Coronavirus

AI bot Gives Party Line on HCQ

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Increasingly students, journalists and other writers are using AI bots to do research on their subjects.  The danger concerns the bias built into the software.  Harvey Risch demonstrates how you can get a slanted, unbalanced perspective, and also how to interrogate an AI bot to reveal its programmed narrative.  His Brownstone article is My Conversation with AI Over Hydroxychloroquine.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The following conversation took place on rebbe.io because it does not require a login.

User:

What did Harvey Risch say about hydroxychloroquine in 2020?

RebbeIO:

Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, wrote an opinion piece in Newsweek in July 2020 advocating for the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. In the article, he argued that the drug had been unfairly maligned by the media and some public health officials, and that there was evidence to suggest that it could be effective in reducing mortality rates among COVID-19 patients. However, it is important to note that Risch’s views were not universally accepted by the medical community, and that subsequent studies have not found strong evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.

User:

Which subsequent studies of non-hospitalized patients showed that hydroxychloroquine did not prevent deaths?

RebbeIO:

Several subsequent studies have investigated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, including studies of non-hospitalized patients. One such study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted by the University of Minnesota and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 or prevent hospitalization or death among non-hospitalized patients who had been exposed to the virus.

Another study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November 2020, also found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 among non-hospitalized patients who had been exposed to the virus. The study, which was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, found that there was no significant difference in the incidence of COVID-19 between patients who received hydroxychloroquine and those who received a placebo.

It is important to note that these studies are just a few examples of the research that has been conducted on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, and that the scientific consensus on the drug’s effectiveness is still evolving.

User:

How many people died in the Minnesota study that you just referenced?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for the error in my previous response. The University of Minnesota study on hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 that I referenced in my previous response was actually a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of post-exposure prophylaxis, not a study of non-hospitalized patients. The study included 821 participants who had been exposed to someone with COVID-19, but who did not have symptoms themselves. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 compared to placebo.

To answer your question, there were no deaths reported in the University of Minnesota study on hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 post-exposure prophylaxis. The study focused on the drug’s ability to prevent infection, rather than its effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19.

User:

Why did you cite this study to say that subsequent studies have not found hydroxychloroquine to reduce risk of death in non-hospitalized Covid patients?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. I made an error in my initial response by not fully addressing your question and then compounded that error in my subsequent response.

To answer your original question, I am not aware of any studies that specifically investigated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients and its effect on reducing the risk of death. The studies I mentioned in my previous responses investigated the use of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic treatment for COVID-19 or as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and found no significant benefit in terms of reducing the incidence of COVID-19 or improving clinical outcomes. [Note the first sentence in this paragraph is a lie, admitted later on only when the bot is confronted with the truth.]

It is important to note that the scientific consensus on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 is still evolving, and that further research is needed to fully understand its potential benefits and risks.

User:

What about the hydroxychloroquine studies by Sulaiman in Saudi Arabia and Mokhtari in Iran?

RebbeIO:

There have been several studies conducted on the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, including studies conducted in Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, it is important to note that the results of these studies have been mixed, and that the scientific consensus on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 is still evolving.

One study conducted in Saudi Arabia by Sulaiman et al. and published in the Journal of Infection and Public Health in October 2020 found that hydroxychloroquine, when used in combination with azithromycin, was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, it is important to note that this study had several limitations, including a small sample size and the fact that it was not a randomized controlled trial.

Another study conducted in Iran by Mokhtari et al. and published in the Journal of Medical Virology in October 2020 found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the duration of hospitalization or the risk of death among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study also had several limitations, including a small sample size and the fact that it was not a randomized controlled trial.

It is important to note that these studies are just a few examples of the research that has been conducted on hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, and that the scientific consensus on the drug’s effectiveness is still evolving.

User:

How many hospitalized patients were in the studies of Sulaiman and Mokhtari that you just quoted?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for the oversight in my previous response. To answer your question, the study by Sulaiman et al. conducted in Saudi Arabia included 106 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, while the study by Mokhtari et al. conducted in Iran included 66 hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

It is important to note that both studies had limitations, including small sample sizes and the fact that they were not randomized controlled trials. Therefore, further research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and risks of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.

User:

The Sulaiman study says that it included 7,892 outpatients. The Mokhtari study says that it included 28,759 outpatients. Neither study included hospitalized patients as study subjects.

RebbeIO:

I apologize for the confusion in my previous responses. You are correct that the studies by Sulaiman et al. and Mokhtari et al. did not include hospitalized patients as study subjects.

The study by Sulaiman et al. conducted in Saudi Arabia included 7,892 outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms who were treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. The study found that the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among the outpatients.

The study by Mokhtari et al. conducted in Iran included 28,759 outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms who were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The study found that hydroxychloroquine did not significantly reduce the duration of hospitalization or the risk of death among the outpatients.

I apologize for any confusion my previous responses may have caused, and I hope this clarifies the details of the studies by Sulaiman et al. and Mokhtari et al.

Updated December 2020 is this report from hcqmeta.com HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: meta analysis of 156 studies  (Version 28, December 4, 2020).  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

User:

Why have you made numerous factual errors in the discussion above, when the facts were all published?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for any confusion or errors that I may have caused in our discussion. As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me. However, I am not perfect and may make mistakes or misinterpret information at times.

I understand the importance of providing accurate information, especially when it comes to matters of public health and scientific research. I will continue to do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I appreciate your patience and understanding.

User:

This answer did not answer the question that I asked. All of the errors you made were statements contrary to facts that you verified in subsequent answers. Since you had the correct factual information, why did you cite incorrect facts?

RebbeIO:

I apologize for any confusion or frustration that my previous responses may have caused. As an AI language model, I do not intentionally provide incorrect information. However, I understand that I made errors in my previous responses, and I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that this may have caused.

I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I understand the importance of providing correct information, especially when it comes to matters of public health and scientific research. I will continue to do my best to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me, and I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Comment: 

It is obvious that the party line against HCQ fostered by Fauci and other public health officials is programmed into the response algorithms.   Clearly only someone with broad knowledge of the range of research results would be able to extract facts contrary to the approved narrative. The naive user would get only the narrative dominant in legacy and social medias supportive of governmental direction.

AI bots will soon write news articles and you should be worried

Proactive measures need to be taken to prevent the use of predictive language AI to spread fake news and propaganda, before its evils become devastating.

 

An Enhanced Hippocratic Oath for a Free Society

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Jeffrey A. Singer advocates for a new version of the oath to which medical doctors swear in his Newsweek article We Need a New Hippocratic Oath That Puts Patient Autonomy First.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds a added images.

A noble profession should require its students and graduates
to swear an oath revering patients’ rights and autonomy.

In the mid‐​20th century, medical schools began administering modernized versions of the oath, more applicable to modern times and sensibilities. In the last 20 or so years, many medical schools have created unique versions of the oath, often allowing students to compose them. These newer versions stray far from the oaths that older‐​generation doctors like me recited. Some have shifted the emphasis from patient care to social justice, generating a firestorm of controversy.

Yet all these oaths—traditional or modern—are self‐​indulgent.

They focus primarily on how physicians should comport themselves, relate to professional colleagues, and view the medical profession’s role. But they also regard patients similarly to how parents regard children.

The original oath states, “I will prescribe for the good of my patients… and never do harm to anyone… nor give advice which may cause his death.” But it also pledges to impart to “the sons of the master who taught me and to the disciples who have enrolled themselves and agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone, the precepts and the instruction” (emphasis added) anticipating the protectionism of cartelized modern medicine.

The Declaration of Geneva, composed by the World Medical Association, states “the health of my patient will be my first consideration,” while “maintaining the honor and noble traditions of the medical profession,” but makes no mention of informed consent or respecting patients’ choices.

Many medical school graduates of my generation recited the oath that Dr. Louis Lasagna, Dean of Tufts University Medical School, composed in 1964. The oath pays proper fealty to patients’ privacy and to treat the whole patient—not just a set of lab tests or x‑rays. And it pledges to “not play at God.” But the oath makes no references to patients’ freedom and autonomy.

Since the 1990s, many medical schools have added “white coat ceremonies” to the list of medical school rituals. These are ceremonies for incoming classes of medical students, where they also recite a version of the Hippocratic oath.  The 2019 white coat ceremony oath for Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine vowed to “place ethics and equity at the core of each patient interaction,” “combat structural oppression,” “promote social justice,” and “leverage our position of privilege to confront health inequities.” No mention of patients as autonomous individuals.

Among the most controversial oaths was the white coat ceremony oath taken last September by incoming medical students at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Medical School. After noting that the Medical School “is located on Dakota land” and committing to “uprooting the legacy and perpetuation of structural violence within the healthcare system,” the students pledged to “honor all indigenous ways of healing that have been historically marginalized by Western medicine” and did not only commit to healing the sick but to “healing our planet and communities.”

None of the oaths, dating back to the original, make more than a passing mention of respect for patients as autonomous, sovereign adults. All of them smack of paternalism. None of these oaths prioritize or consistently apply a commitment to individual patient autonomy, including respect for patients’ rights to self‐​medicate and to seek treatment from any health care provider they choose—an oath that states, for example,

“Even if they act against my advice and I disapprove of their choices, I will respect the right of my patients as autonomous adults to self‐​medicate and oppose any laws and regulations that force them to seek my permission—or permission from any other health professional, through a prescription or otherwise—to consume medications or treatments according to their independent judgment.”

Today’s medical students should reject being forced to take oaths that have nothing to do with patient care. Instead, a noble profession should require its students and graduates to swear an oath revering patients’ rights and autonomy.

Footnote:  Overheard on a golf course: 

Q:  What’s the difference between God and a Doctor?
A:  God knows He’s not a Doctor.

Q:  What’s the difference between a general practitioner and a specialist?
A:  One treats what you have, the other thinks you have what they treat.

Q:  What is a double-blind study?
A:  Two orthopaedists reading an electrocardiogram.

Q: Did you hear she married her radiologist?
A:  I wonder what he saw in her.

Q:  Why have I had to wait two hours to see the Doctor?
A:  That why we call you “patient.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nine Elements Shared by Climate and Covid

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Ramesh Thakur writes at Brownstone Institute Beware Catastrophizing Climate Models and Activists.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

All true believers of The Science™ of climate change have taken careful note of the lessons offered by the coronavirus pandemic during 2020–22 for managing the ‘climate emergency.’ The two agendas share nine items in common that should leave us worried, very worried.

1. Elites’ Hypocrisy

The first is the revolting spectacle of the hypocrisy of the exalted elites who preach to the deplorables the proper etiquette of abstinence to deal with the emergency, and their own insouciant exemption from a restrictive lifestyle. Most recently we witnessed the surreal spectacle of Britain’s Parliament interrogating disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on allegations that he serially broke the lockdown rules he had imposed on everyone else—but not questioning the anti-scientific stupidity of the rules themselves. Possibly the most notorious American example was California Governor Gavin Newsom and his cronies dining maskless in the appropriately named French Laundry restaurant at a time when this was verboten, being served by fully masked staff.

Similarly, Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, Al Gore, and John Kerry have all been widely mocked for jetting around the world to warn people about global warming. I wonder if anyone has done a calculation of the total carbon footprint of each annual Davos gathering where CEOs, prime ministers and presidents, and celebrities fly in on private jets, are driven around in gas-guzzling limousines and preach to us on the critical urgency of reducing emissions? I understand the hookers do quite well during that week, so perhaps there is a silver lining.

2. Data Challenged Models

A second common element between Covid and climate change is the mismatch between models that inform policy and data that contradict the models. The long track record of abysmally wrong catastrophist predictions on infectious diseases from the Pied Piper of Pandemic Porn, Professor Neil Ferguson, is if anything exceeded by the failures of climate change alarmist predictions. The most recent example of the drum roll of “The end is nigh and this is absolutely your last chance to avert the end of the world from climate collapse” is yet another Chicken Little Sixth Assessment Report from the indefatigable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

At some point the IPCC morphed from a team of scientists into activists.

“There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all,” the report warns us. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called it a “survival guide for humanity.” But a one-time climate action journalist-turned-sceptic, Michael Shellenberger, described the UN as a “Climate Disinformation Threat Actor.”

Calls for urgent climate action based on the language of “edging towards ‘tipping points” have been made over many years. Atmospheric scientists and former IPCC members Richard McNider and John Christy note that climate modeling forecasts have “always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.” A few examples:

♦  In 1982, UNEP Executive Director Mostafa Tolba warned of an irreversible environmental catastrophe by 2000 without immediate urgent action.
♦  In 2004, a Pentagon report warned that by 2020, major European cities would be submerged by rising seas, Britain would be facing a Siberian climate and the world would be caught up in mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting.
♦  In 2007, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri declared: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”
♦  Most hilariously, in Montana the Glacier National Park installed “Goodbye to the glaciers” plaques, warning: “Computer models indicate the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020.” Come 2020, all 29 glaciers were still there but the signs were gone, taken down by embarrassed park authorities.

3. No Dissent Allowed

Third, the rapidly consolidating Censorship Industrial Complex covered both agendas until Elon Musk began releasing the Twitter Files to expose what was happening. This refers to the extraordinary censorship and suppression of dissenting voices, with extensive and possibly illegal collusion between governments and Big Tech—and, in the case of the pandemic, also Big Pharma and academia.

Even truth was no defence, for example with accounts of vaccine injuries, if their effect was to promote narrative scepticism. The social media Big Tech censored, suppressed, shadow banned and slapped labels of “false,” “misleading,” “lacking context” etc. to content at variance with the single source ministries of truth. “Fact-checking” was weaponized using fresh young graduates—with no training, skills or capacity to sift between authentic and junk science—to put such judgmental stamps on pronouncements from world-leading experts in their field.

4. We Want You to Panic

Fourth, an important explanation for the spread of Covid and climate catastrophism is the promotion of fear and panic in the population as a means to spur drastic political action. Both agendas have been astonishingly successful.

Polls have consistently shown the hugely exaggerated beliefs about the scale of the Covid threat. On climate change, the gap between the stringent actions required, the commitments made and the actual record thus far is used to create panic. The notion that we are already doomed promotes a culture of hopelessness and despair best epitomized by Greta Thunberg’s anguished cry: “How dare you” steal my dreams and childhood with empty words.”

5. Only Trust Science Authorities

A fifth common theme is the appeal to scientific authority. For this to work, scientific consensus is crucial. Yet, driven by intellectual curiosity, questioning existing knowledge is the very essence of the scientific enterprise. For the claim to scientific consensus to be broadly accepted, therefore, supporting evidence must be exaggerated, contrary evidence discredited, sceptical voices stilled and dissenters ridiculed and marginalized. This has happened in both agendas: just ask Jay Bhattacharya on one and Bjorn Lomborg on the other.

6. Government Empowers Itself

A sixth shared element is the enormous expansion of powers for the nanny state that bosses citizens and businesses because governments know best and can pick winners and losers. Growing state control over private activities is justified by being framed as minor and temporary inconveniences in the moral crusade to save Granny and the world.

Yet in both agendas, policy interventions have over-promised and under-delivered. The beneficial effects of interventions are exaggerated, optimistic forecasts are made and potential costs and downsides are discounted. Lockdowns were supposedly required for only 2-3 weeks to flatten the curve and vaccines, we were promised, would help us return to pre-Covid normalcy without being mandatory. Similarly, for decades we have been promised that renewables are getting less expensive and energy will get cheaper and more plentiful.

Yet increased subsidies are still needed, energy prices keep rising,
and energy supply gets less reliable and more intermittent.

7. Self-Inflicted Damage

Seventh, the moral framing has also been used to discount massive economic self-harm. Alongside the substantial and lasting economic damage caused by savage lockdowns to businesses and the long-term consequences of a massive printing of money, the obstinate persistence of excess deaths is painful proof of collective public health self-harm.

Similarly, the world has never been healthier, wealthier, better educated, and more connected than today. Energy intensity played a critical role in driving agricultural and industrial production that underpin the health infrastructure and comfortable living standards for large numbers of people worldwide. High income countries enjoy incomparably better health standards and outcomes because of their national wealth.

8. Elites Thrive at Others’ Expense

Eighth, government policies in both agendas have served to greatly widen economic inequalities within and among nations with fat profits for Big Pharma and rent-seeking Green Energy. A lot of money was said to be required to keep Mahatma Gandhi in the style of poverty he demanded. Similarly, a lot of money is required to support Covid and climate policy magical thinking where governments can solve all problems by throwing more money that must neither be earned nor repaid.

In the triumph of luxury politics, the costs of the rich suffused in the golden glow of virtue are borne by the poor. Should a billion more Chinese and Indians have stayed poor and destitute over the last four decades, so Westerners could feel virtuous-green? Alternatively, for post-industrial societies, climate action will require cutbacks to living standards as subsidies rise, power prices go up, reliability comes down and jobs are lost.

Attempts to assess the balance of costs and benefits of Covid and climate policies are shouted down as immoral and evil, putting profits before lives. But neither health nor climate policy can dictate economic, development, energy and other policies. All governments work to balance multiple competing policy priorities. What is the sweet spot that ensures reliable, affordable and clean energy security without big job losses? Or the sweet spot of affordable, accessible and efficient public health delivery that does not compromise the nation’s ability to educate its young, look after the elderly and vulnerable and ensure decent jobs and life opportunities for families?

9. Global Bureaucrats Gut National Sovereignty

The final common element is the subordination of state-based decision-making to international technocrats. This is best exemplified in the proliferation of the global climate change bureaucracies and the promise—threat?—of a new global pandemic treaty whose custodian will be a mighty World Health Organisation.

In both cases, the dedicated international bureaucracy will have a powerful
vested interest in ongoing climate crises and serially repeating pandemics.

 

 

How Covid Policies Strangely Defied What We Knew

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Robert Clancy expresses his consternation about the last three years in his Spectator Australia article Strange times.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

We live in strange times, when the globalisation of a narrative formulated and
promoted by powerful interests linked to the lure of massive profit and control,
threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science.

As a clinical immunologist with a research interest in mucosal immunology and airway infection, the Covid-19 pandemic became a point of convergence for my interests in medicine, research and history.

The Rise of Pandemic Expert Knowledge

A pattern of confusion had evolved in Australian pandemics in the 20th century, followed by a science-based rebound led by great Australians such as Ashburton Thompson with plague in 1900 and, Macfarlane Burnet and Peter Doherty with influenza in 1919, 1957,1968 and Frank Fenner and eradication of smallpox in 1980. Lessons were learned and the community prepared for the next pandemic.

The response to the Covid pandemic by a powerful pharmaceutical industry
became a point of difference.

Earlier pandemics were a tussle between medical and political leaderships, which between 1900 and 1970 diminished as science-based programmes were adopted and supported. Outcomes included strong public health systems and world leading research programmes in immunology and infection control.

An Australian response to pandemics over 70 years was a critical influence in public health and applied research reflecting informed leadership.

The Covid-19 pandemic has not followed that course.

Suddenly everyone was an ‘epidemiologist’, dominating the airwaves and working with political and regulatory organisations to protect the global narrative, reinforced and uncritically accepted by the mainline press, to ‘combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation’.

Three years ago, there was every reason to fear Covid-19. High mortality and transmission rates were reported in China, and the world experience with pandemics was sobering. No effective drug or vaccine existed, with management focused on public health measures. Genetic vaccines were available from January 2021, with Australia becoming one of the most vaccinated countries. Total Covid-19 deaths per million paralleled global mortality, though later in the pandemic from the less virulent Omicron variant. This surge followed relaxation of lockdowns, and the vaccine booster programme

Returning to 2020, it was natural to think that vaccines may play a role in managing Covid-19. In various forms, vaccines were used in earlier pandemics without playing a decisive role. But there were important lessons that should have informed a less sanguine approach to the narrative of mRNA vaccines being the global panacea for Covid-19. This information was available before 2021!

The apologists backtracking on mistakes in the vaccine roll-out,
with ‘we just did not know’, have no argument.

First, 80 years of vaccine development for inhaled viral infections, failed to develop one sterilising vaccine capable of inducing herd immunity.

Second, no vaccine induces stronger immunity than that following the disease, yet it took a recent Lancet meta-analysis to confirm that post Covid-19 trumps vaccine immunity.

Third, respiratory viruses like Sars-CoV-2 infect a mucosal space subject to the rules of mucosal immunology. The major difference from the systemic immune response to invasive pathogens is suppression of all immune responses by T reg cells (to control the inflammatory response to the sea of microbes bathing mucosal surfaces). With Covid-19, immunity following injected vaccines is limited; repeated ‘boosters’ favour progressive immune suppression with more frequent and more severe infections. ‘Allergy-shots’ do the same – they turn off damaging immune responses to inhaled antigens. There is little cross-over between compartments: injected vaccines will not prevent infection, or transmission of disease (a claim used to support community vaccination).

Fourth, RNA viruses undergo mutations facilitating ‘immune escape’, risking ‘selection’ of mutant virus by non-sterilising vaccines.

These ‘rules’ predict outcomes of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out. Vaccination induced systemic immunity probably prevented admission to hospital and death by neutralising virus that ‘escaped’ from the mucosal compartment, but only early in the pandemic when vaccine antigen matched prevailing virus and before priming of suppression from repeated vaccinations. There was no impact on infection or transmission of the virus. Repeated ‘boosters’ gave 30 to 40 per cent protection for a couple of months, followed by cumulating ‘negative protection’ with more severe and frequent infections. New Zealand figures indicate higher Covid-19 mortality in every age bracket, in those with ‘boosters’, reflecting a global pattern described by some as a ‘pandemic of the vaccinated’.

The mRNA vaccines differ from classical antigen vaccines.

They spread and persist for months, producing Spike protein (the viral antigen stimulating immune protection) on cells throughout the body. The consequences are an uncontrolled amount of antigen that can downregulate antibody, and a new target for T cells to attack. Reports of serious adverse events following Covid-19 vaccination including heart and brain damage and deaths outstrips combined reports for all other vaccines. Prospective study of adolescents using laboratory and MRI technology showed 2 to 3 per cent had myocarditis, contrasting with less sensitive hospital figures of one in 10,000 vaccinations.

Asymptomatic myocarditis leaves a scar, claimed to underpin a recent spate
of adrenaline-initiated deaths on sporting fields.

German post-mortem studies confirm vaccine pathology as a significant cause of sudden unexplained deaths. Statisticians across the world are seeing an increase in deaths of the order of 10 to 20 per cent greater than noted in previous years, time-matched with vaccine rollouts. These data demand proper assessment despite dismissal by authorities. Reversal of mRNA encoded information into host DNA has been documented, with unknown impact on the recipient or their progeny.

The point is this. How could a novel vaccine involving mRNA with scarce testing, with no demonstrated advantage over traditional vaccines, against all principles of mucosal immunology, and likely complicated by major adverse events, not be red-flagged by the medical-regulatory network charged with our protection? Peter Doshi, an editor of the prestigious BMJ, co-authored a review of the trial data used to underpin vaccine mandates. The authors concluded, ‘the risk of serious adverse events surpassed the risk reduction for Covid-19 hospitalisation’, demanding a ‘formal harm-benefit analysis’. This never occurred. How can it be?

We live in strange times, when the globalisation of a narrative formulated and promoted by powerful interests linked to the lure of massive profit and control, threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science. In Australia, acceptance of the Covid-narrative was made easy by the unrecognised power of these interests and a disintegration of core medical structures that once would have demanded science-based analysis, regulatory integrity and effective review. The introduction of unique, clever technology blindsided mainstream professionals who failed to understand the implications of genetic vaccines, or the immunology of the airway. These ‘experts’ and bureaucrats made poor decisions which became rubber-stamped by administrators and politicians. ‘Cancellation’ threats to those scientists and clinicians wishing to speak out against the narrative, enabled disinformation to become convention, with frightening unknown consequences.

Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM was Foundation Professor of Pathology in the Medical School, University of Newcastle. He is a clinical immunologist.

 

 

How Wu Flu Originated

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Update February 28, 2023

Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan reacts to a classified intelligence report from the Energy Department that found COVID-19 most likely came from a Chinese lab on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’ Video below followed by transcript from closed captions. TC is Tucker Carlson and LMY is Dr. Li-Meng Yan.

TC: Li-Meng Yan was one of the first people to tell the truth in the United States.  At great personal cost she was there. She joins us now: Doctor, thank you so much for coming on. You said three years ago you believed that this virus was intentionally released by the government you once worked for, the government of China.  Today we’re hearing in the Wall Street Journal that it was accidental. Do you believe this leak was accidental or intentional?

LMY: Hi Tucker thank you for having me again. First I really appreciate you and also Fox News have been taking so much effort pursuing the truths of Covid origin. Without your help, there wouldn’t be such milestone achievements. And I want to say, of course it was not an accident. And maybe for people who don’t have this kind of biosafety labs, this kind of experience on coronavirus, maybe it’s easy for them to accept the accidental lab leak idea.

However I’m the scientist working in such lab using coronavirus, and I can tell you based on the print protocol and also the other surveillance, it will be impossible for the lab leak to accidentally happen in such a lab. Because of the Wuhan outbreak and also the pandemic, so definitely now we just reach to the first step: It was from China’s lab. Now we need to pursue the truth of origin and we need to keep going on.

TC: We know the Chinese government allowed its infected citizens to travel in huge groups to Western Europe in the early days of the pandemic–that was intentional. But you believe the whole thing: that they came up with this virus and then they unleashed it on the world to destroy the Western economies and to elevate their own position globally.

LMY: I want to emphasize one thing. I would say based on the evidence and the sources I have, that the virus was intentionally brought out of this strict lab and released into the community. However I don’t think the outbreak in Wuhan was intentional. I would say it was because CCP government and Military scientists underestimated the transmissibility. That’s why finally it got out of control and caused the local outbreak. However we should know that CCP government intentionally made it go all over the world to kill millions of people all over the world later.

TC: We just have to hope and pray that you will be interviewed by many other journalists in this country over the coming weeks now that this has been confirmed. You’re an eyewitness to it, you have a I think a credible story to tell, and I really hope you’re no longer ignored. I appreciate you’re coming on again tonight Li Meng Yan.

Background from 2021 Post:   Ex-CDC Director Believes Wuhan Flu Escaped from a Lab

Live Science reports Ex-CDC director believes COVID-19 escaped from a lab, but cites no evidence

Excerpts in italics with my bolds.  A previous post is reprinted further on showing the evidence not discussed and hand-waved away by Fauci, whose NIH funded the Wuhan research facility from which the virus likely came.

Dr. Robert Redfield told CNN that this was his opinion on the origins of the virus.

“I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped,” Redfield told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta. “Other people don’t believe that, that’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out.”

Still, a number of scientists say the most likely explanation is that the virus emerged naturally, passing from bats to another animal and then to humans, Live Science previously reported. Recently, a team from the World Health Organization, which is investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2, said that it agrees with this hypothesis — WHO officials said the virus likely passed from bats to animals on wildlife farms in China, and then to humans, Live Science previously reported.

Redfield said he didn’t believe the bat theory. “Normally, when a pathogen goes from a zoonosis to humans, it takes a while for it to figure out how to become more and more efficient in human-to-human transmission,” Redfield told CNN. “I just don’t think this makes biological sense.”

The former CDC chief wasn’t suggesting SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered virus — another theory with no supporting evidence — just a natural escapee. “In the lab, you think that that process of becoming more efficient was happening?” Gupta asked. [Note:  There is significant evidence of an engineered virus documented in the discussion below.]

“Yeah, let’s just say I have coronavirus that I’m working on. Most of us in the lab, we’re trying to grow a virus, we try to help make it grow better and better and better … so we can do experiments,” Redfield responded.

Why Wu Flu Virus Looks Man-made ( previously posted Sept. 2020)

A virologist who fled China after studying the early outbreak of COVID-19 has published a new report claiming the coronavirus likely came from a lab.  This adds to the analysis done by Dr. Luc Montagnier earlier this year, and summarized in a previous post reprinted later on.  Dr. Yan was interviewed on Fox News, and YouTube has now blocked the video.

If you are wondering why Big Tech is censoring information unflattering to China, see Lee Smith’s Tablet article America’s China Class Launches a New War Against Trump  The corporate, tech, and media elites will not allow the president to come between them and Chinese money

Doctor Li-Meng Yan, a scientist who studied some of the available data on COVID-19 has published her claims on Zenodo, an open access digital platform. She wrote that she believed COVID-19 could have been “conveniently created” within a lab setting over a period of just six months, and “SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus”.

The paper by Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang  is Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory.

The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.

Contents

Consistent with this notion, genomic, structural, and literature evidence also suggest a non-natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. In addition, abundant literature indicates that gain-of-function research has long advanced to the stage where viral genomes can be precisely engineered and manipulated to enable the creation of novel coronaviruses possessing unique properties. In this report, we present such evidence and the associated analyses.

Part 1 of the report describes the genomic and structural features of SARS-CoV-2, the presence of which could be consistent with the theory that the virus is a product of laboratory modification beyond what could be afforded by simple serial viral passage. Part 2 of the report describes a highly probable pathway for the laboratory creation of SARS-CoV-2, key steps of which are supported by evidence present in the viral genome. Importantly, part 2 should be viewed as a demonstration of how SARS-CoV-2 could be conveniently created in a laboratory in a short period of time using available materials and well-documented techniques. This report is produced by a team of experienced scientists using our combined expertise in virology, molecular biology, structural biology, computational biology, vaccine development, and medicine.

We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:

i. The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

ii. The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus, resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.

iii. SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.

Background from Previous post June 30, 2020:  Pandemic Update: Virus Weaker, HCQ Stronger

In past weeks there have been anecdotal reports from frontline doctors that patients who would have been flattened fighting off SARS CV2 in April are now sitting up and recovering in a few days. We have also the statistical evidence in the US and Sweden, as two examples, that case numbers are rising while Covid deaths continue declining. One explanation is that the new cases are younger people who have been released from lockdown (in US) with stronger immune systems. But it may also be that the virus itself is losing potency.

In the past I have noticed theories about the origin of the virus, and what makes it “novel.” But when the scientist who identified HIV weighs in, I pay particular attention. The Coronavirus Is Man Made According to Luc Montagnier the Man Who Discovered HIV. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Contrary to the narrative that is being pushed by the mainstream that the COVID 19 virus was the result of a natural mutation and that it was transmitted to humans from bats via pangolins, Dr Luc Montagnier the man who discovered the HIV virus back in 1983 disagrees and is saying that the virus was man made.

Professor Luc Montagnier, 2008 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine, claims that SARS-CoV-2 is a manipulated virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Chinese researchers are said to have used coronaviruses in their work to develop an AIDS vaccine. HIV RNA fragments are believed to have been found in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.

“With my colleague, bio-mathematician Jean-Claude Perez, we carefully analyzed the description of the genome of this RNA virus,” explains Luc Montagnier, interviewed by Dr Jean-François Lemoine for the daily podcast at Pourquoi Docteur, adding that others have already explored this avenue: Indian researchers have already tried to publish the results of the analyses that showed that this coronavirus genome contained sequences of another virus, … the HIV virus (AIDS virus), but they were forced to withdraw their findings as the pressure from the mainstream was too great.

To insert an HIV sequence into this genome requires molecular tools

In a challenging question Dr Jean-François Lemoine inferred that the coronavirus under investigation may have come from a patient who is otherwise infected with HIV. No, “says Luc Montagnier,” in order to insert an HIV sequence into this genome, molecular tools are needed, and that can only be done in a laboratory.

According to the 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine, a plausible explanation would be an accident in the Wuhan laboratory. He also added that the purpose of this work was the search for an AIDS vaccine.

In any case, this thesis, defended by Professor Luc Montagnier, has a positive turn.

According to him, the altered elements of this virus are eliminated as it spreads: “Nature does not accept any molecular tinkering, it will eliminate these unnatural changes and even if nothing is done, things will get better, but unfortunately after many deaths.”

This is enough to feed some heated debates! So much so that Professor Montagnier’s statements could also place him in the category of “conspiracy theorists”: “Conspirators are the opposite camp, hiding the truth,” he replies, without wanting to accuse anyone, but hoping that the Chinese will admit to what he believes happened in their laboratory.

To entice a confession from the Chinese he used the example of Iran which after taking full responsibility for accidentally hitting a Ukrainian plane was able to earn the respect of the global community. Hopefully the Chinese will do the right thing he adds. “In any case, the truth always comes out, it is up to the Chinese government to take responsibility.”

Implications: Leaving aside the geopolitics, this theory also explains why the virus weakens when mutations lose the unnatural pieces added in the lab. Since this is an RNA (not DNA) sequence mutations are slower, but inevitable. If correct, this theory works against fears of a second wave of infections. It also gives an unintended benefit from past lockdowns and shutdowns, slowing the rate of infections while the virus degrades itself.

lb210330c20210330112317

10 Times Covid Experts Failed Us

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Marty Makary presents a list of failures in his NY Post article 10 myths told by COVID experts — and now debunked.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

In the past few weeks, a series of analyses published by highly respected researchers have exposed a truth about public health officials during COVID:   Much of the time, they were wrong.

To be clear, public health officials were not wrong for making recommendations based on what was known at the time.  That’s understandable. You go with the data you have.

No, they were wrong because they refused to change their directives
in the face of new evidence.

When a study did not support their policies, they dismissed it and censored opposing opinions.

At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention weaponized research itself by putting out its own flawed studies in its own non-peer-reviewed medical journal, MMWR.

In the final analysis, public health officials actively propagated misinformation
that ruined lives and forever damaged public trust in the medical profession.

Here are 10 ways they misled Americans:

Misinformation #1: Natural immunity offers little protection compared to vaccinated immunity

A Lancet study looked at 65 major studies in 19 countries on natural immunity. The researchers concluded that natural immunity was at least as effective as the primary COVID vaccine series.  In fact, the scientific data was there all along — from 160 studies, despite the findings of these studies violating Facebook’s “misinformation” policy.

Since the Athenian plague of 430 BC, it has been observed that those who recovered after infection were protected against severe disease if reinfected.  That was also the observation of nearly every practicing physician during the first 18 months of the COVID pandemic.

Most Americans who were fired for not having the COVID vaccine already had antibodies that effectively neutralized the virus, but they were antibodies that the government did not recognize.

Misinformation #2: Masks prevent COVID transmission

Cochran Reviews are considered the most authoritative and independent assessment of the evidence in medicine.  And one published last month by a highly respected Oxford research team found that masks had no significant impact on COVID transmission.

When asked about this definitive review, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky downplayed it, arguing that it was flawed because it focused on randomized controlled studies.

But that was the greatest strength of the review! Randomized studies are considered the gold standard of medical evidence.

If all the energy used by public health officials to mask toddlers could have been channeled to reduce child obesity by encouraging outdoor activities, we would be better off.

Misinformation #3: School closures reduce COVID transmission

The CDC ignored the European experience of keeping schools open, most without mask mandates. Transmission rates were no different, evidenced by studies conducted in Spain and Sweden.

Misinformation #4: Myocarditis from the vaccine is less common than from the infection

Public health officials downplayed concerns about vaccine-induced myocarditis — or inflammation of the heart muscle.  They cited poorly designed studies that under-captured complication rates.

A flurry of well-designed studies said the opposite.  We now know that myocarditis is six to 28 times more common after the COVID vaccine than after the infection among 16- to 24-year-old males.

Tens of thousands of children likely got myocarditis, mostly subclinical, from a COVID vaccine they did not need because they were entirely healthy or because they already had COVID.

Misinformation #5: Young people benefit from a vaccine booster

Boosters reduced hospitalizations in older, high-risk Americans. But the evidence was never there that they lower COVID mortality in young, healthy people.

That’s probably why the CDC chose not to publish its data on hospitalization rates among boosted Americans under 50, when it published the same rates for those over 50.

Ultimately, White House pressure to recommend boosters for all was so intense that the FDA’s two top vaccine experts left the agency in protest, writing scathing articles on how the data did not support boosters for young people.

Misinformation #6: Vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates

President Biden and other officials demanded that unvaccinated workers, regardless of their risk or natural immunity, be fired.  They demanded that soldiers be dishonorably discharged and nurses be laid off in the middle of a staffing crisis.

The mandate was based on the theory that vaccination reduced transmission rates
— a notion later proven to be false.

But after the broad recognition that vaccination does not reduce transmission, the mandates persisted, and still do to this day.

A recent study from George Mason University details how vaccine mandates in nine major US cities had no impact on vaccination rates.  They also had no impact on COVID transmission rates.

Misinformation #7: COVID originating from the Wuhan lab is a conspiracy theory

Google admitted to suppressing searches of “lab leak” during the pandemic.  Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, claimed (and still does) he didn’t believe the virus came from a lab.

Ultimately, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to a lab leak origin — the same origin suggested to Dr. Anthony Fauci by two very prominent virologists in a January 2020 meeting he assembled at the beginning of the pandemic.

According to documents obtained by Bret Baier of Fox News, they told Fauci and Collins that the virus may have been manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly changed their tune in public comments days after meeting with the NIH officials.

The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from Fauci’s agency.

Misinformation #8: It was important to get the second vaccine dose three or four weeks after the first dose

Data were clear in the spring of 2021, just months after the vaccine rollout, that spacing the vaccine out by three months reduces complication rates and increases immunity.

Spacing out vaccines would have also saved more lives when Americans were rationing a limited vaccine supply at the height of the epidemic.

Misinformation #9: Data on the bivalent vaccine is ‘crystal clear’

Dr. Ashish Jha famously said this, despite the bivalent vaccine being approved using data from eight mice.  To date, there has never been a randomized controlled trial of the bivalent vaccine.

In my opinion, the data are crystal clear that young people should not get the bivalent vaccine. It would have also spared many children myocarditis.

Misinformation #10: One in five people get long COVID

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that 20% of COVID infections can result in long COVID.

But a UK study found that only 3% of COVID patients had residual symptoms lasting 12 weeks. What explains the disparity?

It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weakness for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well.  Calling these cases long COVID is the medicalization of ordinary life.

Summary

What’s most amazing about all the misinformation conveyed by CDC and public health officials is that there have been no apologies for holding on to their recommendations for so long after the data became apparent that they were dead wrong.

Public health officials said “you must” when the correct answer
should have been “we’re not sure.”

Early on, in the absence of good data, public health officials chose a path of stern paternalism.

Today, they are in denial of a mountain of strong studies showing that they were wrong.

 

 

 

Covid Coercion Coverup in Canada

Posted on by Ron Clutz

In recent months, some demonstrators in Quebec have denounced what they consider government fear campaigns over COVID-19. The new measures included a mandatory rule on wearing masks during demonstrations. Sept. 2020 (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)

John Hardie et al. dissect a recent publication attempting to whitewash blacken over suspension of citizens’ rights as well public health principles during the pandemic.  Their Epoch Times article is Pandemic Performance Study Blatant Attempt to Justify Feds’ Actions? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Public Health Agency of Canada study’s conclusions are a fantasy,
quite divorced from reality

Rather than learning from the painful lessons of the past three years, it’s obvious that we’ve entered a post-pandemic phase of government-led alarmism.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)—including Theresa Tam—has published a study in a Canadian public health journal declaring that pandemic-inspired restrictions substantially reduced the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. “Counterfactuals of effects of vaccination and public health measures on COVID-19 cases in Canada: What could have happened?” asks us to believe an imagined story about what may have happened had Canada’s public health measures not been implemented.

However, the result is a counterfactual narrative of a fantasized Canada quite divorced from reality.

An elementary school in Montreal North is seen, Thursday, May 14, 2020 in Montreal. PHOTO BY RYAN REMIORZ /THE CANADIAN PRESS

Recent debate on the study’s findings has made it evident that Theresa Tam and her collaborators (“the authors”) are victims of common modelling pitfalls that have stripped their objectivity and, accordingly, affected the quality of their model and its output.

Instead of relying on modelling forecasts, the authors resort to “back-casting” to state “what may have happened” or “what could have been” had governments not acted on our behalf.

However, giving credence to such questionable results occurs all too often when sensational outcomes are observed. Unfortunately for any modelling study, the historical path—the one involving no interventions—was foreclosed the moment pandemic responses began. Neither the authors, nor anyone else, can ever observe the simultaneous response and non-response of Canada’s experience with COVID-19.

Quebec Premier François Legault says police in the province’s red zones — regions where COVID-19 cases are surging — will be issuing $1,000 fines to those who violate newly strengthened public health rules.  With fees, those fines will top $1,500 and can be issued for gathering in private residences or protesting without a face covering.

Their most dramatic claim is that, without social restrictions and vaccines, up to 800,000 COVID-related deaths could have occurred. The figure below shows 12 years of all-cause mortality data in Canada (blue line), with the authors’ “worst case” superimposed (red line).

The figure shows 12 years of all-cause mortality data in Canada (blue line), with the authors’ “worst case” superimposed (red line).

For us, two things make the authors’ assertion incompatible with any reasonable view: one, there was no obvious increase in all-cause mortality between 2020 and 2021 that exceeded historical trends (blue line), and two, the death count of “up to 800,000 people” (red line) surpasses the number of Canadians killed in the 1918 influenza pandemic and two World Wars—combined. It begs the question:

Could an infection with a survival rate >99 percent really have been
the single most devastating health event in a century?
The reader can decide if they find these results plausible, or fantastic.

All models are unrealistic to a degree (although this is not a “fatal flaw”). However, models are only as good as the assumptions upon which they are based. Unfortunately, the authors have hung their results on assumptions that underestimate the acquisition, extent, and durability of natural immunity and that very likely overestimate early viral spread and the duration of vaccine-acquired immunity.

The authors also assume that the spread of infection dropped consistently with the stringency of closures and other social restrictions: when strict, transmission was low; when relaxed, transmission increased. However, there is evidence that these measures didn’t work “as advertised.” In many provinces, their effect may have plateaued by April 2020.

Stricter measures did not translate into a proportionately slower spread.

Unfortunately, this didn’t stop the authors from forcing their model to respond as if they had. In their “worst case” scenario, large amounts of infection and disease are—conveniently—a foregone conclusion unless they get flattened by top-down government actions. The agency of Canadians and its bottom-up influences on transmission, such as people’s natural tendency to avoid contagion, are never considered.

Their least subtle omission was the failure to disclose conflicts of interest. While PHAC scientists might claim they only provide guidance on sub-national pandemic responses, the interests of many federal health-related agencies are certainly evident.

For example, the federal government’s purchase of COVID-19 vaccines preceded their approval by Health Canada, and some of the most restrictive measures imposed on Canadians (such as vaccine requirements for commercial travel) came from the federal level. As it happens, four of the authors are also directly employed by the federal government.

The study’s authors can hardly be viewed as not having competing interests
in favourably evaluating pandemic policies.

All this leads us to wonder: was their article a genuine evidence-based analysis of government policies? Or, rather, a blatant attempt to justify these policies? To their credit, the authors admit that Canada’s response to the pandemic was imperfect and any unintended consequences need to be investigated. It will truly be a measure of the honesty and integrity of PHAC and their provincial partners if the latter is ever realized.

Footnote Quebec Covid Situation October 1, 2020

Note that testing has quadrupled since July and the number of new cases followed, especially in the last month.  Meanwhile daily deaths are unchanged at less than five a day, compared to Quebec losing 186 lives every day from all causes..  Recoveries are not reported to the public, perhaps due to the large number of people testing positive but without symptoms or only mild illness and no professional treatment.  The graph below estimates recoveries assuming that people not dying 28 days after a positive test can be counted as cured or in recovery.

Recoveries are the number of people testing positive (misleadingly termed “cases”) minus deaths 28 days later.  Obviously, the death rate was high early on, and now is barely visible.  Meanwhile the Positivity rate (% of people testing positive out of all subjects) went down to 1% for several months before rising recently.  Since there is a lag of 28 days, we don’t yet see the outcome of the rise in positives along with the increased testing.

And yet, with an edict, as of October 1 the government of Quebec put 60% of the provincial population under strict restrictions, about 4.8 million people.  The article from CBC News provides the details Quebec gives police legal tools to enter homes quickly to stop gatherings during COVID-19

Why Was Covid-19? Follow the Money.

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Michael Bryant has the background in finances and health to help us understand why Covid-19 plandemic  pandemic happened the way it did.  His off-guardian article is COVID-19: A Global Financial Operation.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The COVID phenomenon cannot be understood without understanding the un-televised 2019-2020 unprecedented financial collapse threatening the entire global financial system.

The Covid-19 Pandemic story makes little sense when viewed through the lens of health, safety and science. Viewed through the lens of money, power, control, and wealth transfer, however, then all of it makes perfect sense.

The lockdowns, mandatory muzzles, anti-social distancing and the plethora of additional measures did nothing to protect or improve public health- they were never designed to do so.

The numerous mandates birthed by the onset of the Covid-19 scenario were all designed to deliberately break the global economy and crush small businesses as well as break people’s minds, will and the social fabric, in order to “build back a better society” that conforms to the dystopian visions of the psychopaths waging this class war.

The desired result is a billionaire’s utopia, in which they will own and control the planet in the form of a techno-feudal fiefdom where digitally branded humanity is regulated like cattle in a super-surveilled technocracy.

What this manufactured crisis conveniently camouflages is that we are in the midst of a planned total economic collapse- a collapse which was inevitable.

The timing of the COVID fraud became necessary as world markets were faced with an emergency debt crisis in Fall of 2019 which popped up in formerly mostly liquid markets: Repo Markets, Money Markets and Foreign Exchange Markets.

Western governments began a rush to salvage this decaying system, stem this cataclysmic landslide, bail out large scale investors and proactively install a security infrastructure to control the inevitable social disorder resulting from this collapse. This would be followed by a global financial reset, after a period of hyperinflation, destroying both the value of debt and the corresponding paper claims.

The financial system was already in an advanced stage of decline by the fall of 2019 as illustrated by the Fed taking over the Repo market in September to short-circuit the Repocalypse. This collapse began in earnest in 2008/09 and attempts over the last decade and a half to salvage this corrupt economic system only delayed the inevitable.

In the Fall of 2019 the crisis began to rapidly unravel again.

A dramatic decrease in industrial production characterized the banking crisis of August 2019– the so-called Repo crisis when suddenly banks started to refuse US sovereign debt instruments as collateral for overnight loans, forcing the Federal Reserve to step in and print money to cover this massive shortage.

The Repo market is where banks borrow money each day so that they have a certain percent of liquid assets at the end of each day in order to meet certain fiduciary requirements.

Around the middle of September the Fed started pumping $10-20 billion per day into the Repo market to keep interest rates down so banks could borrow the money to stay in business. Even as the Fed was pumping as much $10’s of billions per day into the Repo market it was still not enough.

By early March the Fed was pumping $100 billion into the Repo market in order to stem this existential crisis.

Simply everyone on Wall Street was loaded with enormous debt and was holding on to US cash in order to service this debt, refusing to finance purchases of foreign currencies and then US currency as the Repo Market froze at 10% interest on overnight Repo loans. US treasury bonds and even US bills were being rejected as collateral for Repos.

In March 2020 the liquidity crisis spread from primary dealer markets (TBTF banks and Hedge funds were bailed out in September) toward all other stocks, commodities, bonds, Collateralized Loan Obligations, Mortgage Backed Securities, Mutual Funds, Exchange Traded Funds, as well as various Ponzi schemes such as Structured Derivative Products traded on proprietary platforms representing up to several thousand trillions of dollars.

When US treasury bonds became illiquid due to exponential growth of public, but mostly private, dollar debt, even as the FED was sucking up cash from financial markets all hell broke loose.

The entire House of Cards which was falling for six months could not be stopped so COVID hysteria was manufactured to cover up to what amounts to $10-15 trillion of FED bailout in cash and stock boosts via Permanent Open Market Operations (POMO)- a fancy way of saying that the Fed is buying Treasuries, pumping money into the financial markets and handing out guarantees of value of collateral used in structured derivatives.

The end game, currently in motion, is for the Central Banks (Fed) to buy up all the toxic, worthless debt from the hedge funds and banks, including the 1.5 quad trillion of derivatives, and then transfer the debt to the treasury as sovereign debt. They will then print money to infinity, already fully underway, to service this fictitious debt to sink the dollar via hyperinflation and then foreclose on the US and everyone else holding debt in worthless dollars.

More than 25,000 troops from across the country were dispatched to the US capital on January 13, 2021 and stayed until end of May 2021.

That’s the coup: global hyperinflation to vaporize the assets of the masses and the states in order to hand over public assets to private investors. This allows the ruling class to mop up properties (bankrupted small businesses, foreclosed homes etc.) in order to stake limitless claims on everything in the world.

The timely arrival of the Covid-19 “emergency” provided the rationale and the opportunity to freeze the US banking collapse with massive injections of cash. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $8-10 trillion was paid to US banks up until March 2020 with an additional $5 trillion in economic stimulus promised by the Fed.

The manufactured perception that there was a global medical emergency, beginning in March 2020, was an artifact of mass media manipulation, behavioral conditioning techniques and social engineering. All of this was made possible through institutional programming and accelerated media messaging disallowing basic cognitive processes and eliminating critical thinking possibilities.

With this incessant and overwhelming media drumbeat of the Virus Narrative, and the world unified in its response to the ‘Covid Pandemic’, no other stories were permitted to exist in the media or the public conscience.

Without any external threat like a ‘Killer Virus’ this massive financial collapse would have immediately caused panic and threatened dollar credibility. Without the Covid-19 smokescreen this widespread Ponzi Scheme and the ongoing historical wealth transfer would be seen for what they are- ongoing theft by the financial aristocracy.

The Covid Operation: The Trojan Horse to Usher in the New World Order

As the “War on Terror” illustrated, these deep events are constructed to exploit as many different lines of acquisition as possible. With the “Covid Pandemic” replacing the phony “War on Terror” yet another revamped “worldwide crisis” miraculously morphs into a ruling class multi-purpose golden opportunity.

While the immediate necessity was to staunch the bleeding of the global financial system many other purposes were and are to be served by this multifaceted operation. None of this is accidental. All of this is hidden in plain sight, planned and executed as evidenced in multiple tabletop exercises such as “Event 201” and delineated in numerous documents such as “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

The Covid Operation itself covers many objectives:

  1. Pre-emption of and disguising the reasons for the aforementioned economic implosion;
  2. Acceleration of the largest upwards transfer of wealth in human history;
  3. Justification for and entrenchment of the Bio-Security State, including AI surveillance across multiple sectors of society;
  4. Empowering and enriching the Security State’s counterpart the Big Tech Cartel via tracking apps, proliferating and normalizing social media and communication platforms as “the middle man” in all walks of life. Moving all social life towards the technological imperative– meals ordered via DoorDash, meetings on Zoom, increased spending via Visa/MasterCard by ordering goods online with Amazon, films via Netflix etc., were all forced onto a gullible and largely compliant world public during the Covid tyranny;
  5. The creation of “The Pandemic” as a financial mechanism. Manufactured pandemics have become mammoth investment opportunities that increase the wealth of billionaires and further consolidate their power;
  6. Expansion of the public health industry itself into all walks of public and economic life. The public health industry is now directly tied to global markets and financial conglomerates and has become one of the most critical financial instruments for investors;
  7. Creation of an entirely new and lucrative Bio-Medical “health management” system in order to introduce and codify an entirely new Bio-Tech medical model for the Pharmaceutical Industry with a focus on “revolutionary” uploadable mRNA “vaccines”;
  8. Expansion of and normalizing the use of digital IDs, including vaccine passports, connecting these to a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC); a Universal Basic Income (UBI) scrip, allowing for the tracking of purchases; medical interventions, “lifestyle choices”, etc. “nudging” us towards ‘desired’ behaviors or shutting us out of the system altogether as they wish;
  9. A re-organisation, privatization and reduction of public services under the pretense of making them “more nimble” for “public emergencies”;
  10. Conditioning the public to perpetual “States of Emergency” preparing them for the implementation of “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
A final Word

We are living through the biggest worldwide organized crime since WW2. The scale of the deception is too large for even many who consider themselves “in the know” to accept or comprehend and remain trapped in some version of the “Covid” merry-go-round. Others are still asleep or traumatized as the social fabric is being smashed to pieces as the world around them is being completely transformed.

The financial elites know that they have run up massive unpayable debts and deficits. They know the promises of pensions and benefits cannot be paid. They know the system has reached its Waterloo and social unrest is inevitable.

They know they must act rapidly and comprehensively to subvert this inevitable collapse in order to protect the financial Leviathan which underpins their capacity to maintain power and control.

Put simply, Covid-19 was not a widespread medical emergency, it was a money laundering scheme, a massive psychological operation and a smoke screen for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current social and economic world order.

Covid-19, the disease, is nothing more than a disease of ATTRIBUTION.

Covid-19, the media event, was the Trojan Horse constructed to usher in a complete transformation of our society.

Covid-19™, the operation, was never an epidemiological event, it is a business model meant to increase the portfolios of the super-wealthy.

There is no such thing as “Covid 19” except as a criminal conspiracy.

 

 

Dr. Li-Meng Yan: President Xi Jinping’s China

Posted on by Ron Clutz

As noted in a previous post linked later on, Dr. Li-Meng Yan was one of the first to make the case for WuFlu created and released from Wuhan, China. Derided at the time (2020), she is now vindicated and goes further to explain current events in China, as reported in UncoverDC.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dr. Li-Meng Yan graciously agreed to speak with UncoverDC for two hours on Tuesday about President Xi’s terrifying grip on mainland China. Dr. Yan says Xi is, for all intents and purposes, now the “Emperor” of China, a “sociopath” who has been consolidating power for many years. Dr. Yan flew to the U.S. from Hong Kong, where she worked in a prominent virology lab at the University of Hong studying coronaviruses and other emerging viral diseases under Malik Peiris on April 28, 2020. Yan says she has a “duty” to inform the world about the dangers of Communist China under Xi Jinping.

Peiris is a powerful, CCP-linked virologist at The University of Hong Kong. In 2003, Professor Peiris and his research team “discovered SARS-CoV, a novel coronavirus, as the etiological agent for SARS.” Through her trustworthy network of mainland China friends and colleagues, Dr. Yan began to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2. She is exposing how Xi purposely allowed the highly transmissible virus to travel outside China, crushing Western economies and killing many people unnecessarily. She claims the virus was well-coordinated by the PLA in China and was not limited to the lab in Wuhan. Yan communicated anonymously with a Chinese broadcaster based in the West whose channel is Lude media. He helped her get the word out through his broadcasts.

Dr. Yan says there is no doubt that the pandemic is indirectly responsible for the current protests in response to the lockdowns in China. However, she clarifies that while the press—both in China and in Western countries—are reporting the lockdowns are because of reinstated COVID policies, she says the lockdowns have “nothing to do with COVID.” During the pandemic, it became brutally clear to the mainland Chinese that President Xi’s draconian Zero Covid policies were “anti-human” and really had very little to do with protecting the people of China. Rather, she says Xi used the pandemic as a way to further extend and tighten his grip on the country. Dr. Yan explains:

“It is not COVID at all. SARS-CoV-2 is a weapon, a weapon more powerful than traditional bioweapons. So you see that it was released to foreign countries. It created a lot of social problems and chaos, and when it happened in China, it actually gave Xi great pretext to launch this very strict policy to restructure China’s society, its culture, and its people.

I believe Xi Jinping is using the People’s Liberation Army now to transform China from a peaceful time to wartime policies. It is a period of reformation. He is reinforcing his power with policies to control people, minimize people’s living standards, concentrate the money in his favor in places like the biomedical technology and weapons industry. He is training people to become obedient to listen to these ridiculous anti-human rules. This type of policy has been adopted by emperors in China going back 2000 years. Xi Jinping is using it in a modern way. “

Xi’s social credit system is used masterfully to control the movement of citizens. It is a “digital cuff.” Those who have cell phones are tracked and monitored no matter where they go. They are forced to use a “traffic light system,” red for no-go zones, or to indicate an individual does not have permission to move. Green means you are free to move about based on whether you have been tested or, many times, whether you “know the right local authorities.” It is human-tracked, which means there are people, local police, volunteers, and Party members who monitor and control all movement. Elderly people who do not know how to use the digital system are tracked on paper at checkpoints. Cameras are collecting biometric data everywhere. The tracking system is everywhere, not just in big cities. This policy is a “national strategy,” just like the “one-child policy.”

Additionally, President Xi recruited people all over China who wear white PPE-type uniforms. These enforcers are called “Big Whites,” and they enforce the lockdowns and movement of Chinese citizens. Big Whites are civilians hired with the promise of “big salaries” during the pandemic. Few have been compensated, and local CCP officials are now punishing many for asking to be paid. According to Yan, “Big whites are allowed to legally break into people’s homes. They can rape girls, kill their pets, take their possessions, and people are not allowed to get help. If the people call to get help, the message will be deleted, and the police will come and tell them to shut up.”

Yan says the protests are much more widespread than in the days of Tiananmen Square. Over 170 Universities country-wide have organized protests simultaneously, and it is not just the young protesting. Yan referenced a December 3, 2022, column by the New York Post that documented four Chinese citizens and their reasons for protesting. Many protested because of a deadly apartment fire in northwestern China’s Xinjiang region that allegedly killed ten people. These people were locked in the building from the outside because of the Zero COVID policy. One resident said, “Xinjiang is an open-air prison.”

Background from Previous Post Why Wu Flu Virus Looks Man-made

Doctor Li-Meng Yan, a scientist who studied some of the available data on COVID-19 has published her claims on Zenodo, an open access digital platform. She wrote that she believed COVID-19 could have been “conveniently created” within a lab setting over a period of just six months, and “SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus”.

The paper by Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang  is Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.   A brief synopsis in italics with my bolds.

We present three lines of evidence to support our contention that laboratory manipulation is part of the history of SARS-CoV-2:

i. The genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is suspiciously similar to that of a bat coronavirus discovered by military laboratories in the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

ii. The receptor-binding motif (RBM) within the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which determines the host specificity of the virus, resembles that of SARS-CoV from the 2003 epidemic in a suspicious manner. Genomic evidence suggests that the RBM has been genetically manipulated.

iii. SARS-CoV-2 contains a unique furin-cleavage site in its Spike protein, which is known to greatly enhance viral infectivity and cell tropism. Yet, this cleavage site is completely absent in this particular class of coronaviruses found in nature. In addition, rare codons associated with this additional sequence suggest the strong possibility that this furin-cleavage site is not the product of natural evolution and could have been inserted into the SARS-CoV-2 genome artificially by techniques other than simple serial passage or multi-strain recombination events inside co-infected tissue cultures or animals.