Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?
- Thread starter wanderingthomas
- Start date
SMM
The Living Force
I shared a Gov.UK petition on this thread recently. They've updated it: Petition: Hold a public inquiry into Government contracts granted during Covid-19
"Proof" is subjective. Here are electron micrographs of the virus:
IMAGES: What New Coronavirus Looks Like Under The Microscope
The images were made using scanning and transmission electron microscopes at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
www.npr.org
NPR.org said:
This took me all of about 30 seconds to find via a web search. There are hundreds more results and articles.
We have professional microbiologists producing electron micrographs of the coronavirus claimed to cause COVID-19.
Some guy with a documented history of wild speculation then puts out a video claiming these pictures are 'fake'. Did he present evidence in his video that these specific images or the samples provided to produce them are/were faked? I'm predicting that he didn't. Because I did a web search looking for articles specifically debunking these images and couldn't find any.
So yeah, misinformation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This reflects another aspect that stands out to me - how much money is being made off this scamdemic by those providing the essential supplies and snagging contracts. Earlier in the thread it was noted how the billionaires are making out like the bandits they are. And, of course, the very big bucks the vaccines are going to generate. The PTB killed two birds with one stone in that they're cashing in big time and the whole VAXXED movement has been completely derailed. The power of the jab has reached unprecedented heights!
“Portuguese Appeals Court Deems PCR tests unreliable” & deemed the forced confinement of people in quarantine centres “unlawful
[in same article]Crimes Against Humanity, fraudulent PCR Tests Taken To Court – Interview with Lawyer Reiner Füllmich
More COVID Censorship: Controversial Danish Mask Study Hits Publication Blockade
Amid the rush to force everyone to wear face masks to “stop the spread” of the coronavirus, very few people stopped to ask if there was any actual data to support that demand. Anthony Fauci, the joyless worrywart in FEDGOV’s health apparat who demands that anything remotely enjoyable be forbidden forthwith, went so far as to say that there was no need for any scientific study of mask effectiveness.“I would not want to do a randomized controlled study because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better,” said Fauci according to a Breitbart report in July.
[...]
Pesky scientists in Denmark, not persuaded by Fauci’s fulminations and flip-flops, went ahead and performed a randomized controlled study of masks for themselves to see how well they might work at thwarting the virus.
The results, now, are in. But we can’t see them because establishment-connected peer-reviewed journals won’t publish the results.
This was revealed on October 22 by the major Danish newspaper Berlingske. The paper’s headline: “Professor: Large Danish mask study rejected by three top journals.” In its subtitle to the story, the paper wrote: “The researchers behind a large and unique Danish study on the effect of wearing a mask even have great difficulty in getting their research results published. One of the participating professors in the study admits that the still secret research result can be perceived as ‘controversial.’”
The full article, in Danish, is behind a paywall. But the article starts this way (via Google Translate):
One would think, in normal times, that this result would mean the study is flawed in some way. But these are not normal times. Instead, today ideology trumps truth and facts, if they undermine the prevailing propaganda, are secondary to fiction.
While we don’t know what the study found, it seems probable that the results of the study do not support the mask mandates; the human-dignity destroying policies that have become articles of faith to leftist progressive tyrants who delight in enforcing subservience to the state.
This point was made on Twitter by Copenhagen-based economist Lars Christensen. A senior fellow at London’s Adam Smith Institute and former head of emerging markets research at Danske Bank in Copenhagen, Christensen noted that the journals in question — The Lancet, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine — refused publication of the study “Apparently because the results might not show what is politically correct.”
[...]
Earlier, Berenson had a revealing e-mail exchange with one of the scientists who worked on the Danish mask study. Berenson asked the researcher when the study would be published. According to Berenson, “His answer: ‘as soon as a journal is brave enough.’”
[...]
In their letter criticizing the Danish methodology, Haber, Wieten, and Smith write: “This study poses a serious risk of mistranslation, in part due to misleading statements about what the study actually measures in the protocol paper and trial registration. To most decision-makers, null or too-small effects will be misinterpreted to mean that masks are ineffective. However, the more accurate translation is that this study is uninformative regarding the benefits (or lack thereof) of wearing masks outside of the healthcare setting. As such, we caution decision-makers and the media from interpreting the results of this trial as being anything other than artifacts of weak design.”
In other words: 1. “Decision-makers” can’t be trusted to understand the results. 2. “Decision-makers and the media” should not report on the results of this study in any way that deviates from our dogma.
The way science should work is that this paper should be published. The full methods used should be published alongside the results in transparent fashion. Other researchers can then investigate the methods and results and repeat the work to either fortify or falsify the original research findings. Meanwhile, the findings can be weighed and utilized by free citizens and professionals alike.
This is how knowledge progresses.
Officially it is called an amendment to the "infection protection law" but alternative circles consider it as the new "Authorization Act" of 1933.
There have been major demonstrations in Berlin today with at least 10,000 people taking part.
The police say that water cannons were in action for the first time in 17 years.
An AfD-member of the Federal Parliament says he has been wrestled to the ground by police for not wearing a mask, although he could produce a medical exemption.
Interestingly, most of the jostling took place at the "Square of the 18th of March" which has its name in commemoration of March 18, 1848 when people rose up during the "March revolution" and the Prussian King Friedrich-Wilhelm IV ordered the military to open fire on the demonstrators.
As a plus a number of citizens were led into the Reichstag Parliament building by AfD house members and could roam the building freely much to the disgust of members of the ruling parties.
Regarding the Danish mask study, this dated Nov. 18:
Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.
The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Critics were quick to note the study’s limitations, among them that the findings depended heavily on participants reporting their own test results and behavior, at a time when both mask-wearing and infection were rare in Denmark.
[...]
From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.
Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.
At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.
About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.
“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” said Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the study and a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen. “Not a lot.”
Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at Telemark Hospital in Norway and the Harvard School of Public Health, was persuaded. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.
FULL ARTICLE
Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to Protect Wearers
Masks prevent people from transmitting the coronavirus to others, scientists now agree. But a new trial failed to document protection from the virus among the wearers.Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.
The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Critics were quick to note the study’s limitations, among them that the findings depended heavily on participants reporting their own test results and behavior, at a time when both mask-wearing and infection were rare in Denmark.
[...]
From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.
Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.
At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.
About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.
“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” said Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the study and a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen. “Not a lot.”
Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at Telemark Hospital in Norway and the Harvard School of Public Health, was persuaded. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.
FULL ARTICLE
The above is a really good article published at zerohedge.com
Excerpts:
and
One wonders what will be the straw that breaks the camel's back - that will cause it all to come crashing down. It seems obvious that the sheep will have to be pushed to the absolute brink before they will finally turn on their puppet masters. The more the PTB institute pain and suffering in the name of Covid, the closer that day will be.
Rules for thee, but not for me:
Oldest Republican senator, Chuck Grassley, 87, announces he has COVID - as oldest senator Dianne Feinstein, also 87, is seen WITHOUT a mask
Charles Grassley, the 87-year old Republican president pro tempore of the Senate, announced Tuesday he has coronavirus.
The oldest Republican senator made the announcement by Twitter on Tuesday afternoon, hours after saying he was self-isolating after contact with someone who was infected.
'I've tested positive for coronavirus. I'll be following my doctors' orders/CDC guidelines & continue to quarantine,' he tweeted.
The announcement came just as the oldest member of the House, Republican Rep. Don Young, Alaska, left the hospital after testing positive for the virus.
Seen in the Senate: This was Dianne Feinstein, the oldest senator of all, on Tuesday on her way into a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
[...]
Grassley is 87 days younger than the oldest senator, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, also 87. She was seen entering a Judiciary Committee hearing without wearing a mask Tuesday, after Grassley announced he was isolating over potential exposure.
[...]
Grassley's exposure has already put on hold the nomination of Judy Shelton, President Donald Trump's controversial pick for the Federal Reserve after Vice President-elect Kamala Harris returned to the chamber to cast a key vote in a tally Tuesday.
Grassley's absence and that of Rick Scott, the Florida Republican who is quarantining after contact with someone who tested positive, meant Republicans could not force her through.
Oldest Republican senator, Chuck Grassley, 87, announces he has COVID - as oldest senator Dianne Feinstein, also 87, is seen WITHOUT a mask
Charles Grassley, the 87-year old Republican president pro tempore of the Senate, announced Tuesday he has coronavirus.
The oldest Republican senator made the announcement by Twitter on Tuesday afternoon, hours after saying he was self-isolating after contact with someone who was infected.
'I've tested positive for coronavirus. I'll be following my doctors' orders/CDC guidelines & continue to quarantine,' he tweeted.
The announcement came just as the oldest member of the House, Republican Rep. Don Young, Alaska, left the hospital after testing positive for the virus.
Seen in the Senate: This was Dianne Feinstein, the oldest senator of all, on Tuesday on her way into a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
[...]
Grassley is 87 days younger than the oldest senator, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, also 87. She was seen entering a Judiciary Committee hearing without wearing a mask Tuesday, after Grassley announced he was isolating over potential exposure.
[...]
Grassley's exposure has already put on hold the nomination of Judy Shelton, President Donald Trump's controversial pick for the Federal Reserve after Vice President-elect Kamala Harris returned to the chamber to cast a key vote in a tally Tuesday.
Grassley's absence and that of Rick Scott, the Florida Republican who is quarantining after contact with someone who tested positive, meant Republicans could not force her through.
In Japan the suicide rate is still on the rise and caused more deaths than Covid itself and is a reason because of the lockdown (job loss, social isolation etc.). Even 5-year-old kids in Japan mention that they want to leave and is pretty hard to digest.
Suicide claimed more Japanese lives in October than 10 months of COVID
Japan had turned the tide on suicides until the pandemic reality sunk in, now it could prove a worrying harbinger of a mental health crisis festering elsewhere.
www.cbsnews.com
Still it is a worldwide phenomenon, but not every country is that fast releasing such tragic numbers.
Heather
Dagobah Resident
Does anyone have an informed opinion on whether hydroxychloroquine causes "cardiac adverse events," especially for those with heart conditions?
Here's a "meta-analysis" (taking into account numerous studies) suggesting this is not the case:
www.acsh.org
excerpt:
"They also looked at side-effects. No serious cardiac adverse events were reported. No arrhythmias were reported in three of the four studies that assessed arrhythmia. A fourth study had one arrhythmia in 936 patients on HCQ and one in 469 controls. There were no serious cardiac effects, and no trial was stopped because of safety concerns. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal."
But doctors are not prescribing hydroxychloroquine for patients with arrhythmia, for example, as happened to my friend who I believe has that problem.
It would be shame if this were more a matter of politics than good science in this instance, since he's at home, but having a hard time. He's weak, and his wet cough is now more of a dry cough. Also: there seems to be good evidence of the benefits of taking hydroxychloriquine early on, as a way of preventing hospitalization.
He is taking various supplements, including D3. Dr. Klinghardt strongly recommends the herb Andrographis -- he's got it at the top of his list for Covid-19 since it's very effective for upper respiratory problems. So, I'm suggesting he take that in particular.
Anyway, since I'm not a doctor, I can't really override what his doctor is stating regarding hydroxychloroquine.
It's frustrating though. I'm not sure he's getting the best advice.
Here's a "meta-analysis" (taking into account numerous studies) suggesting this is not the case:
Hydroxychloroquine: Does it Have Clinical Value in COVID-19? A Point, Counterpoint Discussion
The value of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 patients continues to rise from the ashes of refutation in the medical literature. The latest iteration is a meta-analysis of utilizing the drug early in ambulatory patients' care to lessen the undesirable outcomes of infection...
www.acsh.org
excerpt:
"They also looked at side-effects. No serious cardiac adverse events were reported. No arrhythmias were reported in three of the four studies that assessed arrhythmia. A fourth study had one arrhythmia in 936 patients on HCQ and one in 469 controls. There were no serious cardiac effects, and no trial was stopped because of safety concerns. The most common side-effects were gastrointestinal."
But doctors are not prescribing hydroxychloroquine for patients with arrhythmia, for example, as happened to my friend who I believe has that problem.
It would be shame if this were more a matter of politics than good science in this instance, since he's at home, but having a hard time. He's weak, and his wet cough is now more of a dry cough. Also: there seems to be good evidence of the benefits of taking hydroxychloriquine early on, as a way of preventing hospitalization.
He is taking various supplements, including D3. Dr. Klinghardt strongly recommends the herb Andrographis -- he's got it at the top of his list for Covid-19 since it's very effective for upper respiratory problems. So, I'm suggesting he take that in particular.
Anyway, since I'm not a doctor, I can't really override what his doctor is stating regarding hydroxychloroquine.
It's frustrating though. I'm not sure he's getting the best advice.
Ruth
The Living Force
I think the motive may be slightly more sinister.
People have the right to refuse treatment regardless of what their belief systems are, or why they believe a certain way. It is a fundamental right. Maybe 'authorities' are trying to emotionally manipulate the majority of people into agreeing to take away these rights. At least that's what I think may be happening. It would just be a precursor to removal of more human rights. Especially the right to bodily integrity.
From a mainstream medical perspective, it's as safe as it can get and its results in some cases are pretty miraculous, i.e. people with severe heart failure from COVID-19 that were dying in the ICU and recovered with HCQ to the point of being discharged by the 7th day. I read several papers about it on pubmed back in September this year.
It can be problematical (i.e. induce arrhythmias) in those with a prolongation of the QT at the electrocardiogram or those who take a number of medications that can prolong the QT, i.e. certain chemotherapeutic agents, antibiotics (e.g. azythromycin), antidepressants, common anti-arrhythmic drugs such as amiodarone, diuretics, etc. HCQ can prolong the QT. Except for the chemo drugs, the rest of the medications are VERY commonly prescribed for a number of conditions such as ischemic arrhythmias, heart failure, bronchitis, depression and anxiety, etc.
Ironically, HCQ inhibits inflammation by inhibiting an ionic pro-inflammatory channel which is formed by the protein envelope of the virus. This has to do with its QT prolongation properties at the EKG. So if it wouldn't have this property, it wouldn't inhibit inflammation so effectively.
If they are really that concerned about medications causing arrhythmias due to their QT prolongation potential, they should come hard on anti-depressants such as citalopram just as hardly as with HCQ.
Some people taking several QT prolongation medications were prescribed HCQ and had dangerous arrhythmias. Those cases were massively covered in the media and scientific publications. Arguably, it was an adverse effect that could have been expected and avoided by reviewing the patient's history and prescriptions, plus pharmacology 101 knowledge. In a specific paper, I recall that the cases who didn't make it (they died from severe COVID-19) was because they couldn't take HCQ due to their medical history and prescriptions.
I've seen thousands of people and their EKGs, and I can recall only one person who had a congenital prolongation of the QT. People who take one or several medications prolonging the QT can certainly stop unnecessary medications as to prioritize and prescribe HCQ safely.
HCQ is really one of the safest and life saving drugs available. It makes the whole COVID-19 hysteria totally unnecessary. Which is why they launched a massive negative campaign against it.
OK - I could have sworn this article was in this thread, but search didn't turn it up. I found it in a still open tab:
This was a very eye-opening article and appears to explain the many ways Covid is causing all its various impacts.
Otherwise, my list of Covid treatments include:
FDA wants to ban NAC now that it's known to combat COVID-19
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has a long history of use as a first-aid remedy for acetaminophen poisoning. Emergency room physicians will administer it in cases when you've taken an overdose of Tylenol or other acetaminophen products. The way it...
www.sott.net
So apart from hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc and vitamin c as treatments for covid19, researchers from the US, UK and Italy recently found in a new study titled “Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)", published on 19th June, that quercetin combined with vitamin c represents a powerful remedy for covid19 patients as well as other respiratory tract infections. Quercetin, especially when amplified by the presence of vitamin C, obstructs viral infection, as well as viral replication and proliferation. Quercetin is a plant pigment in the flavonoid family that possesses antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and immune-protective properties. (It is found in many plants and foods, such as red wine, onions, green tea, apples, berries, Ginkgo biloba, St. John's wort, American elder, and others. Buckwheat tea has a large amount of quercetin.) In their conclusion, the authors of the study also make note of the lack of severe side effects and the low cost of this treatment.
Study: Vitamin C plus quercetin a solid remedy for coronavirus – NaturalNews.com
New research published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology has revealed that vitamin C combined with quercetin represents a powerful natural remedy for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). Entitled, “Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of...
I'm inclined to think that being on statins and/or ACE inhibitors, vitamin c and d deficiencies, getting a flu shot or other vaccines, all decrease one's likelihood to recover from Covid.
ADDED: Just remembered that I believe antibiotics and steroids are being used for patients in more advanced stages of Covid. That's probably been covered in this thread or on Sott.
Last edited: