Note: Work In Progress
I. Problem: Pandemic - Declared by WHO
Pandemic (WHO's definition)
2009: An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths & illness.
2020: An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus emerges & spreads around the world & most people do not have immunity.
Hence, WHO was able to declare a pandemic based merely on the worldwide spread of a new "disease", without any regard to the health impact/severity of the "disease".
Q: Does that make logical sense?
Q: So is there really a pandemic?
Immunity (definition)
Natural immunity from T-cells that have lasting memory
Natural immunity from antibodies - disappear after three months
Vaccinated immunity from antibodies -
Antibody studies underestimate natural immunity as antibody tests do not capture antigen-specific T-cells, which develop “memory” once they are activated by the virus.
Scientific studies have shown people who have had a common cold in the past two years have T cells that show 'cross-reactive protection' against Covid
Preliminary studies for natural T cells look promising suggests they are long lasting
The Initial Virus & Subsequent Case Numbers
Q: Was the virus identified / isolated? By who & how? Has this been validated?
Q: How do we know the virus is present in other people?
A: The Corman-Drosten Report presented a diagnostic workflow and Reverse Transcription - Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) protocol for the detection and diagnostics of the virus (SARS-CoV-2)
Q: Who decided the RT-PCR test should be used to diagnose for the virus (& hence the disease)?
Q: How reliable is the RT-PCR Test in diagnostic test? A: Not very reliable
In 2007, epidemiologists & infectious disease specialists concluded that faith in PCR as a diagnostic test led to an epidemic that wasn’t?
was reviewed by 22 Scientists
& found 10 major scientific flaws with the report including not peer-reviewed? (Nov 2020)
II. Reaction: Lockdown - Imposed by Governments
(Everyone incl. the Healthy Population) vs Quarantine (the Sick)
Q: What were the basis that initially supported government imposed lockdowns?
Q: Are these basis still valid?
SAGE Model: Case Fatality Rate
Asymptomatic Transmission
III. Solution: Vaccine - Produced by Corporations (invested by GAVI), Imposed by Corporations
Vaccine (definition): attenuated/killed pathogen vs mRNA
strand
#Vaccine Approval
FDA-approval: all trials & claims (incl. long terms safety) completed & validated
EUA = Emergency Use Authorization, given without completing trials - long term safety is an unknown at the time of EUA given (Hence, post-EUA, adverse events should be closely monitored.)
Given that:
a. Per CDC, IFR for those aged under 70 is <0.5%, those aged 70+ is ~5%
b. CDC knew the vaccines were only tested for efficacy against disease severity and NOT the prevention of infection & transmission
c. 40% were estimated will be asymptomatic (per CDC)
the EUAs may have been justifiable to help the small minority who are at risk (and not to the majority who are not at risk)
IF based on information available then
1) there was no effective treatment (IF they get the virus) &
2) benefits > risks
Post EUA, these should be closely monitored to determine whether these are still true for the EUA to be maintained.
Last but not least, each at risk person should be allowed to decide the balance of their own risk v benefit assessment according to their doctors advise.
However, Post-EUA:
(1) information on effective treatments have been suppressed. Treatments (Ivermectin, Vitamins C & D, Zinc, Quercetin, HCQ) that have been found to be effective (based on studies), simpler to administer, safer & cheaper appear to have been ignored or even suppressed
(2) information on adverse effects have been suppressed. Vaccinations have already been associated with about 3000 deaths and several thousand non-trivial ‘adverse events’, including anaphylactic (allergic) shocks, temporary facial paralysis, cardiovascular disorders, and, in some cases, miscarriages. These figures may be an underestimate, as vaccine reporting systems typically cover only a fraction of adverse events.
(3) information on benefits (esp safety, for those at risk) have been exaggerated
(4) The EUA which should have been limited to help those at risk only have been pushed on to those not at risk. Clearly, this is medically not justifiable.
Given the above, the EUAs must be rescinded
Conflicts of Interest
Total Number of Cases = (A) With Testing + (B) Without Testing
(A) Number of Cases With Testing
Q: Which killed more - Lockdown or Rona? Who can control both?
Power: Abuse of Power or Conspiracy
Q: PCR Test: Detecting "dead" vs "live" virus
Corman-Drosten's Original Test Assays
Number of Genes Tested
Test Kits Quality
Cycle Threshold (CT)
WHO Guidance
(B) Number of Cases Without Testing
The Tools: Language, Numbers, Scientism
A. Pre-Pandemic
GAVI
DAVOS
WHO
Pharma Industries:
Swine Flu
H1N1
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)