull off an “October surprise” with an early vaccine release. Rutherford said the prospect of that terrifies him.

“This whole October surprise thing is just chilling — to think that somebody would try and game this like that,” he said.

Meanwhile, the "vaccines" have shown to have numerous side effects, including DEATH -- unprecendented volume of adverse effects reported so far relative to prior vaccines -- and yet they're still out there, being distributed, touted as "safe and effective" with zero reference to reported side effects.

[alwyn]

from the UK: euthanasia?

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/13/st ... id-deaths/

The Evidence – ‘You stayed at home, to protect the NHS, but they gave Midazolam to the Elderly and told you they were Covid Deaths’
By The Daily Expose on June 13, 2021 • ( 45 Comments )

In March 2020 the British people were told that they must “stay at home” in order to “protect the NHS” and “save lives”. They were also told that the authorities needed just “three weeks to flatten the curve”.

Why were the British people instructed to stay at home? Because of the threat of a new and emerging virus which we’re told originated in the city of Wuhan, China. A virus which has claimed the lives of 128,000 to date in the United Kingdom, or so we’re told.

But what if we could prove to you that you’ve given up fifteen months and counting of your life due to a lie? But not just any lie, a lie that has involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, who you were told died of Covid-19. A lie that has involved committing one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory. A lie that has required three things – fear, your compliance, and a drug known as Midazolam…
Buy us a coffee!

Authorities state that Covid-19 is an infectious disease caused by a new coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organisation (WHO) tell us that “most people infected with the COVID-19 virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment”. However they state that “older people, and those with underlying medical problems like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness”.

We’re told that serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

Pneumonia is an inflammation of one or both lungs, usually caused by an infection. It causes the alveoli (air sacs) inside the lungs to fill with fluid, making it harder for them to work properly. The body sends white blood cells to fight the infection, and while this helps kill the germs it can also make it harder for the lungs to pass oxygen into the bloodstream.

Pneumonia is not a new condition that has appeared due to Covid-19. In 2019 alone, the year prior to the alleged emergence of Covid-19, 272,000 people were admitted to hospital with pneumonia. According to the British Lung Foundation in 2012, 345 people per every 100,000 had one or more episodes of pneumonia. This equates to around 225,000 people suffering pneumoni at least once.

The British Lung Foundation also show us that the majority of cases of pneumonia occur in those who are aged 81 and over. For instance in 2012 1,838 people in every 100,000 people over the age of 81 developed pneumonia, this equates to around 60,000 people over the age of 81 in today’s numbers based on there being around 3.2 million people over the age of 80 in the UK.
Source – British Lung Foundation

They also tell us that In 2012 there were 28,592 deaths from pneumonia, which equates to 5.1% of all deaths that occurred that year.

So as you can see deaths due to pneumonia have not just suddenly started to happen because of the alleged emergence of a new disease called Covid-19, we’ve been living with them all of our lives, they just haven’t been thrust in front of you 24/7 on the television, or the front page of every newspaper like they have with alleged Covid-19 deaths.

But for us to prove to you that you given up fifteen months of your life due to a lie that involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people we first need you to understand which age group has been most affected by Covid-19 according to official statistics.

The above graph is a heat map showing deaths within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 by date of death and age of the person. This data can be seen at the UK Gov’s. coronavirus dashboard here. Whats pretty clear from this data is that the most alleged Covid deaths have occurred in people aged 90+. The next age group with the most deaths being 85 – 89, then 80 – 84 and so on and so on. There’s a general decrease in the number of deaths up to about the 65-69 age group but then we see a dramatic fall to pretty much zero in anyone aged under about the age of 60.

This heat map shows that there have generally been no more than 9 deaths in a single day of anyone aged between 60 – 64. In the 65-69 year old group there have been no more than 20 deaths a day. In the 70-74 year old group no more than 27 deaths in a day. In the 75-79 group no more than than 48 deaths in a day, at it’s highest. It isn’t until we get to the 85-89 year old group that we start to see a large increase in the number of alleged Covid deaths. 179 deaths in a day at its highest. Then we have the 90+ age group which has seen no more than 379 deaths in a single day at it’s highest.

So what we’re seeing here is that is a negligible amount of “Covid” deaths in anyone under the age of 60. But we’re really not seeing very many “Covid” deaths in anybody aged between 60 and 80. What we are seeing is a much higher amount of “Covid” deaths in people aged over 85. But what’s so strange about that?

Well nothing when we consider the average life expectancy in the UK is 81 years of age. Plus the fact this is also in line with what we have seen in cases / deaths due to pneumonia in previous years. Don’t forget serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency.

Which begs the question of why the entire nation has had to stay at home, social distance, wear a mask, wash their hands, and live under dictatorial tyranny for fifteen months because people who have lived longer than the average life expectancy in the UK have died or are dying? Dying of pneumonia from which we see tens of thousands of deaths every year.

We cannot deny that 2020 did see excess deaths, and you would believe this is due to the hospitals being overwhelmed? Except they weren’t.

NHS data shows us that during the height of the “first wave” between April and June 2020 there were 58,005 beds occupied which equated to 62% occupancy. This is 30% down on the same time frame in the previous year.

In 2017, April-June there were on average a total of 91,724 beds occupied which equated to 89.1% occupancy.
In 2018, April-June there were on average a total of 91,056 beds occupied which equated to 89.8% occupancy.
In 2019, April-June there were on average a total of 91,730 beds occupied which equated to 90.3% occupancy.
In 2020, April-June there were on average a total of 58,005 beds occupied which equated to 62% occupancy.

It also shows us that A&E attendance during the height of the first wave was 57% down on the previous year.

2018 – April – 1,984,369 attended A&E
2019 – April – 2,112,165 attended A&E
2020 – April – 916,581 attended A&E

Which begs the question of what exactly were we protecting the NHS from? It seems to have had a holiday.

But there were 41,627 more deaths than the five year average up to the 1st May 2020, and the vast majority of these occurred in April. An April which saw A&E attendance down 57% compared to the previous year and bed occupancy down 30% compared to the previous year. 33,408 of these excess deaths mentioned Covid-19 on the death certificate, the vast majority of which occurred in those over the age of 85.

However data taken from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows us that during April 2020 there were 26,541 deaths that occurred in care homes, an increase of 17,850 on the five-year average. This is half the amount of alleged Covid-19 deaths during the same period.

Why did so many people die in care homes when hospitals were far from overwhelmed? Surely if they have developed serious complications due to Covid-19 they would require urgent medical attention and hospital treatment?

Because don’t forget we’re told that serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

Why were these people in care homes and not in hospital?

They were in care homes because Matt Hancock gave the order to put them there…

On the 19th March a directive was sent out to the NHS which required them to discharge all patients who they deemed to not require a hospital bed. They declared that transfers from the ward must happen within one hour of that decision being made to a designated discharge area, and that discharge from hospital should happen within 2 hours. NHS trusts were told that “they must adhere” to the new directive.

This was done to allegedly free up beds, of which they estimated would amount to an extra 15,000 free beds within just one week of the directive being implemented.

It freed up so many beds that bed occupancy during April – June 2020 was 30% down on the previous year. Why on earth would these people already be in a hospital bed if they did not need to be? You attend hospital because you require medical treatment, not because you want a lie down and a good nights sleep.

This directive meant that people who required medical treatment and attention were discharged into Care homes in the thousands.

But Matt Hancock’s abandonment of the elderly and vulnerable didn’t end there. Whilst the NHS was busy discharging patients who required medical treatment into care homes under his directive, Matt Hancock and the Department of Health were busy trying to source them all a certain drug known as midazolam.

Midazolam is a commonly used drug in palliative care and is considered one of the four essential drugs needed for the promotion of quality care in dying patients in the United Kingdom. Think of it as diazepam on steroids.

Midazolam is also a drug that has been used in executions by lethal injection in the USA, combined with two other drugs. Midazolam acts as a sedative to make the prisoner unconscious. The other drugs then stop the lungs and heart working. However it has been the source of controversy as several prisoners took a long while to die and appeared to be in pain when midazolam was used.

Midazolam can also cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death.

UK regulators state that you should only receive midazolam in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops.

A doctor or nurse should watch you closely after you receive this medication to make sure that you are breathing properly because midazolam induces significant depression of respiration. Your doctor should also be made aware if you have a severe infection or if you have or have ever had any lung, airway, or breathing problems or heart disease.

Midazolam is also used before medical procedures and surgery to cause drowsiness, relieve anxiety, and prevent any memory of the event. It is also sometimes given as part of the anesthesia during surgery to produce a loss of consciousness.

Midazolam is also used to cause a state of decreased consciousness in seriously ill people in intensive care units who are breathing with the help of a machine.

Midazolam should be used with extreme caution in patients who have chronic renal failure, impaired hepatic function, or impaired cardiac function. It should also be used with extreme caution in obese patients, or elderly patients.

What are some of the most important points you should take from this?

Midazolam induces significant depression of respiration
UK regulators insist midazolam should only be administered in a hospital or doctor’s office under the supervision of a doctor or nurse to monitor the breathing of the patient in order to provide life saving treatment to the patient if breathing slows or stops.
Midazolam should be used with extreme caution in elderly patients

Serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

Midozalam induces significant depression of respiration.

Knowing that would you use midazolam to treat people who were suffering pneumonia and respiratory insufficiency allegedly due to Covid-19?
Source – US National Library of Medicine

Well Matt Hancock and friends certainly seem to think so as you can see in the following video…
Source

The above exchange took place in a parliamentary committee meeting on the 17th April 2020 between Matt Hancock and Dr Evans, who is a fellow Conservative MP.

The following is an extract from an article which confirms the United Kingdom purchased two years worth of Midazolam in March 2020 and were looking to purchase much more –

Supplies of the sedative midazolam have been diverted from France as a “precaution” to mitigate potential shortages in the NHS caused by COVID-19, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has told The Pharmaceutical Journal.

A spokesperson from Accord Healthcare, one of five manufacturers of the drug, told The Pharmaceutical Journal that it had to gain regulatory approval to sell French-labelled supplies of midazolam injection to the NHS, after having already sold two years’ worth of stock to UK wholesalers “at the request of the NHS” in March 2020.

The DHSC said the request for extra stock was part of “national efforts to respond to the coronavirus outbreak”, which included precautions “to reduce the likelihood of future shortages”.

Why on earth would the United Kingdom need to purchase two years worth of Midazolam, a drug associated with respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest, to treat a disease that causes respiratory suppression and respiratory arrest?
Source – US National Library of Medicine

This document produced by the NHS states that Midazolam should be used for comfort at end of life care due to Covid-19 to ease fear, anxiety and agitation. Source

This NHS document states that midazolam should be used for sedation prior to the patient requiring mechanical ventilation, something we know has been required in hospitals for people who have developed severe pneumonia, of which we are told is due to Covid-19. However it also states that midazolam should only be used if 1st line and 2nd line drugs do not provide adequate sedation, but does include the caveat that midazolam alone can be added to 1st line drugs to reduce Propofol infusion rates. Source

This NHS document states that midazolam should be used for sedation prior to having a operation. Source

The same document also provides confirmation that midazolam has the potential to impair the respiration system, particularly in the presence of disease or old age. It clearly states that dosage should be kept to a minimum and shoud be within the manufacturer’s guidelines.

The document also provides a helpful table confirming dosage of midazolam for the elderly or unwell should be no more than 0.5mg – 1 mg, side effects include cardiorespiratory depression and the drug should be used with caution in those suffering respiratory disease.

This article confirms that over 2 million operations were cancelled at the end of March 2020 to free up beds for at least three months for “coronavirus” patients. – Source

Can you see the contradictions here? A policy that has been in place prior to the alleged emergence of Covid-19 clearly states that midazolam can be used for sedation, however dosage should be reduced to 0.5mg in the elderly or unwell due to possible side effects which include cardiorespiratory depression, and extreme caution should be used in administering midazolam to patients suffering respiratory disease.

However a policy created for treating patients allegedly suffering anxiety due to Covid-19, which we’re told is a respiratory disease, clearly states to treat said patient with a starting dose of 2.5mg of Midazolam, or 1.25mg if the patient is “particularly frail”, but to bump this up to 5 – 10mg if the patient is “extremely distressed”. Even the starting dose for the particularly frail is 0.25mg higher than the maximum recommended to administer to the elderly or unwell in sedation guidelines.

Who is responsible for making this decision and publishing these guidelines? And why is nobody holding them to account?

Two years worth of Midazolam was purchased in March 2020, however at the same time operations were cancelled for a minimum of three months, therefore Midazolam was not required for use in sedation prior to operations. Guidelines published prior to the alleged pandemic clearly state that Midazolam should be used in extremely low doses in the elderly or unwell, and should be used with extreme caution in those suffering respiratory disease due to side effects which include respiratory depression. We’re told Covid-19 is a respiratory disease and complications present pneumonia and severe respiratory distress. Therefore considering all of this the purchase of two years worth of Midazolam seems to be an awful waste of money, doesn’t it? As there doesn’t seem to be much they could possibly use it for within the guidelines

Well we can confirm it was definitely used as we have seen the prescription data.

But we’d just like to remind you of the important warning applied to Midazolam courtesy of the US National Library of Medicine –

Midazolam injection may cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death. You should only receive this medication in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops. Your doctor or nurse will watch you closely after you receive this medication to make sure that you are breathing properly.

So can Matt Hancock explain why during April 2020 out of hospital prescribing for Midazolam was twice the amount seen in 2019?

According to official data in April 2019 up to 21,977 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued, containing 171,952 items, the vast majority being Midazolam Hydrochloride. However in April 2020 45,033 prescriptions for Midazolam were issued, containing 333,229 items, the vast majority being Midazolam Hydrochloride. That is a 104.91% increase in the number of prescriptions issued for Midazolam and a 93.85% increase in the number of items they contained. But these weren’t issued in hospitals, they were issued by GP practices which can only mean one thing, they were issued for end of life care.

The above is a graph displayed on the UK Government website displaying deaths within 28 days of a positive test result for Covid-19 by date of death.

The following graph has been created using data on the amount of Midazolam solution produced each month from January 20219 through to March 2021.

Can you spot the difference? We couldn’t either because there isn’t one.

The spikes in production of Midazolam solution match the spikes of alleged Covid deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

April 2020 – huge surge in Midazolam prescriptions out of hospital and huge surge in production of Midazolam solution.
April 2020 – huge surge in alleged Covid deaths.

January 2021 – huge surge in production of Midazolam solution.
January 2021 – huge surge in alleged Covid deaths.

We’re told that serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

Midazolam Hydrochloride is associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used for sedation in noncritical care settings. In some cases, where this was not recognized promptly and treated effectively, death or hypoxic encephalopathy has resulted. Intravenous midazolam hydrochloride should be used only in hospital or ambulatory care settings.

NHS policy prior to the emergence of Covid-19 states –

Dosage should be reduced to 0.5mg in the elderly or unwell due to possible side effects which include cardiorespiratory depression, and extreme caution should be used in administering midazolam to patients suffering respiratory disease.

NHS policy after the emergence of Covid-19, an alleged respiratory disease states –
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-48.png

Hospitals beds in April 2020 30% were down compared to the previous year.

A&E attendance was 57% down in April 2020 compared to the previous year.

Care home deaths were 205% up in April 2020 compared to April 2019.

The vast majority of alleged Covid deaths are people over the age of 85.

Can you not see a strong correlation here between the over prescribing of Midazolam and the seemingly premature ending of life, with the associated deaths being put down as Covid-19?

Did you really believe there’s a virus so clever that it knows to kill people who are disabled? Just look at the ONS statistics. Three in every five alleged Covid-19 deaths occurred in those who suffered learning difficulties and disabilities (see here).

In relation to deaths of people with learning difficulties the ONS said – ‘the largest effect was associated with living in a care home or other communal establishment.‘

Having a learning difficulty and being in care doesn’t mean you are more likely to die of Covid-19. What it means is that you are much more likely to have a DNR order placed on you without informing yourself or your family, which Carers / NHS staff then use as permission to put you on end of life care, which involves the administration of Midazolam.

We know this happened because an Amnesty report and CQC report said so.

The amnesty report states that –

‘Care home managers and staff and relatives of care home residents in different parts of the country told Amnesty International how, in their experience, sending residents to hospital was discouraged or outright refused by hospitals, ambulance teams, and GPs. A manager in Yorkshire said: “We were heavily discouraged from sending residents to hospital. We talked about it in meetings; we were all aware of this.”’

‘Another manager in Hampshire recalled:
There wasn’t much option to send people to hospital. We managed to send one patient to hospital because the nurse was very firm and insisted that the lady was too uncomfortable and we could not do any more to make her more comfortable but the hospital could. In hospital the lady tested COVID positive and was treated and survived and came back. She is 92 and in great shape.
She explained that:
There was a presumption that people in care homes would all die if they got COVID, which is wrong. It shows how little the government knows about the reality of care homes.‘

‘The son of one care home resident who passed away in Cumbria said that sending his father to hospital had not even been considered:
From day one, the care home was categoric it was probably COVID and he would die of it and he would not be taken to hospital. He only had a cough at that stage. He was only 76 and was in great shape physically. He loved to go out and it would not have been a problem for him to go to hospital. The care home called me and said he had symptoms, a bit of a cough and that doctor had assessed him over mobile phone and he would not be taken to hospital. Then I spoke to the GP later that day and said h would not be taken to hospital but would be given morphine if in pain. Later he collapsed on the floor in
the bathroom and the care home called the paramedic who established that he had no injury and put him back to bed and told the carers not to call them back for any Covid-related symptoms because they would not return. He died a week later.
He was never tested. No doctor ever came to the care home. The GP assessed him over the phone. In an identical situation for someone living at home instead of in a care home, the advice was “go to hospital”. The death certificate says pneumonia and COVID, but pneumonia was never mentioned to us.’

‘A care home manager in Yorkshire told Amnesty International:
In March, I tried to get [a resident] into hospital—the ambulance had employed a doctor to do triage but they said, “Well he’s end of life anyway so we’re not going to send an ambulance” … Under normal circumstances he would have gone to hospital … I think he was entitled to be admitted to hospital. These are individuals who have contributed to society all their lives and were denied the respect and dignity that you would give to a 42-year-old; they were [considered] expendable.‘

The CQC felt it necessary to issue a statement in August 2020 addressing the issue of innapropriate DNR’s being placed on care home residents without informing the resident or their family –

‘It is vitally important that older and disabled people living in care homes and in the community can access hospital care and treatment for COVID-19 and other conditions when they need it during the pandemic … Providers should always work to prevent avoidable harm or death for all those they care for. Protocols, guidelines and triage systems should be based on equality of access to care and treatment. If they are based on assumptions that some groups are less entitled to care and treatment than others, this would be discriminatory. It would also potentially breach human rights, including the
right to life, even if there were concerns that hospital or critical care capacity may be reached.’

That statement was issued because the CQC found that 34% of people working in health and social care were pressured into placing ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) orders on Covid patients who suffered from disabilities and learning difficulties, without involving the patient or their families in the decision.

The evidence is all there to see in the public domain and thankfully, a team of people are gathering said evidence and analysing it, so that justice can be sought for the people that have had their lives ended prematurely via the use of inappropriate DNR orders, used as permission to start end of life treatment which included a drug called Midazolam. A drug that is associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, the exact same symptoms of complications due to the alleged Covid-19 disease, especially when used for sedation in noncritical care settings.

A drug which was ordered by UK authorities in March 2020 at a quantity to cover a usual two year supply. A two year supply that seems to have been depleted by October 2020 according to NHS documents –
Source

But once replenished the stocks were again depleted by the beginning of February 2021 according to official NHS documents –
Source

It was decided in 2013 after a review that the ‘Liverpool Care Pathway‘ was to be abolished. The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) was a scheme that we’re told intended to improve the quality of care in the final hours or days of a patient’s life. It’s alleged aim was to ensure a peaceful and comfortable death. The LCP was a guide to doctors, nurses and other health workers looking after someone who was dying on issues such as the appropriate time to remove tubes providing food and fluid, or when to stop medication.

The reason it was decided it should be abolished is that the review found hospital staff wrongly interpreted its guidance for care of the dying, leading to stories of patients who were drugged and deprived of fluids in their last weeks of life.

The government-commissioned review, headed by Lady Neuberger, found that poor training and a lack of compassion on the part of nursing staff was to blame. Harrowing stories from families revealed they had not been told their loved one was expected to die and, in some cases, were shouted at by nurses for attempting to give them a drink of water. Nursing staff had wrongly thought, under the LCP guidance, that giving fluids was wrong.

The review made 44 recommendations, including the phasing out of the LCP over six to twelve months as individual care plans for the dying were brought in. It stated that only senior clinicians must make the decision to give end-of-life care, along with the healthcare team, and that no decision must be taken out of hours unless there is a very good reason.

The evidence suggests that the Liverpool Care Pathway returned with a vengeance in April 2020 under the direction of the Health Secretary Matt Hancock, Government Advisors and NHS Chiefs, and it looks as if it was used to manipulate you into giving up over one year of your life under the pretence that you were staying at home, to protect the NHS and save lives. But the evidence suggests that in reality you were ordered to stay at home, to protect the NHS, so that they could prematurely end the lives of the elderly and vulnerable and tell you that they were Covid deaths.

Midazolam. It should be the word that is on everyone’s lips. We’re sure it will be now.

[alwyn]

also from the UK. vaccines went for approval before 'pandemic'

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/18/co ... -covid-19/

Confidential Documents reveal Moderna sent mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidate to University Researchers weeks before emergence of Covid-19
By The Daily Expose on June 18, 2021 • ( 60 Comments )

A confidentiality agreement shows potential coronavirus vaccine candidates were transferred from Moderna to the University of North Carolina in 2019, nineteen days prior to the emergence of the alleged Covid-19 causing virus in Wuhan, China.

The confidentially agreement which can be viewed here states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The Universisty of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
Found on page 105 of the agreement

The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.
Recipient signatories found on page 107

The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.
NIAID signatories found on page 107

The final signatories on the agreement were Sunny Himansu, Moderna’s Investigator, and Shaun Ryan, Moderna’s Deputy General Councel. Both signautres were made on December 17th 2019.
Moderna signatories found on page 108

All of these signatures were made prior to any knowledge of the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus. It wasn’t until December 31st 2019 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) became aware of an alleged cluster of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. But even at this point they had not determined that an alleged new coronavirus was to blame, instead stating the pneumonia was of “unknown cause”.

It was not until January 9th 2020 that the WHO reported Chinese authorities had determined the outbreak was due to a novel coronavirus which later became known as SARS-CoV-2 with the alleged resultant disease dubbed COVID-19. So why was an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate developed by Moderna being transferred to the University of North Carolina on December 12th 2019?

The same Moderna that have had an mRNA coronavirus vaccine authorised for emergency use only in both the United Kingdom and United States to allegedly combat Covid-19.

What did Moderna know that we didn’t? In 2019 there was not any singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity which would warrant a vaccine, and evidence suggests there hasn’t been a singular coronavirus posing a threat to humanity throughout 2020 and 2021 either.

Considering the fact a faulty PCR test has been used at a high cycle rate, hospitals have been empty in comparison to previous years, statistics show just 0.2% of those allegedly infected have died within 28 days of an alleged positive test result, the majority of those deaths by a mile have been people over the age of 85, and a mass of those deaths were caused by a drug called midazolam, which causes respiratory depression, and respiratory arrest.

Perhaps Moderna and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would like to explain themselves in a court of law?

[Harvey]

from the UK: euthanasia?

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/13/st ... id-deaths/

The Evidence – ‘You stayed at home, to protect the NHS, but they gave Midazolam to the Elderly and told you they were Covid Deaths’
By The Daily Expose on June 13, 2021 • ( 45 Comments )

In March 2020 the British people were told that they must “stay at home” in order to “protect the NHS” and “save lives”. They were also told that the authorities needed just “three weeks to flatten the curve”.

Why were the British people instructed to stay at home? Because of the threat of a new and emerging virus which we’re told originated in the city of Wuhan, China. A virus which has claimed the lives of 128,000 to date in the United Kingdom, or so we’re told

........ etc

Apart from Midazolam, I made more or less the same argument on Craig Murray's forum some time ago with particular reference to the Liverpool Care Pathway, which has clear parallels and over-lap (perhaps even as a trial run) with both the spike in 'excess deaths in care homes which occurred in the few years around 2012, and also with Covid. Unfortunately it was ruthlessly censored by the board Mods. I pointed out the systematic nature of deliberate structural changes, reduced funding led directly to lower staffing levels, night staff in particular, which resulted in denial of fluids to minimise bed wetting, which killed tens of thousands of elders through dehydration. The 'care' homes are often kept extremely hot to make the inmates drowsy.

[stickdog99]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... unity-debt

New Zealand children falling ill in high numbers due to Covid ‘immunity debt’

Doctors say children haven’t been exposed to range of bugs due to lockdowns, distancing and sanitizer and their immune systems are suffering

New Zealand hospitals are experiencing the payoff of “immunity debt” created by Covid-19 lockdowns, with wards flooded by babies with a potentially-deadly respiratory virus, doctors have warned.

Wellington has 46 children currently hospitalised for respiratory illnesses including respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. A number are infants, and many are on oxygen. Other hospitals are also experiencing a rise in cases that are straining their resources – with some delaying surgeries or converting playrooms into clinical space.

RSV is a common respiratory illness. In adults, it generally only produces very mild symptoms – but it can make young children extremely ill, or even be fatal. The size and seriousness of New Zealand’s outbreak is likely being fed by what some paediatric doctors have called an “immunity debt” – where people don’t develop immunity to other viruses suppressed by Covid lockdowns, causing cases to explode down the line. ...

[alwyn]

just wanted to say thanks to the folks who are posting on this topic. It has kept me sane as well as informed.

[Grizzly]

This is appalling and atrocious ... skip to 53 seconds in to get to the hullabaloo

[mentalgongfu2]

Why is it appalling and atrocious?

Because it promotes the Covid-19 vaccine?

Because Heineken should keep its mouth shut?

[drstrangelove]

A new Australian covid ad aired on the news today. It segues straight into comment by one of our military leaders, who for some reason is spearheading the vaccination rollout.

[Grizzly]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf
Supreme Court ruling shows modified DNA is able to be patented ~


Take your jab and stfu, mentalgongfu2.

[mentalgongfu2]

Convincing argument, Grizz.