Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory by David Crowe
This article also relates to Germs & Germ Theory,
Proofs and Falsehood in Covid Testing & More
Link-- Antibody Testing For COVID
The Myth of Corona Virus video by David Crowe
PDF Full article at http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
More on Testing & the CDC vested interest
The Myth of Corona Virus video by David Crowe
The Infectious Myth.com/
Food for Thought: What are the body conditions under which harmful viruses proliferate? Why do some people have mild symptoms and others severe ones (besides the catch-all non-explanation of “low resistance”)? What positive role might flus, colds, and other non-lethal diseases play in the maintenance of health?
War-on-germs thinking brings results akin to those of the War on Terror, War on Crime, War on Weeds, and the endless wars we fight politically and interpersonally. First, it generates endless war; second, it diverts attention from the ground conditions that breed illness, terrorism, crime, weeds, and the rest.
Excerpts from the article :
Viruses Fall Short of Science's Methods and Studies P. 4
Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, “It is obvious that Koch's postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases”. That was a long time ago, but the problem continues. None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted to purify the virus or isloate it so as to make it more clearly ready for study. The word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing. For example. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is referred to as ‘isolating’ it for clear recognition and research. Reference [1]
There is no way to tell that the RNA being used in the COVID-19PCR test is found in those particles seen in the electron micrograph, because you cannot see what the contents are, they could be protein, RNA or DNA. There is thus no connection between the test, and the particles, and no proof that the particles are viral.A similar situation was revealed in March 1997 concerning HIV,when two papers published in the same issue of the journal “Virology” revealed that the vast majority of what had previously been called “pure HIV” was impurities that were clearly not HIV,and the mixture also included micro-vesicles that look very similar to HIV under an electron microscope, but are of cellular origin.[5][6]
Covid Tests P 8
Assuming, for a moment, the existence of a new coronavirus, what would a test tell us, at this stage? Or rather, what does it not tell us?
•Without purification and exposing animals to viral particles we do not know if the virus is pathogenic (disease causing). It could be an opportunistic infection (invades unhealthy people with weakened immune systems) or a passenger virus (that is carried alongby risky behavior, such as eating an animal carrier of a virus).
• We don’t know the false positive rate of the test without validating a large number of positive tests by attempting to purify virus. Every positive test for which virus could not be purified would be a false positive, and every negative test for which virus could be purified would be a false negative. But the virus has not yet been purified, so test validation is impossible.
•If someone is sick there is no proof that any or all of their symptoms are due to the virus, even if it is present. Some people may be immune, some may have some symptoms caused by the virus, but others caused by the drugs they are given, by pre-existing health conditions, and so on.
•We don’t know if the people who test negative are infected or not, especially when they show up with similar symptoms. For example, in [2], out of 59 patients with similar symptoms, only 41 tested positive, but the researchers were clearly not sure whether the remaining 18were truly uninfected. If they truly are not, they lend weight to COVID-19notbeing the cause of any of the illnesses, as they had symptoms indistinguishable from the 41 positives. Testing at such an early stage of knowledge is incredibly dangerous. It spreads panic, it can put people on dangerous medications, other circumstances of their treatment can be physically and psychologically damaging (such as intubation and isolation, and even seeing all the doctors and nurses in special suits emphasizing how deathly sick you are).False Negatives
–Big Problem
According to an article in the South China Morning Post[23], Li Yan, head of the diagnostic center at the People’s Hospital of Wuhan University, noted on Chinese state TV that because of the multi-step process, an error at any stage could result in an incorrect outcome. This was echoed by reference [26] which noted the possibility of errors in the many steps from the time of specimen collection through processing.Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, also on CCTV, said the accuracy is only 30 to 50 percent. Wang Chen really means, however, that the test only ever produces false negatives, and never false positives.In a paper documenting a cluster of illness and positives tests in a family [3], this bias is clear, as most patients had more negative tests than positive tests, but were considered positive anyway.
P 9
The only way to decide logically and scientifically is to have a gold standard for presence of the virus, which can only be purification and characterization(identification of the RNA and proteins). Since this has never been accomplished, doctors get to make decisions on the fly, biased towards treating patients as infected.
False Positives –Best Evidence
The first major attempt to define the false positiveratewas in a paper describing a new test methodology, but it has a built-in conflict of interest [19]. Clearly, if the false positive rate was high, the authors’ aim to “develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings”, would have failed. They did, however, do more than most. They took297 samples of nasal and throat secretions from bio banks and tested them, only finding “weak initial reactivity” in four samples which, upon retesting, disappeared. The problem with this kind of analysis is that biobank samples maynot have been obtained in the same way as samples from live people in an epidemic panic. The sampling was also not blinded, something that is necessary to eliminate the possibility of unconscious bias (a real problem in medicine).
Furthermore, many samples in people believed to be infected are negative, and multiple samples are tested, as described for the family cluster paper.
RNA is fragile if not stored carefully, and this would cause false negative results. No information on whether the samples were stored in a way designed to maintain RNA integrity was given.In sum, testing 297 samples could, at best, show that the false positive rate was 1/300, but because multiple samples are often taken in current COVID-19 test protocols, with any one positive sample over-ruling all the negatives, the false positive rate could be considerably less, as the biobank samples were only tested once.And, even if this test did have a false positive rate that was very low, it is not clear this particular test’s false positive rate cannot be extrapolated to any other test design. Even a small false positive rate is critically important. A 99% accurate test would produce 100,000 false positives in a city of 10 million, like Wuhan. And if the number of positives in sampling is around 4% (which it appears to be from early statistics), then 1 out of 4 positives would be false. Finally, on March 5th2020 some Chinese scientists dropped a bombshell. According to their analysis, based on reasonable assumptions for asymptomatic people (e.g. contacts of other cases),“the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%”.[26] This is based on a mathematical analysis using reasonable assumptions for the actual prevalence of the virus, and the performance of the test.
The best case, with the most optimistic assumptions, was still more than 40% false positives.3
P 10
Positive, Negative, Positive Again –Confusion
Some people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test negative, and then tested positive again. According to a news report [22] patients are not considered cured in China until they no longer have symptoms, have clear lungs, and have two negative COVID-19tests. Despite this, 14% of discharged patients in Guangdong Province later tested positive, but with no relapse of symptoms. This is very difficult to explain if the test is for a virus, much easier to explain if the RNA that the test is looking for is not viral in origin. Later analysis showed similar results in Wuhan, with 5-10% declared to be “recovered” (negative tests after cessation of symptoms) later tested positive, often without symptoms [42]. Chinese scientists reported that29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3-6 test results that flipped between Negative, Positive and ‘Dubious’ (undefined, but probably means a PCR cycle number between positive and negative)[52]. One patient, for example had three negative tests interspersed by two positive tests. Others had one test result in each of the three categories. Other confusing test results are listed in Appendix A
Negative, Negative, Negative
A group of doctors in Marseille, France, working in a very experienced lab, that regularly does testing for respiratory viruses, reported testing 4,084 samples for COVID-19, using several systems approved for use in Europe, without a single positive [25]. This included 337 people returning from China who were tested twice, and 32 people referred because of suspected infection. It is statistically improbable that this lab was just lucky to not get any COVID-19 cases, it is more likely that they used more stringent criteria, illustrating that the performance of not just test kits, but labs, with this new test, is completely unknown.Yet, a positive test remains unquestioned in every case.
Preserve the test
Overall, it seems that test results must be interpreted to preserve the coronavirus theory. No alternative interpretation is allowed. And when there is an inconsistency, it must be ignored or explained away, often invoking imaginary data. These situations are listed in Appendix C.
Test Experience
A paper from Singapore by doctors and public health officials provides a revealing look atthe inner guts of COVID-19 testing. Hidden away in the supplementary materials.
* NOTE: The abstract was eventually withdrawn, but without any explanation, indicating it was a political removal. The original Chinese language article was not retracted by the journal. This may be the first time ever that an abstract alone has been withdrawn (24], where few people will see it, it exposes;;;
Some important issues with tests:
•The test is not binary (negative/positive)and has an arbitrary cutoff.
•The quantity of RNA does not correlate with illness.
•If negative means uninfected and positive means infected, then people went from infected to uninfected and back again, sometimes several times.
•Results below the cutoff are not shown, and are treated as negative, but if PCR continued past the cutoff and was eventually positive, this would indicate presence of small quantities of the RNA which is supposedly unique toCOVID-19 (i.e. infection).Before you read beyond the following figure, ask yourself why the first 6 graphs, shown deliberately out of numerical order, are separated. What are the visual differences between those 6 and the remainder? Do this right away so my interpretation does not bias your opinion.
Get the Graph here>> Myth of Corona Virus here-- http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf on Pg. 11-- many visuals, etc. and this article in its entirety.
Notes & References on Pgs. 33- 44
Full article here>> Myth of Corona Virus here-- http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf-- you will find many visuals, etc. and this article in its entirety.
From here things get more complicated, a bit much for some.It can also be best to read it yourself.
http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------
Covid Testing continued
Page 14
Positive to Negative and Back Again
The majority of the 18 patients had a positive test, followed by a negative test, followed by a positive test. Some had this several times.If a negative test means uninfected, then this is impossible. You cannot rid yourself of the virus, and then be re-infected the next day, and then infected the day after,and then become uninfected again.Or, if rapid re-infectionis possible in a hospital setting, then the virus must be simply everywhere and fighting it is totally useless.The simplest answer to this conundrum is that negative tests do not mean uninfected. But the corollary is that positive tests do not mean infected. Which would make the test worthless.
Page 16
Transmission
There is lots of evidence that the virus is not as transmissible as is being implied.(January 2) “27 (66%) [of 41 early] patients had direct exposure to Huanan seafood market [i.e. about 1/3 did not]”. [2]. (January 1-20) “Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market.” [10] [i.e. 51% did not](January 1-January 22)
A larger survey, including all the first 425 cases, showed that of those diagnosed January 1stor later, 72% had “No exposure to either market or person with respiratory symptoms”.[13]“The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was Dec 1, 2019. None of his family members developed fever or any respiratory symptoms. No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases.”[2](of the family cluster) “None of the family members had contacts with Wuhan markets or animals...They had no history of contact with animals, visits to markets including the Huanan seafood wholesale market in Wuhan, or eating game meat in restaurants.” [3](March 3) “Nearly 80% of patients with the new coronavirus in Japan have not passed on the infection to others regardless of the degree of their symptoms, a government panel of experts announced on March 2.”[43](May 6) The majority of recently hospitalized patients in New York are people who have followed the precaution of staying home. 66% were retired or unemployed and not commuting to work [80].
Examples are given about Transmission--- the briefest are:
Transmission 3 –Illinois Couple
A paper in Lancet made a big deal about the presumed first case of person-to-person contact in the USA, from a woman who had visited Wuhan in December 2019, to her husband, who had stayed in the United States. She got sickafter returning, and later both her and her husband, who had not traveled to Wuhan, tested positive for COVID-19[31]. Whether he had symptoms or not was impossible to tell because he had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, so had a cough and difficulty breathing all the time. What is more interesting is that authorities identified 372 contacts of this couple, and “were able to assess exposure risk and actively monitor symptoms for 347”. Not one of these people had an emergency room visit with respiratory symptoms within 14 days of contact with the couple. 43 did have some symptoms that could have been COVID-19, and became “Persons Under Investigation” (PUIs). 26 had had exposures to the couple classified as“medium risk or greater”. But despite the presence of symptoms, contact with the couple, and close monitoring, not one tested positive for COVID-
Transmission 4 –Diamond Princess [33]
The Diamond Princess cruise ship was a perfect laboratory for watching a highly infectious pathogen in action. The first person who tested positive had symptoms before boarding the ship on January 20th. It was not until February 1stthat they tested positive, and February 3rdwhen passengers were confined to their quarters, in some cases with someone who tested positive. Passengers had interactions with the crew, e.g. to obtain meals. Despite this, the rate of transmission was only 16.7%, meaning that 83.3% remained negative. Since almost half those who tested positive hadno symptoms it was not possible to avoid contact with positive persons based on observing symptoms, and it meant that 92% emerged from quarantine without having experienced symptoms due to COVID-19.
Transmission 5- Magical?
Numerous newspaper articles have noted cases outside China (where individual cases were still newsworthy) that had no known contact with another case, or travel to an endemic region (notably Wuhan). These are documented in Appendix 2
P 20--
Proving Transmission
It is impossible, in most cases, to prove that someone did have contact with another COVID-19case, even if they did travel to Wuhan and visit the Huanan market. In the best case it will be possibleto showthat someone was in the vicinity of someone who tested positive earlier, but that does not constitute proof that they were exposed to the virus, let alone that it was that person who infected them.In most cases, even if someone was in Wuhan, there will be no evidence that a person was in contact with another victim. Fundamentally, this beliefthat it is contact that causes positive tests is necessary to preserve the infectious paradigm. Therefore,the slightest evidence of an association between an old case and a new case (such as having been in the same city at the same time) is taken as proof of transmission, when it is obviously not.
Next the article goes into Treatment & Conclusions
In the section on Treatment, it is shown that coronavirus positive patients who die are generally older and sicker than the general population. This means that they are less able to withstand aggressive treatment. It is known that the treatments have side effects, that these can be quite severe, but it is not yet known if any of them have benefits
Pg 27 +
Mortality
There are four main questions to ask about mortality:
1.Are the number of cases significant in the context of normal mortality?
2.Is the death rate of cases higher than other similar diseases, such as influenza?
3.Who is dying?
4.Are there reasons for death other than a novel coronavirus?
More details in the PDF
Notes & References on Pgs. 33- 44
Full article here>> Myth of Corona Virus here-- http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf-- you will find many visuals, etc. and this article in its entirety.
http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
------------------------------------------------------------
Covid Testing continued
Page 14
Positive to Negative and Back Again
The majority of the 18 patients had a positive test, followed by a negative test, followed by a positive test. Some had this several times.If a negative test means uninfected, then this is impossible. You cannot rid yourself of the virus, and then be re-infected the next day, and then infected the day after,and then become uninfected again.Or, if rapid re-infectionis possible in a hospital setting, then the virus must be simply everywhere and fighting it is totally useless.The simplest answer to this conundrum is that negative tests do not mean uninfected. But the corollary is that positive tests do not mean infected. Which would make the test worthless.
Page 16
Transmission
There is lots of evidence that the virus is not as transmissible as is being implied.(January 2) “27 (66%) [of 41 early] patients had direct exposure to Huanan seafood market [i.e. about 1/3 did not]”. [2]. (January 1-20) “Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market.” [10] [i.e. 51% did not](January 1-January 22)
A larger survey, including all the first 425 cases, showed that of those diagnosed January 1stor later, 72% had “No exposure to either market or person with respiratory symptoms”.[13]“The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was Dec 1, 2019. None of his family members developed fever or any respiratory symptoms. No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases.”[2](of the family cluster) “None of the family members had contacts with Wuhan markets or animals...They had no history of contact with animals, visits to markets including the Huanan seafood wholesale market in Wuhan, or eating game meat in restaurants.” [3](March 3) “Nearly 80% of patients with the new coronavirus in Japan have not passed on the infection to others regardless of the degree of their symptoms, a government panel of experts announced on March 2.”[43](May 6) The majority of recently hospitalized patients in New York are people who have followed the precaution of staying home. 66% were retired or unemployed and not commuting to work [80].
Examples are given about Transmission--- the briefest are:
Transmission 3 –Illinois Couple
A paper in Lancet made a big deal about the presumed first case of person-to-person contact in the USA, from a woman who had visited Wuhan in December 2019, to her husband, who had stayed in the United States. She got sickafter returning, and later both her and her husband, who had not traveled to Wuhan, tested positive for COVID-19[31]. Whether he had symptoms or not was impossible to tell because he had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, so had a cough and difficulty breathing all the time. What is more interesting is that authorities identified 372 contacts of this couple, and “were able to assess exposure risk and actively monitor symptoms for 347”. Not one of these people had an emergency room visit with respiratory symptoms within 14 days of contact with the couple. 43 did have some symptoms that could have been COVID-19, and became “Persons Under Investigation” (PUIs). 26 had had exposures to the couple classified as“medium risk or greater”. But despite the presence of symptoms, contact with the couple, and close monitoring, not one tested positive for COVID-
Transmission 4 –Diamond Princess [33]
The Diamond Princess cruise ship was a perfect laboratory for watching a highly infectious pathogen in action. The first person who tested positive had symptoms before boarding the ship on January 20th. It was not until February 1stthat they tested positive, and February 3rdwhen passengers were confined to their quarters, in some cases with someone who tested positive. Passengers had interactions with the crew, e.g. to obtain meals. Despite this, the rate of transmission was only 16.7%, meaning that 83.3% remained negative. Since almost half those who tested positive hadno symptoms it was not possible to avoid contact with positive persons based on observing symptoms, and it meant that 92% emerged from quarantine without having experienced symptoms due to COVID-19.
Transmission 5- Magical?
Numerous newspaper articles have noted cases outside China (where individual cases were still newsworthy) that had no known contact with another case, or travel to an endemic region (notably Wuhan). These are documented in Appendix 2
P 20--
Proving Transmission
It is impossible, in most cases, to prove that someone did have contact with another COVID-19case, even if they did travel to Wuhan and visit the Huanan market. In the best case it will be possibleto showthat someone was in the vicinity of someone who tested positive earlier, but that does not constitute proof that they were exposed to the virus, let alone that it was that person who infected them.In most cases, even if someone was in Wuhan, there will be no evidence that a person was in contact with another victim. Fundamentally, this beliefthat it is contact that causes positive tests is necessary to preserve the infectious paradigm. Therefore,the slightest evidence of an association between an old case and a new case (such as having been in the same city at the same time) is taken as proof of transmission, when it is obviously not.
Next the article goes into Treatment & Conclusions
In the section on Treatment, it is shown that coronavirus positive patients who die are generally older and sicker than the general population. This means that they are less able to withstand aggressive treatment. It is known that the treatments have side effects, that these can be quite severe, but it is not yet known if any of them have benefits
Pg 27 +
Mortality
There are four main questions to ask about mortality:
1.Are the number of cases significant in the context of normal mortality?
2.Is the death rate of cases higher than other similar diseases, such as influenza?
3.Who is dying?
4.Are there reasons for death other than a novel coronavirus?
More details in the PDF
Notes & References on Pgs. 33- 44
Full article here>> Myth of Corona Virus here-- http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf-- you will find many visuals, etc. and this article in its entirety.
Number of Cases
Many people are convinced that COVID-19 is a severe problem by the large number of deaths it is causing. For example, at the time of writing, Worldometer was reporting about 164,000 deaths from COVID-19, to date, representing about 0.002% of the global population. One reason this number is misleading is because it is a cumulative number, and not a weekly number. If we divide by the 8 weeks that, at the time of writing, the panic had been in western countries, it amounts to about 20,500 deaths per week, over the entire globe. Another reason the number is misleading is that few people have any idea how many people die on a weekly basis in their country. For example, in the United States, a country of about 325 million, there were about 2.8 million deaths in 2017 according to the CDC, or about 54,000 per week. So normal deaths in the United States per week are between two and three times larger than global
deaths due to the coronavirus.
Page 27
Death Rate of Cases
While ordinary people might have been panicking due to the sheer scale of the number of deaths, medical and scientific people were panicking over the high death rate. The death rate is simply the number of deaths from coronavirus divided by the total number of cases. A problem is that the number of cases who have been discovered may be vastly less than the real number of cases, because asymptomatic people are much less likely to be tested, and this dramatically increases the apparent death rate. Secondly, people may be recorded as coronavirus deaths when it was not the main cause of death, and this also dramatically increases the apparent cause of death.As an example, take a town that has 100 confirmed coronavirus cases and 10 deaths. The death rate is 10% which is 100 times more than influenza(0.1%). But a recent study, using an antibody survey, found that there were 50-85 times more people positive in Santa Clara County, hard hit by the COVID-19 panic, than confirmed cases would indicated. Then a 10% death rate would drop to between 0.2% and 0.1%.
But what if only 12% of people registered as coronavirus deaths actually died from the coronavirus death, as the scientific advisor to Italy’s Minister of Health, stated in an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph [62]? Then a 10% death rate declines to under 1%. The United States also has a policy of recording most deaths of coronavirus-positive people as deaths from the coronavirus, even if the death was obviously from one of their pre-existing health conditions combined with old age[62].In Belgium, all deaths at retirements homes are classified as COVID-19 although only 5% have tested positive for the virus [71].Similarly, 55 deaths at a nursing home in Brooklyn, USA, were classified as COVID-19 despite the fact that, “not a single resident has been able to get tested for the virus to this day” [72].If we multiply the number of coronavirus cases by 50 while taking 12% of the deaths as truly from coronavirus, then our 10% death rate drops to 0.02%, which is significantly less than influenza.
P 28 Next the paper goes into...
Who is Dying?
Coronavirus patients are generally older and weaker than the general population.
Many details on this are in the original document-- http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf-- you will find many visuals, etc. and this article in its entirety.
More--
Non-Viral Causes of Death
It is generally believed that any surplus deaths seen since February could only have been caused by COVID-19. Unfortunately, due to the evolving situation, and dearth of the appropriate information, quantifying these deaths is currently impossible. There are actually several ways in which our panic could have caused death.
•Aggressive medical treatment.
•Isolation.
•Delaying going to hospital.
•Consequences of home confinement.
•Consequences of germphobia.
•Air Pollution.
More...
Aggressive medical treatment
The Treatment section above describes the special medical treatments that are only given to people who test coronavirus positive or who, in some cases, are believed to be coronavirus infected based on symptoms. Both intubation and drug treatments have side effects that can be fatal, although it is not possible at present to quantify the number of deaths being cause.
Isolation
COVID-19 patients are generally isolated from the outside world, not able to see visitors, and not seeing staff as humans because they are hidden behind layers of personal protective gear. The literature on the benefits of visitation to patients is too vast to cite here, but visitors can help patients understand what medical staff are saying and proposing to do, provide emotional comfort, relieve boredom, and make the patient continue to believe that their life is worth the struggle to continue. If the only people seen are in protective gear that further emphasizes the dire circumstances, and the small likelihood of recovery.
Delaying Treatment
In the United Kingdom the government put up posters that have messages similar to this: “If you or anyone in your household has a high temperature or a new and continuous cough -even if it’s mild, (A) Everyone in your household must stay at home for 14 days and keep away from others; (B) DO NOT go to your GP, hospital or pharmacy; (C) Only call NHS 111 if you can’t get online or your symptoms worsen.”This is a very clear message that sick people must stay home. In most cases their symptoms probably resolve, but if they progress to pneumonia the affected person may still delay going to the hospital, and when they do arrive their pneumonia may be much further advanced than under normal circumstances.
Patients may also decide for themselves that they do not want to go to an Emergency Room because of the perception that it will be full of people infected with COVID-19, and a certain way to pick up the infection. In New York, people in cardiac arrest whose hearts cannot be restarted at the scene will not be driven to the hospital for further resuscitation attempts, according to the New York Post on April 2nddue to fear that hospitals are overwhelmed with coronavirus patients (nypost.com/2020/04/02/coronavirus-nyc-emts-stop-taking-cardiac-arrest-patients-to-hospitals). By contrast, in Birmingham, in the UK, paramedics are told to pick up the patient but not to start chest compressions or ventilation in the ambulance, but to wait until they arrive at the hospital, due to fear of contamination of the ambulance with COVID-19 (https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1282).
Consequences of home confinement
In Canada, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a legal action group, wrote to Prime Minister Trudeau and provincial premiers, asking their governments to quantify various harms from home confinement and other restrictions on movement and association, including deaths from
•Increased suicide rates, e.g. due to unemployment, bankruptcy or hopeless poverty :due to loss of employment or closure of a small business.
•Deaths from alcoholism and drug abuse, exacerbated by loss of employment, loss of social interactions and isolation.
•Domestic abuse from forcing partners to stay in close quarters for extended periods of time, when one of the partners is already abusive.
•Deaths of elderly, infirm people due to lack of visitors to observe their deteriorating physical and mental condition.
•Deaths from cancellations of elective surgeriesor from inability to access hospital services. An organization that is a “leading provider of data to NHS [National Health Service] trusts”(Edge Health)warned on April 25th that there might already be 2,000 medical deaths per week from the non-COVID impacts of the coronavirus panic, such as among stroke, heart attack and diabetes patients who can no longer access needed services [76].•Future deaths from increased poor health in children (e.g. diabetes) who have few opportunities for exercise or fresh air.
Consequences of Germphobia
Modern societies have long had a fear of microbes, with many people seeing them only as a source of sickness, despite many foods containing bacteria or fungi, such as cheese, yogurt, kefir, miso soup, kombucha, pickles, olives, kimchi, sauerkraut (if not pasteurized), tempeh and more.The coronavirus panic has led to vastly increased (although probably futile) efforts at disinfection of any surfaces that people could come in contact with. This may well cause long term problems, such as the development of cancer, but in the short term it has already been associated with a sharp increase in calls to US poison control centers, according to the CDC [65].
Air Pollution
Many people noted that both Wuhan and Lombardy Italy, two hotspots for coronavirus deaths, also suffered from heavy air pollution. Now there is some scientific support for this. Harvard University scientists found that an increase of 1 microgram of fine particulates per cubic meter was associated with an8% increase6in COVID-19 deaths [68]. An Italian study concluded that, “people living in an area with high levels of pollutant are more prone to develop chronic respiratory conditions and suitable to any infective agent. Moreover, a prolonged exposure to air pollution leads to a chronic inflammatory stimulus, even in young and healthy subjects. We conclude that the high levelof pollution in Northern Italy should be considered an additional co-factor of the high level of lethality recorded in that area”[69]. Air pollution may leave people more vulnerable, both to any new health challenges, and to aggressive medical treatment
Conclusions
The coronavirus panic is just that, an irrational panic, based on an unproven RNA test, that has never been connected to a virus. And which won’t be connected to a virus unless the virus is purified. Furthermore, even if the test can detect anovel virus the presence of avirus isnot proof that it is the cause of the severe symptoms that some people who test positive experience (but not all who test positive). Finally, even if the test can detect a virus, and it is dangerous, we do not know what the rate of false positives is. And even a 1% false positive rate could produce 100,000 false positive results just in a city the size of Wuhan and could mean that a significant fraction of the positive test results being found are false positives. The use of powerful drugs because doctors are convinced that they have a particularly potent virus on their hands, especially in older people, with pre-existing health conditions, is likely to lead to many deaths. As with SARS. There is very little science happening. There is a rush to explain everything that is happening in a way that does not question the viral paradigm, does not question the meaningfulness of test results, and that promotes the use of untested antiviral drugs. And, given enough time there will be a vaccine developed and, for some of the traumatized countries, it may become mandatory, even if developed after the epidemic has disappeared, so that proving that it reduces the risk of developing a positive test will be impossible.
Notes & References on Pgs. 33- 44
Full article here>> Myth of Corona Virus here-- http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf-- you will find many visuals, etc. and this article in its entirety.
