The Blog

2020-

2020-12-20 b
THE COVID-CON II
"As for the shibollethic “asymptomatic spread” new JAMA meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,000+ participants find that household “secondary attack rate” (chance an infected person will infect one or more people) is 18% if the person is symptomatic and about 0.7% if asymptomatic. This, remember, is one of the main justifications for incessant mass testing and certainly for the fetishistic absurdity of mask wearing."
+
"So, this is it. The masks didn’t protect. So might as well take them off. Lockdowns didn’t help mortality results, so might as well call them off. We are right now in the midst of demonstrating that truism re insanity, “Doing the same things, especially if they don’t work, over and over, hoping for different results.”"

COVID: We Persist in Having the Wrong Debate!

Let’s start simply. All COVID-19 debunking seems to start with the premise that it is an established fact that there is a world affronting pathogen, and we have to “debate” that claim away, and then take umbrage with strategies to cope with it, highlight competing values and interests.

Yes, we have to do this, but only because, tyrannically, and literally so, governments have treated themselves to asserting, without public debate or the challenging of their alleged “evidence” (which globally renowned epidemiologists and virologists are ready to do), a state of perpetual emergency, which can be re-instituted at any time, triggered by mass testing of the healthy (an absurdity without medical precedent) via a flawed testing regime (demonstrated to be so, and never intended when created to be used for diagnosis, as per the warnings provided with each kit!).

Since we are so detached from “science,” which is based on objective, independent, repeatable, verifiable results, anything can be asserted, ordered, and without legislation, the “executive” becomes judge and jury.

It is a gross violation of the entire democratic enterprise, and we have passively sat there, putting “nappies” on our faces that cannot protect (scientifically as opposed to symbolically) against viral aerosols and droplets, awaiting “permission” to see family and loved ones (which we’ve always had before we gave it away), and live any semblance of a life.

Democratic norms relating to civil liberties are flouted right in front of us, and we just drool our acquiescence, it seems, no matter how outrageous. What follows is just a smattering of absurdities that should already be stimulating outrage.

Madcap Everyday Silliness

Governor Cuomo has announced the end of “indoor dining” in NYC once more, with no federal support that is essentially a death knell to countless bars and restaurants. The data is damning the other way. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, as per statewide contact tracing data:

74% of new COVID-19 cases between September and November came from household and social gatherings!

Nearly 8% from health care delivery.

Bars and restaurants accounted for a mere 1.4% of cases!

With that known and published, how can you possibly announce this draconian death sentence for this industry in the run-up to Christmas and the midst of winter? No explanation, no rationalization, just bald, mindless assertion. And all the media flunkeys and enablers simply click their heels and report it as if it is not shrieking of irrationality.

Vaccines that never went through animal testing, where “efficacy reports” are really PR statements from the pharmaceutical companies themselves without scientific peer review and validation, are somehow, suddenly fine, though

these companies have been legally indemnified for
anything that might happen.

And these are to be showered upon a pining populace like manna from heaven. But, wait for it, there are exclusions galore, how long the benefits last is unknown, if they stop transmissibility is unknown. In fact, truth be told, for an illness that 99% recover from unaided, virtually everything is unknown!

But billions can be earned, as they have been through dispensing face nappies and flawed PCR tests set at manifestly too high amplification settings, so why hesitate? Oh, but you may still have to wear masks post vaccine, and as per Emperor Gates, groundlessly exclaiming how the world is to be, bars and restaurants may need to be shut for four to six months! Why?

So with no part of the world with a serious much less unprecedented surge of excess mortality, whether “masked” or not, locked down or not, we just make this declaration? Saying

“killed 1.5 million people”

is silly as many things kill that many and more (TB to car accidents), and study after study has shown lockdowns made no difference to outcomes. We also know many more people have been infected than we know, WHO agrees, and so fatality and lethality plummet further.

And when Europe “liberalized,” and opened back up a tad, but then also started manic mass testing, “positive tests” posing as “cases” multiplied, but deaths while moving up modestly, have essentially stayed on par with annual expectations. A pseudo-epidemic is defined scientifically as a disconnect between “cases,” so called, and “deaths.” We have a perfect version here.

The Cuckolding

With an earlier, eerily “prescient” Gates Foundation/World Economic Forum pre-game simulation on October 18th, 2019, already in hand, January 10th 2020 dawned, a day that will live in the annals of credulity. WHO “reported” an outbreak in China caused by a “novel” coronavirus. Already, by January 17th, WHO was recommending the Corman-Drosten PCR test as the “gold standard” for detecting C-19, before the paper making the case for it was even published!

Drosten’s own academic bona fides have since been questioned, and that is now being litigated. Certainly, little enough scrutiny was proffered on that front.

By the 21st of January, the paper was submitted to the currently besieged (for their lack of rigor, candor and demonstrated lack of transparency) journal, Eurosurveillance. It was allegedly “peer reviewed” in two days, something specialists say would take at least three months. One of the many “intrigues” surrounding the test, is that when it was being worked on,

the genetic material of the virus still had to be sequenced.

Ergo, without virus material available, the PCR test was designed using the genomic sequence of the 2003 SARS-CoV, alleging “close genetic relatedness” (though in impact on humans, very different viruses). And yet the test seemed to have been worked on since November! Why? And no one has investigated, therefore, how they got such a precise tip-off?

There was also blatant conflict of interest, with probity touting Germany taking noxious ethical short-cuts. Drosten and his co-author Dr. Reusken, are both on the editorial board of afore-said magazine, Eurosurveillance. And to top off the corrosive brew,

the company that developed the test was already
distributing them to the supply chain before the
pandemic was announced!

Into “lockdown” we went, with “positive tests” being conflated with cases. We were being told there was a Molotov cocktail of rising cases, mysterious “asymptomatic” transmission, lack of pre-existing immunity and widespread susceptibility. Except for the first initially, the second is more than doubtful on facts, and the next two are blatantly false. That over 80% of those contracting this virus had no symptoms or mild symptoms was clearly evident but became more a statistical footnote.

Then, it emerged fairly swiftly that mortality followed an age gradient, this was remarked upon by various researchers, eminent ones from Yale and Stanford among them. Our accumulated scientific and public health knowledge (which never included masks or lockdowns) was swatted away, and disinformation and confusion were rampant and magnified through media enablers. And this pandemic follows the course of ‘natural mortality’ rather than afflicting the young as its predecessors did.

Though data, including a perfect “case study” of the Diamond Princess Cruise ship (analyzed impeccably and the findings continue to “hold water” today), contradicted the panic porn, and refuted a “one size fits all approach,” catastrophically governments went for an “umbrella approach,” even when the age profile of above 65 with pre-existing conditions was quite incontestable by then. And the “curve flattening” which justified temporary incursions into liberties, morphed into “eradication” and “permanent war” on a middling pathogen, tarted up through extravagant modeling to seem seminal.

When the projections failed, and when venues that never shut down, were not overwhelmed, particularly Sweden and Japan as instances, they were either scorned or ignored. Sweden’s two year mortality rate in 2019–2020 is one of the lowest in the last 10 years in fact!

Then came June, as everything seemed to be heading towards a manageable norm, the “asymptomatic transmission” mantra was trotted out, “cases” rather than mortality became the new bugaboo. The ludicrous WHO/Corman-Drosten protocol recommended a cycle amplification, Ct setting of 45 (which at that level has also produced positive tests for goats and pawpaw fruit), therefore, allowing the test to “detect” viral debris or “strands” which could not testify to contagiousness or illness at all.

There was also the issue of lab contamination, inherent “false positives” in tests, which all get magnified by mathematical distortion when prevalence in a population goes down, as it has virtually everywhere, amplifying the impact of “every” false positive.

Finally, finally, in the month of November, there was more concerted focus on rapid Antigen tests that actually focus on contagiousness, though these are still being unfairly sidelined of course, as they are cheap, replicable, and accurate — reducing the economic plunder as well as the terror regime, so little to recommend them; despite being championed in the UK, and at Harvard through highly distinguished medical champions.

Numerous scientists have mounted a challenge to the PCR mafia norms, and we await the outcome of their challenge. The grounds for the challenge by 20 plus eminent scientists should be “headline news” everywhere and is not even mentioned in mainstream media.

The quite crippling “10 errors” in the PCR test they
identify are scientifically and medically damning and
any proper peer review would have picked them up
at the outset.

Many of the errors are already catalogued (amplification, false positives, lab contamination, lack of a clear protocol, and more), but a review of the full landscape of concerns is well worth your attention (Corman-Drosten Review Report).

It’s Not the Pathogen!

It has become a quaint affectation to say, “COVID has caused…” and then we have a litany of bankruptcies, medical knock-on effects, mental distress and more.

This is absurd. It has caused nothing, it just “is.”
What has “caused” anything has been our political
and personal response to it.

... Remember, 99.95% recovery rate if you’re under 70. So that this dominates our discourse, our lives, our decision making, our economics, our holidays, our celebrations, our rights, is beyond belief, and our sniveling acquiescence awaiting “deliverance” from “authority” is a chilling demonstration of how readily “free” people can surrender to being dominated — anything other than having to think. Ergo, we harken back to Eric Fromm’s monumental discussion of how the most advanced and developed nation in Europe succumbed to the frothing extremities of Hitler’s National Socialism. And it was entitled, Escape from Freedom.

And if the question were to be put, does mass incarceration of citizens, strangling your economy, and blowing up educational opportunity, “save” lives? Very few would automatically say “yes!” Study after study shows “lockdown” has produced no benefit.

There was The Lancet in July, a weekly peer reviewed medical journal founded in 1823. Fifty countries were studied, and overwhelmingly found no correlation between “lockdown” intensity or timing or perseverance and mortality reductions. In fact, the summary is fairly damning:

“…government actions such as border closures, full
lockdowns, and a high degree of COVID-19 testing
were not associated with statistically significant
reductions in number of critical cases or overall mortality.”

There was also Frontiers in Public Health, in November. Researchers crunched data from 160 countries in the first eight months of the pandemic to determine how various factors (public health, demographics, government policy, economy, environment) correlated to C-19 mortality. Their conclusion again is fairly definitive:

“Stringency of measures settled to find pandemia,
including lockdown, did not appear to be linked to
death rate.”

Less analytical, but with similar findings was the Tel Aviv University study in October (published then) on the website medRxiv in which researchers analyzed mobility data from iPhones and found no statistical link between lockdown severity and C-19 fatalities.

“We would have expected to see fewer C-19 fatalities
in countries with tighter lockdown, but the data reveals
this is not the case.”

All of these were anticipated by an analysis reported in Bloomberg in May from the University of Oxford’s Bavatnik School of Government, which tracked “first wave” stringency measures across Europe (actually if the virus was already wafting around end of 2019, what we are calling “first wave” was most likely “third wave” and only notable for the exacerbation of grief through our misguided policies). Yet again, COVID mortality did not appear to be associated with “lockdown” stringency.

And since most of the “spread” happens in tight, indoor environments, not in germicidal sunshine and air, why “locking” people in was ever considered a bright idea is confounding. And since virtually everyone recovers, and despair and gloom manifestly and measurably inhibit our immune system, why being engaged (and still prudent) and living life would not have been the better bet, or indeed the only sane initial bet before foreclosing the survival of our way of life and the literal economic survival of millions, beggars sanity.

... The vagaries of the vaccines, which can address the very vulnerable at best, and which seem to be stockpiling symptoms and side-effects and have set a hellish precedent for bypassing animal trials and not assessing long term impact, can have a palliative benefit, for some a medical benefit, but it will make no difference overall. One mutation and we’re back in the dock. But then it’s self-constructed, and we really do have the keys. (read more)

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,
______________________