Just a Girl Lost 2

Just a girl lost~ Here I share bits & pieces of me, in poetry, prose, music & posts from writers who inspire me.


Leave a comment

More than 200 doctors express concern in an open letter about the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak

The open letter from doctors and health professionals to all authorities in Belgium and the Belgian media about the policy in the pandemic crisis has already collected a lot of signatures. The signatories express their “grave concern” about the current state of affairs.
 
“We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, would like to use this route to express our serious concerns about the state of affairs in recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

“We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making on and the mandatory implementation of the corona measures.
We call on the policy discussion about corona to re-examine the purpose that the measures should serve: improving of our public health, and this on a physical, mental and emotional level.
We argue that the measures to get the coronavirus under control are disproportionate and do more damage than they do good.
There is no medical ground to justify this policy anymore: we therefore argue for an immediate end to all measures.
We demand a restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and an open debate, where all experts are discussed without any form of censorship. “

Solution no worse than the disease

“‘A solution must not be worse than the disease’ is a proposition that is more topical than ever in the current situation. However, we note in the field that the collateral damage that is now being caused to the population, in the short and long term. will have more impact in all walks of life in the long term than the number of corona victims currently being protected. “
“The current corona measures and the severe punishments for non-compliance are, in our opinion, contrary to the values ​​formulated by the Belgian Superior Health Council, which until recently as a health authority has always monitored quality medicine in our country:” Science – Expertise – Quality – Impartiality – Independence – Transparency. ” 1
“We believe that the policy has introduced mandatory measures, which are not sufficiently scientifically founded, are unilaterally steered, and that there is insufficient room in the media for an open debate in which different views and opinions are heard. Moreover, each municipality now also receives and province the power of attorney to add its own measures, substantiated or not. “

“The strict repressive policy surrounding corona is also in stark contrast to the hitherto minimal policy that the government pursues when it comes to disease prevention, strengthening the own immune system through a healthy lifestyle, optimal care with attention for the individual and investment in healthcare personnel. “2

The concept of health

“In 1948, the WHO defined health as follows:” Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or other physical ailments. “3

“Health is therefore a broad concept, which goes beyond the physical, and also relates to the emotional and social well-being of the individual. Belgium also has a duty, in subscribing to fundamental human rights, to uphold these rights of to include people in their decision-making when it comes to measures taken in the context of public health. ” 4
“The current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 violate this vision of health and human rights to a large extent. The measures include the mandatory wearing of a mouth mask (also in the open air and during sports activities, and in some municipalities even when there are no other people around), physical distancing, social isolation, mandatory quarantine for some groups and hygiene measures. “

The predicted pandemic with millions of deaths

“At the start of the pandemic, the measures were understandable and widely supported, even though there were differences in implementation with the countries around us. The WHO originally predicted a pandemic that would claim 3.4% victims, ie millions of deaths, and a highly contagious virus for which there was no treatment or vaccine available. This would put unprecedented pressure on the ICUs (intensive care units) of our hospitals.
This has led to a worldwide alarm, unprecedented in human history: “ curve ”was proposed through a lockdown that shut down the entire society and economy and quarantined healthy people. Social distancing became the new normal in anticipation of a saving vaccine.”

The facts about covid19

“Along the way, many sources have sounded the alarm: the objective facts showed something completely different.” 5 6

“The course of covid-19 followed the course of a normal wave of infection similar to a flu season. coronaviruses. There is nothing different from what we normally see. “

“The use of the nonspecific PCR test, which yields many false positives, showed an exponential picture. This test was rushed through with an urgent procedure and was never seriously tested itself. The maker explicitly warned that this test was intended for research and not for diagnostics “7
” The PCR test works with cycles of amplification of genetic material – a piece of genome is constantly being enlarged. Any contamination (eg other viruses, debris of old virus genome) can possibly test false positive. “8

“The test therefore does not measure how many viruses are present in the sample. A real virus infection means a massive presence of viruses, the so-called virus load. If the test is positive in someone, it does not mean that that person is actually clinically infected. is ill or will become ill. The postulate of Koch was not fulfilled (“The pure agent found in a patient with complaints, can provoke the same complaints in a healthy person”). “

“Since a positive PCR test does not automatically indicate active infection or infectivity, this does not justify the societal measures taken based solely on these tests.” 9 10

“Lockdown. If we compare the contamination waves of countries with strict lockdown policies with countries that did not (Sweden, Iceland…), we see similar curves. So there is no relationship between the imposed lockdown and the course of the infection. did not lead to a lower mortality. “
“If we look at the date of application of the imposed lockdowns, we see that it was set after the peak had already passed and was falling. The decrease was therefore not the effect of the measures taken.” 11
“As every year, it seems rather climatic conditions (weather, temperature and humidity) and growing immunity, which are reducing the wave of infection.”

Our immune system

“For thousands of years, the human body has been exposed daily to moisture and droplets containing infectious microorganisms (viruses, bacteria and fungi).
The penetration of these microorganisms is prevented by an advanced defense mechanism – the immune system. A strong immune system is based. on a normal daily exposure to these microbial influences. Overhygienic measures have a detrimental effect on our immunity. 12 13

Only people with a weak or defective immune system should be protected by applying extensive hygiene or social distancing. “
“In the autumn, influenza will re-emerge (in combination with covid-19) and a possible decrease in natural resilience could lead to even more victims.
Our immune system consists of two parts: an innate, non-specific immune system and an adaptive immune system. “
” The non-specific immune system forms a first barrier: skin, saliva, gastric juice, intestinal mucus, cilia cells, commensal flora … and prevents the attachment of microorganisms to tissue . “
” If they do attach themselves, macrophages can cause the micro-organisms to be encapsulated and destroyed. “

“The adaptive immune system consists of mucosal immunity (IgA antibodies, mainly produced by cells in the intestines and lung epithelium), cellular immunity (T-cell activation), which can be elicited in contact with foreign substances or microorganisms. , and the humoral immunity (IgM and IgG antibodies produced by the B cells).
Recent research indicates that both systems are highly entangled. “

“It appears that most people already have innate or general immunity to eg influenza and other viruses. This is confirmed by the findings on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which was quarantined for some passengers who died of Covid-19. most of the passengers were elderly and were in an ideal situation of transmission on the ship. However, 75% turned out not to be infected. So even in this risk group, the majority are resistant to the virus. “
A study in the journal Cell shows that most people neutralize the coronavirus through mucosal (IgA) and cellular immunity (T cells), while experiencing few or no symptoms. The researchers found in a population of uninfected individuals up to 60% SARS-Cov-2 reactivity with CD4 + T cells, suggesting cross-reactions with other cold (corona) viruses “14.
“Most people already have congenital or cross-immunity, because they have already been in contact with variants of the same virus.”

“The antibody formation (IgM and IgG) by B cells only takes up a relatively small part of our immune system. This may explain why with an antibody percentage of 5-10% there can already be a group immunity.”
“The efficacy of vaccines is assessed for whether or not they contain these antibodies. This is a misrepresentation.”

“Most people who test positive (PCR) have no symptoms. Their immune system is strong enough.”
“Strengthening the natural immunity is a much more logical approach.
Prevention is an important, underexposed pillar: healthy, complete nutrition, exercise in fresh air – without a mask, stress reduction and nourishing emotional and social contacts.” 15

Effects of social isolation on physical and psychological health

“Social isolation and the economic damage has led to an increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse” .16

“Studies have shown that the more social and emotional connections people have, the more resistant they are to viruses. It seems that isolation and quarantine are actually deadly.” 17

“The isolation measures have also led to physical inactivity in many elderly people and it is compulsory to stay indoors. This while just enough exercise has a positive effect on cognitive functioning, reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety and improving physical health, energy levels, etc. well-being and in general quality of life. “18

“Anxiety, persistent stress, and the social distancing-induced loneliness have been proven to have a negative impact on mental and general health.” 19

An extremely contagious virus with millions of deaths without any treatment?

“The mortality turned out to be many times lower than expected and approached that of a regular seasonal flu (0.2%).” 20
“The number of registered
corona deaths seems to be overestimated. There is a difference between death from corona and death from corona. People. are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria at the same time, bearing in mind that most people who developed severe symptoms suffered from concomitant pathology, it cannot be concluded that corona contamination was the cause of death. not taken into account in the statistics. “

The most vulnerable groups are clearly identifiable. The vast majority of the deceased patients were 80 years or older. The majority (70%) of the deceased, under 70 years, had an underlying condition, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease or obesity. “
“The vast majority of infected persons (> 98%) did not or hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.”

“In the meantime, affordable, safe and effective therapy is available for those who do show severe disease symptoms in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). When applied quickly, this leads to a cure and often prevents hospitalization. Almost nobody needs now. still to die. “

“This effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of colleagues in the field with impressive results. This is in stark contrast to the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by double-blind studies) that has even led to the ban in some countries (eg the Netherlands). to apply this therapy. A meta-analysis in The Lancet, which failed to demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The primary data sources used were found to be unreliable and 2 of the 3 authors were in conflicts of interest. Most guidelines focused on this study however, remained unchanged… 48 49
We have serious questions about this state of affairs. “
“In the US, a group of doctors in the field who see patients every day, united in“ America’s Frontline Doctors ”and gave a press conference that has already been viewed millions of times.” 21 51
“Also French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institute d’infectiologie de Marseille (IHU) already presented this promising combination therapy in April. “
The Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured many patients in his practice with the above combination, calls on colleagues in a petition for freedom from therapy.22
The definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy . “23

“From the poignant media images of the ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) where people in agony choked and were ventilated, we now know that this was caused by an exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the lung blood vessels. Administration of blood thinners and dexamethasone and avoiding artificial respiration, which turned out to lead to additional damage to the lung tissue, means that this dreaded complication also virtually no longer leads to death. ” 47

“So there is no question of a killer virus, but an easily treatable condition.”

Spread 

“Spread occurs through droplet infection (only in sick people who cough or sneeze) and aerosols in closed, unventilated spaces. Contamination is therefore not possible in the open air. Contact
tracing and epidemiological research shows that healthy persons (or positively tested asymptomatic carriers) virus, so healthy people do not endanger each other. “24 25
” Transmission via objects (eg money, groceries or shopping carts) has not been scientifically proven. “26 27 28

“All this seriously questions the whole policy of social distancing and mandatory face masks for healthy persons – there is no scientific basis for this.”

Mouth masks

“Mouth masks belong in the contacts with proven risk groups or people with upper respiratory complaints and in a medical context / hospital-RVT setting. They reduce the risk of droplet infection through sneezing / coughing. Mouth masks in healthy persons are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.” 29 30 31

“Wearing a mouth mask is not without side effects. 32 33 Oxygen deficiency occurs fairly quickly (headache, nausea, fatigue, concentration drops), an effect comparable to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients who complain of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation caused by wearing face masks. Moreover, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism that affects our immunity. Some experts even warn against an increased transmission of the virus if used improperly “34

“Our Labor legislation (Codex 6) speaks of a CO2 content (ventilation in workplaces) of 900ppm, a maximum of 1200 ppm in special circumstances. This toxic limit is well exceeded after 1 minute of wearing a mask to values ​​that are three to four times these maximum values Whoever wears a mask is therefore in an extremely poorly ventilated room! “35

“Inexpert use of mouth masks without an extensive medical cardio-pulmonary test record is therefore not recommended by recognized safety specialists for employees.”

“Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where the staff wears masks and there is an accurate regulation of air humidity / temperature with adjusted monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, and thus meet strict safety standards.” 36

A second wave of Corona?

“There is now talk of a second wave in Belgium, with the consequent further tightening of the measures. However, a closer examination of the figures of Sciensano, (last report of 3 September 2020) 37 we find that since mid-July Although an increase was observed in the number of infections, there was no increase in hospital admissions and deaths at that time. So it is not a second wave of corona, but a so-called “case chemistry” due to an increased number of tests. ” 50
“In recent weeks, the number of hospital admissions and deaths has increased (minimally), but when interpreting this we have to take into account the last heat wave. Moreover, the majority of the victims are still situated in the population group>
“This indicates that the ratio of the measures taken towards the working population and young people is out of proportion with the intended objectives.”
“The vast proportion of positively tested” infected “persons are in the age group of the active population, who develop no to limited symptoms.
Due to a well-functioning immune system.”
“So nothing has changed – the peak is over.”

Reinforcement of a prevention policy 

“The corona measures are a striking contrast to the minimal policy that the government has implemented until now, when it comes to well-founded measures with proven health benefits such as a sugar tax, ban on (e-) cigarettes and making healthy nutrition, exercise and social support networks It is a missed opportunity for a better prevention policy that could have brought about a change of mindset in all walks of life with clear public health outcomes Currently only 3% of the health care budget goes to prevention . ” 2

The Hippocratic Oath

As doctors, we took the Hippocratic Oath:

“Above all else, I will take care of my patients, promote their health and alleviate their suffering.”

“I will inform my patients correctly.”

“Even under pressure, I will not use my medical knowledge for practices that are against humanity.”

The current measures force us to act against this oath.
Other health professionals have a similar code.

Also the “primum non nocere” that every physician and health professional relies on is undermined by the current measures and the prospect of the possible introduction of a generalized vaccine that has not undergone extensive preliminary testing. “

Vaccine

“Overview studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded 3 times in developing a vaccine that achieved an efficiency of more than 50%. The vaccination of our elderly appears to be ineffective. efficiency is almost non-existent. “38
” Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also observe every year with the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution that requires new vaccines every time. for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity against possible harm raises serious questions. 39 40 We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs. “
“Globally, 700,000 claims or deaths from the vaccine are expected.” 41
“If 95% of people experience Covid-19 practically without symptoms, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.”

The role of the media and the official communication plan

“In recent months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed almost uncritical to follow the ‘panel of experts’ and the government, where the press should be critical and prevent unilateral government communication. This has led to a public communication in our news media, which was more like propaganda than objective reporting. “
“In our opinion, it is the task of journalism to present news as objectively and neutrally as possible, aimed at finding the truth and critically controlling power, whereby dissenting experts also get a forum to express themselves.”

“This view is supported by the Journalism Code.” 42

“The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the only possible solution, and that everyone was behind this lockdown made it difficult for dissenters and experts to express a different opinion.”

“Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media where dissenters could express their views.”

“We have also been amazed at the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are being removed from social media. We believe that this is not in line with a free, democratic constitutional state, especially as this leads to tunnel vision. this policy is paralyzing and fuels fear and concern in society. In this context, we reject the intention to censure dissenters in the European Union! “43

“The way in which Covid-19 has been portrayed by politicians and the media has not helped the situation either. Terms of war were popular and martial language was not lacking. There has often been talk of a ‘war’ with an ‘invisible enemy’ who ‘defeated’. The use in the media of phrases like ‘frontline care heroes’ and ‘victims of Corona’ further fueled fear, as has the idea that we are dealing with a ‘killer virus’ globally. “

“The relentless bombardment of numbers, unleashed on the population day after day, hour after hour, without indicating those numbers, without comparing them with flu deaths in other years, without comparing them with deaths from other causes. , has induced a true psychosis of fear in the population. This is not information, but manipulation. “

“We regret the role of the WHO in this, which has called on the information disclosure (ie all dissenting opinions from the official discourse, also by dissenting experts) to be silenced by an unprecedented censorship in the media.” 43 44

“We urge the media to still take their responsibility here!”

“We demand an open debate where all experts are heard.”

Emergency law versus Human Rights

“The general principle of Good Governance requires weighing up the proportionality of government decisions in the light of Higher Legal Standards: any government interference must be in accordance with fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Government interference is only allowed in crisis circumstances. In other words, discretionary decisions must be proportionate to an absolute necessity. “

“The measures currently taken concern interference in the exercise of, inter alia, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, right to education, etc., and must therefore comply with fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). “

For example, interference in the right to private and family life is only permitted in accordance with Article 8, § 2 ECHR if the measures are necessary in the interests of the country’s security, public security, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of public order and the prevention of criminal offenses, the protection of health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the regulatory text on which the interference is based must be clear, foreseeable enough and proportionate to the objectives pursued ” .45

“The predicted pandemic of millions of deaths seemed to respond to these crisis conditions, leading to the establishment of an emergency government. Now that it appears that there is no state of emergency) is no longer present. Covid-19 is not a killer virus, but a treatable disease with a mortality comparable to a seasonal flu. In other words, there is no longer an insurmountable obstacle to public health. “

“There is no emergency.”

Immense damage from current policy

‘An open discussion about corona measures means that, in addition to the life years gained by corona patients, we also have to consider other factors that influence the health of the total population. Think of damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, domestic violence and child abuse) 16 and the economic damage. ‘

‘If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is disproportionate, the proverbial shooting with a cannon at a mosquito.’
“We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as the reason for the emergency law.
As doctors and health professionals, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures for a virus that approaches seasonal flu in terms of harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility.”

“We therefore ask for an immediate end to all measures.
We question the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.”
“We ask that an independent committee investigate extensively why all freedom-restricting measures are maintained, while the figures and scientific data have now clearly shown that there is no medical reason to maintain this for one more day.”
“Following ACU 2020 46 https://acu2020.org/nederlandse-versie/, we request an in-depth investigation into the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organization. She was also at the basis of the fight against the “info-chemistry”, ie the systematic censoring of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic constitutional state. ”43

Distribution of this letter

“We want to make a public appeal to our professional associations and fellow care providers to express themselves about the current measures.
We draw attention to and call for an open discussion, in which care providers are allowed and dare to speak out.”

“With this open letter, we are sending out the signal that progress on the same foot is doing more damage than good, and we call on politicians to be independently and critically informed about the available evidence – including that of dissenters, as long as it is based on solid science – in the implementation of policy, with the aim of promoting optimal health. “

Footnotes and the original version of the letter can be found here .

> Also read: 70 scientists discuss covid-19, away from polarization

https://www.despecialist.eu/nl/opinies/al187-artsen-uiten-bezorgdheid-aanpak-uitbraak-sars-cov-2-in-open-brief.html


Leave a comment

SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated COVID-19 Numbers – Only 9,210 Americans Died From COVID-19 Alone – Rest Had Different Other Serious Illnesses

By Joe Hoft
Published August 29, 2020 at 7:45pm

So let’s get this straight – based on the recommendation of doctors Fauci and Birx the US shut down the entire economy based on 9,000 American deaths due entirely to the China coronavirus?

We were first to report that the Director General of the WHO on March 3, 2020 a set off the panic with his highly flawed statement:

While many people globally have built up immunity to seasonal flu strains, COVID-19 is a new virus to which no one has immunity. That means more people are susceptible to infection, and some will suffer severe disease.

Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.

This statement caused a global panic.  We, however, knew it was wrong and we wrote about it on March 17, 2020. Here is the video of Dr. Ghebreyesus’s remarks.

The WHO leader’s coronavirus death rate number of 3.4% was false and we proved this in our post at the time.

The Gateway Pundit reported, that the coronavirus fatality rate reported by the liberal mainstream media was completely inaccurate and the actual rate more typical to a seasonal flu – the media was lying again.

Doctors Fauci and Birx next pushed ridiculous and highly exaggerated mortality rates related to the coronavirus:

** Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx used the Imperial College Model to persuade President Trump to lock down the ENTIRE US ECONOMY.
** The fraudulent model predicted 2.2 million American deaths from the coronavirus pandemic
** The authors of the Imperial College Model shared their findings with the White House Coronavirus task force in early March
** Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx then met with President Trump privately and urged him to shut down the US economy and destroy the record Trump economy based on this model

But the Imperial College model Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx pushed was garbage and they recommended the destruction of the US economy using this completely flawed model.

While many people globally have built up immunity to seasonal flu strains, COVID-19 is a new virus to which no one has immunity. That means more people are susceptible to infection, and some will suffer severe disease.

Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.

Today we now have empirical evidence that the WHO, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx were all wrong.  They were charlatans.  They lied.

The CDC silently updated their numbers this week to show that only 6% of all coronavirus deaths were completely due to the coronavirus alone.  The rest of the deaths pinned to the China coronavirus are attributed to individuals who had other serious issues going on.

Also, most of the deaths are very old Americans with co-morbidities.

Note we updated this post with tweet above because Twitter took down Mel Q’s tweet after we published this post.)

Not only are the number of deaths linked entirely to the China coronavirus minuscule, but the virus appears to be naturally dying out.

The data above from Europe shows that the number of cases has little correlation to the number of deaths.

SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated COVID-19 Numbers – Only 9,210 Americans Died From COVID-19 Alone – Rest Had Different Other Serious Illnesses


Leave a comment

CODENAME: Operation Virus Identification 2019; the Elitist Plan to Remake Society

By Mike WhitneyGlobal Research, August 18, 2020

Everything we were originally told about the Coronavirus has turned out to be wrong.

In fact, it’s not a “novel” one-of-a-kind infection at all, but a member of a larger family of which there have been many iterations in the recent past.

It’s also not the most contagious or most lethal virus we’ve ever seen, but a fairly-mild infection that has no impact on the majority of people and that only kills somewhere between 1 in every 200 to 1 in every 1,000 people. (CDC-IFR- 0.26%)

Also, there was no real danger that our public health system was going to collapse, because the projected number of potential deaths (1 to 2 million in the US) never approached the estimates of the flawed computer models that were used to decide the policy.

In short, just about everything we were told from the very beginning turned out to be demonstrably wrong. Why is that? Why do you think that the people who provided us with the information –many of them supposedly “experts” in their field– were so wrong about everything? And why haven’t they made any effort to publicly correct their mistakes when they realize how much confusion they’ve caused?

It’s politics, right? What other explanation could there be? Our leaders and their behind-the-scenes puppet-masters are using science as a vehicle for achieving their own narrow political objectives. In broader terms, COVID–19 or, should we say, CODENAME: Operation Virus Identification 2019, is the plan to manipulate virus-hysteria “to drastically and irrevocably” change the “fundamental structure of society” to establish a totalitarian world order. (Quote: from CJ Hopkins) That’s what’s happening, and the Democrats, the media and the many infectious disease experts are playing key roles in this operation that’s bound to continue until its objectives are achieved.

But let’s forgo the political analysis for now and review what we actually know about the virus itself. This, of course, would not be necessary if the media had been doing its job by providing accurate information rather than fueling public hysteria. Sadly, the majority of people are just as misinformed now as they were 6 months ago when the outbreak began. How could that be if the media was actually doing its job? It couldn’t.

What we know for certain is that the doomsday scenarios never materialized. 2 million Americans did not die and the world did not come to an abrupt end. We also know that the computer model predictions from the Imperial College were bogus just as we know that the countries that ignored those absurd models did better than the others. As Nobel prize winner Michael Levitt points out in an article at Haaretz

https://counterinformation.wordpress.com/2020/08/18/codename-operation-virus-identification-2019-the-elitist-plan-to-remake-society/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The same type of models predicted that in Sweden, the number of deaths from COVID-19 would reach about 100,000 by June, if the Swedish government continues to refuse to impose lockdown measures. Sweden rejected these models and bravely adopted… a democratic policy that broadly enabled normal life to continue. Despite the large nursing homes in Sweden...the number of deaths turned out to be 6% of the one predicted, about 6,000 people, at an average age of 81. Half of the victims were nursing home residents who, in Sweden, have a median life expectancy of 9 months after admission.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

Repeat: Sweden’s death toll turned out to be just 6% of the original estimate. By comparison, the US death toll (167,000) is not quite 10% of the original (Imperial College) estimate. Both estimates were catastrophically wrong, and yet, we shut down the economy, drove unemployment up to levels not seen since the Great Depression, and condemned the country to years of agonizing restructuring. And for what??

Well, to promote a ghastly, authoritarian political agenda, that’s why. And this just helps to underscore what Covid-19 is really all about. It’s politics masquerading as science.

The Haaretz article also sheds light on the issue of “herd immunity” which is routinely mischaracterized in the media as the point at which 60% (or more) of the population have been infected and therefore have developed antibodies to the virus. This is wrong, in fact, the threshold for herd immunity is much lower than that, perhaps 5 to 15% of the population.

But, how can that be, after all, we were told that this was an entirely new “novel” virus that our species had never before experienced and for which we had no built-up immunity?

That was another lie. Here’s Michael Levitt again:

Widespread infection is not required for stopping the epidemic. The argument that 60% of the population must be infected and becomes immune before the infection spread is halted is based on an incorrect mathematical calculation….The most significant evidence – decidedly refuting the need for 60% infection rate – is pre-immunity. For example, COVID-19 has several relatives (other coronaviruses) to which the population had been exposed, and such prior exposure can provide immunity to a significant segment of the population. Back in April, two of us wrote an article about the postulated nature of this immunity and the statistical evidence that pointed to its existence. We noted that in several closed communities that underwent testing, the infection rate was always capped at 20%, which statistically aligns with maximal infection rate in these communities rather than recurring coincidences. About a month later, a group of researchers published corroborating evidence in Cell, one of the most prestigious journals in the life sciences. About 60% of people in California who had never been exposed to COVID-19, had immune memory cells that recognized the virus and are therefore likely to provide immunity.

Moreover, a study in Germany showed that such immunity could reach a level as high as 81% of the population. …This rate of pre-immunity to COVID-19 is also evident in the global rates of infection. The virus began infecting humans more than eight months ago, and the epidemic has already spread to most of the world. Yet in all countries, the infection rate remains below 20 percent of the general population. This limited rate of infection has remained unchanged regardless of social distancing measures (if any),such as quarantines, local or country-wide lockdown, mask-wearing, and so on. In Sweden, for example, the infection rate did not exceed 20% and the percentage of people who survived the epidemic exceeds 99.9% (!) of the population. Such is the case in Belgium as well, the country with the highest population mortality rate, where less than 20% were infected, and more than 99.9% of the population has survived the epidemic…The implications of these findings are of utmost importance. They call for immediate removal of most restrictions on the economy, immediate return to normal life of low-risk population while helping high-risk groups reduce the rate of social contacts.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

This is not some minor point. Our policy and the policies adopted by countries around the world are based on assumptions that are both unscientific and false. Do you really think the people responsible for implementing these policies don’t know the science or don’t know about “pre-immunity” or that that “prior exposure can provide immunity” or that ” the infection rate was always capped at 20% in all countries” (which means that only 1 in every 5 people will contract the infection regardless of their exposure.) or that in all cases and all countries “more than 99.9% of the population has survived the epidemic”?

Admit it, most readers don’t know anything about any of this because none of it has appeared in the MSM. Why is that? What malicious, evil forces are at work here? Why do our leaders and our media want to keep us in the dark about issues that are critical to our decision-making, critical to our livelihoods, and critical to our very survival? Why?

Again, do you really think our leaders and infectious disease experts– like the affable Anthony Fauci– are unaware of these facts? Do you think they have dismissed them as too trivial or too superficial to tell the public or do you think they are deliberately withholding any information that might mitigate the prevailing atmosphere of hysteria that is keeping the American people afraid, isolated and abjectly submissive to the manipulations of their paymasters?

That’s what you call a “no-brainer”. We have entered a period in which wealthy, globalist oligarchs are using fake science, amplified through their assets in the media and Democrat party, to fundamentally restructure society in a way that enhances their material interests while strengthening their grip on power. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

And there’s more too, because censorship, manipulation and politics have real costs, and the costs can be calculated in terms of the lives that are lost due to the imposition of a ruthless and thoroughly-counterproductive policy: Lockdown. Here’s Levitt again:

The third argument – removing restrictions will result in a higher mortality than a policy of lockdowns and restrictions – is also incorrect. A virus spreads in the population until enough people become infected and immune, or until a vaccine is foundLockdowns and restrictions may only slow down its spread (“flatten the curve”) but they do not lower the total number of infections or overall mortality. If there is a risk of overwhelming hospitals, there might be a need to slow the spread of the infection. Otherwise, flattening the curve can only be harmful since the infection returns once the restrictions are removed. Moreover, efficient protection of high-risk groups is possible only for a limited period of time: The longer the time, the harder it is to prevent their exposure to the virus. Therefore, paradoxically, it is precisely lockdowns and restrictions that slow the building of herd immunity, which in turn is needed to stop the epidemic and protect high-risk groups. In the long run, such policy can lead to excessive mortality.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

In other words, lockdowns can postpone infections but cannot prevent them. A virus is going to do what a virus does. Period. Imposing lockdowns is as bound to fail as standing at the water’s edge and ordering the tide to stop coming in. It’s empty posturing that achieves nothing. As Levitt says, lockdowns are, in fact, a threat to older and vulnerable people because the longer they are in place, “the harder it is to prevent their exposure to the virus.” In short, the lockdowns actually kill the people they are supposed to save.

Do you think our leaders know this? Of course, they know it. Levitt is not the only scientist who’s able to think clearly and rationally. The others have merely shaped thier approach to the demands of their employers. Does the name “Bill Gates” ring a bell?

Here’s Levitt again:

In Sweden…there is no “second wave” because there was no lockdown. Thus, the policy of imposing and easing restrictions only prolongs the crisis, destroys the economy, and eventually leads to a larger number of victims. It may even continue for years as long as a vaccine is not available. The alternative to lockdowns and restrictions must be seriously considered.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

Indeed, lockdowns cost lives, lockdowns cost money, and lockdowns are the wrong policy. Here’s Levitt one last time:

It can be assumed that the handling of the COVID-19 crisis will be scrutinized – both in terms of health aspects, but also in light of public outrage over the state of the economy. So many people all over the world have lost their sources of income, livelihood, dignity and future. Poverty is a much more severe mortality risk factor than COVID-19, and it affects children as much as adults. One of the key questions that will surely be asked is whether the leadership in each country has ever seriously considered a worthy alternative to resolving the crisis, which will not cost so many human lives or destroy the economy. Countries such as Norway, Ireland, and Belgium have already declared that they will not impose further lockdowns as the obvious damage outweighs the doubtful benefit by a wide margin.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

By any measure, the United States is in worse condition than ever before. We have destroyed our economy, closed our schools, obliterated our small and medium-sized businesses, increased suicides, depression, domestic abuse, poverty, homelessness, alienation and destitution. The American people have been plunged into a strange world of persistent fear and relentless manipulation by scheming elites who are resolutely committed to remaking society from the ground-up. COVID-19 is merely the vehicle they have chosen to achieve their nefarious objectives.

Does Hydroxychloroquine work? You decide?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.Looks Like Sweden Was Right After All

Author’s Note: All excerpts taken from (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz) Udi Qimron, Uri Gavish, Eyal Shahar, Michael Levitt” See this

1– Prof. Udi Qimron is the (elected) Head of Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University

2– Dr. Uri Gavish is a Physicist, an expert in Algorithm Analysis and a Bio-medical consultant

3– Prof. (Emeritus) Eyal Shahar is an Epidemiologist, University of Arizona

4– Prof. Michael Levitt is a Nobel Prize-winning (Chemistry, 2013) Structural Biology professor, Stanford UniversityThe original article was published in Ha’aretz in Hebrew on July 20, 2020. The English text contains minor revisions.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Freedom ArticlesThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Mike Whitney, Global Research, 2020https://www.globalresearch.ca/codename-operation-virus-identification-2019-elitist-plan-remake-society/5721376


Leave a comment

US bishop: We must ‘reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children’

Paul Smeaton

Mon Aug 3, 2020 – 7:48 pm EST

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.

TYLER, Texas, August 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, has reiterated his opposition to vaccines created using cell lines from aborted babies in the face of UK bishops claiming that Catholics have a “duty to be vaccinated,” even if the making of the vaccine is morally problematic. 

“I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children,” Strickland tweeted Aug. 1. 

“Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts. We will never end abortion if we do not END THIS EVIL!”

I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts. We will never end abortion if we do not END THIS EVIL!— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) August 1, 2020

Strickland posted his latest comments on vaccines Saturday after the Catholic Bishops Conference of England & Wales (CBCEW) stated last week that Catholics have a “prima facie duty to be vaccinated.” The CBCEW document first noted a 2005 Vatican statement focused on the moral question of vaccines that have been prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses before stating their support for the idea expressed in a 2017 Pontifical Academy for Life statement that “all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience.”

In April, Strickland released a pastoral letter asking faithful Catholics to join him in helping to bring to a “halt” any development of a coronavirus vaccine derived from aborted babies.

“Tragically, people are not aware of or have chosen to turn a blind eye to the advances in medical science which allow vaccines to be developed with the wholesale use of aborted children’s bodies,” he wrote April 23.

Strickland stressed that just because “the crime of abortion is considered legal in our nation does not mean it is morally permissible to use the dead bodies of these children to cure a global pandemic. Emphatically, this practice is evil.”

“As your Shepherd,” the bishop wrote, “I urge you to join me, NOW, in passionately but prayerfully speaking out against this practice. As I said in the beginning of this letter, I will help you navigate this storm as best as I can.”

Many of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates in both the UK and the United States are being developed using fetal cell lines that were originally derived from the tissues of aborted babies in the 1970s and 80s.

In an open letter published in May, Catholic clergy and laity led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats said that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/us-bishop-we-must-reject-any-vaccine-that-is-developed-using-aborted-children?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&__twitter_impression=true