Saturday, October 31, 2020

NPR is all over "overwhelmed hospitals" and HHS hiding hospitalization data today--here are the real data minus the spin

First, it is acknowledged that the covidtracking website has had better data than the federal government--in fact it was started at the beginning of the pandemic by reporters from the Atlantic because the federal data released by CDC was limited and unreliable.  Subsequently it has become foundation funded and its founder left the project.

This graph, from Our World in Data, compares countries wrt their Covid deaths per million population, as the pandemic progressed. You can see that deaths in the US are only up slightly at end October, and have been fairly steady for the past 3 months.

Yesterday there were more people in the US hospitalized (46,688) than since August 13.  There are 746,000 staffed hospital beds in the US, which means Covid patients are filling 6.26% of them, or 1 in every 17 beds.  We have averaged 799 US Covid deaths per day over the last week. Here are graphs created by the CovidTracking Project I mentioned above.

While tests and cases have been skyrocketing, deaths have not, at least so far.  Hopefully that reflects appropriate treatment with HCQ and other drugs, despite NIH/Fauci advice to use nothing but remdesivir, which the WHO multicenter trial showed to be of no benefit.

Yesterday the WSJ published an excellent piece that explains a lot of things, but very quickly.  Track and trace is useless because there are too many asymptomatic cases.  There are probably 50-100 million Americans who have already had Covid, most asymptomatic, and are immune and will not benefit from a vaccine.  Mortality is similar to flu.  Read it or listen.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

TIME Magazine does its bit for the Great Reset

Time Magazine has hosted 22 thinkers doing short pieces on the Great Reset.  The thinkers include the head of the IMF (who wants to apply green stress tests to her loans), Harry and Meghan (calling out misinformation) and disgraced ex-PM Tony Blair (calling for global cooperation).  Sadly, it's no joke.

r/conspiracytheories - TIME’s new international cover: “THE GREAT RESET” Dated Nov 2 - Nov 9 2020. INTERESTING!!!

Sunday, October 25, 2020

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? These 5 are the best videos to explain it to us--please don't miss them!

 1. Robert F Kennedy Jr. wraps up everything in 18 minutes--the best speech I have ever heard

2.  Vandana Shiva tells Joe Mercola the background to the current state of things, how Indian farmers successfully fought back, gives us perspective and hope

3.  James Corbett explains the Great Reset, which is the rebranding of technocracy and central control, for the sake of central control

4.  Shoshana Zuboff explains how social media companies'surveillance of our online behaviors have taught them to read our emotions and fears to sell us products, candidates, and more.  Does this help explain why there is such a great divide in the US?

5.  Nazism, COVID-19 and the destruction of modern medicine: An interview with Vera Sharav, Part One

Thursday, October 22, 2020

My interview discussing the origin of Coronavirus, "gain of function" research, and key people aligned with creating and prolonging the pandemic

Here's the one hour video:

Ronnie Cummins and Alexis Baden-Mayer of the Organic Consumers Association were wonderful to speak with about Covid-19, its murky origins, and the murky response.  Both the Organic Consumers Association and I are trying to get out critical information to the public on all aspects of coronavirus and the pandemic. 

I encourage readers to consider signing one of two petitions calling for a ban on biological warfare (a.k.a. gain of function) research:

1.  For doctors, lawyers, scientists and policy experts to sign

2.  For everyone else to sign 


With respect to a comment about me being the only person saying this is a lab-derived organism, that is hardly the case.

I would say, instead, that Andersen K et al. in Nature Med last March is the only scientific paper claiming it isn't.  And that paper has been widely criticized, not only by me but many others.  It makes no sense, among other things.

A recent 48 page summary of much of the evidence, citing the work of many scientists, is here:

There is plenty of evidence for a lab origin on my blog, going back to late March.  I have since moved on to analyze other aspects of the pandemic.

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

TRUTH re hospitalizations and deaths and treatment, as of today

In my state of Maine, 61% of deaths occurred in long-term care facilities. In our next-door neighbor New Hampshire, 81% of deaths occurred in these facilities.

On April 21, 2020 the United States reached the maximum number of patients hospitalized with Covid-19:  

59, 780

Only a tiny number of hospitals were overwhelmed, and by the time temporary staff arrived in several weeks to help out, the peak was over and they were not needed. 

On October 19, nearly 6 months later, we have 

37,744 hospitalized with Covid-19. This is 63%, or 5/8ths of what we had at peak.  Yet the dire warnings are back.  STAT News, a Boston Globe spin-off, is also an outlet that gets paid to plant articles.

STAT's latest headline reads, ‘At a breaking point’ : New surge of Covid-19 cases has states, hospitals scrambling, yet again.

The truth?  The US has over 746,000 staffed hospital beds.  Covid cases are filling 5% of them. So, while there may be a hospital here or there that has more than its share of cases, all that is required is to transfer some patients, and/or redirect ambulances, and close the hospital briefly to admissions.  This is done all the time.  It started decades before anyone ever heard of SARS-1 or SARS-2.  

STAT is at it again, ginning up the fear whenever it can. We now know how to take care of these patients, unlike during the peak in April.  (See earlier posts on Dr. McCulloughDr. Zelenko's and Dr. Marik's protocols.). Check the statistics for yourself. 

Deaths are not skyrocketing either.  For the past week, the US has averaged 708 deaths/day, just 39% the average 1823 deaths/day, which occurred during the first week of May.

Some places never had a "first wave" and are having it now. There will probably be many bumps as first waves occur in areas that were not significantly hit earlier.  Expect them.  Treat them correctly, and there should be very few deaths and very few chronic problems.

Don't just treat those at "high risk"--treat everybody with symptoms, to protect them from a potential chronic condition. That is the job of doctors, to treat patients using the best methods, not to march in lockstep (goosestep) with government advice.  The government's terrible advice, the NIH Covid treatment guidelines, made remdesivir the standard of care, despite all evidence to the contrary; and said that HCQ should not be used, again defying the evidence.  The NIH Guidelines were shepherded through by Fauci's capo (enforcer), cochair Clifford Lane, by including 16 members who had financial conflicts of interest with remdesivir's manufacturer, Gilead. (Nine of the 16 had such conflicts but ended them before the past year, allowing them to avoid being listed on the current NIH disclosure form.) 

These "guidelines" defy reason, and have killed off lots of Americans. Are we Nazi doctors or are we real doctors?  

Saturday, October 17, 2020

Honest data from South Carolina on deaths; now all we need are ages, and number of deaths with no comorbidities/ABC

 From ABC News:

As of Thursday's latest data, there have been 3,400 deaths from COVID-19 in South Carolina.

Officials said that many of those had one or more other conditions:

  • 60.4 percent had cardiovascular disease
  • 34.6 percent had diabetes
  • 30.9 percent had a neurologic or intellectual disability
  • 22.7 percent had COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)
  • 21.2 percent had kidney disease
  • 13 percent had congestive heart failure
  • 12.3 percent had a previous stroke

Friday, October 16, 2020

WHO says remdesivir does not work: why isn't the media piling on Tony Faker Fauci?

Has Fauci ever said he was sorry? Admitted he was wrong? Apologized for wasting many of our billions on his illusory HIV vaccines? Said maybe it wasn't such a good idea to fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology?   Just a reminder, below, of how he faked a remdesivir trial.  I won't even start on how he faked the NIH treatment guidelines for Covid, killing thousands of Americans.

Somebody, please replace this fraud. 

Saturday, May 2, 2020

Faking results: Fauci's NIAID-paid Remdesivir Study changed its Outcome Measures Twice, in order to show even a whiff of benefit

Screen-Shot-2020-04-30-at-2.06.47-PM.png (1137×637)

Below you can go to the site for the NAIAD Remdesivir trial (ACTT) that Fauci claimed created a new "standard of care" for COVID-19.  The same Fauci who claimed to be a purist about hydroxychloroquine, demanding well designed randomized clinical trials before using it, has done the unthinkable in medicine: changed the goalposts, twice, on his remdesivir study in order to provide the appearance of benefit.  
Even then, benefit was quite small.  

A month ago, I wondered if Fauci was a fraud and a hypocrite.  He has now proven he is both.  When will Trump hire a competent doctor to lead an effective response to COVID-19?  Preferably one who was not, like Fauci, responsible for funding the creation of novel, virulent coronaviruses.
Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)

UPDATE October 27:  The WSJ tells us that Fauci's NIAID has "halted testing a combination of Eli Lilly's Covid-19 antibody drug and remdesivir (brand name Veklury) in hospitalized Covid-19 patients after an independent committee found a lack of benefit." In the subtitle WSJ says, "The study paused due to a safety concern..."

CDC estimates how well flu vaccine worked last year--but its numbers don't support its claims

First, what CDC claims:

During the 2019-2020 flu season, #fluvaccine helped prevent [Notice, they carefully avoid saying "prevented"--Nass] 6,300 flu deaths, or the equivalent of saving about 17 lives per day over the course of a year. Learn more about the burden of influenza and the effects of annual #flu vaccination:

2019-2020 Tables for Influenza Burden and Burden-Averted Estimates
Table 1: Influenza vaccine coverage, by age group — United States 2019–2020 influenza season
Vaccine coverage * Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09†Vaccine effectiveness against influenza B/Victoria†
Age Group%95% CI%95% CI%95% CI

6 months-4 years


5-17 yrs


18-49 yrs


50-64 yrs


≥65 years


*Estimates from FluVaxView. (12)

†Estimates from US Flu VE Network. (13)

But look at the confidence intervals: three include negative numbers, which show that a) the results are not statistically significant, and therefore the effectiveness numbers are unsupported, and b) it is possible, based on the best studies CDC chose to use, that the vaccine might be associated with increased flu infections.

The Influenza A virus contained in the vaccine is for the 2009 swine flu, which has been around for 11 years, and everyone has been exposed to it, almost certainly engendering a high level of population immunity without the vaccine. Did the vaccine add anything at all to swine flu immunity?

Also interesting, the 2019-2020 flu shots contained 3 or 4 different influenza antigens, depending on the shot. But CDC has omitted information on the effectiveness of the H3N2 component, and of the possible second influenza B component. Presumably they provided even less benefit, and possibly made recipients more susceptible to those viruses. Or perhaps CDC guessed wrong, and those viruses didn't actually circulate last year. But since CDC decided they should be included in last year's flu shots, and over 100 million Americans were injected with those antigens, isn't CDC responsible for letting us know whether those vaccine components were associated with any benefit? Harm?

If you read on in this CDC document, you find out that all the numbers are actually estimates. CDC chooses to gives its estimates using 3 significant figures, as if the numbers are highly accurate, when all they are, are guesses based on models.

I am glad the Trump administration refused to accept CDC's guesses instead of real numbers for Covid deaths and cases. I am sorry the method that they chose for data collection has not provided the data we all need. Why is it that whether you use the CDC or a private contractor, in the midst of a pandemic, spending lots of money, the White House is unable to obtain accurate information on something as rudimentary as the ages of hospitalized and deceased Covid patients? What exactly is obstructing this simple data collection?

Lab Escapes--not so rare after all/ Martin Furmanski, MD

Scientist’s Working Group on Chemical and Biologic Weapons 

Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation 

February 17, 2014 

Introduction: The danger to world or regional public health from the escape from microbiology laboratories of pathogens capable of causing pandemics, or Potentially Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs) has been the subject of considerable discussion1,2,3,4 including mathematical modeling of the probability and impact of such escapes5 . The risk of such releases has generally been determined from estimates of laboratory infections that are often incomplete, except for the recent 2013 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report6 , which is a significant source of recent data on escapes from undetected and unreported laboratory-acquired infections (LAIs). 

This paper presents an historical review of outbreaks of PPPs or similarly transmissible pathogens that occurred from presumably well-funded and supervised nationally supported laboratories. It should be emphasized that these examples are only the “tip of the iceberg” because they represent laboratory accidents that have actually caused illness outside of the laboratory in the general public environment. The list of laboratory workers who have contracted potentially contagious infections in microbiology labs but did not start community outbreaks is much, much longer. The examples here are not “near misses;” these escapes caused real-world outbreaks. 

Methods of pathogen identification 

Modern genetic analysis allows pathogens to be identified, and given a sufficient catalog of isolates of the same pathogen, it is possible to determine if two specimens are identical or very closely related. Because all pathogens that are circulating in the environment show genetic changes over time, one can date the time the pathogen circulated. For instance, for 20th century human and swine influenza viruses beginning in the 1930s, one can generally place a virus to a particular year. With modern rapid genomic analysis outbreaks can be traced with considerable accuracy: for instance the 2009 pandemic pH1N1 influenza outbreak has been analyzed with confidence limits of branchpoints in its first wave defined within days or weeks, and individual transmission chains can be identified7 . 

Example #1: British smallpox escapes, 1966, 1972, 1978 

The WHO’s successful effort to eradicate natural transmission of smallpox in the 1970s highlighted the risk that virology laboratories posed as a source of epidemics. This Escaped Viruses-final 2-17-14 2 was clearly demonstrated in the United Kingdom, where from 1963-1978 only 4 cases of smallpox (with no deaths) were reported from smallpox endemic areas, while during the same period at least 80 cases and 3 deaths were the result of three separate escapes of the smallpox virus from two different accredited smallpox laboratories.8 Much of the current policy and practice in biosafety and biocontainment of dangerous pathogens can be traced to the political and professional reaction to these outbreaks. 

The UK became a sensitive test system for smallpox laboratory escapes because it ended compulsory smallpox vaccination in 1946. Public sentiment in the UK had always included significant resistance to and apathy towards vaccination, and so by the mid 1960s and through the 1970s a large proportion of children and young adults had never been vaccinated, and many older persons were never re-vaccinated after initial childhood or military vaccinations. Thus the protective herd immunity in the general public, which earlier rendered impotent any laboratory escapes, disappeared. At the same time, the considerable volume of travel and immigration from smallpox endemic areas of Africa and the Indian subcontinent meant that surveillance for imported smallpox cases was required. UK maintained several smallpox laboratories at medical schools for both research and to support clinical diagnosis. 

The first laboratory outbreak to be recognized began in March 1972, in a 23 year old laboratory assistant at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who had observed harvesting of live smallpox virus from eggs. This had been done on an open bench, as was routine, the laboratory having no isolation cabinets at that time. Before she was placed in isolation, she infected two visitors to a patient in an adjacent bed, both of whom died. They in turn infected a nurse, who survived9. 

The recognition of this laboratory escape resulted in several investigations, which led to the establishment of guidelines for laboratories handling smallpox and other dangerous pathogens. These recommendations included handling dangerous pathogens in biological safety cabinets only in certain dedicated rooms by specifically trained and designated personnel. Also guidelines were issued for isolation with dedicated gowns and gloves, and the establishment of proper ventilation facilities to maintain negative pressure in these rooms and cabinets. These recommendations are the direct precursors to the current Biosafety Laboratory (BSL) level protocols. 

By 1977 the natural chain of smallpox transmission had been interrupted, and the WHO was in the process of reducing the number of laboratories holding smallpox virus. In August of 1978 a 40 year old medical photographer at Birmingham Medical School developed smallpox, and died. She infected her mother, who survived. She worked in a studio and darkroom that was immediately above the smallpox laboratory at Birmingham Medical School. Investigation revealed that although the long established laboratory had been inspected and approved to handle smallpox virus, it did not have sufficient facilities to meet the new biocontainment requirements, and was scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of 1978. Moreover, work on smallpox had accelerated substantially in order to complete existing projects before the closing, and work with smallpox was performed by laboratory personnel who did not receive appropriate training and supervision, and Escaped Viruses-final 2-17-14 3 appropriate isolation practices were frequently violated. The most likely route of exposure of the Medical Photographer was by transport of infectious aerosols generated by a centrifuge through building ventilation ducts that were improperly sealed and allowed aerosols to be delivered to one of the Photographer’s working spaces. Laboratory notebooks and the photographer’s work logs indicated that the strain infecting the photographer was handled in the laboratory on the same days that the photographer worked in the potentially contaminated workspace, on dates consistent with the photographer’s calculated exposure date. Dr Henry Bedson, a world renowned smallpox investigator who was responsible for the Birmingham laboratory, committed suicide as a result of the outbreak (Shooter 1980). 

The 1978 investigation re-examined a 1966 smallpox outbreak, which in retrospect was strikingly similar to the 1978 outbreak. The earliest case identified in 1966 was in a medical photographer who worked at Birmingham Medical School in the same facility as the 1978 case. This outbreak was caused by a low-virulence strain of smallpox (variola minor), and it caused at least 72 cases of smallpox from February to August 1966, spread through the midlands of Britain, and Wales. The vast majority of cases were in unvaccinated children or young adults. There were no deaths. Retrospective review again revealed variola minor had been manipulated in the smallpox laboratory at a time appropriate to cause the infection in the photographer working a floor above.

Example #2: The “re-emergence” of H1N1 human influenza in 1977...

To finish this very important article, go to:

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Critical Care Covid Management Protocol

Critical Care Covid Management Protocol, updated Sept. 28 by Marik et al.

HCQ was omitted, I am told, to avoid controversy.  These are effective treatments also.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

The testing mess, lack of reliable data on Covid-19, and a hypothesis why

UPDATE:  According to Eric Schneider, MD in the July 25 NEJM, page 300, "The most recent congressional rescue package features $25 billion for testing." So, in the absence of regulation, if you wanted to make a quick killing, all that was needed was to develop a Covid test and offer it in the US between March and October.  Read on.

On January 5 the Chinese scientist who sequenced the first known SARS-2 genome uploaded it to a US database and to the WHO. Within the first 10 days of January a sequence for the Chinese SARS-CoV-2 virus was widely circulated by Edward Holmes of Australia. (He coauthored the March Nature Medicine commentary I criticized here and here.) Holmes works closely with Chinese scientists who passed the sequence to him, possibly without CCP authorization. Here the GISAID international database explains the origin of its reference SARS-CoV-2 strain.

People were able to immediately start devising PCR tests based on the deposited sequences, even without an actual virus. 

After that, as the virus' range extended, scientists around the world started isolating the virus. There have been many thousands of isolations from patients from many countries, and scientists have decoded the genome, i.e., sequenced the virus,  and shown which mutations are occurring when, in different parts of the world. Alina Chan helped create a website that characterizes these strain differences by location, based on sequences uploaded to public databases by scientists around the world.  

The virus has been cultured in many countries, as early as January-February, including by CDC:

1.  Akst J. Australian Lab Cultures New Coronavirus as Infections Climb. The Scientist.

2.  CDC has grown the COVID-19 virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including for additional genetic characterization. The cell-grown virus was sent to NIH’s BEI ResourcesRepository for use by the broad scientific community.

But the virus cannot be cultured in ordinary hospital labs, because SARS is a designated biological warfare "Select" agent with pandemic potential and must (by US law) be cultured only in high containment laboratories. So culture tests are not now commercially available, but they are being performed under specified conditions.

Testing for the virus is a disaster. There are 186 tests for which FDA has issued emergency use authorizations (PCR, Antibody, and Rapid Antigen tests) that have been in use. I discussed the antibody testing disaster here. Today I focus on the PCR test disaster.

The CDC made the inexplicable decisions to restrict US testing by allowing only the test CDC had developed to be used, throughout January and February. It was a test that was both unnecessarily cumbersome, and faulty. Perhaps because CDC was well aware of the problems, as many labs had pointed them out, CDC would agree to test only those who almost certainly were infected. This harmed lots of patients, and allowed the virus to spread silently for a long time. It further slowed down the development of better and more accessible tests by private, university and state public health labs. CDC's ban on other tests was only lifted on February 28.  (Tom Frieden, former CDC Director, has called for an independent panel to investigate what went wrong.)

(The CDC link below no longer takes you to this CDC graph, which shows how few tests CDC performed during those first two months.) 
Number of specimens tested for SARS CoV-2 by CDC labs (N=3698) and U.S. public health laboratories by date of specimen collection

Possibly germane is the fact that CDC's Covid response was managed by Lisa Messonier, MD, who is Rod Rosenstein's sister. (Rosenstein is the former Deputy Attorney General who, according to the NYT, discussed wearing a wire to record President Trump and suggested that cabinet members consider using the 25th Amendment against Trump.)

By Feb 29, the FDA said it would allow companies to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for their tests, but the procedure was so complicated that only 6 entities applied over the first week. By the middle of March we still didn’t have many tests in the US, so the FDA then said anyone who had developed a test could offer it, without any review, and subsequently send the FDA information on the test performance. This was a
By late March there was an explosion of tests being offered, but nobody had any idea how they compared with each other, nor how sensitive nor specific they were, apart from their manufacturers' claims.

After a while, FDA realized that many of these tests were worthless, and they took a number of tests made in China off the market, but left the others, still over 100 tests. On October 8, FDA announced it would no longer review (and issue) more EUAs for Covid lab tests, in order to "make the best use" of agency resources

There are no reliable numbers I know of for how well these tests have performed relative to any gold standard. (There is no gold standard yet.) 

Part of the problem is the virus itself. It doesn’t always stimulate the antibodies that labs are looking for, and some people who get Covid do not make those antibodies in sufficient quantity to be measured. There were similar problems with SARS-1 tests, although, since this virus causes higher nasopharyngeal titers than SARS-1, PCR and antigen tests ought to be more sensitive.  Also, SARS-1 caused 8,000 total cases and SARS-2 750 million, so you would have expected some of those issues to be resolved by now. 

As far as the PCR tests go, it was hoped they would be the gold standard but it has not worked out that way. There are many potential problems with PCR tests. The target nucleotide sequence  that is chosen may not be totally specific to this virus, and cross react with sequences from other microorganisms or ?

A number of different primers (approximately 20 nucleotide long sequences) have been selected for use by different companies. "Laboratories have used different combinations of primers and probes, while some laboratories do not disclose the targets or sequences of their primers/probes..."  We don’t know how they compare with each other. Different machines are being used. Different cycle lengths, i.e., number of doubling cycles, are used in different labs. The different tests have widely varying limits of detection, by 3 plus orders of magnitude. Furthermore, potential lab contamination is always an issue with PCR tests, which can cause false positives. Finally, PCR tests are widely acknowledged to pick up false positives from viral debris, for up to 3 months after patients cease to be infectious. 

If the sample is not obtained carefully, or if it is obtained too early or too late in the course of the illness, the amount of virus on the swab may not reach the limits of detection of the test. 

There is another big wrinkle, when you don't have a near-perfect test, which is termed the "pretest probability." I have not figured out a way to explain it simply. Basically, if a patient has Covid symptoms and SARS-2 is present in the community, a positive test is likely to be accurate.  But if patients don't have SARS-2 symptoms, and/or there is a very low level of SARS-2 circulating, then, of course, truly positive individuals are rare. In this situation, false positive test results may be more common than true positives. The less likely a person is to have a infection, the more likely that a positive test result will be false.

Can the rates of false positives and false negatives be calculated?  Not with the data that are currently publicly available. I doubt CDC and FDA can, either.

The FDA posted a website on October 7 in which FDA says it sent out small test kits to dozens of companies and labs that developed tests, to see how the tests/labs perform. Many labs did not return the results to FDA:

A basic metric for all infectious diseases is the proportion of infected but asymptomatic cases.  Generally these cases develop immunity.  When the WHO has estimated that over 10% of the world's population (>780 million cases) has been infected, surely the great majority have been asymptomatic.  I say this because the WHO says 38 million cases of Covid have been reported, which is under 5% of WHO's estimated number of cases.  Yet we still have no reliable information on the % of asymptomatics, nor of the % of immunes. 

In both the US and the world, cases are rising, but deaths are not.  Death rates in hospitalized patients are a small fraction of what they were. This tells us that the virus is less lethal than it was, and/or treatment has improved, and/or the rise in cases is, at least in part, due to the massive numbers now being tested (about 1 million people per day in the US).  Often, asymptomatic people are being screened, found positive, and designated as cases. My county had an 'outbreak' of Covid in migrant workers who were screened during the blueberry harvest, yet none had symptoms.  We need to know if these positive but asymptomatic people are infectious, but currently we cannot reliably tell.  Perhaps if we knew how many PCR cycles it took for them to produce a positive result, we could estimate the amount of virus present and make an educated guess about infectivity. However, the labs are not required by FDA to provide this information, and they don't.

Coupled with the above confusion is the fact that the media have given us misinformation about most aspects of the pandemic.  Not only is the public confused by this testing mess, and the unwillingness of our public health agencies to commit themselves regarding the validity and meaning of test results, and making sure only quality tests are being used.  We are also befuddled about who gets sick, who gets chronic covid, and why certain treatments have been suppressed while others have been pushed, despite the absence of supportive data.  What exactly are the patterns of age, disease severity and preexisting conditions in Covid patients?  What is the evidence that masking and social distancing have worked in the US?  Why does CDC say to maintain a 6 foot distance while WHO says 3 feet is enough?  A Reuters article noted:

China, Denmark, France, Hong Kong and Singapore recommend social distancing of 1 meter, and many people also choose to, or are required to, wear face masks in public spaces.

Australia, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal advise people to keep 1.5m apart. Switzerland this week also reduced the required distance to 1.5m from 2m.

I conclude that we are being played by the government and the media, and every piece of information they present to us I now scrutinize for an ulterior motive, which is often to ramp up the fear of Covid-19.

If you look at the suppression of effective treatments, the falsely elevated case and death numbers, and the prolonged lockdowns which make little sense--because this is a disease that can be effectively treated, even without remdesivir and vaccines, and which, at this point in time, seems to have mortality similar to influenza (2 in 1,000 cases)--you realize we are being subjected to a wholly different agenda than what is claimed.

We are being made to think this pandemic is much more severe than it really is, and the powers that be are doing their best to prolong the emergency. For example, Tony Fauci finds it a challenge to sufficiently scare the public: 
"The wide range of clinical manifestations of the disease ... makes conveying the dangerousness of Covid-19 incredibly challenging," Fauci said in an October 13 interview with STAT.
Our economies are being destroyed and many jobs will never come back. (US 2nd quarter GDP declined 33%, on par with the Great Depression.)

There is a meme that has been used by leaders of multiple countries and the World Economic Forum, and that is “Build back better." 

My best current hypothesis is that the World Economic Forum and its ilk are using the pandemic as a means to destroy the current economy, impoverish many millions of people, and rebuild and finance it to their own specifications.

They are using terms like: preventing climate change, green, save the earth, biodiversity, sustainability, non-racist, equitable, fair-- to sweeten the image of what is to come.

Which seems to be a surveillance state with increased top down control and a reduced standard of living. Green goals may be part of it; after all, the leaders need pristine forests and fields for their own use. Maybe, or maybe not, for our use. 

This view is consistent with statements by Peter Daszak, CEO of EcoHealth Alliance, who is associated with WIV, NIAID, DOD and facilitated transfers of bat coronaviruses found  around the world to scientific and military labs. Quoted in the WaPo, “Pandemics as a whole are increasing in frequency,” said Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist who is president of EcoHealth Alliance, a public health organization [a charitable way to describe his organization--Nass] that studies emerging diseases. “It’s not a random act of God. It’s caused by what we do to the environment."  
Daszac told Slate, "I’ve found that things like land use, change, deforestation, road building, mining, and agricultural intensification are the reasons we push ourselves into wildlife habitat and get infected."
Peter Horby, co-director of the Recovery trial in the UK, which poisoned people with HCQ to prevent its use for Covid, recently tweeted, "this is where we should be headed" regarding a video on bicycle commuting produced by the World Economic Forum. The NYT and other outlets have run similar pieces on how human incursions into nature are destroying nature and producing pandemics.  In August, Tony Fauci and David Morens, in CELL, wrote,
"in a human-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences. We remain at risk for the foreseeable future. COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature..."
The pandemic and prolonged lockdowns, which are huge overreactions to the actual seriousness of the illness, coupled with suppression of effective treatments, appear to be the means to get us to the "new normal" aka "Great Reset".

UPDATE October 17:  Not sure there is another agenda here?  Why is the World Economic Forum launching a health passport that could be required to travel?  The Commons Project Foundation and the World Economic Forum announced the launching of international trials for CommonPass, a digital health pass for travelers to securely verify their COVID-19 test status. The project's chief medical officer is Bradley Perkins, a former CDC doctor who was an expert on biological weapons, but could not find any anthrax at the AMI building in Florida, telling staff to continue working there for several days before gross contamination was discovered. “Without the ability to trust COVID-19 tests - and eventually vaccine records - across international borders, many countries will feel compelled to retain full travel bans and mandatory quarantines for as long as the pandemic persists,” said Dr. Bradley Perkins, Chief Medical Officer of The Commons Project. Which was launched a couple of years ago with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Professor Klaus Schwab on The Great Reset

Thursday, October 8, 2020

How many Covid deaths have occurred daily, on average, during the first week of each month in the US?

March              3           (daily average February 29-March 7)

April.         1376           (daily average March 31-April 7)

May            1823          (daily average April 30-May 7)

June              788          (daily average May 3-June 7)

July               525          (daily average June 30-July 7)

August        1056          (daily average July 31-August 7)

September     817         (daily average August 31-September 7)

October         666          (daily average September 30-October 7)

*CURRENT   810       (daily death avg Oct 21-28)

Data obtained from

What is not being reported:  

  • average age at time of death, 
  • other comorbidities, 
  • % of deaths occurring in nursing homes or assisted living situations, 
  • whether there are excess deaths above the expected number, and 
  • current numbers for all causes of deaths.  

We hear about the outliers, like the first US person proven to get Covid twice, but we don't know about the averages.  We don't know about how the numbers of deaths from suicides, alcoholism and drug abuse compare to previous years. Are we seeing more deaths from cancer, heart attacks or 'sudden deaths'?  These are the data that would allow us to understand the pandemic in perspective.  These are the data that are hidden.

The one person who got Covid twice and died was an 89 y/o woman from Holland being treated for a blood cancer.

Have staff working in congregate living settings been fully trained in infection control?  Been issued adequate equipment?  These important issues are no longer being reported. Why?

How many medical staff are taking prophylactic medications?  We know that half a million Americans (not previously on the drug) purchased HCQ in March and April.  How many Americans are using it now? Is it affecting outpatient morbidity and mortality?  The doctors using it, and willing to come forward, say an unequivocal YES.

Covid data, inadequately reported by CDC, was to be rerouted to HHS.  So far, we have heard no improvement in disease reporting. Will we?