© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
More bad news for the Lockdown.
Thursday, April 30, 2020
SOMETHING SINISTER
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Something sinister is going on and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?
by Morley Evans
Something sinister is going on and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
IS THE KREMLIN LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE?
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Below, a video of President Putin during a walk from his office to the gathering of his jubilant subjects greeting his new term as Russia’s president. Maybe President Trump can cover this distance without his golf cart, but I doubt that any route inside the White house can match this. And there’s no way Trump can have the magnificent staircase Putin is descending at 02:10 anywhere at his cramped American place.
by Morley Evans
IS THE KREMLIN LIKE
THE WHITE HOUSE?
Below, a video of President Putin during a walk from his office to the gathering of his jubilant subjects greeting his new term as Russia’s president. Maybe President Trump can cover this distance without his golf cart, but I doubt that any route inside the White house can match this. And there’s no way Trump can have the magnificent staircase Putin is descending at 02:10 anywhere at his cramped American place.
YOUR RIGHT TO REFUSE
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
The government — your government — is getting ready to pass laws mandating compulsory vaccination to prevent "everyone" from dying of COVID-19 coronavirus infection. You do have a right to refuse. Even Canadians can do this. This is how. Watch the American. Learn.
by Morley Evans
The government — your government — is getting ready to pass laws mandating compulsory vaccination to prevent "everyone" from dying of COVID-19 coronavirus infection. You do have a right to refuse. Even Canadians can do this. This is how. Watch the American. Learn.
WASHED UP EMPIRE
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Opinion -
by Finian Cunningham
" - The harder they come, the harder they fall, as reggae singer Jimmy Cliff once put it. No nation has come harder than the United States with its history of relentless wars and mass destruction, nauseatingly dressed up with virtuous rhetoric about supposedly leading the free world.
There was a time when the slick American propaganda held the world in thrall as if it were true. Many nations once gullibly looked to the US for leadership. Not any more.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed presumed US global power as a hollowed-out caricature. America’s response to the disease is abysmal. It is the world’s leader in the numbers of deaths and infections, unable to cope because of the woeful lack of an organized, functioning public health system. How damning is that?
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Another factor in why the US has been hit so badly by the pandemic is due to the parlous conditions for tens of millions of its workers who live on the brink of poverty with a little social safety net. That speaks to the real undemocratic nature of American society as opposed to all the arrogant delusions of “exceptionalism”.
This appalling disaster is against a backdrop of Washington spending trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons and maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops in military bases all around the world backed up by legions of warships and warplanes.
"The global coronavirus crisis… [has] quickly brought the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world to its knees," according to the US magazine, Politico.
US presidential historian Douglas Brinkley is quoted by Politico as saying: “The United States was once known for its can-do culture. We built the Panama Canal and we put a man on the moon. And now we can’t get a swab or a face mask or a gown and we have no real chain of command.”
Brinkley added: “We are not leading in the pandemic response, we are trailing other countries by a long shot. This is a crippling blow to America’s prestige around the world.”
China, South Korea, Germany, Russia and other nations, even US-sanctioned Iran and Cuba, have been much more effective in managing the COVID-19 crisis than the US. Why? Well, simply because they are not broke like the US is from its monstrous militarism and imperial overstretch. (Merely printing money is no solution.)
The calamity of the disease unfolding in the US is proof that its presumed global empire is all washed-up. Fitting the end of era mood, the country is being “led” by a president who thinks that injecting household bleach into the human body could be a cure for the virus. Trump increasingly sounds like mad Roman emperors Nero or Caligula.
American economist Joseph Stiglitz says the real state of US society is akin to a “third world country”.
In an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, he commented: "The numbers turning to food banks are just enormous and beyond the capacity of them to supply. It is like a third world country… In the advanced world, the US is one of the countries with the poorest health overall and the greatest health inequality."
The upshot is that the United States is doomed to fail. Its moral corruption – festering over many decades – has finally reached a fatal level whereby profligacy for militarism and corporate bailouts has far outstripped what the rulers are willing to provide for meeting the basic health needs of the vast majority of working people.
This isn’t just about President Trump. It encompasses the whole two-party charade that is a rubber-stamp for big business and militarism. Democrat contender Joe Biden will offer nothing better than the Republican buffoon. Because US capitalism is rotten to the core from its corporate cronyism and warmongering habits to feed the system.
Like past empires that imploded, the US ruling elite doesn’t see what’s coming because they and their media class are mired in their own echo chamber of vanity-propaganda and petty squabbling.
But the virus pandemic serves as a moment of empirical evidence showing that the US is a colossus with feet of clay.
The country is heading for an economic collapse on par with the Great Depression, according to Stiglitz. With an unemployment rate touching 30 per cent – over 26 million out of work – and federal handouts that are peanuts in the scale of things, the “American nightmare” is only just beginning.
The endemic, systematic corruption of US capitalist power means that it can’t save itself. There will be no reality-check for the rulers because they have long ago lost all sense of reality.
The reality-check may, however, come from the millions of citizens who realise that their nation has been turned into nothing more than a decadent empire.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. - "Source"
READ MORE
by Morley Evans
Opinion -
The US is a Washed-up Empire
by Finian Cunningham
" - The harder they come, the harder they fall, as reggae singer Jimmy Cliff once put it. No nation has come harder than the United States with its history of relentless wars and mass destruction, nauseatingly dressed up with virtuous rhetoric about supposedly leading the free world.
There was a time when the slick American propaganda held the world in thrall as if it were true. Many nations once gullibly looked to the US for leadership. Not any more.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed presumed US global power as a hollowed-out caricature. America’s response to the disease is abysmal. It is the world’s leader in the numbers of deaths and infections, unable to cope because of the woeful lack of an organized, functioning public health system. How damning is that?
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Another factor in why the US has been hit so badly by the pandemic is due to the parlous conditions for tens of millions of its workers who live on the brink of poverty with a little social safety net. That speaks to the real undemocratic nature of American society as opposed to all the arrogant delusions of “exceptionalism”.
This appalling disaster is against a backdrop of Washington spending trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons and maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops in military bases all around the world backed up by legions of warships and warplanes.
"The global coronavirus crisis… [has] quickly brought the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world to its knees," according to the US magazine, Politico.
US presidential historian Douglas Brinkley is quoted by Politico as saying: “The United States was once known for its can-do culture. We built the Panama Canal and we put a man on the moon. And now we can’t get a swab or a face mask or a gown and we have no real chain of command.”
Brinkley added: “We are not leading in the pandemic response, we are trailing other countries by a long shot. This is a crippling blow to America’s prestige around the world.”
China, South Korea, Germany, Russia and other nations, even US-sanctioned Iran and Cuba, have been much more effective in managing the COVID-19 crisis than the US. Why? Well, simply because they are not broke like the US is from its monstrous militarism and imperial overstretch. (Merely printing money is no solution.)
The calamity of the disease unfolding in the US is proof that its presumed global empire is all washed-up. Fitting the end of era mood, the country is being “led” by a president who thinks that injecting household bleach into the human body could be a cure for the virus. Trump increasingly sounds like mad Roman emperors Nero or Caligula.
American economist Joseph Stiglitz says the real state of US society is akin to a “third world country”.
In an interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, he commented: "The numbers turning to food banks are just enormous and beyond the capacity of them to supply. It is like a third world country… In the advanced world, the US is one of the countries with the poorest health overall and the greatest health inequality."
The upshot is that the United States is doomed to fail. Its moral corruption – festering over many decades – has finally reached a fatal level whereby profligacy for militarism and corporate bailouts has far outstripped what the rulers are willing to provide for meeting the basic health needs of the vast majority of working people.
This isn’t just about President Trump. It encompasses the whole two-party charade that is a rubber-stamp for big business and militarism. Democrat contender Joe Biden will offer nothing better than the Republican buffoon. Because US capitalism is rotten to the core from its corporate cronyism and warmongering habits to feed the system.
Like past empires that imploded, the US ruling elite doesn’t see what’s coming because they and their media class are mired in their own echo chamber of vanity-propaganda and petty squabbling.
But the virus pandemic serves as a moment of empirical evidence showing that the US is a colossus with feet of clay.
The country is heading for an economic collapse on par with the Great Depression, according to Stiglitz. With an unemployment rate touching 30 per cent – over 26 million out of work – and federal handouts that are peanuts in the scale of things, the “American nightmare” is only just beginning.
The endemic, systematic corruption of US capitalist power means that it can’t save itself. There will be no reality-check for the rulers because they have long ago lost all sense of reality.
The reality-check may, however, come from the millions of citizens who realise that their nation has been turned into nothing more than a decadent empire.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. - "Source"
READ MORE
Sunday, April 26, 2020
COVID-19 novel coronavirus
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
The bottom line is the answer to the question: Is the "cure" worse than the disease? Where do we go from here?
by Morley Evans
 |
| Grrr |
The bottom line is the answer to the question: Is the "cure" worse than the disease? Where do we go from here?
TONY BENNETT
© MMXX V.1.0.1
by Morley Evans
Tony Bennett (Anthony Dominick Benedetto) is my hero! He is 93 years old. He is still singing and romancing beautiful women. He is what I want to be when I grow up! Frank said Tony was the best jazz singer he'd ever heard. Tony replied, "Oh sure; What does he know?"
by Morley Evans
Tony Bennett (Anthony Dominick Benedetto) is my hero! He is 93 years old. He is still singing and romancing beautiful women. He is what I want to be when I grow up! Frank said Tony was the best jazz singer he'd ever heard. Tony replied, "Oh sure; What does he know?"
 |
| My hero! |
Saturday, April 25, 2020
PAX AMERICANA
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Morley Evans studied World History
Answered just now
The Cold War was essential to selling the National Security State to the American public. The National Security Act of 1947 (Harry S. Truman) essentially rewrote the United States Constitution. That was deemed necessary to fight the perceived global threat of COMMUNISM. The CIA was created with the Act. The Pentagon had been started in 1941. (That tells us what the USA had in mind BEFORE World War II.) The atom bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945. The USSR was the primary enemy after the Nazis had been defeated in 1945. The Strategic Air Command patrolled the skies: "keeping us free." China was lost to Communism in 1949. The United Nations was founded in San Francisco in 1945. The UN was established in NYC soon after on Rockefeller land. The United States proclaimed itself the “Leader of the Free World.” World peace was the West's official goal. Children were told to "Duck and Cover" in the event of a nuclear attack. Some people built bomb shelters. No civil defence plan was ever introduced. The Korean War started in 1950. Truman (D) was the President.
by Morley Evans
How did the Cold War impact American culture?
Morley Evans studied World History
Answered just now
The Cold War was essential to selling the National Security State to the American public. The National Security Act of 1947 (Harry S. Truman) essentially rewrote the United States Constitution. That was deemed necessary to fight the perceived global threat of COMMUNISM. The CIA was created with the Act. The Pentagon had been started in 1941. (That tells us what the USA had in mind BEFORE World War II.) The atom bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945. The USSR was the primary enemy after the Nazis had been defeated in 1945. The Strategic Air Command patrolled the skies: "keeping us free." China was lost to Communism in 1949. The United Nations was founded in San Francisco in 1945. The UN was established in NYC soon after on Rockefeller land. The United States proclaimed itself the “Leader of the Free World.” World peace was the West's official goal. Children were told to "Duck and Cover" in the event of a nuclear attack. Some people built bomb shelters. No civil defence plan was ever introduced. The Korean War started in 1950. Truman (D) was the President.
Thursday, April 23, 2020
ROAD TO SERFDOM
© MMXX V.1.0.1
by Morley Evans
The greatest danger right now is in the perpetuation of the ill-conceived lockdowns, most notably under the pretext of “managing the transition” or other spurious justifications. Is it really necessary to walk through the endless list of management failures of government agents? Is it necessary to remind ourselves that people who have no skin in the game are irresponsible in the true sense of the word? These would-be managers should have stayed out of the picture from the very beginning. Instead, so far, they have managed to get everybody else out of the picture. If they are allowed to go on, they might very well turn the present calamity – big as it is – into a true disaster.
- Jörg Guido Hülsmann
Every war creates a new class of tyranny. Tyrants love war. This war on coronavirus is no different. The new tsar of everything will sit on the medical throne. He will command most of the National and Provincial Canadian budgets, he will pass laws to favour his friends and allies, he will direct most of the activities of every Canadian, rich or poor.
Did you know we are practically there today? Most of Canada’s National and Provincial budgets are spent on “Medicare". A huge portion of private incomes is spent at drugstores. Jagmeat Sing, the leader of the NDP, wants the government to provide "free" drugs to everyone. The pharmaceutical companies will be paid. You are an imbecile, Jagmeat. Are you working for them?
Canadian doctors are an aristocracy. A friend of mine was told by the Saskatchewan Minister of Health (who used to be the driving instructor in Milestone, Sask) that “My Department doesn’t make very many decisions regarding health policy.” Who does? These decisions are made by the people who control the Canadian Health Regions, which may decide to call themselves "Health Authorities" instead of "Regions" if they fancy. They are unelected, invisible, and unaccountable, bureaucrats who run the country AND NOBODY KNOWS THEY EXIST.
Canadians think the idiots they elect run the country. The "war on the virus" has already greatly increased the power of the medical establishment. How? Medical "experts" have completely shut down the economies of Canada and the world. That is real power.
Doctors in Regina live like Maharajas. They certainly are an aristocracy. They do whatever they want to whomever they choose, with impunity, while they reap lavish incomes.
The Saskatchewan Minister of Health must answer to the tsar of the Health Region, whoever that is. He and the other flunkies in the Saskatchewan government must keep the money flowing into the pockets of our masters who must be protected at all costs. Invisibility is a very powerful protection.
Hülsmann points out that the war on the virus is exactly the opposite of “a woman’s right to choose [to kill her baby].” In the first, the very old and infirm are favoured. In the second, unborn people are killed. Abortions continue unabated in France while every other medical procedure is sacrificed "to fight the war on the virus.”
Usurpation by invisible people and groups is not uncommon. Such has already happened in Canada. Canadians sleep as this cancer grows. They go to their doctors who prescribe drugs that make them sick. They return to their doctor to get more drugs to relieve their sickness. It will get worse.
Canadian "Health" is exactly like the "military-industrial complex" in the United States which has taken over the country. The Pentagon has been joined by the CIA which heads the "intelligence community". To them has been added the NSA and others. Cancer grows.
What do the people do who work in this building? They are not working for world peace. Similarly, the Canadian medical establishment that calls itself "Health" is not interested in health.
by Morley Evans
The greatest danger right now is in the perpetuation of the ill-conceived lockdowns, most notably under the pretext of “managing the transition” or other spurious justifications. Is it really necessary to walk through the endless list of management failures of government agents? Is it necessary to remind ourselves that people who have no skin in the game are irresponsible in the true sense of the word? These would-be managers should have stayed out of the picture from the very beginning. Instead, so far, they have managed to get everybody else out of the picture. If they are allowed to go on, they might very well turn the present calamity – big as it is – into a true disaster.
- Jörg Guido Hülsmann
Every war creates a new class of tyranny. Tyrants love war. This war on coronavirus is no different. The new tsar of everything will sit on the medical throne. He will command most of the National and Provincial Canadian budgets, he will pass laws to favour his friends and allies, he will direct most of the activities of every Canadian, rich or poor.
Did you know we are practically there today? Most of Canada’s National and Provincial budgets are spent on “Medicare". A huge portion of private incomes is spent at drugstores. Jagmeat Sing, the leader of the NDP, wants the government to provide "free" drugs to everyone. The pharmaceutical companies will be paid. You are an imbecile, Jagmeat. Are you working for them?
Canadian doctors are an aristocracy. A friend of mine was told by the Saskatchewan Minister of Health (who used to be the driving instructor in Milestone, Sask) that “My Department doesn’t make very many decisions regarding health policy.” Who does? These decisions are made by the people who control the Canadian Health Regions, which may decide to call themselves "Health Authorities" instead of "Regions" if they fancy. They are unelected, invisible, and unaccountable, bureaucrats who run the country AND NOBODY KNOWS THEY EXIST.
Canadians think the idiots they elect run the country. The "war on the virus" has already greatly increased the power of the medical establishment. How? Medical "experts" have completely shut down the economies of Canada and the world. That is real power.
Doctors in Regina live like Maharajas. They certainly are an aristocracy. They do whatever they want to whomever they choose, with impunity, while they reap lavish incomes.
The Saskatchewan Minister of Health must answer to the tsar of the Health Region, whoever that is. He and the other flunkies in the Saskatchewan government must keep the money flowing into the pockets of our masters who must be protected at all costs. Invisibility is a very powerful protection.
Hülsmann points out that the war on the virus is exactly the opposite of “a woman’s right to choose [to kill her baby].” In the first, the very old and infirm are favoured. In the second, unborn people are killed. Abortions continue unabated in France while every other medical procedure is sacrificed "to fight the war on the virus.”
Usurpation by invisible people and groups is not uncommon. Such has already happened in Canada. Canadians sleep as this cancer grows. They go to their doctors who prescribe drugs that make them sick. They return to their doctor to get more drugs to relieve their sickness. It will get worse.
Canadian "Health" is exactly like the "military-industrial complex" in the United States which has taken over the country. The Pentagon has been joined by the CIA which heads the "intelligence community". To them has been added the NSA and others. Cancer grows.
What do the people do who work in this building? They are not working for world peace. Similarly, the Canadian medical establishment that calls itself "Health" is not interested in health.
A PROTEST FROM FRANCE
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Jörg Guido Hülsmann
April 23, 2020
The greatest danger right now is in the perpetuation of the ill-conceived lockdowns, most notably under the pretext of “managing the transition” or other spurious justifications. Is it really necessary to walk through the endless list of management failures of government agents? Is it necessary to remind ourselves that people who have no skin in the game are irresponsible in the true sense of the word? These would-be managers should have stayed out of the picture from the very beginning. Instead, so far, they have managed to get everybody else out of the picture. If they are allowed to go on, they might very well turn the present calamity – big as it is – into a true disaster.
After WWI, the distinguished British economist, Edwin Cannan was asked, somewhat reproachfully, what he did during the terrible war years. He replied: “I protested.” The present article is a similar protest against the current lockdown policies put into place, in most countries of the western world, to confront the current coronavirus pandemic.
Here in France, where I live and work, President Macron had announced on Thursday, March 12th that all schools and universities would be shut down on the following Monday. On that Monday, then, he appeared on TV again and announced that the entire population would be confined, starting the very next day. The only exceptions would be “necessary” activities, especially medical services, energy production, security, and food production and food distribution. This policy response was apparently coordinated with other European governments. Italy, Germany, Spain, and have applied essentially the same measures.
I think that these policies are understandable and well-intentioned. Like many other commentators, I also think that they are wrongheaded, harmful, and potentially disastrous. An old French proverb says that the way to hell is plastered with good intentions. Unfortunately, it seems as though the present policies are no exception.
The Ethics of Money Pr... Hulsmann, Jorg Guido Best Price: $11.00 Buy New $14.00 (as of 02:24 EDT - Details)
My protest concerns the basic ideas that have motivated these policies. They were clearly enunciated by President Macron in his TV address of March 12th. Here he made three claims that I found most intriguing.
The first one was that his government was going to apply drastic measures to “save lives” because the country was “at war” with the Covid19 virus. He repeatedly used the phrase “we are at war” (nous sommes en guerre) throughout his talk.
Secondly, he insisted right at the very beginning that it was imperative to heed the advice of “the experts.” Monsieur Macron literally said that we all should have to listen and follow the advice of the people “who know” – meaning who know the problem and who know how best to deal with it.
His third major point was this emergency situation had revealed how important it was to enjoy a state-run system of public healthcare. How lucky are we to have such a system and to be able to rely on it, now, in the heat of the war against the virus! Unsurprisingly, the president insinuated that this system would be reinforced in the future.
Now, these are not the private ideas of Monsieur Macron. They are shared by all major governments in the EU and by many governments in other parts of the world. They are also shared by all major political parties here in France, as well as by President Macron’s predecessors. Therefore, the purpose of the following remarks is not to criticise the president of this beautiful country, or his government, or any person in particular. The purpose is to criticise the ideas on which the current policy is based.
READ MORE
by Morley Evans
A Protest From France
Jörg Guido Hülsmann
April 23, 2020
The greatest danger right now is in the perpetuation of the ill-conceived lockdowns, most notably under the pretext of “managing the transition” or other spurious justifications. Is it really necessary to walk through the endless list of management failures of government agents? Is it necessary to remind ourselves that people who have no skin in the game are irresponsible in the true sense of the word? These would-be managers should have stayed out of the picture from the very beginning. Instead, so far, they have managed to get everybody else out of the picture. If they are allowed to go on, they might very well turn the present calamity – big as it is – into a true disaster.
After WWI, the distinguished British economist, Edwin Cannan was asked, somewhat reproachfully, what he did during the terrible war years. He replied: “I protested.” The present article is a similar protest against the current lockdown policies put into place, in most countries of the western world, to confront the current coronavirus pandemic.
Here in France, where I live and work, President Macron had announced on Thursday, March 12th that all schools and universities would be shut down on the following Monday. On that Monday, then, he appeared on TV again and announced that the entire population would be confined, starting the very next day. The only exceptions would be “necessary” activities, especially medical services, energy production, security, and food production and food distribution. This policy response was apparently coordinated with other European governments. Italy, Germany, Spain, and have applied essentially the same measures.
I think that these policies are understandable and well-intentioned. Like many other commentators, I also think that they are wrongheaded, harmful, and potentially disastrous. An old French proverb says that the way to hell is plastered with good intentions. Unfortunately, it seems as though the present policies are no exception.
The Ethics of Money Pr... Hulsmann, Jorg Guido Best Price: $11.00 Buy New $14.00 (as of 02:24 EDT - Details)
My protest concerns the basic ideas that have motivated these policies. They were clearly enunciated by President Macron in his TV address of March 12th. Here he made three claims that I found most intriguing.
The first one was that his government was going to apply drastic measures to “save lives” because the country was “at war” with the Covid19 virus. He repeatedly used the phrase “we are at war” (nous sommes en guerre) throughout his talk.
Secondly, he insisted right at the very beginning that it was imperative to heed the advice of “the experts.” Monsieur Macron literally said that we all should have to listen and follow the advice of the people “who know” – meaning who know the problem and who know how best to deal with it.
His third major point was this emergency situation had revealed how important it was to enjoy a state-run system of public healthcare. How lucky are we to have such a system and to be able to rely on it, now, in the heat of the war against the virus! Unsurprisingly, the president insinuated that this system would be reinforced in the future.
Now, these are not the private ideas of Monsieur Macron. They are shared by all major governments in the EU and by many governments in other parts of the world. They are also shared by all major political parties here in France, as well as by President Macron’s predecessors. Therefore, the purpose of the following remarks is not to criticise the president of this beautiful country, or his government, or any person in particular. The purpose is to criticise the ideas on which the current policy is based.
READ MORE
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
MISDIAGNOSES
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
My friend, June Gardner, has taken up the crusade against medical malpractice. She was gutted like a trout in an Australian teaching hospital where she was "butchered" and her "healthy female organs were 'slaughtered'." She was brushed off by the Australian medical authorities. June is not taking this lying down. She writes every day. Here's a post from yesterday.
Misdiagnosis is rampant in the medical establishment... Some are deliberate intent...
How all our massive screening efforts for breast cancer can cause the very disease they are intended to detect
How all our massive screening efforts for breast cancer can cause the very disease they are intended to detect.
Some 25,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year in Britain and 180,000 in the US. Thirteen thousand British and a hundred thousand American women will die of the disease each year. In 1990, the UK government introduced a national breast screening programme, in which women aged between 50-64 are invited for a mammogram an x-ray of the breast supposedly to detect abnormalities every three years. Women over 65 will be screened on request.
The screening programme aims to catch more cancers earlier to improve the prognosis of those women affected. Some medics insist that younger women should also have the "right" to be routinely screened.
However, there is growing evidence that mammograms which, like any x-ray, involve zapping the patient with radiation can be positively harmful and even cause the disease they are intended to detect. A Canadian study, which has yet to be published in full, seems set to confirm the findings of earlier research (P Stomper and R Gelman, Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 1989; 3: 611-40) which clearly suggests that you are more likely to die from cancer if you undergo screening than if you don't. The Canadian study, using the National Breast Cancer Screening Trial, is examining the effect of mammography on women under 50. Data released so far suggests that women whose cancer was detected through mammograms have a shorter life expectancy than those who used self-examination alone.
Such concerns are far from new. As long ago as the early 1980s, the late Dr Robert Mendelsohn, in Male Practice, How Doctors Manipulate Women (Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982), wrote: "I have been warning for years that annual mammographic screening of women without symptoms may produce more cancer than it detects." Mendelsohn quoted Dr C Bailar III, editor in chief of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, as making the same point in a 1975 report. "His conclusion was supported by numerous studies, which suggested that accumulated x-ray doses in excess of 100 rads over 10 to 15 years may induce cancer of the breast," said Mendelsohn. Dr Irwin Bross, of the Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York, also warned a congressional subcommittee in 1978 that the quarter of a million women screened in the mass NCI-ACS [National Cancer Institute American Cancer Society] screening programme will "in 15 or 20 years become the victims of the worst doctor caused breast cancer epidemic in medical history."
Some women's genetic makeup may make them particularly susceptible to developing cancer after exposure to "appallingly low" doses of radiation, whether from mammograms or other x-rays, according to Dr Michael Swift, chief of medical genetics at North Carolina University (New England Journal of Medicine, 27 December 1991). Around 1 per cent of women may be carrying the gene ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T) which makes them five to six times more likely to develop breast cancer and unusually sensitive to the ionizing radiation in x-rays, he says. Dr Swift studied 1,599 close relatives of people with the rare disease associated with the gene. He estimates that in the US, between 5,000 to 10,000 of the 180,000 breast cancer cases diagnosed each year could be prevented if A-T gene carriers were protected from exposure to radiation.
In reporting Dr Swift's findings, the US magazine Glamour (October 1991) cites one Scottish and two Swedish studies which found that 40 to 50-year-old women who were regularly screened had either a higher incidence of breast cancer deaths than women given physical exams alone, or no significant reduction in mortality.
Writing in How to Survive Medical Treatment (Century, 1987), Stephen Fulder says of any kind of mass screening: "For every case of a disease that is caught early there is a case of a disease that is treated when it would have got better by itself, and a case of a healthy person treated or biopsied because the screening test gave a wrong result."
That is exactly the line taken by Johannes Schmidt of the Practice for Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology in Switzerland. Writing in The Lancet (28 March 1992), he says that post mortem findings show that many small cancers detected by mammography would have remained dormant if left undiscovered and uninterfered with. Mass breast screening is 10 times as likely to pick up a clinically benign cancer than it is to prevent a cancer death, he says.
The detection of dormant cases is particularly significant because the conventional (and unnecessary) treatment that invariably follows can be so devastating to the patient: radiotherapy, chemotherapy, long term treatment with powerful drugs which themselves have been shown to cause other cancers. It is no coincidence that the Bristol Cancer Help Centre among others has built its reputation on developing a programme simply to help cancer diagnosed patients survive their treatment.
Although mass screening in the UK is at an early stage, the experience of other countries suggests that mammograms have a high rate of inaccuracy. In Canada, during the first four years of an eight-year trial, some 70 per cent of test results were unacceptable. Only in the last two years of the trial were more than half the tests up to the required standard. (The Lancet, 13 July 1991). There is also evidence from Finland that the reasonably high level of accuracy obtained during initial screening trials may not be repeated in a national programme, in which sensitivity of mammography could be 25-50 per cent lower (JAMA, 22-29 July 1992).
Besides the pointless exposure to radiation, routine screening may make women less alert to warning signs and delay seeking advice. Daniel Kopans of Massachusetts General Hospital, who has written a published critique of the above mentioned Canadian study, says: "Women may derive a false sense of security has had a negative screen for breast cancer.(The Lancet, 17 August 1991).
"Women who participate in screening should be reminded that a negative screen does not eliminate the possibility of cancer," says Kopans. "They should bring any new changes in their breasts to their doctor's attention despite a recent negative mammogram." In other words, mammograms are emphatically not an alternative to routine self-examination and awareness of the breasts.
This gross level of inaccuracy may be one reason why mass screening for breast cancer by mammography hasn't made much difference to survival rates. As Switzerland's Johannes Schmidt pointed out in his letter to The Lancet: "We should not overlook the finding that breast cancer mortality has remained unchanged for decades despite huge efforts to improve early detection and local treatment." Writing in The Lancet recently (24 October 1992), Kopans and others confirm the prevailing view that the death rate from breast cancer remains unchanged.
Where a malignant cancer is present, detection by mammogram, rather than physical examination, can help spread the disease. Animal studies have shown that if a tumour is manipulated, the tumour cell spread to other parts of the body can increase by up to 80 per cent (K Smatchlo et al, Ultrasound Med Biol, 1979 5: 45-49). In a letter to The Lancet (11 July 1992), Drs D Watmough and K Quan speculate that excessive levels of force ("as much compression as the women could tolerate") used in mammograms during an earlier study in Malmo, Sweden, might explain the findings by I Andersson et al (BMJ 1988; 297: 943-48) that 29 per cent more deaths occurred in the screened group than among the controls for women under 55 in the first seven years of follow up.
Guidance issued to UK operators in 1992 recommends a mammogram force limit of 200 newtons per breast during mammography the equivalent of 20-kilo bags of sugar and some of the modern foot pedal operated machines are capable of delivering up to 300 newtons.
Given the level of force involved, it is not surprising that more than a third of women experience pain or discomfort during the process (D Rutter et al, BMJ 1992; 305 443-5).
British medical opinion continues to downplay the importance of physical examination, which has no known side effects, in favour of mammography, which has plenty. This attitude was compounded last year when the outgoing chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, in a series of off the cuff remarks at a press conference, condemned self-examination as a waste of time. Acheson's pronouncements, which received wide publicity, were apparently based on nothing more than his own personal prejudices and contradicted the evidence of numerous studies and the guidance being issued by his own department. Health officials moved quickly to try to repair the damage done by his remarks by talking about the need for general "breast awareness", rather than actual examination confusing everyone even more.
Others were less concerned with saving Acheson's face and more concerned about saving women's breasts. Writing to the Times soon after Acheson's comments (23 September 1991), Roger Taylor, consultant clinical oncologist at Cookridge Hospital's regional radiotherapy centre, said: "Some cancers which can be felt on clinical examination are undetected by a mammogram."
Dr Joan Austoker, an adviser to Dr Kenneth Calman Acheson's successor, told the Sunday Times (6 October 1991): "What [Acheson] did not say is that more than 90 per cent of breast tumours are found by the women themselves."
A seven-year study of 33,000 women by the Pennine Breast Screening Assessment Clinic in Huddersfield, published the week after Acheson's comments and reported in the Times (20 September 1991) showed that self-examination could reduce breast cancer deaths by up to one fifth.
A benign lump and nine out of ten are benign is best left alone. If, however, there is a good reason for further examination, you are likely to be offered some form of biopsy.
Biopsies tend to be treated as routine and minor by doctors. For the women concerned, they are anything but and should only be undergone if strictly necessary. In a standard biopsy, a thickish needle is inserted into the breast, under local anaesthetic, to remove a small piece of tissue which will then be examined for cancerous cells.
A study of 104 women undergoing biopsy for what proved to be benign lumps found that a quarter of them had "wound-related morbidity" (disease) afterwards (J Dixon and T John, The Lancet, 11 January 1992). Nine patients reported that a new breast lump had developed under the biopsy scar between one to seven years after surgery. In each case, this new lump was investigated and, again, found to be benign. Eight patients had pain in the biopsy area one to six years after the procedure.
The authors of the report conclude that greater use should be made of fine-needle aspiration. In this less invasive procedure, which can be done on an outpatient basis, a fine needle with a syringe is inserted in the breast to draw out a specimen of its contents. It is not without its complications, however. The BMJ (12 October 1991) cites cases of patients suffering pneumothorax (where air enters the chest, causing the lung to collapse) after needle aspiration. So you should be alert to symptoms of chest pain and breathing difficulty after needle aspiration and seek immediate medical help.
In some instances, you may be offered an excision biopsy, where the whole lump is removed under general anaesthetic. This is obviously a more radical operation, carrying all the risks of anaesthesia and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If you are offered excision, ask why you cannot have one of the less radical approaches. Seek a second opinion if you're not happy with the explanation.
If you do agree to an excision biopsy, read the operation consent form you are asked to sign carefully. Make sure you are agreeing only to the biopsy and nothing more drastic. Last year, the Department of Health issued guidelines to hospitals urging them to use narrow consent forms, which give the surgeon permission only to remove the lump not the entire breast if he sees fit. However, some hospitals may still be relying on the old-style forms and if yours is one of them, cross out the bits you don't wish to agree to and tell your surgeon what you've done. Even if he is cavalier about lopping off your breast, he is unlikely to be quite so sanguine about leaving himself open to a clear cut malpractice suit by going against your express wishes.
Don't be bullied or panicked. If your surgeon won't treat you on this basis, go somewhere else. Operations for breast cancer are almost never emergency operations so you should be allowed time to consider your treatment options if cancer is diagnosed or suspected. As the following chilling case study shows, supplied by Aspect, the Jeannie Campbell Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Appeal, it may be essential to get a second opinion. If you sign a wide-ranging consent form you may never get the opportunity to do so before it's too late.
"I went into the hospital for a biopsy. I came to in dreadful pain, unable to move my left arm. I asked what had happened and soon had the ward nurse telling me there was nothing wrong with me. I crawled to the toilets and removed just enough dressings to realise my left breast was missing and something frightful had happened to my arm, which is crippled to this day.
"Somehow I got back to my bed and started to cry. No one came to my help until two doctors stood over me. The senior one said I had cancer so badly, I had six months to live.
"I put my husband in the hands of my daughter and flew out to Australia to die with my son. I gave away all my personal effects. In Australia, it was my son who pushed me into a clinic where I was vetted from top to toe.
"I did not have breast cancer. I have never had cancer. I am not going to die of cancer. I was just a wrong diagnosis.
I came home and picked up the pieces of my life."
by Morley Evans
My friend, June Gardner, has taken up the crusade against medical malpractice. She was gutted like a trout in an Australian teaching hospital where she was "butchered" and her "healthy female organs were 'slaughtered'." She was brushed off by the Australian medical authorities. June is not taking this lying down. She writes every day. Here's a post from yesterday.
Misdiagnosis is rampant in the medical establishment... Some are deliberate intent...
How all our massive screening efforts for breast cancer can cause the very disease they are intended to detect
How all our massive screening efforts for breast cancer can cause the very disease they are intended to detect.
Some 25,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year in Britain and 180,000 in the US. Thirteen thousand British and a hundred thousand American women will die of the disease each year. In 1990, the UK government introduced a national breast screening programme, in which women aged between 50-64 are invited for a mammogram an x-ray of the breast supposedly to detect abnormalities every three years. Women over 65 will be screened on request.
The screening programme aims to catch more cancers earlier to improve the prognosis of those women affected. Some medics insist that younger women should also have the "right" to be routinely screened.
However, there is growing evidence that mammograms which, like any x-ray, involve zapping the patient with radiation can be positively harmful and even cause the disease they are intended to detect. A Canadian study, which has yet to be published in full, seems set to confirm the findings of earlier research (P Stomper and R Gelman, Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 1989; 3: 611-40) which clearly suggests that you are more likely to die from cancer if you undergo screening than if you don't. The Canadian study, using the National Breast Cancer Screening Trial, is examining the effect of mammography on women under 50. Data released so far suggests that women whose cancer was detected through mammograms have a shorter life expectancy than those who used self-examination alone.
Such concerns are far from new. As long ago as the early 1980s, the late Dr Robert Mendelsohn, in Male Practice, How Doctors Manipulate Women (Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1982), wrote: "I have been warning for years that annual mammographic screening of women without symptoms may produce more cancer than it detects." Mendelsohn quoted Dr C Bailar III, editor in chief of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, as making the same point in a 1975 report. "His conclusion was supported by numerous studies, which suggested that accumulated x-ray doses in excess of 100 rads over 10 to 15 years may induce cancer of the breast," said Mendelsohn. Dr Irwin Bross, of the Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York, also warned a congressional subcommittee in 1978 that the quarter of a million women screened in the mass NCI-ACS [National Cancer Institute American Cancer Society] screening programme will "in 15 or 20 years become the victims of the worst doctor caused breast cancer epidemic in medical history."
Some women's genetic makeup may make them particularly susceptible to developing cancer after exposure to "appallingly low" doses of radiation, whether from mammograms or other x-rays, according to Dr Michael Swift, chief of medical genetics at North Carolina University (New England Journal of Medicine, 27 December 1991). Around 1 per cent of women may be carrying the gene ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T) which makes them five to six times more likely to develop breast cancer and unusually sensitive to the ionizing radiation in x-rays, he says. Dr Swift studied 1,599 close relatives of people with the rare disease associated with the gene. He estimates that in the US, between 5,000 to 10,000 of the 180,000 breast cancer cases diagnosed each year could be prevented if A-T gene carriers were protected from exposure to radiation.
In reporting Dr Swift's findings, the US magazine Glamour (October 1991) cites one Scottish and two Swedish studies which found that 40 to 50-year-old women who were regularly screened had either a higher incidence of breast cancer deaths than women given physical exams alone, or no significant reduction in mortality.
Writing in How to Survive Medical Treatment (Century, 1987), Stephen Fulder says of any kind of mass screening: "For every case of a disease that is caught early there is a case of a disease that is treated when it would have got better by itself, and a case of a healthy person treated or biopsied because the screening test gave a wrong result."
That is exactly the line taken by Johannes Schmidt of the Practice for Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology in Switzerland. Writing in The Lancet (28 March 1992), he says that post mortem findings show that many small cancers detected by mammography would have remained dormant if left undiscovered and uninterfered with. Mass breast screening is 10 times as likely to pick up a clinically benign cancer than it is to prevent a cancer death, he says.
The detection of dormant cases is particularly significant because the conventional (and unnecessary) treatment that invariably follows can be so devastating to the patient: radiotherapy, chemotherapy, long term treatment with powerful drugs which themselves have been shown to cause other cancers. It is no coincidence that the Bristol Cancer Help Centre among others has built its reputation on developing a programme simply to help cancer diagnosed patients survive their treatment.
Although mass screening in the UK is at an early stage, the experience of other countries suggests that mammograms have a high rate of inaccuracy. In Canada, during the first four years of an eight-year trial, some 70 per cent of test results were unacceptable. Only in the last two years of the trial were more than half the tests up to the required standard. (The Lancet, 13 July 1991). There is also evidence from Finland that the reasonably high level of accuracy obtained during initial screening trials may not be repeated in a national programme, in which sensitivity of mammography could be 25-50 per cent lower (JAMA, 22-29 July 1992).
Besides the pointless exposure to radiation, routine screening may make women less alert to warning signs and delay seeking advice. Daniel Kopans of Massachusetts General Hospital, who has written a published critique of the above mentioned Canadian study, says: "Women may derive a false sense of security has had a negative screen for breast cancer.(The Lancet, 17 August 1991).
"Women who participate in screening should be reminded that a negative screen does not eliminate the possibility of cancer," says Kopans. "They should bring any new changes in their breasts to their doctor's attention despite a recent negative mammogram." In other words, mammograms are emphatically not an alternative to routine self-examination and awareness of the breasts.
This gross level of inaccuracy may be one reason why mass screening for breast cancer by mammography hasn't made much difference to survival rates. As Switzerland's Johannes Schmidt pointed out in his letter to The Lancet: "We should not overlook the finding that breast cancer mortality has remained unchanged for decades despite huge efforts to improve early detection and local treatment." Writing in The Lancet recently (24 October 1992), Kopans and others confirm the prevailing view that the death rate from breast cancer remains unchanged.
Where a malignant cancer is present, detection by mammogram, rather than physical examination, can help spread the disease. Animal studies have shown that if a tumour is manipulated, the tumour cell spread to other parts of the body can increase by up to 80 per cent (K Smatchlo et al, Ultrasound Med Biol, 1979 5: 45-49). In a letter to The Lancet (11 July 1992), Drs D Watmough and K Quan speculate that excessive levels of force ("as much compression as the women could tolerate") used in mammograms during an earlier study in Malmo, Sweden, might explain the findings by I Andersson et al (BMJ 1988; 297: 943-48) that 29 per cent more deaths occurred in the screened group than among the controls for women under 55 in the first seven years of follow up.
Guidance issued to UK operators in 1992 recommends a mammogram force limit of 200 newtons per breast during mammography the equivalent of 20-kilo bags of sugar and some of the modern foot pedal operated machines are capable of delivering up to 300 newtons.
Given the level of force involved, it is not surprising that more than a third of women experience pain or discomfort during the process (D Rutter et al, BMJ 1992; 305 443-5).
British medical opinion continues to downplay the importance of physical examination, which has no known side effects, in favour of mammography, which has plenty. This attitude was compounded last year when the outgoing chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, in a series of off the cuff remarks at a press conference, condemned self-examination as a waste of time. Acheson's pronouncements, which received wide publicity, were apparently based on nothing more than his own personal prejudices and contradicted the evidence of numerous studies and the guidance being issued by his own department. Health officials moved quickly to try to repair the damage done by his remarks by talking about the need for general "breast awareness", rather than actual examination confusing everyone even more.
Others were less concerned with saving Acheson's face and more concerned about saving women's breasts. Writing to the Times soon after Acheson's comments (23 September 1991), Roger Taylor, consultant clinical oncologist at Cookridge Hospital's regional radiotherapy centre, said: "Some cancers which can be felt on clinical examination are undetected by a mammogram."
Dr Joan Austoker, an adviser to Dr Kenneth Calman Acheson's successor, told the Sunday Times (6 October 1991): "What [Acheson] did not say is that more than 90 per cent of breast tumours are found by the women themselves."
A seven-year study of 33,000 women by the Pennine Breast Screening Assessment Clinic in Huddersfield, published the week after Acheson's comments and reported in the Times (20 September 1991) showed that self-examination could reduce breast cancer deaths by up to one fifth.
A benign lump and nine out of ten are benign is best left alone. If, however, there is a good reason for further examination, you are likely to be offered some form of biopsy.
Biopsies tend to be treated as routine and minor by doctors. For the women concerned, they are anything but and should only be undergone if strictly necessary. In a standard biopsy, a thickish needle is inserted into the breast, under local anaesthetic, to remove a small piece of tissue which will then be examined for cancerous cells.
A study of 104 women undergoing biopsy for what proved to be benign lumps found that a quarter of them had "wound-related morbidity" (disease) afterwards (J Dixon and T John, The Lancet, 11 January 1992). Nine patients reported that a new breast lump had developed under the biopsy scar between one to seven years after surgery. In each case, this new lump was investigated and, again, found to be benign. Eight patients had pain in the biopsy area one to six years after the procedure.
The authors of the report conclude that greater use should be made of fine-needle aspiration. In this less invasive procedure, which can be done on an outpatient basis, a fine needle with a syringe is inserted in the breast to draw out a specimen of its contents. It is not without its complications, however. The BMJ (12 October 1991) cites cases of patients suffering pneumothorax (where air enters the chest, causing the lung to collapse) after needle aspiration. So you should be alert to symptoms of chest pain and breathing difficulty after needle aspiration and seek immediate medical help.
In some instances, you may be offered an excision biopsy, where the whole lump is removed under general anaesthetic. This is obviously a more radical operation, carrying all the risks of anaesthesia and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If you are offered excision, ask why you cannot have one of the less radical approaches. Seek a second opinion if you're not happy with the explanation.
If you do agree to an excision biopsy, read the operation consent form you are asked to sign carefully. Make sure you are agreeing only to the biopsy and nothing more drastic. Last year, the Department of Health issued guidelines to hospitals urging them to use narrow consent forms, which give the surgeon permission only to remove the lump not the entire breast if he sees fit. However, some hospitals may still be relying on the old-style forms and if yours is one of them, cross out the bits you don't wish to agree to and tell your surgeon what you've done. Even if he is cavalier about lopping off your breast, he is unlikely to be quite so sanguine about leaving himself open to a clear cut malpractice suit by going against your express wishes.
Don't be bullied or panicked. If your surgeon won't treat you on this basis, go somewhere else. Operations for breast cancer are almost never emergency operations so you should be allowed time to consider your treatment options if cancer is diagnosed or suspected. As the following chilling case study shows, supplied by Aspect, the Jeannie Campbell Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Appeal, it may be essential to get a second opinion. If you sign a wide-ranging consent form you may never get the opportunity to do so before it's too late.
"I went into the hospital for a biopsy. I came to in dreadful pain, unable to move my left arm. I asked what had happened and soon had the ward nurse telling me there was nothing wrong with me. I crawled to the toilets and removed just enough dressings to realise my left breast was missing and something frightful had happened to my arm, which is crippled to this day.
"Somehow I got back to my bed and started to cry. No one came to my help until two doctors stood over me. The senior one said I had cancer so badly, I had six months to live.
"I put my husband in the hands of my daughter and flew out to Australia to die with my son. I gave away all my personal effects. In Australia, it was my son who pushed me into a clinic where I was vetted from top to toe.
"I did not have breast cancer. I have never had cancer. I am not going to die of cancer. I was just a wrong diagnosis.
I came home and picked up the pieces of my life."
COVID-19 CRISIS?
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
A correspondent writes:
Ohio man, 60, who blasted COVID-19 lockdown as 'a political ploy' and said stay-at-home orders were 'b*****t' dies after contracting coronavirus
John W. McDaniel, 60, died on Wednesday at a hospital in Columbus, Ohio
On Facebook, McDaniel called the virus a 'political ploy' and told followers: 'Prove me wrong.'
He tested positive for the virus weeks later and died on April 15
McDaniel worked for 38 years for his family's industrial manufacturing company
His obituary says he battled cancer in the 1980s before he married his wife
It is unclear if he had underlying health conditions which might have led to his death.
Thousands protested in Ohio on Monday against the state's ongoing lockdown
Ohio has recorded 12,516 cases and has 491 deaths since the pandemic began
The state has a population of 11,689,100 and many feel the order is unnecessary
Mr McDaniel was the first person in his county to die from COVID-19
What does anecdotal evidence prove? Anecdotal evidence is a staple of propaganda. The CRF (case fatality rate) from COVID-19 in Ohio is 491/12,516=0.039229785874081 or 4% assuming the figures can be trusted. (If the number of cases goes up, the ratio of deaths goes down. It is not so simple to have all the cases counted.) If 4% died that means that 96% of the people with COVID-19 did not die.
The mortality rate in Ohio is 491/11,689,100=0.000042004944778 or .004%. An Ohioan is more likely to die of rabies from a chipmunk bite. The deceased Ohioan was 60-years-old. We don’t know if he had some pre-existing medical condition but we are told he “battled with cancer” in the 1980s. How do people “battle” with a disease? In my experience, people with cancer are never cured. What was his Vitamin D serum level? Did he smoke and drink? Did he exercise?
Do people die of the seasonal flu? Some do. How many? We don’t know how many because those statistics are used by politicians for various reasons each politician may have. I know first-hand about census statistics. They aren’t what people imagine. Saskatchewan’s statistics are all suspect. I know. I have looked closely at some of them. Even the provincial population is a political football.
Statistics are made with numbers. Numbers are counted. Everyone can count. Don't be bamboozled. Ask questions. When were these numbers collected? How were they collected? Who collected them? Why were they collected? What was included? What was not included? These things matter when people start using them to create laws and to divide and acquire the property. This is not quantum mechanics. This is arithmetic. Everyone can do this. Everyone has a calculator.
Is a lockdown required in Saskatchewan? Here’s what the Regina Leader-Post reported yesterday.
http://morleyevans.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid-19-saskatchewan.html.
People who believe “We are all going to die!” are crazy! IT IS BULLSHIT. People in Saskatchewan have a serious problem and it is not COVID-19. Of course, they don't want to know about it.
Is Anthony Fauci “the Bernie Madoff of virology." Could be. I’ll have to review the allegations. The global lockdown is unwarranted in any case. Do I trust anything from Health Canada, the FDA, doctors, and the CDC? I don’t trust one word they say. I have ~70 years of reasons not to believe them. I definitely don’t believe anything on TV. I don't read newspapers either. Howard Beal in the movie Network said, “I’m as mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” You can do this!
The first rule in political science should be "Politicians lie." Politicians who are not capable liars don't get elected. That tells you why they lie and who is responsible.
by Morley Evans
A correspondent writes:
Ohio man, 60, who blasted COVID-19 lockdown as 'a political ploy' and said stay-at-home orders were 'b*****t' dies after contracting coronavirus
John W. McDaniel, 60, died on Wednesday at a hospital in Columbus, Ohio
On Facebook, McDaniel called the virus a 'political ploy' and told followers: 'Prove me wrong.'
He tested positive for the virus weeks later and died on April 15
McDaniel worked for 38 years for his family's industrial manufacturing company
His obituary says he battled cancer in the 1980s before he married his wife
It is unclear if he had underlying health conditions which might have led to his death.
Thousands protested in Ohio on Monday against the state's ongoing lockdown
Ohio has recorded 12,516 cases and has 491 deaths since the pandemic began
The state has a population of 11,689,100 and many feel the order is unnecessary
Mr McDaniel was the first person in his county to die from COVID-19
What does anecdotal evidence prove? Anecdotal evidence is a staple of propaganda. The CRF (case fatality rate) from COVID-19 in Ohio is 491/12,516=0.039229785874081 or 4% assuming the figures can be trusted. (If the number of cases goes up, the ratio of deaths goes down. It is not so simple to have all the cases counted.) If 4% died that means that 96% of the people with COVID-19 did not die.
The mortality rate in Ohio is 491/11,689,100=0.000042004944778 or .004%. An Ohioan is more likely to die of rabies from a chipmunk bite. The deceased Ohioan was 60-years-old. We don’t know if he had some pre-existing medical condition but we are told he “battled with cancer” in the 1980s. How do people “battle” with a disease? In my experience, people with cancer are never cured. What was his Vitamin D serum level? Did he smoke and drink? Did he exercise?
Do people die of the seasonal flu? Some do. How many? We don’t know how many because those statistics are used by politicians for various reasons each politician may have. I know first-hand about census statistics. They aren’t what people imagine. Saskatchewan’s statistics are all suspect. I know. I have looked closely at some of them. Even the provincial population is a political football.
Statistics are made with numbers. Numbers are counted. Everyone can count. Don't be bamboozled. Ask questions. When were these numbers collected? How were they collected? Who collected them? Why were they collected? What was included? What was not included? These things matter when people start using them to create laws and to divide and acquire the property. This is not quantum mechanics. This is arithmetic. Everyone can do this. Everyone has a calculator.
Is a lockdown required in Saskatchewan? Here’s what the Regina Leader-Post reported yesterday.
http://morleyevans.blogspot.com/2020/04/covid-19-saskatchewan.html.
People who believe “We are all going to die!” are crazy! IT IS BULLSHIT. People in Saskatchewan have a serious problem and it is not COVID-19. Of course, they don't want to know about it.
Is Anthony Fauci “the Bernie Madoff of virology." Could be. I’ll have to review the allegations. The global lockdown is unwarranted in any case. Do I trust anything from Health Canada, the FDA, doctors, and the CDC? I don’t trust one word they say. I have ~70 years of reasons not to believe them. I definitely don’t believe anything on TV. I don't read newspapers either. Howard Beal in the movie Network said, “I’m as mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” You can do this!
The first rule in political science should be "Politicians lie." Politicians who are not capable liars don't get elected. That tells you why they lie and who is responsible.
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
COVID-19 SASKATCHEWAN
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
by Morley Evans
Looks like a reason to panic, doesn't it? "We'll all be killed!"
Divide these numbers by a million to get the relative risks.
So 4 deaths / one million = 0.0004% is a pretty small risk.
FAUCI
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Who is this man, Fauci? Until he began appearing with Donald Trump on TV, most had never heard of Anthony Fauci. Let's find out who he is.
BUY THE BOOK
This is the book that got the world's attention when it was introduced on Instagram by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Given the fact that Anthony Fauci has been at the centre of one of the biggest medical cover-ups in history, it is shocking that anyone is putting their trust in him during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this explosive little book, the first publisher to devote his newspaper to the coverage of AIDS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome details the role of Anthony Fauci in the cover-up of the truth about the relationship of the two epidemics. While mistaken members of the media like Laurie Garrett and Rachel Maddow have called Anthony Fauci "a great American," Dr Fauci will soon take in his place in history as the chief operator of a Ponzi scheme that has plunged the world into dystopian medical darkness of fraud, deceit, and neglect. This book is a must-read chapter from "The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-up Volume Two" with a new afterword that explores the extensive damage Fauci's Ponzi scheme has done to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome community, people stigmatized with "HIV/AIDS," and everyone suffering from the viruses that Fauci's cover-up has been concealing from the world: the HHV-6/7/8 family of viruses. The list of potential victims of Fauci's Ponzi scheme includes virtually everyone. Even the health of millions of doctors and nurses has been put at risk. These are the elements of Fauci's scientific Ponzi scheme: 1. Nosological fraud. (That's the branch of medicine dealing with the classification of disease. It is ground zero for public health fraud.) 2. Epidemiological fraud. 3. Virological fraud. 4. treatment fraud. (Treatments that harm more than they heal or conceal more than they reveal.) 5. Public health policy fraud. 6. Concealment of negative scientific data and paradigm-challenging anomalies. 7. Use of an elite network of "old boys" and pseudo-activist provocateurs to censor critics and whistleblowers.8. Chronic obscurantism. 9. If necessary, vigilantism and witch-hunts against any intellectuals, scientists, or citizens who constitute any form of resistance to the Ponzi scheme. Millions of people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are at risk for complications of COVID-19 because Fauci and his colleagues have never told the truth about the viral and transmissible nature of the AIDS-like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome pandemic. Fauci and his puppets at NIH have created a real mess. Like Bernie Madoff, Anthony Fauci is rich, famous, and powerful as a result of his scientific Ponzi scheme. And Fauci is a clever manipulator who will continue to try and hide the nature of his scientific Ponzi scheme from the public the way Bernie Madoff hid his financial records. But luckily, this brilliant and uncompromising work of journalism will enlighten members of Congress and the media as they begin extensive investigations of the Fauci Ponzi scheme.
by Morley Evans
Who is this man, Fauci? Until he began appearing with Donald Trump on TV, most had never heard of Anthony Fauci. Let's find out who he is.
This is the book that got the world's attention when it was introduced on Instagram by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Given the fact that Anthony Fauci has been at the centre of one of the biggest medical cover-ups in history, it is shocking that anyone is putting their trust in him during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this explosive little book, the first publisher to devote his newspaper to the coverage of AIDS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome details the role of Anthony Fauci in the cover-up of the truth about the relationship of the two epidemics. While mistaken members of the media like Laurie Garrett and Rachel Maddow have called Anthony Fauci "a great American," Dr Fauci will soon take in his place in history as the chief operator of a Ponzi scheme that has plunged the world into dystopian medical darkness of fraud, deceit, and neglect. This book is a must-read chapter from "The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-up Volume Two" with a new afterword that explores the extensive damage Fauci's Ponzi scheme has done to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome community, people stigmatized with "HIV/AIDS," and everyone suffering from the viruses that Fauci's cover-up has been concealing from the world: the HHV-6/7/8 family of viruses. The list of potential victims of Fauci's Ponzi scheme includes virtually everyone. Even the health of millions of doctors and nurses has been put at risk. These are the elements of Fauci's scientific Ponzi scheme: 1. Nosological fraud. (That's the branch of medicine dealing with the classification of disease. It is ground zero for public health fraud.) 2. Epidemiological fraud. 3. Virological fraud. 4. treatment fraud. (Treatments that harm more than they heal or conceal more than they reveal.) 5. Public health policy fraud. 6. Concealment of negative scientific data and paradigm-challenging anomalies. 7. Use of an elite network of "old boys" and pseudo-activist provocateurs to censor critics and whistleblowers.8. Chronic obscurantism. 9. If necessary, vigilantism and witch-hunts against any intellectuals, scientists, or citizens who constitute any form of resistance to the Ponzi scheme. Millions of people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are at risk for complications of COVID-19 because Fauci and his colleagues have never told the truth about the viral and transmissible nature of the AIDS-like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome pandemic. Fauci and his puppets at NIH have created a real mess. Like Bernie Madoff, Anthony Fauci is rich, famous, and powerful as a result of his scientific Ponzi scheme. And Fauci is a clever manipulator who will continue to try and hide the nature of his scientific Ponzi scheme from the public the way Bernie Madoff hid his financial records. But luckily, this brilliant and uncompromising work of journalism will enlighten members of Congress and the media as they begin extensive investigations of the Fauci Ponzi scheme.
EPIDEMIOLOGY NUMBERS
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
By Ryan McMaken
Mises.org
April 21, 2020
In the early days of the COVID-19 panic—about three weeks ago—it was common to hear both of these phrases often repeated:
“The fatality rate of this virus is very high!”
“There are far more cases of this out there than we know about!”
The strategy of insisting that both these statements are true at the same time has been used by politicians to implement “lockdowns” that have forced businesses to close and millions to lose their jobs. For instance, on March 12, Ohio Department of Health director Amy Acton insisted that “over 100,000” people are “carrying this virus in Ohio today.” The state began to implement “stay-at-home” lockdown orders that day.
At the time, the World Health Organization (WHO), the media, and others were reporting that 2 to 4 per cent of people with COVID-19 would die. Taking the low-end 2 per cent number, and allowing for an incubation period, this would mean that two weeks after Acton’s announcement—assuming that the lockdown was 100 per cent effective and not a single additional person caught the disease—two thousand Ohioans would likely be dead of COVID-19. But as of April 17, more than a month later, and after a month of the disease spreading through grocery stores and other “essential” areas of commerce, about 418 Ohioans have died of COVID-19.
READ MORE
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/ryan-mcmaken/the-experts-have-no-idea-how-many-covid-19-cases-there-are/
by Morley Evans
The Experts Have No Idea
How Many COVID-19
Cases There Are
How Many COVID-19
Cases There Are
By Ryan McMaken
Mises.org
April 21, 2020
In the early days of the COVID-19 panic—about three weeks ago—it was common to hear both of these phrases often repeated:
“The fatality rate of this virus is very high!”
“There are far more cases of this out there than we know about!”
The strategy of insisting that both these statements are true at the same time has been used by politicians to implement “lockdowns” that have forced businesses to close and millions to lose their jobs. For instance, on March 12, Ohio Department of Health director Amy Acton insisted that “over 100,000” people are “carrying this virus in Ohio today.” The state began to implement “stay-at-home” lockdown orders that day.
At the time, the World Health Organization (WHO), the media, and others were reporting that 2 to 4 per cent of people with COVID-19 would die. Taking the low-end 2 per cent number, and allowing for an incubation period, this would mean that two weeks after Acton’s announcement—assuming that the lockdown was 100 per cent effective and not a single additional person caught the disease—two thousand Ohioans would likely be dead of COVID-19. But as of April 17, more than a month later, and after a month of the disease spreading through grocery stores and other “essential” areas of commerce, about 418 Ohioans have died of COVID-19.
READ MORE
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/ryan-mcmaken/the-experts-have-no-idea-how-many-covid-19-cases-there-are/
SARS IN TORONTO
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
SARS 2003: Fraud, and the Credibility of the World Health Organization
By Jon Rappoport
Jon Rappoport’s Blog
April 21, 2020
History matters.
If the World Health Organization (WHO) deceived the world into fear and panic THEN, in 2003, why should you believe them NOW re COVID, when both instances involve epidemics?
As some readers will recall, in 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) put out a travel advisory—don’t go to Toronto. Toronto was “infected” with epidemic SARS. The loss of tourist income was significant. At the time, I was in touch with a Canadian activist who was trying to assemble a group of Toronto merchants and file a lawsuit against WHO for a few billion dollars, but it fell apart.
The Canadian Encyclopedia describes the wild scene in the country: “The outbreak led to the quarantine of thousands…and took an economic toll on Toronto. It also exposed the country’s ill-prepared health-care system…In late April 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued an advisory against all non-essential travel to Toronto. Government officials and experts criticized the decision as being unnecessary…During the outbreak, thousands of Canadians were quarantined. Many voluntarily quarantined themselves in their homes. Airports in Toronto and Vancouver screened travellers for high fever. News coverage spiked with each wave of the outbreak in Toronto and right after the WHO travel advisory. Major Canadian newspapers would each publish up to 25 stories per day on SARS…”
You can see how the World Health Organization stimulated a panicked response with its travel advisory.
So SARS must have been a large outbreak, an epidemic of major proportions.
Canadian Encyclopedia: “In total, there were 438 probable cases of SARS in Canada, resulting in 44 deaths.”
What??
READ MORE
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/jon-rappoport/sars-2003-fraud-and-the-credibility-of-the-world-health-organization/
A BIG MISTAKE?
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Ron Paul Institute
April 21, 2020
From California to New Jersey, Americans are protesting in the streets. They are demanding an end to house arrest orders given by government officials over a virus outbreak that even according to the latest US government numbers will claim fewer lives than the seasonal flu outbreak of 2017-2018.
Across the US, millions of businesses have been shut down by “executive order” and the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Americans, who have seen their real wages decline thanks to Federal Reserve monetary malpractice, are finding themselves thrust into poverty and standing in breadlines. It is like a horror movie, but it’s real.
Last week the UN Secretary-General warned that a global recession resulting from the worldwide coronavirus lockdown could cause “hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths per year.” As of this writing, less than 170,000 have been reported to have died from the coronavirus worldwide.
Many Americans have also died this past month because they were not able to get the medical care they needed. Cancer treatments have been indefinitely postponed. Life-saving surgeries have been put off to make room for coronavirus cases. Meanwhile, hospitals are laying off thousands because the expected coronavirus cases have not come and the hospitals are partially empty.
What if the “cure” is worse than the disease?
Countries like Sweden that did not lock down their economy and place the population under house arrest are faring no worse than countries that did. Sweden’s deaths-per-million from coronavirus is lower than in many lockdown countries.
READ MORE
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/ron-paul/what-if-the-lockdown-was-all-a-big-mistake/
by Morley Evans
What If the Lockdown Was All
A Big Mistake?
By Ron PaulRon Paul Institute
April 21, 2020
From California to New Jersey, Americans are protesting in the streets. They are demanding an end to house arrest orders given by government officials over a virus outbreak that even according to the latest US government numbers will claim fewer lives than the seasonal flu outbreak of 2017-2018.
Across the US, millions of businesses have been shut down by “executive order” and the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Americans, who have seen their real wages decline thanks to Federal Reserve monetary malpractice, are finding themselves thrust into poverty and standing in breadlines. It is like a horror movie, but it’s real.
Last week the UN Secretary-General warned that a global recession resulting from the worldwide coronavirus lockdown could cause “hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths per year.” As of this writing, less than 170,000 have been reported to have died from the coronavirus worldwide.
Many Americans have also died this past month because they were not able to get the medical care they needed. Cancer treatments have been indefinitely postponed. Life-saving surgeries have been put off to make room for coronavirus cases. Meanwhile, hospitals are laying off thousands because the expected coronavirus cases have not come and the hospitals are partially empty.
What if the “cure” is worse than the disease?
Countries like Sweden that did not lock down their economy and place the population under house arrest are faring no worse than countries that did. Sweden’s deaths-per-million from coronavirus is lower than in many lockdown countries.
READ MORE
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/ron-paul/what-if-the-lockdown-was-all-a-big-mistake/
Monday, April 20, 2020
FAUCI
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Is Dr Anthony Fauci another megalomaniac with the bit between his teeth? You decide.
by Morley Evans
Is Dr Anthony Fauci another megalomaniac with the bit between his teeth? You decide.
BELLE ÉPOQUE
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
The era from 1815 to 1914 is known as the Imperial Century as well as La Belle Époque and the Golden Age in the United States.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-century-of-peace/
Pax Britannica gave way to Pax Americana in 1914. A century (99 years, actually) of relative peace, increasing prosperity with enlightenment, and general liberalisation gave way to horrors previously unknown in human history. The 21st century continues the horrors of the 20th century.
Take a deep breath. THINK. Do you want a better world and gracious living?
by Morley Evans
The era from 1815 to 1914 is known as the Imperial Century as well as La Belle Époque and the Golden Age in the United States.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-century-of-peace/
Pax Britannica gave way to Pax Americana in 1914. A century (99 years, actually) of relative peace, increasing prosperity with enlightenment, and general liberalisation gave way to horrors previously unknown in human history. The 21st century continues the horrors of the 20th century.
Take a deep breath. THINK. Do you want a better world and gracious living?
MASKS
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
By George Giles
April 20, 2020
As always government turns things upside down. I spent nine years working in Cardiac Surgery and I learned a thing or two about healthcare during this time. Here are my opinions along with a little science.
Surgeons. nurses and other operating room personnel in a surgical suite wear a mask. They wear these masks trying to mitigate the effects of the normal human body. During surgery the body cavity is open, exposing the sterile interior to the outside un-sterile world. This world is a biological soup of dirt, debris, chemicals, viruses and bacteria. Any of these landing in the sterile interior can potentially be very bad leading to infections, sepsis and death.
Human beings respire and with the warm breath can come any number of things of the aforementioned biological soup. Surgical suites cannot prevent airflow and the wind can bring lots of un-sterile things into the sterile field. I have never seen a gas-tight surgical suite with an airlock so when the patient/staff enter/exit the air we breathe can drag a lot of other things along for the ride.
Surgical masks protect the patient from the surgical staff they were not designed to protect the wearer of the mask from the patient!
READ MORE
by Morley Evans
Surgical Masks
By George Giles
April 20, 2020
As always government turns things upside down. I spent nine years working in Cardiac Surgery and I learned a thing or two about healthcare during this time. Here are my opinions along with a little science.
Surgeons. nurses and other operating room personnel in a surgical suite wear a mask. They wear these masks trying to mitigate the effects of the normal human body. During surgery the body cavity is open, exposing the sterile interior to the outside un-sterile world. This world is a biological soup of dirt, debris, chemicals, viruses and bacteria. Any of these landing in the sterile interior can potentially be very bad leading to infections, sepsis and death.
Human beings respire and with the warm breath can come any number of things of the aforementioned biological soup. Surgical suites cannot prevent airflow and the wind can bring lots of un-sterile things into the sterile field. I have never seen a gas-tight surgical suite with an airlock so when the patient/staff enter/exit the air we breathe can drag a lot of other things along for the ride.
Surgical masks protect the patient from the surgical staff they were not designed to protect the wearer of the mask from the patient!
READ MORE
GERM VS TERRAIN
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
I look at the coronavirus crisis differently from most people. To me, it’s the reopening of a 150-year-old scientific controversy that much of the western world has forgotten.
French scientist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is widely celebrated as “the father of germ theory”— the idea that we become sick when our bodies are invaded by foreign organisms such as bacteria, moulds, fungi, and of course viruses. Although the idea had been circulating long before Pasteur achieved eminence, his laboratory work in the 1860s appeared to provide the scientific proof that had previously been missing.
What’s not widely known is that other French scientists working in the same field in that era held somewhat different beliefs, known as the “terrain theory”. They believed that the most important factor that determines whether or not a person becomes ill is not the presence of a germ, but rather the preparedness of the body’s internal environment (the “soil” or terrain) to repel or destroy the germ.
One of the main terrain-theory scientists was Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908). Pasteur and Béchamp were bitter rivals over several scientific issues. The book Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter (R. B. Pearson, 1942) even suggests that Pasteur plagiarized some of his work from Béchamp—no doubt a sore point with the latter, who ultimately died in obscurity. Pasteur, by contrast, became a skilled self-promoter who literally managed to make his name a household word long past the time of his death.
READ MORE
by Morley Evans
Coronavirus Crisis Reopens 150-Year-Old Controversy
By Karen Selick
April 20, 2020
April 20, 2020
I look at the coronavirus crisis differently from most people. To me, it’s the reopening of a 150-year-old scientific controversy that much of the western world has forgotten.
French scientist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is widely celebrated as “the father of germ theory”— the idea that we become sick when our bodies are invaded by foreign organisms such as bacteria, moulds, fungi, and of course viruses. Although the idea had been circulating long before Pasteur achieved eminence, his laboratory work in the 1860s appeared to provide the scientific proof that had previously been missing.
What’s not widely known is that other French scientists working in the same field in that era held somewhat different beliefs, known as the “terrain theory”. They believed that the most important factor that determines whether or not a person becomes ill is not the presence of a germ, but rather the preparedness of the body’s internal environment (the “soil” or terrain) to repel or destroy the germ.
One of the main terrain-theory scientists was Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908). Pasteur and Béchamp were bitter rivals over several scientific issues. The book Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter (R. B. Pearson, 1942) even suggests that Pasteur plagiarized some of his work from Béchamp—no doubt a sore point with the latter, who ultimately died in obscurity. Pasteur, by contrast, became a skilled self-promoter who literally managed to make his name a household word long past the time of his death.
READ MORE
Sunday, April 19, 2020
DR RON PAUL, MD
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Ron Paul: People ‘Should Be Leery About’ a Coronavirus Vaccine
By Adam Dick
Ron Paul Institute
April 18, 2020
Ron Paul, in a Monday interview with host Dan Dicks at Press for Truth, warns that people “should be leery about” coronavirus vaccines that may come out. Further, says Paul, a doctor and former United States House of Representatives member, “right now I wouldn’t think there is any indication for anybody to take them,” noting that “scare tactics” are being used to pressure people into thinking they should take such potential vaccines to protect against coronavirus.
Paul supports this conclusion by stressing in the interview the potential danger of a vaccine as well as the overstated threat from coronavirus.
Regarding the potential danger from a coronavirus vaccine, Paul discusses at the beginning of the interview how, in 1976 in his first week as a House member, Paul was one of only two members, both doctors, who voted against legislation that helped rush through a vaccine in response to swine flu. Paul describes the results of the push for people to take the swine flu vaccine as follows:
READ MORE
by Morley Evans
Ron Paul: People ‘Should Be Leery About’ a Coronavirus Vaccine
By Adam Dick
Ron Paul Institute
April 18, 2020
Ron Paul, in a Monday interview with host Dan Dicks at Press for Truth, warns that people “should be leery about” coronavirus vaccines that may come out. Further, says Paul, a doctor and former United States House of Representatives member, “right now I wouldn’t think there is any indication for anybody to take them,” noting that “scare tactics” are being used to pressure people into thinking they should take such potential vaccines to protect against coronavirus.
Paul supports this conclusion by stressing in the interview the potential danger of a vaccine as well as the overstated threat from coronavirus.
Regarding the potential danger from a coronavirus vaccine, Paul discusses at the beginning of the interview how, in 1976 in his first week as a House member, Paul was one of only two members, both doctors, who voted against legislation that helped rush through a vaccine in response to swine flu. Paul describes the results of the push for people to take the swine flu vaccine as follows:
READ MORE
DR MICHAEL J. HARDY, MD
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
My friend Dr Hardy has invited me to post his thoughts on the coronavirus pandemic. It is an honour to be so invited.
As a medical scientist, it comes as no surprise that many people have asked my opinion on the recent coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, I’ve decided to share what I have learned and try to include some of the most recent data available.
Probably the questions I’m most frequently asked are, firstly, why do health authorities and governments seem to take coronavirus more seriously than influenza which sickens, makes seriously ill and kills more people annually? After all, we don’t cancel travel, demand self-isolating and close schools and businesses from November through March every year.
And, secondly, how long might it go on for, how will it end and could it become a regular annual event like the flu?
Why do we fear the coronavirus more than the influenza virus?
If we exclude the most serious pandemics of 1918, 1957, 1968 and 2009, then typically the flu kills as many as 650,000 people every year whereas, at least to date, COVID-19 has been responsible for ‘only’ 150,000. I stress to date because we still don’t know what the final figure will be. However, we can compare the fatality rates which are the number of people who die divided by the number of people affected, most of whom will recover after a mild illness. For influenza, it is typically considerably less than 1%. For coronavirus, we still don’t have sufficient data to arrive at a definite figure. However, because of the typical lag time of 8 -10 days from diagnosis to death, epidemiologists are suggesting our best estimate of the fatality rate might be the number of deaths to date divided by the number of confirmed cases 9 days ago which comes to about 10%. That is ten times higher than that for the flu.
Another reason is that “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”.
We’ve had a long history of observing annual bouts of influenza and accumulating enormous amounts of data. In the Northern hemisphere at least, I’d put money on the flu season starting in late fall and concluding in early spring. I can think of three reasons for this. In winter we spend more time indoors when closer contact with others facilitates transmission of respiratory infections. The virus lives longer indoors because the air is less humid than outside and the longer the virus is ‘alive’ in the air, the easier it is for people to inhale it and become infected. In comparison, the coronavirus is completely new to us and even our experts are quite literally learning as the pandemic evolves. And, finally, herd immunity is more readily achieved for the flu than it is for COVID-19. Herd immunity describes the state when enough people in a community are immune that the virus has nowhere left to go and simply dies out. To achieve herd immunity, the percentage of those who need to be immune increases as the disease becomes more infectious. As an example, measles is extremely infectious and requires 90-95%, polio and influenza rather less so at 80-85%. One optimistic early estimate has suggested that 50% of us will need to acquire immunity to coronavirus before we can rely on significant protection from herd immunity. There are two good reasons why this is not going to happen soon. Herd immunity comes from two sources: immunity acquired after recovery from infection and immunity acquired from vaccination. Once again it’s too early to know what level of immunity and for how long it will last in people who have been infected and recovered but early signs are not encouraging. In Italy and South Korea, people confirmed to have a coronavirus infection both clinically and by testing positive and who then tested negative after recovering are now testing positive again. Either coronavirus can lay dormant and come back after a few weeks (rather like herpes zoster that causes chickenpox in children and can return decades later to cause shingles in adults) or more likely immunity after an infection is temporary at best. I prefer the latter explanation if only because several previous studies have found that immunity acquired from coronavirus infections is generally shorter-lived than that from other viral infections. Time will tell.
Of course, as yet there is no vaccine for COVID-19 although scientists all over the world are working hard to develop one as soon as possible. Fortunately, we’re not starting from scratch since a tremendous amount of work on coronavirus vaccines has been carried out over the past few years in the expectation that we would almost certainly see another novel virus following our experiences with SARS (2002) and MERS (2012). The CDC has suggested that we might have a usable vaccine by September of this year sufficient to treat medical staff and first responders with enough for the rest of us by next spring. Before, then, of course, it will have to go through the usual three stages of clinical trials to confirm both safety and efficacy. My concern is that, as happens with the flu vaccine every year, the anti-vax brigade will take to social media in an attempt to convince people not to take it. Believe it or not, it’s started already. One recent internet gem* is claiming that the coronavirus vaccine will actually contain microchips so that ‘they’ will be able to track all of our movements and exert some form of mind control! I wish I was joking.
When is it all going to end?
I wish I knew so that I could go ahead and rebook the vacation I’ve just had to cancel! There’s really no timeframe yet but I can give you an idea of a few factors, some preferable to others, that might bring it to a close. The first is that it miraculously mutates into a less lethal form and, while still around, becomes no more harmful than the common cold. I doubt anyone seriously believes this with the possible exception of King Donald. In fairness, however, there is a tendency for novel viruses to mutate in such a way that they do gradually become less lethal. Their function in life, if they actually were ‘alive’, would be to go forth and multiply (Genesis 9:7) and to kill their host would be to commit suicide, a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. It’s possible, of course, that, like the influenza virus, warmer weather and increasing humidity is not to its liking. It could simply fade away during the summer months but this would not stop its return, once again like the flu, in the fall and winter when we could be back to square one. There’s no doubt that travel bans, social distancing, contact tracing and staying indoors will reduce the spread of the virus but that’s not something we can do forever. The concern is that once we relax these restrictions and the virus is still out there then it will begin to re-infect people and return as a second wave possibly more deadly than the first if our experience of the Spanish flu (1919) is anything to go by. Developing herd immunity is by far our best bet but, as I’ve previously said, a prior infection may not be sufficient and, even if it were, we’re a long way off from achieving even a 50% infected, recovered and now immune population. We know this thanks to some new data from Iceland* with a tiny population of only 364 thousand but who have recently tested a random selection of 36 thousand people selected from the phone book representing almost 10% of its inhabitants. Of these, only 1700 tested positive which is less than half of one per cent of the population, a long way short of the very conservative estimate (50%) needed to achieve herd immunity.
Finally, I’d like to share with you the concept of Rzero, usually written as R0. This is the average number of new cases resulting from infection by each infected individual before they are no longer infectious. Two factors determine the size of R0: it increases with the ‘infectiousness’ of the virus and also with the number of susceptible (non-immune) people the affected individual comes into contact with. We can’t influence the former but we can reduce the latter which explains why staying at home and social distancing are so effective. Let me give you an example. Imagine R0 is exactly 1.0. This means that each infected person infects just one other before they are no longer infectious. If we start with 100 infected people and allow five cycles of infection, there will still be 100 infected, but different, individuals. R0 values greater than 1.0 will see disease numbers increase exponentially while values below 1.0 will see them decline. Preliminary data from the United Kingdom at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic suggest an R0 value of about 2.5. Starting out with the same one hundred infected individuals, after the same five cycles, the number of infectious cases will have risen to almost ten thousand. After several weeks of social distancing, contact tracing, stay-at-home rules, closing schools, workplaces, sports and entertainment venues etc, R0 had fallen to about 0.6. Under these conditions, the original one hundred cases had fallen to only eight. Clearly, the preventive measures we have been taking are very effective but likely only as long as they are maintained.
Like it or not, permanently emerging from this crisis will almost certainly depend on the development of a safe and effective vaccine as soon as possible and when it finally arrives I’ll be first in line to receive it. Until then stay safe and I wish you all well. Please feel free to share this with others.
Dr Michael Hardy April 17th 2020
* Thanks to Aisling Young for bringing the Iceland data to my attention and to Gianna Manca for the coronavirus vaccine-microchip ‘conspiracy theory’.
by Morley Evans
My friend Dr Hardy has invited me to post his thoughts on the coronavirus pandemic. It is an honour to be so invited.
Coronavirus 2020
As a medical scientist, it comes as no surprise that many people have asked my opinion on the recent coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, I’ve decided to share what I have learned and try to include some of the most recent data available.
Probably the questions I’m most frequently asked are, firstly, why do health authorities and governments seem to take coronavirus more seriously than influenza which sickens, makes seriously ill and kills more people annually? After all, we don’t cancel travel, demand self-isolating and close schools and businesses from November through March every year.
And, secondly, how long might it go on for, how will it end and could it become a regular annual event like the flu?
Why do we fear the coronavirus more than the influenza virus?
If we exclude the most serious pandemics of 1918, 1957, 1968 and 2009, then typically the flu kills as many as 650,000 people every year whereas, at least to date, COVID-19 has been responsible for ‘only’ 150,000. I stress to date because we still don’t know what the final figure will be. However, we can compare the fatality rates which are the number of people who die divided by the number of people affected, most of whom will recover after a mild illness. For influenza, it is typically considerably less than 1%. For coronavirus, we still don’t have sufficient data to arrive at a definite figure. However, because of the typical lag time of 8 -10 days from diagnosis to death, epidemiologists are suggesting our best estimate of the fatality rate might be the number of deaths to date divided by the number of confirmed cases 9 days ago which comes to about 10%. That is ten times higher than that for the flu.
Another reason is that “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”.
We’ve had a long history of observing annual bouts of influenza and accumulating enormous amounts of data. In the Northern hemisphere at least, I’d put money on the flu season starting in late fall and concluding in early spring. I can think of three reasons for this. In winter we spend more time indoors when closer contact with others facilitates transmission of respiratory infections. The virus lives longer indoors because the air is less humid than outside and the longer the virus is ‘alive’ in the air, the easier it is for people to inhale it and become infected. In comparison, the coronavirus is completely new to us and even our experts are quite literally learning as the pandemic evolves. And, finally, herd immunity is more readily achieved for the flu than it is for COVID-19. Herd immunity describes the state when enough people in a community are immune that the virus has nowhere left to go and simply dies out. To achieve herd immunity, the percentage of those who need to be immune increases as the disease becomes more infectious. As an example, measles is extremely infectious and requires 90-95%, polio and influenza rather less so at 80-85%. One optimistic early estimate has suggested that 50% of us will need to acquire immunity to coronavirus before we can rely on significant protection from herd immunity. There are two good reasons why this is not going to happen soon. Herd immunity comes from two sources: immunity acquired after recovery from infection and immunity acquired from vaccination. Once again it’s too early to know what level of immunity and for how long it will last in people who have been infected and recovered but early signs are not encouraging. In Italy and South Korea, people confirmed to have a coronavirus infection both clinically and by testing positive and who then tested negative after recovering are now testing positive again. Either coronavirus can lay dormant and come back after a few weeks (rather like herpes zoster that causes chickenpox in children and can return decades later to cause shingles in adults) or more likely immunity after an infection is temporary at best. I prefer the latter explanation if only because several previous studies have found that immunity acquired from coronavirus infections is generally shorter-lived than that from other viral infections. Time will tell.
Of course, as yet there is no vaccine for COVID-19 although scientists all over the world are working hard to develop one as soon as possible. Fortunately, we’re not starting from scratch since a tremendous amount of work on coronavirus vaccines has been carried out over the past few years in the expectation that we would almost certainly see another novel virus following our experiences with SARS (2002) and MERS (2012). The CDC has suggested that we might have a usable vaccine by September of this year sufficient to treat medical staff and first responders with enough for the rest of us by next spring. Before, then, of course, it will have to go through the usual three stages of clinical trials to confirm both safety and efficacy. My concern is that, as happens with the flu vaccine every year, the anti-vax brigade will take to social media in an attempt to convince people not to take it. Believe it or not, it’s started already. One recent internet gem* is claiming that the coronavirus vaccine will actually contain microchips so that ‘they’ will be able to track all of our movements and exert some form of mind control! I wish I was joking.
When is it all going to end?
I wish I knew so that I could go ahead and rebook the vacation I’ve just had to cancel! There’s really no timeframe yet but I can give you an idea of a few factors, some preferable to others, that might bring it to a close. The first is that it miraculously mutates into a less lethal form and, while still around, becomes no more harmful than the common cold. I doubt anyone seriously believes this with the possible exception of King Donald. In fairness, however, there is a tendency for novel viruses to mutate in such a way that they do gradually become less lethal. Their function in life, if they actually were ‘alive’, would be to go forth and multiply (Genesis 9:7) and to kill their host would be to commit suicide, a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. It’s possible, of course, that, like the influenza virus, warmer weather and increasing humidity is not to its liking. It could simply fade away during the summer months but this would not stop its return, once again like the flu, in the fall and winter when we could be back to square one. There’s no doubt that travel bans, social distancing, contact tracing and staying indoors will reduce the spread of the virus but that’s not something we can do forever. The concern is that once we relax these restrictions and the virus is still out there then it will begin to re-infect people and return as a second wave possibly more deadly than the first if our experience of the Spanish flu (1919) is anything to go by. Developing herd immunity is by far our best bet but, as I’ve previously said, a prior infection may not be sufficient and, even if it were, we’re a long way off from achieving even a 50% infected, recovered and now immune population. We know this thanks to some new data from Iceland* with a tiny population of only 364 thousand but who have recently tested a random selection of 36 thousand people selected from the phone book representing almost 10% of its inhabitants. Of these, only 1700 tested positive which is less than half of one per cent of the population, a long way short of the very conservative estimate (50%) needed to achieve herd immunity.
Finally, I’d like to share with you the concept of Rzero, usually written as R0. This is the average number of new cases resulting from infection by each infected individual before they are no longer infectious. Two factors determine the size of R0: it increases with the ‘infectiousness’ of the virus and also with the number of susceptible (non-immune) people the affected individual comes into contact with. We can’t influence the former but we can reduce the latter which explains why staying at home and social distancing are so effective. Let me give you an example. Imagine R0 is exactly 1.0. This means that each infected person infects just one other before they are no longer infectious. If we start with 100 infected people and allow five cycles of infection, there will still be 100 infected, but different, individuals. R0 values greater than 1.0 will see disease numbers increase exponentially while values below 1.0 will see them decline. Preliminary data from the United Kingdom at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic suggest an R0 value of about 2.5. Starting out with the same one hundred infected individuals, after the same five cycles, the number of infectious cases will have risen to almost ten thousand. After several weeks of social distancing, contact tracing, stay-at-home rules, closing schools, workplaces, sports and entertainment venues etc, R0 had fallen to about 0.6. Under these conditions, the original one hundred cases had fallen to only eight. Clearly, the preventive measures we have been taking are very effective but likely only as long as they are maintained.
Like it or not, permanently emerging from this crisis will almost certainly depend on the development of a safe and effective vaccine as soon as possible and when it finally arrives I’ll be first in line to receive it. Until then stay safe and I wish you all well. Please feel free to share this with others.
Dr Michael Hardy April 17th 2020
* Thanks to Aisling Young for bringing the Iceland data to my attention and to Gianna Manca for the coronavirus vaccine-microchip ‘conspiracy theory’.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Donald Rumsfeld
MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
Who is this handsome young man?
Why it's Donald S. Rumsfeld. Remember him? He brought us Saddam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction,"* the destruction of Iraq, and millions of dead people in the Middle East. What's he doing now? He retired from "public service" to resume his career as a leading executive in the pharmaceutical industry. The company he is currently running (Gilead Pharmaceutical Sciences) is preparing to release its COVID-19 vaccine! Is that good news? The pharmaceutical industry is waiting for laws to mandate universal vaccination. That means YOU. Are you glad?
*A joke in the State Department was "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because Rumsfeld made copies of our delivery slips."
Be sure to check what Wikipedia says. Rumsfeld is odious, Saddam should have been afraid of him. Saddam was a Boy Scout by comparison.
by Morley Evans
Who is this handsome young man?
 |
| Donald S. Rumsfeld |
Why it's Donald S. Rumsfeld. Remember him? He brought us Saddam's "Weapons of Mass Destruction,"* the destruction of Iraq, and millions of dead people in the Middle East. What's he doing now? He retired from "public service" to resume his career as a leading executive in the pharmaceutical industry. The company he is currently running (Gilead Pharmaceutical Sciences) is preparing to release its COVID-19 vaccine! Is that good news? The pharmaceutical industry is waiting for laws to mandate universal vaccination. That means YOU. Are you glad?
*A joke in the State Department was "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because Rumsfeld made copies of our delivery slips."
Be sure to check what Wikipedia says. Rumsfeld is odious, Saddam should have been afraid of him. Saddam was a Boy Scout by comparison.
WHAT ARE THEY UP TO?
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
April 13, 2020
Paul Craig Roberts
Fauci says the government is considering giving out COVID-19 ‘immunity cards’ in order to reopen the economy https://www.businessinsider.com/the-government-is-considering-covid-19-immunity-cards-2020-4
This is absurd. It is a well known established fact that not all get immunity. People cured of the virus have again become infected. This negates the usefulness of “immunity cards.”
How can Fauci and Gates not know this? Clearly, they have a different agenda.
If you thought Bill Gates was intelligent, think again.
The moron wants the economy locked down for 18 months until his vaccine is ready. 18 months in a locked-down economy means no one will be alive to vaccinate with his toxic concoction.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/heres-why-bill-gates-wants-indemnity-are-you-willing-to-take-the-risk/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c94b3721-ea3d-464f-b8cc-68adb387220c
by Morley Evans
 |
| Paul Craig Roberts |
What Are Fauci & Gates Up To?
April 13, 2020
Paul Craig Roberts
Fauci says the government is considering giving out COVID-19 ‘immunity cards’ in order to reopen the economy https://www.businessinsider.com/the-government-is-considering-covid-19-immunity-cards-2020-4
This is absurd. It is a well known established fact that not all get immunity. People cured of the virus have again become infected. This negates the usefulness of “immunity cards.”
How can Fauci and Gates not know this? Clearly, they have a different agenda.
If you thought Bill Gates was intelligent, think again.
The moron wants the economy locked down for 18 months until his vaccine is ready. 18 months in a locked-down economy means no one will be alive to vaccinate with his toxic concoction.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/heres-why-bill-gates-wants-indemnity-are-you-willing-to-take-the-risk/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c94b3721-ea3d-464f-b8cc-68adb387220c
WHAT IF I TOLD YOU
© MMXX V.1.0.0
by Morley Evans
By Bill Sardi
April 18, 2020
What if I told you …….. we know now in the first two decades of the 21st century that viruses, which had made the jump from animals to humans in the recent past, had mutated and targeted vulnerable human populations on earth. These unsympathetic viruses mounted their attack. No one would ever guess they were being directed from an outside source.
What if I told you….. Human populations were so entranced in their cell phones they didn’t realize they were walking into a future viral pandemic of unimaginable proportion. The world was not prepared for such a calamity.
What if I told you….. Literally, a cloud of air pollution that had been gathering over Wuhan, China caused these viruses to deliver aerosolized virus particles into the lungs of unsuspecting individuals. This resulted in a severe form of lower- lobe lung pneumonia where the infected literally succumbed to internal drowning.
What if I told you….. These lung infections coordinated with simultaneous and seemingly unconnected light flashes detected on the surface of the planet Mars, which initially went unreported for fear of panicking the masses in the middle of another panic, an event that is only being revealed here and now for the first time anywhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE, FOLKS
Case fatality rate or individual mortality risk?
There are a lot of scary numbers being distributed, infections, deaths, etc. What we actually need are the number infected out of the total population (326 million), the infection rate and death rate. Otherwise, you might as well say the Martians caused the deaths.
As of Easter Sunday, April 12, 2020, 20,601 American souls are reported to have died of COVID-19 coronavirus in the U.S. this flu season and 533,378 were confirmed by a blood test to have been infected, or out of 326 million Americans, the risk for infection is 0.0016 or almost 2 in 1000 and the risk for death is 0.00006% or 6 in 100,000. Remember, I’m using mortality numbers that are 80% fluff. If 80% of COVID-19 deaths are bogus, then only ~4000 have died, and maybe not from COVID-19.
However, out of 20,601 reported deaths, 8,627 are from New York State where immigrants comprise many cases and were more likely to have tuberculosis than coronavirus and [that is] where Orson Welles II resides.
Of course, these numbers are specious because the US has used a flawed test to detect coronavirus-related disease and the 533,378 figure [infected] is actually much higher and the death rate much, much lower. When does government ever issue real numbers about anything? The American Lung Association reveals the CDC’s 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year is a misrepresentation. In some years flu-related deaths have only amounted to a few hundred people.
Great Britain used an antibody test and an estimated 68% of its citizenry may have been infected. That is a very high infection rate. A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital, a suburb of Chicago, reveals 30-50% of patients tested had coronavirus antibodies and only 10-20% had an active virus. This type of data is not welcome at the CDC that is planning on universal vaccination. But the vast majority of Americans may have already developed an immunity.
A report dated March 31 in The Atlantic estimates over 1 million Americans tested for COVID-19. So, if a half-million COVID-19 cases have been laboratory confirmed (533,378), then we have an infection rate of around 50%. So COVID-19 coronavirus is very infectious but not very lethal. When the vaccine is available, a lot of Americans won’t need it. Authorities are not telling you that.
At the present time, a trio of dishonest and deceitful virologists who advise the President has taken over the world. Wear a (useless) mask. Stay six-feet away. Stay indoors, at home. Be a good American. But what if it’s all a misdirection, Orson Wells redux?
The new spelling for coronavirus: CARONOVIRUS
READ MORE
by Morley Evans
 |
| Run For Your LIFE |
How Easy Is It To Fool Americans?
By Bill Sardi
April 18, 2020
What if I told you….. Human populations were so entranced in their cell phones they didn’t realize they were walking into a future viral pandemic of unimaginable proportion. The world was not prepared for such a calamity.
What if I told you….. Literally, a cloud of air pollution that had been gathering over Wuhan, China caused these viruses to deliver aerosolized virus particles into the lungs of unsuspecting individuals. This resulted in a severe form of lower- lobe lung pneumonia where the infected literally succumbed to internal drowning.
What if I told you….. These lung infections coordinated with simultaneous and seemingly unconnected light flashes detected on the surface of the planet Mars, which initially went unreported for fear of panicking the masses in the middle of another panic, an event that is only being revealed here and now for the first time anywhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE, FOLKS
Case fatality rate or individual mortality risk?
There are a lot of scary numbers being distributed, infections, deaths, etc. What we actually need are the number infected out of the total population (326 million), the infection rate and death rate. Otherwise, you might as well say the Martians caused the deaths.
As of Easter Sunday, April 12, 2020, 20,601 American souls are reported to have died of COVID-19 coronavirus in the U.S. this flu season and 533,378 were confirmed by a blood test to have been infected, or out of 326 million Americans, the risk for infection is 0.0016 or almost 2 in 1000 and the risk for death is 0.00006% or 6 in 100,000. Remember, I’m using mortality numbers that are 80% fluff. If 80% of COVID-19 deaths are bogus, then only ~4000 have died, and maybe not from COVID-19.
However, out of 20,601 reported deaths, 8,627 are from New York State where immigrants comprise many cases and were more likely to have tuberculosis than coronavirus and [that is] where Orson Welles II resides.
Of course, these numbers are specious because the US has used a flawed test to detect coronavirus-related disease and the 533,378 figure [infected] is actually much higher and the death rate much, much lower. When does government ever issue real numbers about anything? The American Lung Association reveals the CDC’s 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year is a misrepresentation. In some years flu-related deaths have only amounted to a few hundred people.
Great Britain used an antibody test and an estimated 68% of its citizenry may have been infected. That is a very high infection rate. A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital, a suburb of Chicago, reveals 30-50% of patients tested had coronavirus antibodies and only 10-20% had an active virus. This type of data is not welcome at the CDC that is planning on universal vaccination. But the vast majority of Americans may have already developed an immunity.
A report dated March 31 in The Atlantic estimates over 1 million Americans tested for COVID-19. So, if a half-million COVID-19 cases have been laboratory confirmed (533,378), then we have an infection rate of around 50%. So COVID-19 coronavirus is very infectious but not very lethal. When the vaccine is available, a lot of Americans won’t need it. Authorities are not telling you that.
At the present time, a trio of dishonest and deceitful virologists who advise the President has taken over the world. Wear a (useless) mask. Stay six-feet away. Stay indoors, at home. Be a good American. But what if it’s all a misdirection, Orson Wells redux?
The new spelling for coronavirus: CARONOVIRUS
READ MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
