Exposing scientific information about covid terror

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

In most Western countries, the peak incidence of coronavirus was already reached in March or April and often before quarantine was introduced. Deaths peaked in most Western countries in April. Since then, the number of hospitalizations and deaths in most Western countries has been declining. This also applies to non-quarantined countries such as Sweden, Belarus and Japan. Cumulative, Germany) to severe (eg, US, UK) influenza season.

Since the end of quarantine, the number of coronavirus checks among low-risk populations has increased dramatically in many countries, for example, due to the return of people to work and school.

This led to a certain increase in positive test results in some countries or regions, which many media and authorities presented as a supposedly dangerous increase in the number of cases, and sometimes this led to new restrictions, even if the rate of positive results remained very low.

The number of cases, however, is a misleading figure that should not be interpreted as the number of sick or infected people. A positive test result can, for example, be due to non-infectious viral particles, asymptomatic course, retest, or false positive.

Moreover, counting the estimated "number of cases" does not make sense simply because antibody and immunological tests have long shown that the new coronavirus is fifty times more prevalent than daily PCR tests estimated.

Rather, the decisive indicators are the number of patients, hospitalizations and deaths. It should be noted, however, that many hospitals are now returning to normal operation, and all patients, including asymptomatic patients, are additionally tested for coronavirus.

Hence, the number of actual Covid-19 patients in hospitals and intensive care units is important.

For example, in the case of Sweden, WHO had to stop classifying it as a “country at risk” after it became clear that the apparent increase in “cases” was due to an increase in the number of tests taken. In fact, hospital admissions and deaths in Sweden have been declining since April.

In some countries, mortality has been below average since May. The reason for this is that the average age at deaths from coronavirus has often exceeded the average life expectancy, with up to 80% of deaths occurring in nursing homes.

In countries and regions where the spread of coronavirus has decreased significantly, however, it is possible that the number of patients with Covid-19 will increase again. In these cases, early and effective treatment is important (see below).

The global mortality from Covid-19, despite the current trend of population aging, is an order of magnitude lower than the 1957 (Asian flu) and 1968 (Hong Kong flu) pandemics and is in the range of the rather mild 2009 swine flu pandemic.

The following charts illustrate the discrepancy between the number of cases, patients, and deaths.

Charts: "cases", mortality and mortality in different countries

Mortality from Covid-19

Most antibody studies have shown a population case fatality rate (IFR) of 0.1% to 0.3%. The US Department of Health's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cautiously released a "best estimate" of 0.26% in May (based on 35% asymptomatic cases).

In late May, however, an immunological study from the University of Zurich was published, which showed for the first time that routine antibody tests that measure the level of immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M (IgG and IgM) antibodies in the blood can detect no more than one fifth of all coronavirus infections.

The reason for this is that in most people, the new coronavirus has already been neutralized by mucosal antibodies (IgA) or cellular immunity (T cells), and there are no symptoms or even mild symptoms.

This means that the new coronavirus is likely much more widespread than previously thought, and the death rate per infection is about five times lower than previously thought. Thus, the real lethality can be well below 0.1% and, therefore, be in the range of lethality of influenza.

At the same time, the Swiss study may explain why children usually do not have any symptoms (due to frequent exposure to previous colds coronaviruses), and why antibodies (IgG / IgM) have been found even in outbreaks such as New York at best, in 20%, since this already corresponds to herd immunity.

The Swiss study, meanwhile, has been confirmed by several more studies:

1. A Swedish study found that in people with mild or asymptomatic disease, the virus is often neutralized by T cells and there is no need to produce antibodies. In general, T-cell-mediated immunity was approximately twice as common as antibody-mediated immunity.
2. A large Spanish study of antibodies, published in the Lancet, found that less than 20% of people with symptoms and about 2% of people without symptoms had IgG antibodies.
3. A German study (preliminary) found that 81% of people who had not yet had contact with the new coronavirus already had cross-reacting T cells and therefore some immunity (due to exposure to previous colds coronaviruses).
4. A Chinese study published in the journal Nature found that 40% of asymptomatic patients and 12.9% of symptomatic patients after the recovery phase did not show IgG.
5. Another Chinese study involving nearly 25,000 employees at a clinic in Wuhan found that no more than one fifth of the allegedly infected workers had IgG antibodies (press article).
6. A small French study (preliminary) showed that six out of eight family members with Covid-19 developed temporary T-cell immunity without antibodies.

Video interview: Swedish doctor: T-cell immunity and the truth about Covid-19 in Sweden

In this context, an American study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, analyzing various indicators, concludes that the lethality of Covid-19 was much lower than initially estimated, but in some outbreak locations it spread 80 times faster than it was estimated that can explain the rapid but short-term increase in the number of cases.

A study conducted in the Austrian ski resort of Ischgl, in one of the first European epicenters of the coronavirus, detected antibodies in 42% of the population. 85% of infections went "unnoticed" (because they were very mild), about 50% of infections went away without (noticeable) symptoms.

The presence of a large number of people with detected antibodies (42%) in Ischgl was due to the fact that they also tested for immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies in the blood, and not just IgM / IgG. Additional tests for the detection of IgA and T cells on the mucous membrane would show an even higher level of immunity, close to herd immunity.

In the presence of only two deaths (both of them men over 80 years old with concomitant diseases), the mortality rate for infection (i) in the "focus of the disease" Ischgl is significantly lower than 0.1%.

Due to its rather low mortality, Covid-19 falls only in the second category of severity of the pandemic out of five developed by the US health authorities. For this category, only “voluntary isolation of the sick” should apply, while further measures such as face masks, school closures, distancing rules, contact tracing, vaccinations and quarantining entire regions are discouraged.

New immunological findings also mean that immunity passports and mass vaccinations are unlikely to work and are therefore not a useful strategy.

Some media outlets continue to talk about the supposedly much higher fatality rates of Covid-19. Nevertheless, these media refer to outdated simulations and confuse mortality and lethality, CFR and IFR, that is, the mortality of the disease in its pure form and taking into account risk factors. Read more about these errors here.

In July, in parts of New York City, it was reported that the number of people with antibodies was allegedly as high as 70%. However, this figure does not apply to the entire population, but only to those who visited the emergency center.

The following graph shows the real increase in deaths in Sweden (taking into account the absence of quarantine and the obligation to wear masks) compared to the projections of Imperial College London (orange - no measures; gray - moderate measures). The overall annual mortality rate in Sweden is actually in the mid-wave range and 3.6% lower than in previous years.

Health risks of Covid-19

Why is the new coronavirus harmless for many, but very dangerous for some? The reason is associated with the characteristics of the virus and the human immune system.

Many people, including almost all children, can neutralize the new coronavirus with their immunity (due to contact with previous colds coronaviruses) or due to the presence of antibodies on the mucous membranes (IgA), while the virus does not do much harm.

However, if the virus cannot be neutralized, it can enter the body. There, it can cause complications in the lungs (pneumonia), blood vessels (thrombosis, embolism) and other organs due to active interaction with angiotensin-converting enzymes ACE2 (ACE2) of a person.

If in this case the immune system reacts too weakly (in the elderly) or too strongly (in some young people), the course of the disease can become critical.

It has also been confirmed that the symptoms or complications of the serious course of Covid-19 in some cases can last for weeks or even months.

Therefore, the new coronavirus should not be underestimated and early and effective treatment is absolutely essential for patients at risk.

In the longer term, the novel coronavirus may evolve into a typical common cold virus similar to the NL63 coronavirus, which also interacts with the ACE2 receptor and currently mainly affects young children and patients requiring special care, causing upper and lower respiratory tract infections. …

Covid-19 treatment

Note: It is recommended to consult a doctor.

Several studies have now confirmed what some frontline doctors have been saying since March: early treatment of Covid-19 patients with zinc and the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is indeed effective. American doctors report an 84% reduction in hospital admissions and a stabilization of the patient's condition within a few hours.

Zinc has antiviral properties, HCQ helps zinc to be absorbed and has additional antiviral properties. If necessary, doctors may prescribe antibiotics (to prevent a dangerous bacterial infection) and blood thinners (to prevent thrombosis and embolism caused by the disease) in addition to these drugs.

The assumptions and evidence about the negative consequences of HCQ use in some studies were based, as is now known, on the delayed use of the drug (in intensive care), huge doses (up to 2400 mg per day), manipulation of data or ignoring contraindications (for example, such as favism or problems with heart).

Unfortunately, WHO, many media outlets and some authorities may have caused significant and unnecessary damage to public health in recent months due to their negative position, which could be politically motivated or dictated by the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

French medicine professor Jauad Zemmouri, for example, believes Europe could avoid up to 78% of Covid-19 deaths by adopting a coherent HCQ treatment strategy.

Contraindications for HCQ, such as favism or heart problems, need to be considered, but a recent study by Ford Medical Center has been shown to reduce hospital mortality by about 50%, even in 56% of African American patients who are more likely to have favism.

However, the decisive moment in the treatment of high-risk patients is early intervention, at the first characteristic symptoms, even without PCR analysis, in order to prevent the progression of the disease and avoid hospitalization in the intensive care unit.

Most countries did the exact opposite: After the March wave, they declared quarantines, so that infected and frightened people were locked in their own homes without treatment and often waited until they developed severe respiratory failure and did not need to be rushed straight to the intensive care unit. where they were often injected with sedatives and hooked up to an invasive ventilator, so the likelihood of death was quite high.

It is possible that the approval of a treatment that combines a combination of zinc and HCQ, simple, safe and inexpensive drugs, could render more complex drugs, vaccinations and other measures obsolete.

More recently, a French study found that four out of the first five patients treated with Gilead's much more expensive Remdesivir drug had to be discontinued due to liver problems and kidney failure.

More about Covid-19 treatment

Effectiveness of masks

Various countries have introduced or are currently discussing the introduction of compulsory wearing of masks on public transport, in shopping centers or in general in public places.

Due to the lower-than-expected case fatality rate for Covid-19 and the treatment options available, this discussion may become irrelevant. The primary argument to reduce the number of hospitalizations (“flatten the curve”) is also no longer relevant, since the hospitalization rate was and remains about twenty times lower than originally estimated.

However, the question of the effectiveness of the masks can be asked. In the case of influenza epidemics, the answer is clear from a scientific point of view: the use of masks in everyday life has zero or very little effect. If used improperly, they can even increase the risk of infection.

Ironically, the best and most recent example of this is the often cited Japan: despite the ubiquitous masks, Japan suffered the last wave of influenza, which turned out to be quite severe, with five million cases. It was just a year ago, in January and February 2019.

However, unlike SARS caused by coronavirus, influenza viruses are transmitted by children. Indeed, in 2019, Japan had to close about ten thousand schools due to acute outbreaks of influenza.

With regard to the 2002 and 2003 SARS-1 virus, there is some evidence that medical masks can provide partial protection against infection. But SARS-1 was distributed almost only in hospitals, that is, in a professional environment, and hardly affected society as a whole.

In contrast, a 2015 study found that fabric masks in use today allow 97% of viral particles to pass through due to fiber gaps and may further increase the risk of infection through moisture buildup.

Some recent studies have argued that daily mask use is nonetheless effective against the new coronavirus and may at least prevent other people from infecting others. However, these studies suffer from poor methodology and their results sometimes show something quite different from what they claim.

Typically, these studies ignore the effects of other cumulative measures, natural increases in infections, changes in the number of tests taken, or compare countries with very different conditions.

Overview:

1. A German study stated that the introduction of mandatory masks in German cities has led to a decrease in the number of infections. But the data do not confirm this: in some cities there were no changes, in others - a decrease, somewhere - an increase in the number of infections (see graph below). The city of Jena, presented as a model, simultaneously introduced the most stringent quarantine rules in Germany, but this was not mentioned in the study.
2. A study published in the journal PNAS found that masks led to a decrease in infections in three foci (including New York). But the natural decrease in the number of infections and other measures was not taken into account. There were so many flaws in the study that over 40 scientists recommended that it be withdrawn.
3. One US study claimed that the mandatory wearing of masks led to a decrease in the number of infections in 15 states. The study did not take into account that at that time the incidence was already beginning to decline in most states. Comparison with other states has not been made.
4. A Canadian study found that countries that mandated the wearing of masks had fewer deaths. But the study compared countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe with very different incidence rates and population structures.
5. A meta-study published in the Lancet claims that masks "may" reduce the risk of infection, but the studies looked at hospitals (SARS-1) and noted the reliability of the data as "low."

Therefore, the medical benefit of the mandatory wearing of masks continues to be questionable. In any case, a comparative study by the University of East Anglia concluded that mandatory mask wearing has no discernible effect on Covid-19 cases or deaths.

It is also clear that the widespread use of face masks failed to stop the first outbreak in Wuhan.

The Swedish experience has shown that even without quarantine, without mandatory masks and with one of the smallest number of intensive care beds in Europe, hospitals are not overwhelmed. In fact, the total annual mortality in Sweden is in the range of previous influenza seasons.

In any case, the authorities should not tell the public that the mandatory wearing of masks reduces the risk of infection, for example, in public transport, as there is no evidence to support this. Whether people are wearing masks or not, there is an increased risk of infection in crowded areas.

Interestingly, the demand for a worldwide obligation to wear masks is spearheaded by the “masks4all” (masks for all) lobby group, which was founded by the “young leader” of the Davos forum.

Tracking contacts

Many countries have introduced smartphone apps and dedicated 'contact tracing' devices. However, there is no evidence that they can make an epidemiologically significant contribution.

In Iceland, which became a pioneer in this business, the application was largely a failure, in Norway its use was stopped to protect personal data, in India, Argentina, Singapore and other countries it eventually became mandatory, and in Israel contact tracing is directly involved. special services.

A 2019 WHO pandemic influenza study concluded that contact tracing is epidemiologically futile and "not recommended under any circumstances." Its typical field of application is sexually transmitted diseases or food poisoning.

Moreover, serious concerns remain about data security and civil rights.

NSA informant Edward Snowden warned in March that governments could use the coravirus crisis as an excuse or pretext to expand global surveillance and control, thereby creating an "architecture of oppression."

An informant who took part in a contact tracing training program in the United States called it "totalitarian" and "dangerous to society."

Swiss computer science professor Serge Vaudenay has demonstrated that contact tracing protocols are by no means “decentralized” and “transparent”, as the actual functionality is implemented through the Google and Apple interface (GAEN), which is not “open source.

This interface is now integrated by Google and Apple into three billion mobile phones. According to Professor Vodenet, the interface can record and store all contacts, not just those that are medically “relevant”. The German IT expert, for his part, described the tracking applications as a "Trojan horse".

See also: Inside the NSA's Secret Tool for Mapping Your Social Network

Contact tracing is supported by Google and Apple

In a June update, it was said that renowned virologists consider the laboratory origin of the new coronavirus "at least as plausible" as it is natural. This is due to some genetic characteristics of the virus and its ability to interact with receptors, which leads to its particularly high transmission and infectiousness to humans.

In the meantime, more evidence of this hypothesis appeared. It was already known that the virus most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in 2013 in southwestern China. This bat coronavirus was discovered by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and is known as RaTG13.

However, researchers with access to Chinese newspapers noticed that the Wuhan scholars did not reveal the whole story. In fact, RaTG13 was found in a former copper mine containing large quantities of bat feces after six miners contracted pneumonia during a cleanup. Three miners have died.

According to the original Chinese documents, the medical report at the time stated that these cases of pneumonia were caused by a virus similar to SARS. But in April 2020, the head of the Wuhan laboratory for some reason stated in an interview with Scientific American magazine that the cause was allegedly a fungus. The institute also hid that RaTG13 also originated from that fateful mine.

The head of the US Eco Health Alliance, which has worked with the Wuhan Institute on virological research to "amplify the impact" of potentially pandemic viruses, said RaTG13 was partially sequenced and then placed in the freezer and "was no longer used until 2020 "(when it came to comparison with SARS-CoV-2).

However, the virological databases found show that this is also not true: the virus - then known by the internal code 4991 - was already used for research purposes in the Wuhan laboratory in 2017 and 2018. Moreover, various Chinese virus databases have been strangely deleted.

Virologists agree that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be a direct natural successor to RaTG13 - the necessary mutations can take at least several decades, despite a 96 percent genetic match. However, it is theoretically possible that SARS-CoV-2 was derived from RaTG13 as a result of a virological study of "amplification of exposure" in the laboratory or was also in the mine in 2013.

In this sense, it is quite possible that SARS-CoV-2 could have leaked from the Wuhan laboratory in September or October 2019 - during the audit in the laboratory or in preparation for it. Unfortunately, such accidents in laboratories are not unusual and have already occurred in the past in China, the United States, Russia and other countries.

(In March 2019, Spanish researchers reported that one wastewater sample showed a positive PCR test, but this was likely a false positive or due to contamination.)

Read more: Coronavirus trail stretches for seven years from the cave of bats through the Wuhan laboratory (Times, July 4, 2020)

Besides the Chinese aspect, however, there is also an American aspect.

It has long been known that American researchers from the University of North Carolina are world leaders in the analysis and synthesis of SARS-like potentially pandemic viruses. Due to a temporary US moratorium, this study was partially moved to China (that is, Wuhan) a few years ago.

In April, Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaitandzhieva released information and documents showing that the US Department of Defense, together with the US Health Administration's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are also conducting research on the potentially pandemic SARS coronaviruses.

This coronavirus study was carried out at the Pentagon Biological Laboratory in Georgia (near Russia), as well as elsewhere, and coordinated by the aforementioned United States Health and Environment Alliance, which also collaborated with the Institute of Virology in Wuhan. In this respect, the Alliance for Health and Environment can be seen as a provider or contractor of research services for military purposes.

Thus, in addition to its own research on SARS, the US military must have been very familiar with Chinese research in Wuhan through its partnership with the Alliance for Health and Environment.

Read more: Pentagon Biolaboratory Detects MERS and SARS-like Coronaviruses in Bats (DG)

American investigative journalist Whitney Webb has already pointed out that the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which organized the highly acclaimed Event 201 coronavirus pandemic exercise in October 2019, together with the Gates Foundation and the WEF in Davos, also organized the 2001 Dark Winter anthrax exercise.

The exercise took place months before the actual anthrax attacks in September 2001, which could later be traced back to the Pentagon laboratory. Some of the Dark Winter participants are now involved in managing the coronavirus pandemic.

Events since the beginning of 2020 show that the new coronavirus cannot be regarded as a "biological weapon" in the strict sense of the word, since it is not lethal enough and not selective enough. Nevertheless, he may well behave like a "terrorist": be amplified by the media, arouse fear, terrorize the world's population and be used for political purposes.

In this context, it should be noted that the sponsor of the vaccine and Event 201 Bill Gates has repeatedly said that the current coronavirus should be viewed as "pandemic", while "pandemic two" will be a real bioterrorist attack against which one must be prepared.

Nevertheless, in addition to the likelihood of artificial origin, natural origin also remains a real possibility, even despite the fact that the hypothesis of the "Wuhan seafood market" and more recently the hypothesis of the origin of the virus from pangolins have already been ruled out by experts.