I said this in 2020, right in the beginning. They actually convinced totally healthy people, that not only they could be sick, but would kill people if they dared share space with them. Talk about a psychological mind fuck. People that still believe this, and they are out there, need to be kidnapped and deprogrammed, like what they do to cult members, or they are lost forever.
I said it in 2020 as well - first time a colleague ran away from me in red-faced terror after a surprise around-the-corner hallway meeting. Pure PsyOp - warfare - to get to e.g. mail in ballots to steal the election from an historically shoe-in, strong economy sitting president. Asymptomatic spread was the principle mass formation psychosis driver. "HIV Positive" 35 years earlier was the trial run. At least this time an asymptomatic case did not result in administration of a lethal drug (remdesivir vs AZT).
I would have laughed out loud at that. When I used to work with people, colleagues would run away from me in terror long before covid, and it was always a good thing. Yes, but in the corona freak-out even NO cases have resulted in the administration of poisonous and lethal shots.
Rather than argue asymptomatic spread is impossible, I think it needs to be acknowledged it's a risk that exists.
While also acknowledging we can't stop the spread. Masks, lockdowns and their warp speed shots have all failed miserably. Masks are sold with disclaimers that admit it can't prevent covid. China has enacted the most extreme lockdowns in the world and still fails to control the spread while creating a humanitarian crisis on every other measure.
It's tough deciding if the shots are worse than the lockdowns in terms of damage, but with time I expect the shots to be recognized as the worst mistake. Lives lost, livelihoods taken away, trust in almost every institution destroyed.
Lockdowns and masks were the NPI Fear-amplification tools that were employed to increase uptake of the shots. Without that requisite fear the shots wouldn't have had any where near the uptake. Difficult call as to which was worse, but when in doubt I default to the original sin of the intentional spreading of fear that masks and lockdowns did. I'm old enough to remember what the word for spreading fear is: terrorism. We were terrorized by our government, media and corporations to accept so much destruction and sacrifice of lives.
FDR famously said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." As totalitarianism was rising around the world on the back of fear. Knowing how dangerous fear is to free, democratic people. The horrors visited on the world in the 1930's-1950's never would've been possible without the guilty governments, media and corporations collaborating to spread fear. Worse, imho.
Yes but it’s important not to call something a big risk that is in fact vanishingly small. There was belated acknowledgment of this fact but I’m too lazy to look for the article
It's a big risk if you believe containment measures like lockdowns work. It builds upon the false premise we can control it, if not for that one vulnerability. The reality is that we're not even close to being able to contain it, which makes asymptomatic spread a ridiculous boogeyman.
You are right about it being promoted as an especially dangerous risk at one point. And then later on they quietly admitted people that were asymptomatic but positive were putting out a massively smaller viral load and much less contagious.
My point on it being a hypothetically big risk is trying to apply logic where there was none.
It's all damaging. And the economies of the world are only now starting to take a hit. But the vaccines, masks and lockdowns are all damaging and the people who implemented it need to be put on trial for this. Whatever the middling agents of stupidity (i.e. the class who in large part implemented it) have been convinced of, and I suspect that it's different for each playing on their own pet project, they're also wrong. What should be done with them?
It's a question of what should be done with the authorities at all levels who implemented ILLEGAL mandates, and found they could get away with it. In most cases these mandates STILL do not have a basis in law. Yet they have established a precedent that will be used as a scaffold for future unlawful actions.
I am not convinced asymptomatic spread does not exist. Cornell University reopened and had everyone injected with a worthless vaccine as well with worthless masks on. Then they randomly decided to also have roving groups of testers run around and just test normal healthy kids.
With almost everyone vaccinated at Cornell University, 1,082 students have contracted THE COVID in one week. On 12/14/2021 they had 269 infections in a single day. So far no deaths. The closed down the campus. This does not seem very “rare” or “Breakthrough” does it?
Asymptomatic spread is a misnomer for aerosolised transmission occurring in public indoor spaces where people are unable to trace the transmission chain. They end up assuming that the perfectly healthy friend they spent time chatting to in a bar must have "asymptomatically" infected them, when in fact they were simply exposed to (and susceptible to) lingering viral particles exhaled by someone who was present in the same space at some point during a set time window.
Meanwhile, many of those who exhale contagious viral particles may not be particularly sick -- but that doesn't mean they are "asymptomatic". Remember that to start with, governments only emphasised fever and cough as covid symptoms; many people mistakenly believed they couldn't possibly have covid because their symptoms were things like a mild headache, upset stomach, body aches, loss of smell, fatigue, etc.
Separately to this, we had mass PCR testing of healthy people with the tests run at 40+ cycle thresholds. This meant that a lot of "asymptomatic infections" were detected -- but what these test results merely showed was that viral fragments were present in people. This wasn't evidence of a current infection but evidence of either a) prior infection, which would imply a certain level of immunity, or b) exposure without sickness, which would likewise imply a certain level of immunity.
Never before in history would testing positive to a test not designed as a diagnostic indicate illness -- in fact it would indicate the opposite: robust protection from or resistance to illness!
As for testing, we must consider that CV is now a part of the background noise in our microbiological environment, and there is great evidence to reflect that. Evidence in positivity rates in wildlife tested regularly like deer by the USDA, big cats in zoos, other species like bats (originated with, right?) that are capable of interspecies transmission, aka wildlife reservoirs, not just human-to-human transmission. And evidence in studies of the microbiology of air reveals bacteria, phage and virus have been proven to remain viable suspended in the atmosphere even across vast oceans in dust clouds that create protective microenvironments within them, link below.
These realities make it likely that at any given time a set percentage of the population will have genetic material presence of a number of microbiological hazards. Fortunately, most rendered inert and harmless, microscopic skeletons of microbiology that are in the invisible sea we breathe in. Remember, PCR tests are used to detect dinosaur DNA in fossils, not live dinosaurs.
So if say, 10% of the population has viral DNA in/on them at any given time, (even inanimate objects such as soda cans have tested positive) then mass testing is simply a reflection of that microbiology background noise. "Cases" (an imaginary, made up term created for pandemic fear, virology only recognizes "infections" as a measure) are a product of volume of tests.
In this hypothetical, 100,000 tests = 10,000 cases. 1,000,000 tests = 100,000 cases. Which means that all authorities have to do is increase testing to produce an "outbreak." And testing is increased when fear is amplified by compliant media and authorities shouting into their megaphones that we must worry. Testing is like a spigot that authorities can dial up or down. Combined with the theft of language, the linguistic trickery of "cases" vs. "infections" a pandemic is created, emergency powers are imposed and submitted to, and totalitarianism rules the land. Easy-peasy. If you're a totalitarian in control of the megaphone.
Atmospheric Movement of Microorganisms in Clouds of Desert Dust and Implications for Human Health
Since the very beginning, I was bothered by the fact that every supposedly positive test was labeled a "case", which to the average person would translate as "the person is sick with symptoms and being treated by a doctor".
Yes, it was ridiculous from day 1. No one has ever considered a positive result on a test to be a "case" before. There are false positives on pregnancy tests, too -- we don't count them as pregnancies!
"Cases" have never been natural and medical science-based statistics - those would be known as "infections." "Cases" are are a social and behavioral science-based term, devoid of any significance other than ability to amplify fear. Linguistics.
See my other comment in this thread that explains and supports this assertion more.
I was livid. It increased the fear exponentially. If tested had been done honestly, it would have been easier for people to get a clear picture of the actual risk. Many many cases with few serious illnesses and deaths means it’s less dangerous not more! But you need an honest context to know that.
Exactly! Instead of getting on TV every day and warning everyone how high the "case numbers" were, the governor of my state should have been telling people NOT to get tested if they have no symptoms, and pointing out that the huge number of positive tests and small number of sick people was GOOD.
Unless you use a denominator. That’s why actual illness matters. A bunch of people with positive tests that aren’t sick means the virus isn’t very dangerous. Can’t have that message out there can we?
They even admitted the tests are being wrongly used in this NYT piece from August, 2020. Virologists quoted as being shocked by it. "Cases" have never been natural and medical science-based statistics - those would be known as "infections."
"Cases" are are a social and behavioral science-based term, devoid of any significance other than ability to amplify fear. Linguistics. Cunning, at that. Just another tool of epidemiology, subfield behavioral science, intentional sophisticated manipulation of perspectives to alter behaviors. Fear amplification. The go-to NPI for these past two years. Very helpful in getting free people to sacrifice their freedom. It's The Science (TM).
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
The tests were designed to identify people with a specific virus among people WITH SYMPTOMS of that virus. "Is it flu or is it Disease X? Is it RSV or is it Disease Y?" They were never meant for people with no symptoms, much less for counting "infections" among healthy people! The whole idea that you can feel and seem fine but are really sick without knowing it is just bizarre. Of course some diseases can be spread by carriers. But with C-19, we were expected to believe that tens of thousands of people (or more!) without symptoms were out spreading it and killing their neighbors...
The virological definition of "infection" includes more than just mere presence of a virus. Virus must also be replicating, demonstrated capacity to replicate. Traditional testing is able to determine that. It is more costly and time-consuming, but much more accurate.
The inventor of PCR tests even said they are not able to determine infection, since they just measure presence, not replication. But there actually is a way to use PCR tests to observe if replication is occurring. A two-sample PCR testing regimen can be utilized, a first sample followed by a second sample about 6 hours later. It is possible to derive a high-confidence analysis by comparing the number of PCR CT cycles (amplifications) in the samples. If the first sample is detected with more CT cycles (higher magnification) than the second sample (if capable of detection under lower magnification) then the confidence in replication occurring becomes high. Satisfying the virological requirement of "infection" that's missing from the one-sample test result showing presence alone, a "case."
But most governments determined that a two-sample regimen would be too costly and burdensome. Shifting that cost and burden to their citizens, a "guilty until proven innocent" standard used to deprive citizens of freedoms. I believe some of the Nordic nations employed a two-sample regimen as I describe, is where I first saw it described.
How are they going to explain away what’s coming for the jabbed cohort? Will it be starvation, war or a variant? The question still not answered is, is there a virus? Or is it exosomes from the bioweapon. One person has consistently warned about a super variant that will cause a catastrophe. That would mean he is part of the narrative. What are your thoughts?
I would not be surprised if they don't get around to blaming Putin and novichok. Anything, in fact, other than having buggered up all those immune systems with those 'safe and effective' vaxxes.
We live in a literal ocean of microbiology, viruses, bacteria, phages, pollen, spores. Invisible to the eye, but every breath we take will probably have dangerous microbiology or, more likely, remains of dangerous microbiology in it. The remains pose no risk. The immune system God gave us is remarkably well-adapted to protect us from the rest of it. Much better than man's attempts to protect us.
This study used much lower CT cycles than the PCR tests used during the pandemic, not nearly as sensitive. Yet they detected a lot of viruses. They even detected virus shed from polio vaccination for up to 73 days following inoculation. Medical experts know, have known for decades, that vaccines shed virus that can be detected by PCR tests. Whether or not vax viral shedding is capable of infecting others is a current debate. For another thread. But we live in a world of microbiological threats that our most important defense against is our own immune systems. And vaccine shedding virus, adding to the microbiology that PCR tests will detect is a real phenomenon. Known to authorities. Yet not accounted for in public policy.
For the more knowledgeable medical science professionals out there like Dr. Yeadon. I welcome your thoughts.
Nearly Constant Shedding of Diverse Enteric Viruses by Two Healthy Infants
"In order to determine the extent of viral infections occurring in early childhood, longitudinally collected stool samples from two siblings who grew up in the mid-1980s in the United Kingdom were tested using an extensive panel of PCR primers against 15 groups of viruses to measure the overall frequency and duration of viral shedding."
"Child 1 was positive for 8 viral groups: Adenovirus, Aichi virus, Anellovirus, Astrovirus, Bocavirus, Enterovirus, Parechovirus, and Rotavirus"
"The first trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) was given at day 107. Poliovirus vaccine strain Sabin-2 (HEV-C species) was identified in the first sample analyzed from day 116, and the shedding continued until day 180 (73 days after tOPV administration)."
" The fecal samples of child 2 were positive for 5 viral groups: Anellovirus, Bocavirus, Enterovirus, Parechovirus, and Picobirnavirus."
"Following tOPV administration on day 129, poliovirus vaccine strain shedding was recorded until day 183, starting with the first collected sample on day 142. Poliovirus (PV) shedding therefore lasted for 54 days after the first tOPV administration."
"The number of coinfections was high, with 41% of samples from child 1 and 68% of samples from child 2 containing two or more viruses. Six percent of samples from child 1 and 16% from child 2 contained at least 4 distinct human viruses. Shedding of attenuated poliovirus vaccine strains was excluded from these calculations."
"The availability of frequently collected fecal samples allowed a detailed analysis of viral shedding occurring during the first year of life in two infant sibling from a developed country. A total of 92% of the 72 samples analyzed contained at least one human virus, with some samples containing up to five different viruses. The average fecal samples contained 1.8 viruses. While symptoms requiring hospitalizations were not observed in these two infants, some of the minor signs of infections, such as runny nose and loose stools, frequently seen in infants of that age, may have been caused by these viral infections or coinfections."
"The surprisingly high rate of virus detection reported here may still represent an underestimate of viral shedding due to viruses being below levels of detection of the PCR assays used. The intermittent detections seen for the more persistent infections, including HPBV-GI, HPeV-1, HPeV-6, and HBoV-1, may indeed reflect fluctuation of the viral loads below detection levels. Other missed infections may also have resulted in very transient shedding occurring between the nearly weekly collected sampled analyzed here.
Our study showed that two healthy infant siblings were nearly constantly shedding a wide range of enteric viruses during their first year of life. While only two children were analyzed, their customary upbringing indicates that the diversity and duration of enteric viral shedding observed here may reflect that of typical infants in developed countries. Testing of longitudinally collected samples from a larger number of infants will be required to further substantiate this conclusion.
The high number of different infections and in some cases their long-term persistence detected here by PCR show that as more sensitive methods of viral detection are used, an increasing number of asymptomatic infections can be detected, likely reflecting effective passive and/or active immunity in generally healthy infants. The possibly substantial effect on the education of these infants' immune systems of such frequent and long-lasting viral infections, including protection from subsequent challenges with closely related viruses, remains to be determined."
I'll add my own understanding of virological definition of infection that this study is vague and possibly misusing the term, "infection," in its findings. Virological actual "infection" is understood to include replication, capacity to replicate in addition to presence of virus. Presence alone, PCR's capable of detecting viral fragments, skeletal remains of virus doesn't fall under the virological definition of "infection." I believe the scientists conducting this study are either being lazy with language or misinformed as to this distinction. That said, it doesn't materially alter the findings, as long as the results are not used in a diagnostic capacity.
The Nobel-Prize-winning (2015) inventor of the PCR test, who conveniently passed away in 2019, emphasized that the test is not good for diagnosis.
In fact, the test is good for identifying DNA, which is the way the subjects' DNA was stolen, while implanting nanotech in their nasal cavities and occasionally breaking through the blood/brain barrier, causing severe injury or death.
Viral infection has never been proven to exist, which renders the criminally harmful and fraudulent "tests" moot as well... As no "virus" has ever been isolated, no test can work for diagnosing the presence of one. Anyway, the tiny particles shown on electronmicroscopy has never been proven to cause illness; they are most likely exosomes, that is, end products of the body's detoxification process (dead cells carrying fragmented DNA and as such, there is an unlimited supply of them with an unlimited number of "variants").
The current "medical" paradigm, Germ Theory, is being used for global enslavement and genocide.
The excuse for its use is that is "saves lives." Does it now? Even if viruses existed, is living in fear and accepting lethal injections a price worth paying for "security"? Based on the usual rate of underreporting in VAERS, about 1.2 million Americans have fallen victim to the lethal injections and more are coming (VAERS data, in the meanwhile is being rabidly doctored now).
Of course, the same "logic" is being applied to the criminal ideologies of "sustainable development" (eat bugs and don't drive) and "climate change" (beware of your “carbon footprint”).
Here is a timetable for the only way to prevent the next ELE:
Long ago I started completely ignoring case numbers for that very reason.
STAT News' daily email always shows two graphs, one new cases and one new deaths. For months now the cases have been slowly rising, but deaths haven't budged.
You're half right. Tardigrades are indeed heartless, lacking an arthropod-like circulatory system. However, we are not swine, "moss pig" being a term of endearment, rather than a taxonomic classification.
Don't give them any ideas. The activist ladies in charge of "education" and other fraudulent enterprises will insist on testing for influenza and the like next.
In the context of seasonal flu, I would argue that only the first peaks might even qualify as “pandemic”. So tired of hearing the phrase “the ongoing pandemic”. We desperately need to recalibrate the language being used.
yeah, the spanish flu had basically three mortality spikes, or perhaps just two, if we grant the possibility that the first wave was another pathogen. anyway, the same story there: it's over in about 12 months.
Highly recommend JOHN DEE'S ALMANAC substack exploring England & Wales all-cause and Covid death figures in great detail. He has analysed the weekly/monthly data trends going back decades.
Data shows notable isolated peaks for April 2020 and Jan 2021 but otherwise within normal expectable ranges.
Data does not support claims of continued pandemic/panic.
Lots of actual fat ladies seem bizarrely keen on stoking the fear of illness, thus appearing to be virtuous or to give their lives meaning or something, too. They love a mask and the chance to scold folk.
With UK, you need to take into consideration the "Midazolam murders" in old-people´s homes; it also explains the very pronounced excess death rate in the spring of 2020.
Sweden had the same pattern as England. In May/June there's a peak which very quickly falls away and by the end of the year the total deaths are in the normal range. Likely this is because those who died in the surge in May/June would have died by the end of the year anyway. There's effectively no difference between the relative Swedish and English deaths either which effectively means that none of the measures that England took had any positive effect whatsoever as Sweden avoided taking any such measures. Swedish deaths by the end of the year were completely normal, in fact if you went back 20 years to a lower populated Sweden there were more deaths in a few of those years than there was in 2020.
I've seen some suggest that Midazolam has been given the credit for the peak in England (it went from about 50k deaths a month in England to about 80k deaths).
And to be honest, I remember back in 2020 being fascinated that some regions remained largely unscathed early on (my city was one of them) but unsurprisingly those regions were hit later harder than those which had already experienced a first wave.
Exactly. Though I’m growing deeply sceptical about what exactly is detected with a panel of CoV screens, the elderly appear as vulnerable to some common colds as whatever this now is
I’m not sure it was ever a pandemic to begin with. I truly believe this entire thing was a giant lie. Fabricated out of whole cloth with the bogus PCR testing and media hysteria. It was basically a bad flu season that would have been forgotten by the fall like other bad flu seasons that occurred in my lifetime. Society is fucked.
So far, it looks like the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, but Omicron is less likely to do damage, so it's basically a wash. I think it's likely that we're going to see slightly elevated mortality, and perhaps slightly elevated rates of illness, compared to pre-vaccine. There's already evidence for this in a few places. But, there's nothing dramatic, and I tend to doubt the doomsday scenarios. In all likelihood, this is the end of it.
I hope eugyppius is correct, but Geert Vanden Bossche is the most coherent as to an impending doomsday scenario. With continued boosting and new "second generation" products, GVB asserts that infectiousness will remain high while virulence increases. The immune pressure from these products working in an environment with very highly infectious variants is forcing millions of experiments to find the "fittest" variant. Per GVB, a few mutations that rely on glycans to avoid the protection against transfection in the lower respiratory tract are all that is needed for virulence to sharply increase while infectiousness remains high.
With all due respect, I think that Geert was right at the beginning, when he warned that leaky vaccines during a pandemic were a horrible idea, but lately he has become captured by his own narrative.
I have a similar view with respect to those that say that covid did not even exist. Of course it did exist, but it was not so much lethal. Early treatment was neglected, resulting in an increased death toll, but unfortunately some people were going to die from covid in any case.
Similarly, vaccination and continued boosting is not effective to control the virus and it has already been proven to be unsafe (compared with other accepted vaccination interventions), but most probably we have already seen the worst of it.
Understood. I think any of us who pay attention to Geert (even Geert) hopes things do not turn out the way he predicts. GVB's argument, reduced to simplest elements, is that vaccination [*edit* - with a non-sterilizing vax] during a pandemic (or epidemic if one quibbles) will always apply immune pressure to increase infectiousness or virulence. He asserts that the widely held view that viruses tend to become less virulent over time (to favor continued replication) is simply not true. So we will see. Again, I'm all for his prediction to turn out incorrect. I haven't heard anybody directly refute his assertions. (Not challenging eugyppius on this point, because his central assertion - no more than two waves, could be spot on).
The other concern I have is that raised by Walter Chestnut regarding amyloidosis, which now appears to be partly confirmed by at least one published study. I know other Substackers who take Walter seriously even if they don't directly raise those concerns in their own writing. Eugyppius is very level headed; dare I say pragmatic, even though that word has been twisted of late. I am not quite in that same place right now, and it may be coming straight from my amygdala.
I have followed GVB for quite a long time. What he says is probably technically true, but also the evolutionary processes are so complex that I feel that his predictions are not completely substantiated.
That is why I said that he has become 'captured'. He reminds me of climate scientists that need to find a climate crisis where there is probably none.
I don't think GVB is necessarily correct on the "increased virulence" theory, but the end result might be the same. As immune systems become more and more compromised due to multiple jabs and multiple bouts of COVID, it won't take as much to produce a life-threatening illness.
I think GVB is being a bit more specific. He is saying the virus is "de-attenuating", as in a LAV that de-attenuates to its original virulence. But what I don't understand, is how are these vaccines LAVs?
The disturbing thing to me is that despite being vaccinated & boosted, people still get the virus (or at least, some kind of virus) and mentally they don't question why they still got sick anyway. They continue to want more and more boosters and don't address the reality of their own experience. They have seemingly latched onto the belief that the boosters keep the illness mild if they do get it. You can't convince them otherwise. Since most people are scientifically illiterate, I wish it were possible to widely disseminate to the general public at least a basic, child's explanation of virus mutations and how they occur.
They have been told over and over again that the shot will make the virus milder if they get it. As it's mild for most people no matter what, seeing vaxxed people get mild cases convinces them that they are correct.
you point to the core of the problem, and the further the masses go down this road, the harder it is to turn back. the epiphany that would be needed at this point has a dangerous potential to rock the mental boat out of stability...disorientation at the very least.
thus, i think compassion needs to be a prerequisite when helping others understand. this is such an emotionally charged situation. i agree, fundamental understanding of virology (and not the bastardized MSM version) is crucial to turning the tide.
My dad (74) has covid at the moment. It's mild for him -- he had a fever and a headache for a day and has since had fatigue, sore throat and congestion for about 3 days. I imagine he'll be over it in a week or so.
I've explained that two things are working in his favour: 1) omicron and its subvariants being milder and outcompeting other strains, and 2) getting infected in what is basically the summer season means his baseline immunity is higher than it would be in winter.
But nope, he still thinks it's his booster that's helped him. I entirely expect he'll line up for a 4th dose come autumn.
the potential for danger that i can see is combining multiple strains in with the next round of shots this fall...they seem to like to throw as many variables into this experiment as possible, and these recombinant mrna injections could start to do wild things ... i don't usually go along with doomsday stuff either, but we just keep treading new waters. i'm really hoping your projection is correct.
But they will probably apply new "boosters", which will harm the immune system of many citizens. Thus even if there is no Covid, there will probably be excess mortality.
I applaud your positive outlook. I pray that you are right. I’m fearful that this is now a tool that can be used to shut things down at the whims of petty tyrants everywhere. The only way out is for the people to stop participating in the game. No more testing, ignoring any mandates.
I've noticed I tend to go back and forth on this. It's tempting to believe that SARS-COV-2 now becomes the fifth hCov, one of many obscure respiratory pathogens that kill a handful of people at the end of their lives.
And yet, there's one data point that inevitably sticks out like a sore thumb in any model where SARS-COV-2 becomes a nothingburger: The genetic evidence of a historical coronavirus outbreak among East Asians:
If we accept the claim for a moment, that a coronavirus left its genetic imprints on the East Asian ancestral population during a period of 20,000 years, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that sometimes coronavirus outbreaks can kill off a lot of otherwise relatively young and healthy people for an extended period of time.
After all, if 88 year old grandmothers with COPD and dementia died in the East Asian outbreak, we wouldn't have seen the genetic fingerprints: People who die under such conditions have no real way left to increase the fitness of their relatives and thus don't leave evidence of genetic selection.
And so I've arrived at the honest conclusion, that I just don't know. I find it very worrying that we see a very significant positive correlation between vaccination rates and infections (as well as deaths to some degree). It suggests we've interfered with the development of immunity at the level of entire populations, I have no real clue how long the impact of this would last. I think after this winter it should be easier to state with some confidence which direction this will evolve in.
someone sent me that study a long time ago. i don't really know what to make of it: if you accept the evidence, we're talking not about a single pandemic, but about multiple events, perhaps involving different pathogens, beginning already in the paleolithic (so in hunter-gatherer populations) and continuing constantly right up until the historical period. need to study the research on VIPs and their frequency more deeply, i guess. also would be good to know more about their selection and frequency in animals.
anyway, I agree there are some ominous signs, with the vaccines doing pretty much the opposite of their job. at the same time, it's clear that Omicron's mildness is an adaptation and will probably continue to benefit from selection (because it stays in the upper respiratory tract and is cleared quickly, it provokes a milder immune response, and like other cold-style viruses has a chance of reinfecting in a few months or a few years).
Probably the biggest wildcard remains: This unexplained twelve nucleotide insertion that creates the furin cleavage site, the only change bigger than three consecutive nucleotides from RaTG13, in a family of coronaviruses where we've never seen furin cleavage sites evolve spontaneously.
Genetic engineering allows humans to create organisms with traits that can't evolve spontaneously, because the intermediate steps that would be necessary don't carry fitness benefits. This carries grave risks.
I've also seen arguments that Omicron was mild because it had to some degree adapted to its rodent reservoir at the cost of humans, with recent reversions increasing virulence again.
But all of this must be countered with the realization that all sorts of viruses start looking uniquely scary when you gaze too much at them.
There are so many dots all over the place that I'm trying to give up on predicting what the picture is supposed to be, but I'm pretty convinced that almost every attempt taken at solving it has so far made it worse.
"But all of this must be countered with the realization that all sorts of viruses start looking uniquely scary when you gaze too much at them."
I've wondered if SARS-CoV-2 looks so unique and scary because the world has been obsessively studying it, and whether or not other viruses would appear just as quirky if we gave them the same level of attention.
However, I am not that optimistic. We do not yet know the long term effects of this mass experiment with a novel genetic vaccine. We do not know how the vaccinated population will react next winter with the next SARS variant, or with any other virus.
Let me go out on a limb here: I find myself wondering whether the "Forces A" who premeditated the "pandemic" of the novel SARS-CoV-2 and unleashed it onto the citizens were confronted by other "Forces B" who stood in opposition and unleashed their own souped-up Omicron as the latter occurance in order to mitigate the former?
One may have ideas who the Forces A are or might be (the corrupt, leftist pharma-fin-military-plutocratic-techno-bureaucratic complex) but one is in the dark as to the identity of the Forces B.
Would only take one dedicated molecular biologist nowadays. DNA templates of RNA viruses can easily be manipulated to generate new viruses in a cell culture system. You can basically order thousands of bases for a few hundred dollars and have them shipped to you within weeks. Or, If you have the equipment, sythesize the recombinant DNA yourself.
I have to confess something. I have just realized that I have become addicted to eugyppius daily dose of reality, and it is now clear to me that I suffered an acute deprivation syndrome during his brief hiatus.
Reading his daily article and then engaging in an intelligent discussion with the rest of the patrons of this substack has become one of my most precious activities during the day.
This article quotes an Israeli expert about likely trajectory of the virus he predicted back in March, 2020. It would seem his predictions were accurate. If only public policy decision makers could have known this and adjusted their pandemic strategies to reflect this. Oh, wait, they did know. And didn't adjust.
Haaretz: "But, social distancing should lead to fewer cases of infection and death, no?
Dr. Dan Yamin: “No, because we won’t be able to isolate ourselves completely or forever. At some stage, we will have to resume a regular routine, and then the R0 will stabilize at 2 again. Effectively, we are delaying the inevitable...the public needs to understand that these measures of social distancing mean that we will find ourselves with corona for a longer period, even to 2023.”
Haaretz: "That long?"
Dr. Dan Yamin: “Take the swine flu, from 2009. Reliable models show clearly that it was contained in Israel because its appearance coincided with the Jewish holidays in the fall [when people weren’t out much in public]. From the virus’ point of view, the timing wasn’t good for it in Israel. By contrast, in the United States there was significant infection in 2009-2010. But in the end, it balances out. So we saw swine flu in Israel both in 2009-10 and in 2010-11, whereas in the United States it just came and went. The American population as a whole was exposed to the virus at high rates, so those who fell ill and recovered served as a ‘human shield’ for those who did not get sick.”
I was having this conversation just this morning with a friend - the vaccines have done nothing but fry the immune systems of those who voluntarily took it or were unfortunately coerced.
It was the natural evolution of the virus that reduced mortality and this can be seen by the way that the vaccinated are now more susceptible to reinfection but don't die.
I have never had the shot. I was very severely infected with Delta last summer. I have not been sick since. I have natural immunity that the vaccinated do not have and now at the very least, Omincron is going to be their own specific scourge, forever.
I think rather that the virus has evolved in an "unnatural" way, with successive variants coming to dominance under heavy influence from highly vaccinated populations (what GvB calls "immune pressure").
I think it boils down to people being inside and people being outside. Here in Israel people are inside from June-September - as it's too hot to be outside - and from December to February- because of the rain. The voluntary winter lockdown is less strict than the summer lockdown. In July 2021 Israel had the distinction to be the country with the highest vaccination rate and the highest infection rate at the same time and we see the number of infections rising again right now.
it's more than just an inside/outside thing, though that's part of it. you often find that infection peaks are correlated very precisely by latitude, suggesting sunlight is somehow directly implicated (either via vitamin D or perhaps UV rays mess up virus transmission somehow). whatever the cause, I think it's specifically climatisation that causes those August mortality spikes in Israel, southern US, etc. people are inside, away from sun, the air is much drier, other things too probably.
Winter-spring population average low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D cause weaker innate and adaptive immune responses, leading to greater disease severity, average viral shedding per infected person and so more transmission and overall number of people infected. This is true in countries far from the equator for influenza. The same is true of COVID-19, but the great change in variants (the UK is now on its 5th) in a short time, each new one being more transmissible, and partly evading immune responses raised by quasi-vaccines and infection, means the seasonal pattern is not so clear.
This seasonal variation in 25-hydroxyvitamin D surely explains most of the seasonality of influenza, but other factors include hotter, dryer air in buildings and vehicles during winter - the opposite of outdoors conditions. Please see the observations, research and hypotheses at:
For the most pertinent research on vitamin D and the immune system, please see this submission to the UK government's Office for Health Improvement and Disparities call for evidence on vitamin D, from Patrick W. Chambers MD and myself:
Check out the information and graphs from Ivor Cummins re: different "peak" patterns in temperate climates vs tropical/subtropical. I think the research by Hope-Simpson that Cummins cites was done before climatisation was widespread. The southern U.S. "peaks" have not been spikes; they have been long, low humps in mid-late summer as Simpson described; quite a contrast to the sharp winter peaks of northeastern U.S. states. Here's a link to Cummins's best video on this:
Interesting to see the seasonality aspect of covid has been completely destroyed here in the UK. Our cases started rising in late June/early July 2021 after a lull of a couple of months from the winter 20/21 peak. Hospitalisation and deaths rose in step with the cases (delta) and then cases exploded in jan 2022 (omicron). Since last summer, cases/hospitalisation/deaths have never fully decreased like they would have in previous waves - I can only attribute this to the never ending vaccination programme over here that seems to be keeping a certain level of virus (or lack of immunity) circulating in the UK population
the cases may no longer adhere to seasonal patterns, but the mortality peaks do. there is somewhat elevated UK mortality right now, but it's nothing compared to peak winter fatalities in 2020 and 2021.
It would be interesting to track the "cases" and mortality alongside the injections. I assume that there is a period of two weeks after injection where the injectee's immune system is compromised, with increased vulnerability to infection. Delta appeared to my eye as a consequence of injection campaigns, as the seasonality was unusual.
This is very interesting and the comments Are also informative. My question is this: how confident are you that the vaccines had absolutely no benefit? Many critics of the pandemic response in the US, such as Vinay Prasad MD still think the vaccines reduce death and morbidity and or hospitalization due to Covid. I personally have concluded that near all studies by US agencies using our data are invalid as they largely support vaccine promotion at all times , for all age groups. Not mention no discussion of all-cause mortality.
the vaccines take deaths out of the "SARS-2" column. but, you might say paradoxically, they don't seem to have any impact on the overall excess mortality picture. so you can vaccinate a lot, and your official Corona deaths will go down, but your all-cause death numbers stay more or less the same.
a few things might be happening here:
1) we're failing, somehow, to vaccinate those most likely to die of Corona. so the vaccines seem effective, but it's just because people who are going to die anyway are also unvaccinated. i think this is certainly happening in some places, but not everywhere.
2) statistical trickery in how 'unvaccinated' deaths are assigned, i.e. people infected right after vaccination (perhaps as a result of enhanced susceptibility b/c of vaccination) are called unvaccinated infections/ deaths. i think this is also at least a contributing factor in many jurisdictions.
3) some subtler or more complex mechanism, via which the vaccines actually do reduce the likelihood of the vaccinated to die of SARS-2, but increase their likelihood of dying from something else, effectively just moving risk around and not eliminating it.
My grandfather died after a long battle with cancer. A week before he died, he got covid in the hospital. (Neg when went in, positive two days later) He had been too sick with the cancer to get a vaccine, so guess who got counted as an unvaxxed covid death?
Thanks so much. This is why we should look strictly at all-cause mortality, which none of the public health or governmental leaders in the US are doing. It is deeply disturbing; they are all perfectly capable of understanding this , so that means we have a conspiracy of silence in America. I think probably all three mechanisms are in play; my anecdotal experience with my patients’ medical records is that their vaccine info is often inaccurate. Also many analyses have included the partially vaccinated in the unvaccinated group. Also, we know some people are dying of blood clots or myocarditis after vaccination, we just don’t know how many. Only case reports trickle into our US media. In my continuing quest to refine my message to my patients, which usually is to try to discourage them from getting a booster, I have told them that I honestly don’t know who benefits from the vaccine and who doesn’t and therefore I really can’t recommend it to anyone. Your work is tremendously helpful, please keep it up!
In the UK IIRC, 2.2% of the population are classed by doctors as too weak to be vaccinated. This includes the very elderly, the severely immuno-compromised, and people already in palliative care (dying). I expect these people figure highly in each wave of mortality (as they will in e.g. flu mortality).
"Healthy vaccinee bias" is well known (e.g. for flu vaccines). That is, people who get vaccinated are (as a whole) healthier than those who do not (also wealthier, better educated etc.). So I expect that if you "vaccinated" a whole population with e.g. saline solution, you would usually be able to show a headlline "benefit" to "vaccination".
i've never seen any source like that for the UK, but would be interested if you have a link. officially, doctors in most countries insist that they vaccinate everyone.
Thank you for this analysis. Especially, as you mentioned, Sweden vs. Germany.
I've felt that the area under the curve is going to be approximately the same, you can just spread it over multiple peaks with lockdowns and other measures (flatten the curve....). Everyone is going to get it sooner or later. And I think this was known or hoped for by the pharmaceutical companies: delay herd immunity as much as possible so that the vaccine would be accepted.
Also why access to antibody tests was restricted or actively disparaged. They didn't want people to know with certainty that they'd been infected in the months prior back when the virus was said to be novel in spring 2020. They needed to cast doubt on prior spread and on natural immunity in order to make people accept the vaccines.
So good to see someone focus on the essence of the matter, namely excess mortality. The data don't care about cause of death, just the numbers of deaths: That's the sort of data that's very hard to fake. Test results, numbers of cases, hospitalization rates, causes of death, not to mention the wildly inaccurate 'data' from Imperial College projectionists -- all these metrics have an arbitrary element to them that at best is subject to unknown bias, and at worst can be politically manipulated. It's much harder to fudge excess mortality, so focusing on that is eminently sensible, as this article shows.
I’ve long been concerned that a lot of what’s reported as infection is false positives from an intrinsically inappropriate test.
The authorities have done little but lie from the beginning.
I wouldn’t put it past them to run up the cases by increased testing or even by tweaking test conditions without disclosure.
At this point I’d recommend to stop testing.
Why are we testing for this alleged pathogen & not others?
I believe this episode was the first time in history we defined someone with no symptoms as sick.
I said this in 2020, right in the beginning. They actually convinced totally healthy people, that not only they could be sick, but would kill people if they dared share space with them. Talk about a psychological mind fuck. People that still believe this, and they are out there, need to be kidnapped and deprogrammed, like what they do to cult members, or they are lost forever.
I said it in 2020 as well - first time a colleague ran away from me in red-faced terror after a surprise around-the-corner hallway meeting. Pure PsyOp - warfare - to get to e.g. mail in ballots to steal the election from an historically shoe-in, strong economy sitting president. Asymptomatic spread was the principle mass formation psychosis driver. "HIV Positive" 35 years earlier was the trial run. At least this time an asymptomatic case did not result in administration of a lethal drug (remdesivir vs AZT).
I would have laughed out loud at that. When I used to work with people, colleagues would run away from me in terror long before covid, and it was always a good thing. Yes, but in the corona freak-out even NO cases have resulted in the administration of poisonous and lethal shots.
Because of that lie about asymptomatic spread.
Rather than argue asymptomatic spread is impossible, I think it needs to be acknowledged it's a risk that exists.
While also acknowledging we can't stop the spread. Masks, lockdowns and their warp speed shots have all failed miserably. Masks are sold with disclaimers that admit it can't prevent covid. China has enacted the most extreme lockdowns in the world and still fails to control the spread while creating a humanitarian crisis on every other measure.
It's tough deciding if the shots are worse than the lockdowns in terms of damage, but with time I expect the shots to be recognized as the worst mistake. Lives lost, livelihoods taken away, trust in almost every institution destroyed.
"Lives lost, livelihoods taken away, trust in almost every institution destroyed." One of the three is a good.
Must be trust in almost every institution. I agree. I haven't trusted them for 35 years.
Lockdowns and masks were the NPI Fear-amplification tools that were employed to increase uptake of the shots. Without that requisite fear the shots wouldn't have had any where near the uptake. Difficult call as to which was worse, but when in doubt I default to the original sin of the intentional spreading of fear that masks and lockdowns did. I'm old enough to remember what the word for spreading fear is: terrorism. We were terrorized by our government, media and corporations to accept so much destruction and sacrifice of lives.
FDR famously said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." As totalitarianism was rising around the world on the back of fear. Knowing how dangerous fear is to free, democratic people. The horrors visited on the world in the 1930's-1950's never would've been possible without the guilty governments, media and corporations collaborating to spread fear. Worse, imho.
Yes but it’s important not to call something a big risk that is in fact vanishingly small. There was belated acknowledgment of this fact but I’m too lazy to look for the article
It's a big risk if you believe containment measures like lockdowns work. It builds upon the false premise we can control it, if not for that one vulnerability. The reality is that we're not even close to being able to contain it, which makes asymptomatic spread a ridiculous boogeyman.
You are right about it being promoted as an especially dangerous risk at one point. And then later on they quietly admitted people that were asymptomatic but positive were putting out a massively smaller viral load and much less contagious.
My point on it being a hypothetically big risk is trying to apply logic where there was none.
It's all damaging. And the economies of the world are only now starting to take a hit. But the vaccines, masks and lockdowns are all damaging and the people who implemented it need to be put on trial for this. Whatever the middling agents of stupidity (i.e. the class who in large part implemented it) have been convinced of, and I suspect that it's different for each playing on their own pet project, they're also wrong. What should be done with them?
It's a question of what should be done with the authorities at all levels who implemented ILLEGAL mandates, and found they could get away with it. In most cases these mandates STILL do not have a basis in law. Yet they have established a precedent that will be used as a scaffold for future unlawful actions.
That was the cover story for all the false positives. “But ... you might still be sick”
I am not convinced asymptomatic spread does not exist. Cornell University reopened and had everyone injected with a worthless vaccine as well with worthless masks on. Then they randomly decided to also have roving groups of testers run around and just test normal healthy kids.
With almost everyone vaccinated at Cornell University, 1,082 students have contracted THE COVID in one week. On 12/14/2021 they had 269 infections in a single day. So far no deaths. The closed down the campus. This does not seem very “rare” or “Breakthrough” does it?
https://covid.cornell.edu/testing/dashboard/
Asymptomatic spread is a misnomer for aerosolised transmission occurring in public indoor spaces where people are unable to trace the transmission chain. They end up assuming that the perfectly healthy friend they spent time chatting to in a bar must have "asymptomatically" infected them, when in fact they were simply exposed to (and susceptible to) lingering viral particles exhaled by someone who was present in the same space at some point during a set time window.
Meanwhile, many of those who exhale contagious viral particles may not be particularly sick -- but that doesn't mean they are "asymptomatic". Remember that to start with, governments only emphasised fever and cough as covid symptoms; many people mistakenly believed they couldn't possibly have covid because their symptoms were things like a mild headache, upset stomach, body aches, loss of smell, fatigue, etc.
Separately to this, we had mass PCR testing of healthy people with the tests run at 40+ cycle thresholds. This meant that a lot of "asymptomatic infections" were detected -- but what these test results merely showed was that viral fragments were present in people. This wasn't evidence of a current infection but evidence of either a) prior infection, which would imply a certain level of immunity, or b) exposure without sickness, which would likewise imply a certain level of immunity.
Never before in history would testing positive to a test not designed as a diagnostic indicate illness -- in fact it would indicate the opposite: robust protection from or resistance to illness!
As for testing, we must consider that CV is now a part of the background noise in our microbiological environment, and there is great evidence to reflect that. Evidence in positivity rates in wildlife tested regularly like deer by the USDA, big cats in zoos, other species like bats (originated with, right?) that are capable of interspecies transmission, aka wildlife reservoirs, not just human-to-human transmission. And evidence in studies of the microbiology of air reveals bacteria, phage and virus have been proven to remain viable suspended in the atmosphere even across vast oceans in dust clouds that create protective microenvironments within them, link below.
These realities make it likely that at any given time a set percentage of the population will have genetic material presence of a number of microbiological hazards. Fortunately, most rendered inert and harmless, microscopic skeletons of microbiology that are in the invisible sea we breathe in. Remember, PCR tests are used to detect dinosaur DNA in fossils, not live dinosaurs.
So if say, 10% of the population has viral DNA in/on them at any given time, (even inanimate objects such as soda cans have tested positive) then mass testing is simply a reflection of that microbiology background noise. "Cases" (an imaginary, made up term created for pandemic fear, virology only recognizes "infections" as a measure) are a product of volume of tests.
In this hypothetical, 100,000 tests = 10,000 cases. 1,000,000 tests = 100,000 cases. Which means that all authorities have to do is increase testing to produce an "outbreak." And testing is increased when fear is amplified by compliant media and authorities shouting into their megaphones that we must worry. Testing is like a spigot that authorities can dial up or down. Combined with the theft of language, the linguistic trickery of "cases" vs. "infections" a pandemic is created, emergency powers are imposed and submitted to, and totalitarianism rules the land. Easy-peasy. If you're a totalitarian in control of the megaphone.
Atmospheric Movement of Microorganisms in Clouds of Desert Dust and Implications for Human Health
Clinical Microbiology Reviews, July, 2007
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1932751/
Since the very beginning, I was bothered by the fact that every supposedly positive test was labeled a "case", which to the average person would translate as "the person is sick with symptoms and being treated by a doctor".
Yes, it was ridiculous from day 1. No one has ever considered a positive result on a test to be a "case" before. There are false positives on pregnancy tests, too -- we don't count them as pregnancies!
"Cases" have never been natural and medical science-based statistics - those would be known as "infections." "Cases" are are a social and behavioral science-based term, devoid of any significance other than ability to amplify fear. Linguistics.
See my other comment in this thread that explains and supports this assertion more.
I was livid. It increased the fear exponentially. If tested had been done honestly, it would have been easier for people to get a clear picture of the actual risk. Many many cases with few serious illnesses and deaths means it’s less dangerous not more! But you need an honest context to know that.
Exactly! Instead of getting on TV every day and warning everyone how high the "case numbers" were, the governor of my state should have been telling people NOT to get tested if they have no symptoms, and pointing out that the huge number of positive tests and small number of sick people was GOOD.
Unless you use a denominator. That’s why actual illness matters. A bunch of people with positive tests that aren’t sick means the virus isn’t very dangerous. Can’t have that message out there can we?
Wow, it’s worse than I thought, thanks for this.
They even admitted the tests are being wrongly used in this NYT piece from August, 2020. Virologists quoted as being shocked by it. "Cases" have never been natural and medical science-based statistics - those would be known as "infections."
"Cases" are are a social and behavioral science-based term, devoid of any significance other than ability to amplify fear. Linguistics. Cunning, at that. Just another tool of epidemiology, subfield behavioral science, intentional sophisticated manipulation of perspectives to alter behaviors. Fear amplification. The go-to NPI for these past two years. Very helpful in getting free people to sacrifice their freedom. It's The Science (TM).
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
New York Times, August 29, 2020
https://archive.ph/6s7F1
Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists
Members of Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour express regret about ‘unethical’ methods
UK Telegraph, May 14, 2021
https://web.archive.org/web/20210519003131/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/14/scientists-admit-totalitarian-use-fear-control-behaviour-covid/
The tests were designed to identify people with a specific virus among people WITH SYMPTOMS of that virus. "Is it flu or is it Disease X? Is it RSV or is it Disease Y?" They were never meant for people with no symptoms, much less for counting "infections" among healthy people! The whole idea that you can feel and seem fine but are really sick without knowing it is just bizarre. Of course some diseases can be spread by carriers. But with C-19, we were expected to believe that tens of thousands of people (or more!) without symptoms were out spreading it and killing their neighbors...
The virological definition of "infection" includes more than just mere presence of a virus. Virus must also be replicating, demonstrated capacity to replicate. Traditional testing is able to determine that. It is more costly and time-consuming, but much more accurate.
The inventor of PCR tests even said they are not able to determine infection, since they just measure presence, not replication. But there actually is a way to use PCR tests to observe if replication is occurring. A two-sample PCR testing regimen can be utilized, a first sample followed by a second sample about 6 hours later. It is possible to derive a high-confidence analysis by comparing the number of PCR CT cycles (amplifications) in the samples. If the first sample is detected with more CT cycles (higher magnification) than the second sample (if capable of detection under lower magnification) then the confidence in replication occurring becomes high. Satisfying the virological requirement of "infection" that's missing from the one-sample test result showing presence alone, a "case."
But most governments determined that a two-sample regimen would be too costly and burdensome. Shifting that cost and burden to their citizens, a "guilty until proven innocent" standard used to deprive citizens of freedoms. I believe some of the Nordic nations employed a two-sample regimen as I describe, is where I first saw it described.
Thanks for this clarification.
Wow. Thank you
GADS!!!
Don't give the tyrants any ideas
This has been a pandemic of testing from the very beginning.
How are they going to explain away what’s coming for the jabbed cohort? Will it be starvation, war or a variant? The question still not answered is, is there a virus? Or is it exosomes from the bioweapon. One person has consistently warned about a super variant that will cause a catastrophe. That would mean he is part of the narrative. What are your thoughts?
I think mostly the perpetrators get away with everything because they control main media.
Things they don’t like & can’t easily spin, they ignore, suppress & smear.
No real excuses or explanations required.
I would not be surprised if they don't get around to blaming Putin and novichok. Anything, in fact, other than having buggered up all those immune systems with those 'safe and effective' vaxxes.
We live in a literal ocean of microbiology, viruses, bacteria, phages, pollen, spores. Invisible to the eye, but every breath we take will probably have dangerous microbiology or, more likely, remains of dangerous microbiology in it. The remains pose no risk. The immune system God gave us is remarkably well-adapted to protect us from the rest of it. Much better than man's attempts to protect us.
This study used much lower CT cycles than the PCR tests used during the pandemic, not nearly as sensitive. Yet they detected a lot of viruses. They even detected virus shed from polio vaccination for up to 73 days following inoculation. Medical experts know, have known for decades, that vaccines shed virus that can be detected by PCR tests. Whether or not vax viral shedding is capable of infecting others is a current debate. For another thread. But we live in a world of microbiological threats that our most important defense against is our own immune systems. And vaccine shedding virus, adding to the microbiology that PCR tests will detect is a real phenomenon. Known to authorities. Yet not accounted for in public policy.
For the more knowledgeable medical science professionals out there like Dr. Yeadon. I welcome your thoughts.
Nearly Constant Shedding of Diverse Enteric Viruses by Two Healthy Infants
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, November, 2012
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486243/
"In order to determine the extent of viral infections occurring in early childhood, longitudinally collected stool samples from two siblings who grew up in the mid-1980s in the United Kingdom were tested using an extensive panel of PCR primers against 15 groups of viruses to measure the overall frequency and duration of viral shedding."
"Child 1 was positive for 8 viral groups: Adenovirus, Aichi virus, Anellovirus, Astrovirus, Bocavirus, Enterovirus, Parechovirus, and Rotavirus"
"The first trivalent oral poliovirus vaccine (tOPV) was given at day 107. Poliovirus vaccine strain Sabin-2 (HEV-C species) was identified in the first sample analyzed from day 116, and the shedding continued until day 180 (73 days after tOPV administration)."
" The fecal samples of child 2 were positive for 5 viral groups: Anellovirus, Bocavirus, Enterovirus, Parechovirus, and Picobirnavirus."
"Following tOPV administration on day 129, poliovirus vaccine strain shedding was recorded until day 183, starting with the first collected sample on day 142. Poliovirus (PV) shedding therefore lasted for 54 days after the first tOPV administration."
"The number of coinfections was high, with 41% of samples from child 1 and 68% of samples from child 2 containing two or more viruses. Six percent of samples from child 1 and 16% from child 2 contained at least 4 distinct human viruses. Shedding of attenuated poliovirus vaccine strains was excluded from these calculations."
"The availability of frequently collected fecal samples allowed a detailed analysis of viral shedding occurring during the first year of life in two infant sibling from a developed country. A total of 92% of the 72 samples analyzed contained at least one human virus, with some samples containing up to five different viruses. The average fecal samples contained 1.8 viruses. While symptoms requiring hospitalizations were not observed in these two infants, some of the minor signs of infections, such as runny nose and loose stools, frequently seen in infants of that age, may have been caused by these viral infections or coinfections."
"The surprisingly high rate of virus detection reported here may still represent an underestimate of viral shedding due to viruses being below levels of detection of the PCR assays used. The intermittent detections seen for the more persistent infections, including HPBV-GI, HPeV-1, HPeV-6, and HBoV-1, may indeed reflect fluctuation of the viral loads below detection levels. Other missed infections may also have resulted in very transient shedding occurring between the nearly weekly collected sampled analyzed here.
Our study showed that two healthy infant siblings were nearly constantly shedding a wide range of enteric viruses during their first year of life. While only two children were analyzed, their customary upbringing indicates that the diversity and duration of enteric viral shedding observed here may reflect that of typical infants in developed countries. Testing of longitudinally collected samples from a larger number of infants will be required to further substantiate this conclusion.
The high number of different infections and in some cases their long-term persistence detected here by PCR show that as more sensitive methods of viral detection are used, an increasing number of asymptomatic infections can be detected, likely reflecting effective passive and/or active immunity in generally healthy infants. The possibly substantial effect on the education of these infants' immune systems of such frequent and long-lasting viral infections, including protection from subsequent challenges with closely related viruses, remains to be determined."
Interesting!
I'll add my own understanding of virological definition of infection that this study is vague and possibly misusing the term, "infection," in its findings. Virological actual "infection" is understood to include replication, capacity to replicate in addition to presence of virus. Presence alone, PCR's capable of detecting viral fragments, skeletal remains of virus doesn't fall under the virological definition of "infection." I believe the scientists conducting this study are either being lazy with language or misinformed as to this distinction. That said, it doesn't materially alter the findings, as long as the results are not used in a diagnostic capacity.
The Nobel-Prize-winning (2015) inventor of the PCR test, who conveniently passed away in 2019, emphasized that the test is not good for diagnosis.
In fact, the test is good for identifying DNA, which is the way the subjects' DNA was stolen, while implanting nanotech in their nasal cavities and occasionally breaking through the blood/brain barrier, causing severe injury or death.
Viral infection has never been proven to exist, which renders the criminally harmful and fraudulent "tests" moot as well... As no "virus" has ever been isolated, no test can work for diagnosing the presence of one. Anyway, the tiny particles shown on electronmicroscopy has never been proven to cause illness; they are most likely exosomes, that is, end products of the body's detoxification process (dead cells carrying fragmented DNA and as such, there is an unlimited supply of them with an unlimited number of "variants").
The current "medical" paradigm, Germ Theory, is being used for global enslavement and genocide.
The excuse for its use is that is "saves lives." Does it now? Even if viruses existed, is living in fear and accepting lethal injections a price worth paying for "security"? Based on the usual rate of underreporting in VAERS, about 1.2 million Americans have fallen victim to the lethal injections and more are coming (VAERS data, in the meanwhile is being rabidly doctored now).
Of course, the same "logic" is being applied to the criminal ideologies of "sustainable development" (eat bugs and don't drive) and "climate change" (beware of your “carbon footprint”).
Here is a timetable for the only way to prevent the next ELE:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-new-timetable-towards-success
Sustainable is euphemism for depop.
Why have you got "banned" in your name?
I guess that I need to do a closer read of your comments. I didn't think that you were being violent.
Maybe you are not "banned" and that is a joke of yours.
Long ago I started completely ignoring case numbers for that very reason.
STAT News' daily email always shows two graphs, one new cases and one new deaths. For months now the cases have been slowly rising, but deaths haven't budged.
Muh, but "long Covid!" You'll give that thirty-seven-year-old cat lady long Covid! Heartless swine! 😏
You're half right. Tardigrades are indeed heartless, lacking an arthropod-like circulatory system. However, we are not swine, "moss pig" being a term of endearment, rather than a taxonomic classification.
Don't give them any ideas. The activist ladies in charge of "education" and other fraudulent enterprises will insist on testing for influenza and the like next.
Obviously, it's more fashionable and thus 'hotter' than those other wallflower pathogens
In the context of seasonal flu, I would argue that only the first peaks might even qualify as “pandemic”. So tired of hearing the phrase “the ongoing pandemic”. We desperately need to recalibrate the language being used.
yeah, the spanish flu had basically three mortality spikes, or perhaps just two, if we grant the possibility that the first wave was another pathogen. anyway, the same story there: it's over in about 12 months.
Highly recommend JOHN DEE'S ALMANAC substack exploring England & Wales all-cause and Covid death figures in great detail. He has analysed the weekly/monthly data trends going back decades.
Data shows notable isolated peaks for April 2020 and Jan 2021 but otherwise within normal expectable ranges.
Data does not support claims of continued pandemic/panic.
I'll have a look, but basically every country seems to have more or less the same pattern. you have a two-peak 12-month pandemic and then it's over
It ain't over until the fat lady sings. And by fat lady I mean Gates.
😄😄😄
Lots of actual fat ladies seem bizarrely keen on stoking the fear of illness, thus appearing to be virtuous or to give their lives meaning or something, too. They love a mask and the chance to scold folk.
LOL!!!
With UK, you need to take into consideration the "Midazolam murders" in old-people´s homes; it also explains the very pronounced excess death rate in the spring of 2020.
Sweden had the same pattern as England. In May/June there's a peak which very quickly falls away and by the end of the year the total deaths are in the normal range. Likely this is because those who died in the surge in May/June would have died by the end of the year anyway. There's effectively no difference between the relative Swedish and English deaths either which effectively means that none of the measures that England took had any positive effect whatsoever as Sweden avoided taking any such measures. Swedish deaths by the end of the year were completely normal, in fact if you went back 20 years to a lower populated Sweden there were more deaths in a few of those years than there was in 2020.
I've seen some suggest that Midazolam has been given the credit for the peak in England (it went from about 50k deaths a month in England to about 80k deaths).
Yes, seems to fit.
And to be honest, I remember back in 2020 being fascinated that some regions remained largely unscathed early on (my city was one of them) but unsurprisingly those regions were hit later harder than those which had already experienced a first wave.
That is not true because we have interfered with a natural course of the pandemic by implementing mass vaccination.
it was a double hump
Exactly. Though I’m growing deeply sceptical about what exactly is detected with a panel of CoV screens, the elderly appear as vulnerable to some common colds as whatever this now is
For as long as I can remember, if you have a cold its normal to avoid visiting elderly or frail people !
I’m not sure it was ever a pandemic to begin with. I truly believe this entire thing was a giant lie. Fabricated out of whole cloth with the bogus PCR testing and media hysteria. It was basically a bad flu season that would have been forgotten by the fall like other bad flu seasons that occurred in my lifetime. Society is fucked.
Or the phrase "in the middle of a pandemic", which then by definition we're never out of.
Must hear your thoughts on the Vande Bossche concerns...pretty please?
So far, it looks like the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, but Omicron is less likely to do damage, so it's basically a wash. I think it's likely that we're going to see slightly elevated mortality, and perhaps slightly elevated rates of illness, compared to pre-vaccine. There's already evidence for this in a few places. But, there's nothing dramatic, and I tend to doubt the doomsday scenarios. In all likelihood, this is the end of it.
One can’t hope hard enough. Thank you.
I hope eugyppius is correct, but Geert Vanden Bossche is the most coherent as to an impending doomsday scenario. With continued boosting and new "second generation" products, GVB asserts that infectiousness will remain high while virulence increases. The immune pressure from these products working in an environment with very highly infectious variants is forcing millions of experiments to find the "fittest" variant. Per GVB, a few mutations that rely on glycans to avoid the protection against transfection in the lower respiratory tract are all that is needed for virulence to sharply increase while infectiousness remains high.
With all due respect, I think that Geert was right at the beginning, when he warned that leaky vaccines during a pandemic were a horrible idea, but lately he has become captured by his own narrative.
I have a similar view with respect to those that say that covid did not even exist. Of course it did exist, but it was not so much lethal. Early treatment was neglected, resulting in an increased death toll, but unfortunately some people were going to die from covid in any case.
Similarly, vaccination and continued boosting is not effective to control the virus and it has already been proven to be unsafe (compared with other accepted vaccination interventions), but most probably we have already seen the worst of it.
Understood. I think any of us who pay attention to Geert (even Geert) hopes things do not turn out the way he predicts. GVB's argument, reduced to simplest elements, is that vaccination [*edit* - with a non-sterilizing vax] during a pandemic (or epidemic if one quibbles) will always apply immune pressure to increase infectiousness or virulence. He asserts that the widely held view that viruses tend to become less virulent over time (to favor continued replication) is simply not true. So we will see. Again, I'm all for his prediction to turn out incorrect. I haven't heard anybody directly refute his assertions. (Not challenging eugyppius on this point, because his central assertion - no more than two waves, could be spot on).
The other concern I have is that raised by Walter Chestnut regarding amyloidosis, which now appears to be partly confirmed by at least one published study. I know other Substackers who take Walter seriously even if they don't directly raise those concerns in their own writing. Eugyppius is very level headed; dare I say pragmatic, even though that word has been twisted of late. I am not quite in that same place right now, and it may be coming straight from my amygdala.
I have followed GVB for quite a long time. What he says is probably technically true, but also the evolutionary processes are so complex that I feel that his predictions are not completely substantiated.
That is why I said that he has become 'captured'. He reminds me of climate scientists that need to find a climate crisis where there is probably none.
It does not really matter - with suppressed, damaged and/or destroyed immunity any pathogen will do the job over time.
I don't think GVB is necessarily correct on the "increased virulence" theory, but the end result might be the same. As immune systems become more and more compromised due to multiple jabs and multiple bouts of COVID, it won't take as much to produce a life-threatening illness.
I think GVB is being a bit more specific. He is saying the virus is "de-attenuating", as in a LAV that de-attenuates to its original virulence. But what I don't understand, is how are these vaccines LAVs?
The population is de-attenuating because there's not so much pressure on it. Geert was afraid that it would explode.
I can remember some TV footage of viruses exploding last year. They were throwing chairs at the police and all sorts.
It is really simple.
The more viruses that escape the host, they more they mutate.
The more they mutate, the more dangerous they MAY become.
May being the operative word.
My money is on a more virulent strain due to the staggering number of viruses that the vaxxd are producing, over and over.
The disturbing thing to me is that despite being vaccinated & boosted, people still get the virus (or at least, some kind of virus) and mentally they don't question why they still got sick anyway. They continue to want more and more boosters and don't address the reality of their own experience. They have seemingly latched onto the belief that the boosters keep the illness mild if they do get it. You can't convince them otherwise. Since most people are scientifically illiterate, I wish it were possible to widely disseminate to the general public at least a basic, child's explanation of virus mutations and how they occur.
They have been told over and over again that the shot will make the virus milder if they get it. As it's mild for most people no matter what, seeing vaxxed people get mild cases convinces them that they are correct.
That's right. But in some cases it's not so mild. And many of the vaxed I know have strangely persistent coughs and seem weak or tired all the time.
you point to the core of the problem, and the further the masses go down this road, the harder it is to turn back. the epiphany that would be needed at this point has a dangerous potential to rock the mental boat out of stability...disorientation at the very least.
thus, i think compassion needs to be a prerequisite when helping others understand. this is such an emotionally charged situation. i agree, fundamental understanding of virology (and not the bastardized MSM version) is crucial to turning the tide.
My dad (74) has covid at the moment. It's mild for him -- he had a fever and a headache for a day and has since had fatigue, sore throat and congestion for about 3 days. I imagine he'll be over it in a week or so.
I've explained that two things are working in his favour: 1) omicron and its subvariants being milder and outcompeting other strains, and 2) getting infected in what is basically the summer season means his baseline immunity is higher than it would be in winter.
But nope, he still thinks it's his booster that's helped him. I entirely expect he'll line up for a 4th dose come autumn.
I'm sorry.
I wish this were the case, too. Has the Vax made them even more stupid somehow?
the potential for danger that i can see is combining multiple strains in with the next round of shots this fall...they seem to like to throw as many variables into this experiment as possible, and these recombinant mrna injections could start to do wild things ... i don't usually go along with doomsday stuff either, but we just keep treading new waters. i'm really hoping your projection is correct.
But they will probably apply new "boosters", which will harm the immune system of many citizens. Thus even if there is no Covid, there will probably be excess mortality.
I applaud your positive outlook. I pray that you are right. I’m fearful that this is now a tool that can be used to shut things down at the whims of petty tyrants everywhere. The only way out is for the people to stop participating in the game. No more testing, ignoring any mandates.
What do you reckon of this, then? https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/testable-hypotheses-on-ba4-and-ba5?s=r
I've noticed I tend to go back and forth on this. It's tempting to believe that SARS-COV-2 now becomes the fifth hCov, one of many obscure respiratory pathogens that kill a handful of people at the end of their lives.
And yet, there's one data point that inevitably sticks out like a sore thumb in any model where SARS-COV-2 becomes a nothingburger: The genetic evidence of a historical coronavirus outbreak among East Asians:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-coronavirus-epidemic-east-asia-dna-covid
If we accept the claim for a moment, that a coronavirus left its genetic imprints on the East Asian ancestral population during a period of 20,000 years, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that sometimes coronavirus outbreaks can kill off a lot of otherwise relatively young and healthy people for an extended period of time.
After all, if 88 year old grandmothers with COPD and dementia died in the East Asian outbreak, we wouldn't have seen the genetic fingerprints: People who die under such conditions have no real way left to increase the fitness of their relatives and thus don't leave evidence of genetic selection.
And so I've arrived at the honest conclusion, that I just don't know. I find it very worrying that we see a very significant positive correlation between vaccination rates and infections (as well as deaths to some degree). It suggests we've interfered with the development of immunity at the level of entire populations, I have no real clue how long the impact of this would last. I think after this winter it should be easier to state with some confidence which direction this will evolve in.
~Rintrah
someone sent me that study a long time ago. i don't really know what to make of it: if you accept the evidence, we're talking not about a single pandemic, but about multiple events, perhaps involving different pathogens, beginning already in the paleolithic (so in hunter-gatherer populations) and continuing constantly right up until the historical period. need to study the research on VIPs and their frequency more deeply, i guess. also would be good to know more about their selection and frequency in animals.
anyway, I agree there are some ominous signs, with the vaccines doing pretty much the opposite of their job. at the same time, it's clear that Omicron's mildness is an adaptation and will probably continue to benefit from selection (because it stays in the upper respiratory tract and is cleared quickly, it provokes a milder immune response, and like other cold-style viruses has a chance of reinfecting in a few months or a few years).
Probably the biggest wildcard remains: This unexplained twelve nucleotide insertion that creates the furin cleavage site, the only change bigger than three consecutive nucleotides from RaTG13, in a family of coronaviruses where we've never seen furin cleavage sites evolve spontaneously.
Genetic engineering allows humans to create organisms with traits that can't evolve spontaneously, because the intermediate steps that would be necessary don't carry fitness benefits. This carries grave risks.
I've also seen arguments that Omicron was mild because it had to some degree adapted to its rodent reservoir at the cost of humans, with recent reversions increasing virulence again.
But all of this must be countered with the realization that all sorts of viruses start looking uniquely scary when you gaze too much at them.
There are so many dots all over the place that I'm trying to give up on predicting what the picture is supposed to be, but I'm pretty convinced that almost every attempt taken at solving it has so far made it worse.
~rintrah
"but I'm pretty convinced that almost every attempt taken at solving it has so far made it worse"
That sounds about right ...
"But all of this must be countered with the realization that all sorts of viruses start looking uniquely scary when you gaze too much at them."
I've wondered if SARS-CoV-2 looks so unique and scary because the world has been obsessively studying it, and whether or not other viruses would appear just as quirky if we gave them the same level of attention.
I hope you are correct that SARS-2 is over now.
However, I am not that optimistic. We do not yet know the long term effects of this mass experiment with a novel genetic vaccine. We do not know how the vaccinated population will react next winter with the next SARS variant, or with any other virus.
Let me go out on a limb here: I find myself wondering whether the "Forces A" who premeditated the "pandemic" of the novel SARS-CoV-2 and unleashed it onto the citizens were confronted by other "Forces B" who stood in opposition and unleashed their own souped-up Omicron as the latter occurance in order to mitigate the former?
One may have ideas who the Forces A are or might be (the corrupt, leftist pharma-fin-military-plutocratic-techno-bureaucratic complex) but one is in the dark as to the identity of the Forces B.
Forces B is not on earth. Look to the heavens. God made humans, He knows how to clear up our messes.
I agree wholeheartedly and consider that daily. (The Cloud of Unknowing remains as a separator between me and certainty.) Thank you for your comment.
Would only take one dedicated molecular biologist nowadays. DNA templates of RNA viruses can easily be manipulated to generate new viruses in a cell culture system. You can basically order thousands of bases for a few hundred dollars and have them shipped to you within weeks. Or, If you have the equipment, sythesize the recombinant DNA yourself.
I’ve wondered the same thing, Tomasz. But Forces B would only be safe deep undercover. Vive la resistance!
I have to confess something. I have just realized that I have become addicted to eugyppius daily dose of reality, and it is now clear to me that I suffered an acute deprivation syndrome during his brief hiatus.
Reading his daily article and then engaging in an intelligent discussion with the rest of the patrons of this substack has become one of my most precious activities during the day.
I missed you guys too :-)
This article quotes an Israeli expert about likely trajectory of the virus he predicted back in March, 2020. It would seem his predictions were accurate. If only public policy decision makers could have known this and adjusted their pandemic strategies to reflect this. Oh, wait, they did know. And didn't adjust.
Haaretz: "But, social distancing should lead to fewer cases of infection and death, no?
Dr. Dan Yamin: “No, because we won’t be able to isolate ourselves completely or forever. At some stage, we will have to resume a regular routine, and then the R0 will stabilize at 2 again. Effectively, we are delaying the inevitable...the public needs to understand that these measures of social distancing mean that we will find ourselves with corona for a longer period, even to 2023.”
Haaretz: "That long?"
Dr. Dan Yamin: “Take the swine flu, from 2009. Reliable models show clearly that it was contained in Israel because its appearance coincided with the Jewish holidays in the fall [when people weren’t out much in public]. From the virus’ point of view, the timing wasn’t good for it in Israel. By contrast, in the United States there was significant infection in 2009-2010. But in the end, it balances out. So we saw swine flu in Israel both in 2009-10 and in 2010-11, whereas in the United States it just came and went. The American population as a whole was exposed to the virus at high rates, so those who fell ill and recovered served as a ‘human shield’ for those who did not get sick.”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-03-21/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israeli-expert-trump-is-right-about-covid-19-who-is-wrong/0000017f-e7d6-da9b-a1ff-efff91ff0000
I was having this conversation just this morning with a friend - the vaccines have done nothing but fry the immune systems of those who voluntarily took it or were unfortunately coerced.
It was the natural evolution of the virus that reduced mortality and this can be seen by the way that the vaccinated are now more susceptible to reinfection but don't die.
I have never had the shot. I was very severely infected with Delta last summer. I have not been sick since. I have natural immunity that the vaccinated do not have and now at the very least, Omincron is going to be their own specific scourge, forever.
I think rather that the virus has evolved in an "unnatural" way, with successive variants coming to dominance under heavy influence from highly vaccinated populations (what GvB calls "immune pressure").
I think it boils down to people being inside and people being outside. Here in Israel people are inside from June-September - as it's too hot to be outside - and from December to February- because of the rain. The voluntary winter lockdown is less strict than the summer lockdown. In July 2021 Israel had the distinction to be the country with the highest vaccination rate and the highest infection rate at the same time and we see the number of infections rising again right now.
it's more than just an inside/outside thing, though that's part of it. you often find that infection peaks are correlated very precisely by latitude, suggesting sunlight is somehow directly implicated (either via vitamin D or perhaps UV rays mess up virus transmission somehow). whatever the cause, I think it's specifically climatisation that causes those August mortality spikes in Israel, southern US, etc. people are inside, away from sun, the air is much drier, other things too probably.
Winter-spring population average low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D cause weaker innate and adaptive immune responses, leading to greater disease severity, average viral shedding per infected person and so more transmission and overall number of people infected. This is true in countries far from the equator for influenza. The same is true of COVID-19, but the great change in variants (the UK is now on its 5th) in a short time, each new one being more transmissible, and partly evading immune responses raised by quasi-vaccines and infection, means the seasonal pattern is not so clear.
This seasonal variation in 25-hydroxyvitamin D surely explains most of the seasonality of influenza, but other factors include hotter, dryer air in buildings and vehicles during winter - the opposite of outdoors conditions. Please see the observations, research and hypotheses at:
https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/covid-19-seasonality-is-primarily
For the most pertinent research on vitamin D and the immune system, please see this submission to the UK government's Office for Health Improvement and Disparities call for evidence on vitamin D, from Patrick W. Chambers MD and myself:
https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/
Check out the information and graphs from Ivor Cummins re: different "peak" patterns in temperate climates vs tropical/subtropical. I think the research by Hope-Simpson that Cummins cites was done before climatisation was widespread. The southern U.S. "peaks" have not been spikes; they have been long, low humps in mid-late summer as Simpson described; quite a contrast to the sharp winter peaks of northeastern U.S. states. Here's a link to Cummins's best video on this:
Youtube.com/watch?v=NxhGch0C6hE&t=870s
Interesting to see the seasonality aspect of covid has been completely destroyed here in the UK. Our cases started rising in late June/early July 2021 after a lull of a couple of months from the winter 20/21 peak. Hospitalisation and deaths rose in step with the cases (delta) and then cases exploded in jan 2022 (omicron). Since last summer, cases/hospitalisation/deaths have never fully decreased like they would have in previous waves - I can only attribute this to the never ending vaccination programme over here that seems to be keeping a certain level of virus (or lack of immunity) circulating in the UK population
the cases may no longer adhere to seasonal patterns, but the mortality peaks do. there is somewhat elevated UK mortality right now, but it's nothing compared to peak winter fatalities in 2020 and 2021.
It would be interesting to track the "cases" and mortality alongside the injections. I assume that there is a period of two weeks after injection where the injectee's immune system is compromised, with increased vulnerability to infection. Delta appeared to my eye as a consequence of injection campaigns, as the seasonality was unusual.
Ask and ye shall receive.
https://inumero.substack.com/p/impact-of-vaccines-on-all-deaths?s=r
This dude does work, I recommend subscribing.
This is very interesting and the comments Are also informative. My question is this: how confident are you that the vaccines had absolutely no benefit? Many critics of the pandemic response in the US, such as Vinay Prasad MD still think the vaccines reduce death and morbidity and or hospitalization due to Covid. I personally have concluded that near all studies by US agencies using our data are invalid as they largely support vaccine promotion at all times , for all age groups. Not mention no discussion of all-cause mortality.
the vaccines take deaths out of the "SARS-2" column. but, you might say paradoxically, they don't seem to have any impact on the overall excess mortality picture. so you can vaccinate a lot, and your official Corona deaths will go down, but your all-cause death numbers stay more or less the same.
a few things might be happening here:
1) we're failing, somehow, to vaccinate those most likely to die of Corona. so the vaccines seem effective, but it's just because people who are going to die anyway are also unvaccinated. i think this is certainly happening in some places, but not everywhere.
2) statistical trickery in how 'unvaccinated' deaths are assigned, i.e. people infected right after vaccination (perhaps as a result of enhanced susceptibility b/c of vaccination) are called unvaccinated infections/ deaths. i think this is also at least a contributing factor in many jurisdictions.
3) some subtler or more complex mechanism, via which the vaccines actually do reduce the likelihood of the vaccinated to die of SARS-2, but increase their likelihood of dying from something else, effectively just moving risk around and not eliminating it.
My grandfather died after a long battle with cancer. A week before he died, he got covid in the hospital. (Neg when went in, positive two days later) He had been too sick with the cancer to get a vaccine, so guess who got counted as an unvaxxed covid death?
Thanks so much. This is why we should look strictly at all-cause mortality, which none of the public health or governmental leaders in the US are doing. It is deeply disturbing; they are all perfectly capable of understanding this , so that means we have a conspiracy of silence in America. I think probably all three mechanisms are in play; my anecdotal experience with my patients’ medical records is that their vaccine info is often inaccurate. Also many analyses have included the partially vaccinated in the unvaccinated group. Also, we know some people are dying of blood clots or myocarditis after vaccination, we just don’t know how many. Only case reports trickle into our US media. In my continuing quest to refine my message to my patients, which usually is to try to discourage them from getting a booster, I have told them that I honestly don’t know who benefits from the vaccine and who doesn’t and therefore I really can’t recommend it to anyone. Your work is tremendously helpful, please keep it up!
In the UK IIRC, 2.2% of the population are classed by doctors as too weak to be vaccinated. This includes the very elderly, the severely immuno-compromised, and people already in palliative care (dying). I expect these people figure highly in each wave of mortality (as they will in e.g. flu mortality).
"Healthy vaccinee bias" is well known (e.g. for flu vaccines). That is, people who get vaccinated are (as a whole) healthier than those who do not (also wealthier, better educated etc.). So I expect that if you "vaccinated" a whole population with e.g. saline solution, you would usually be able to show a headlline "benefit" to "vaccination".
i've never seen any source like that for the UK, but would be interested if you have a link. officially, doctors in most countries insist that they vaccinate everyone.
Yes, I've never seen any such stats for the UK -- in fact all of our vaccination drives started with the very elderly and/or immunocompromised.
Prince Phillip died shortly after his vaccination.
I don't have a bookmark, but IIRC it was in one of the official UK or England datasets. There is a chance it was Denmark,
RE: Increases in Excess Mortality
https://metatron.substack.com/p/excess-mortality-in-germany-2020?s=r
https://metatron.substack.com/p/covid-requiem-aeternam?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/non-covid-19-excess-deaths-higher-among-white-collar-workers-life-insurance-data_4469409.html
Thank you for this analysis. Especially, as you mentioned, Sweden vs. Germany.
I've felt that the area under the curve is going to be approximately the same, you can just spread it over multiple peaks with lockdowns and other measures (flatten the curve....). Everyone is going to get it sooner or later. And I think this was known or hoped for by the pharmaceutical companies: delay herd immunity as much as possible so that the vaccine would be accepted.
Also why access to antibody tests was restricted or actively disparaged. They didn't want people to know with certainty that they'd been infected in the months prior back when the virus was said to be novel in spring 2020. They needed to cast doubt on prior spread and on natural immunity in order to make people accept the vaccines.
Are you SURE it's not just luck that's allowed the 'seasonality theorists' to correctly predict virus activity since summer of 2020?
But but but we have new Omicron jabs! For old variants! The antibodies last a whole month. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So good to see someone focus on the essence of the matter, namely excess mortality. The data don't care about cause of death, just the numbers of deaths: That's the sort of data that's very hard to fake. Test results, numbers of cases, hospitalization rates, causes of death, not to mention the wildly inaccurate 'data' from Imperial College projectionists -- all these metrics have an arbitrary element to them that at best is subject to unknown bias, and at worst can be politically manipulated. It's much harder to fudge excess mortality, so focusing on that is eminently sensible, as this article shows.
banned indefinitely for being an obnoxious tit