Dr Wolfgang Wodarg
The numerous and disproportionately frequent deaths of Covid19 patients with dark skin colour and from southern countries are apparently also the result of a drug-related mistreatment. Those affected are people with a specific enzyme deficiency, which occurs mainly in men whose families come from regions where malaria was or still is endemic.
They are currently being treated with hydroxychloroquine, a drug which they do not tolerate, now being used all over the world to fight Covid-19. If this practice does not end soon, there is a great risk of widespread deaths, especially in Africa.
Before I describe my research on these findings which are very disturbing to me, I would like to say a few words about the assessment of the corona crisis, the reliability of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, as well as ubiquitous fear and how it is used politically.
In my investigations into the events after Wuhan, which have completely changed the world since the beginning of 2020, I realized quickly that although we are experiencing a new Corona virus variant, it does not – in view of German data on mortality and morbidity – differ significantly from what has been, or could have been, observed in recent years.
Corona viruses have not been the focus of epidemiological surveillance worldwide, as they have not contributed significantly to globalised seasonal respiratory viral infections, except in the short term in China (SARS 2002/2003) and in the Arab countries (MERS from 2012). There were also no existing vaccines that could have been recombined and marketed annually, as is the case for influenza.
As is well known, regular global episodes of flu have been referred to as “pandemics” since the swine flu of 2009, in an inflationary manner and focusing on single pathogens. In this context, vigilance and historically justified mistrust have long been required.
For if our normal, changing and globally circulating viral winter guests, such as the H1N1 viruses in 2009, already meet the criteria of a pandemic, then the term has become meaningless.
Before 2009, things were different. At that time, the necessary characteristics of a pandemic included a great many serious illnesses and numerous deaths, with a worldwide catastrophic overload of health care.
To me, the sole infection epidemiological aspects of the Wuhan phenomenon are clearly laid out by and large.
According to the available figures of the German networks for the surveillance of acute respiratory infections (ARI), the Influenza consortium and the Flu Web, and according to hospital data for ARI, as well as data on the utilization of intensive care units in the country, the flu wave 2019/2020 with its diverse pathogen spectrum has passed without any particularities. Only the consultations in the reporting wards apparently took place much less frequently in the last weeks of the season due to the lockdown.
With regard to acute seasonal respiratory diseases there is currently no reason to fear increased acute respiratory infections. From a medical point of view and considering the available data special precautions are now unnecessary – even if the government says otherwise.
The SARS-CoV-2 PCR test: non-specific, medically useless, but anxiety-producing
Because of the great importance for the Covid-19 occurrence, special attention must be paid to the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test – the only instrument available to measure the virus and to be able to talk about a new spread at all.
My assessment on this has not changed since the end of February: Without the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 viruses designed by German scientists, we would not have noticed a corona “epidemic” or even a “pandemic”.
After the WHO recommended it (“not for medical diagnostic purposes”), the test was used all over the country in the attempt to find fragments of SARS virus. An institution in China, whose name was not mentioned by one of the developers of the PCR test, Prof. Drosten, during an interview on German public radio “Deutschlandfunk”, confirmed to the virologist that the test used by him found the SARS fragment they were looking for in the Wuhan SARS virus.
My assessment of this test which is not officially accredited and not approved for medical purposes and now used to search for “cases” worldwide, is as follows:
How can a test that turns out positive for the many different SARS viruses of bats, dogs, tigers, lions, domestic cats and humans, which have been changing and spreading worldwide for many years, be called specific for the detection of an allegedly only four-month-old SARS-CoV-2?
Apparently it is a sensitive test that produces too many positive results. Therefore it can also detect many – in the meantime naturally recombined – SARS-like pathogens. This does not deny that the viruses from Wuhan were also among those.
However, the test seemingly also measures earlier SARS variants that are constantly altering, can change hosts quickly and are not found in virologists’ databases. However, these were and are obviously not considered to be extraordinarily dangerous.
So how do we know that the discrepancy between the many harmless infections and the few more severe courses is not due to the fact that different variants are found equally well with the test used? Especially since it turns out positive even for animal variants!
However, a positive – although possibly meaningless – test result is always frightening and causes an immediate and predictable respective behaviour on the part of those affected and those responsible.
The widespread testing, the fixation on ventilation problems, the emptying of the clinics for the announced flood of Covid-19 victims and triage exercises caused panic and thus guaranteed the obedience of a strongly intimidated population.
How to make fear last
When it became increasingly clear – even before the lockdown measures – that Germany would probably be mostly spared, two new foreign images of horror dominated the reporting in our country and ensured that fear and obedience continued: coffins and deadly chaos in many Italian and Spanish hospitals, refrigerated containers full of corpses and mass graves in New York. The conclusion was, that it had to be a dangerous epidemic after all.
However, it is unlikely that the same virus is so much more harmless in Hamburg than in New York. There must be other reasons for this.
Therefore I focused my research on these new focal points of the recent development. Perhaps, I hoped, it would then be easier to understand why many governments keep talking about the threat of a “second wave” and the continued need for a lockdown.
It is currently reasoned that the measures should be maintained more or less until the entire population can be saved by vaccination. One and a half years of a “new normality” without holidays, celebrations, cultural and sporting events are demanded and compulsory vaccinations, compulsory tests, tracking and immunity apps are held in prospect.
But why? How can the government be so sure to consider it necessary to repeal essential parts of the Basic Law, to drive the middle class into bankruptcy and to let workers and employees fall into unemployment? What else are we facing?
Medical Detectives: A look beneath the surface
The challenge is to find out what happened, for example, in Northern Italy, Spain or New York. In order to grasp this more research is needed, than what is taught in normal epidemiology.
In Baltimore, at the now unfortunately institutionally corrupted Johns Hopkins University, I used to attend intensive epidemiological training, which gave me a great deal of methodological knowledge. There was also a branch called “Medical Detectives”.
Here one could learn from history and on the basis of numerous well-researched cases how health consequences can arise, for example, from well or food poisoning and which tricks make it difficult to distinguish natural from man-made or even criminal causes. Medical detectives – everyone knows it from crime novels – have perpetrators and victims, motives and murder weapons, alibis and clients.
A disease – even one declared by the WHO – can be a “fake”. In the cases of bird flu and swine flu, I have seen and investigated the unscrupulous and corrupt machinations of the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry. Time and again health fears have been created to divert billions of public money into private pockets with dangerous products.
That is why one may also ask about Covid-19: Could there be something else behind the public’s continued anxiety? Cui bono? Who benefits from the fear?
Virologists once again as fear-mongers
Besides the WHO, the fear-mongers are again some virologists I already know from the past. Most of them – and this is unfortunately already “new normality” everywhere at medical institutes today – have established close cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry or other investors.
Nowadays it is easier to become a professor if you have shown skills in obtaining third-party funds. Science has become accustomed to “cheating”, and the universities make this easier through non-transparent spin-offs, public-private partnerships or cooperation with alleged charitable foundations.
The virology department of the Berlin Charité is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation regarding Covid-19. A co-author of the PCR test by Drosten et al. is the CEO of the biotech company TIB Molbiol, which is now increasingly producing tests and selling them for millions. However, these are detective secondary findings that do not explain by far what is turning this world upside down.
The majority of experts can no longer deny that the danger of infections in Germany and its neighbouring countries has already passed, without embarrassing themselves for the rest of their careers.
And yet there are people in governments, public offices and the scientific community who want to lock us up with fear and keep on patronizing us.
My annoyance about this medically incomprehensible panic mongering and about many epidemic-hygienically nonsensical authorizations and freedom-withdrawing disciplinary measures is also accompanied by the curiosity of a “medical detective” who is concerned about possible hidden motives.
Nevertheless, I do not want to deal with the political or economic background at this point. The time for this will probably come eventually. Moreover it is not my area of expertise.
Are we facing a “second wave”?
The question I ask myself is: How was it possible to create such horror scenarios with an apparently relatively harmless pathogen, whereby critics could be effortlessly eliminated and the fear in the population could constantly be fed by the media?
I would also like to know based on what scientific evidence the German Chancellor, her Minister of Health, her “virologist of choice” and others continue to announce: The second wave is yet to come. It will take many more months. We must not go on holiday. We have to be prepared to work from home in the future. We all have to be tested, tracked and vaccinated with a drug that has yet to be tested.
Although all this is already laid out in the script with the title “The first modern pandemic”, published by Bill Gates on April 23, it is not medically explained there either.
A hint from New York
On March 31 I received an important tip: New York intensive care physician Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell had alerted his colleagues with an astonishing observation. He reported:
The Patients I saw in my ICU, they were no Covid-19 patients. They didn’t have any signs of pneumonia, but rather looked like passengers on a plane, that suddenly lost pressure at high altitude.”
Therefore It had to be a disturbance of the oxygen transport in the blood. I researched and ticked off the various known causes of such symptoms one after the other, if they were out of the question because of the progression of the disease.
The most probable cause seemed to be rapid hemolysis, a destruction of the erythrocytes (red blood cells) that exchange oxygen in the lungs for Co2 to exhale in order to transport the oxygen to every corner of our body. Patients then feel suffocated, breathe very quickly and under great effort.
We know what to do in such a case because it is demonstrated to us in the aircraft before every take-off: Oxygen masks fall from the ceiling and bring relief until everything is back to normal. This is exactly what helped the patients in New York the best. Intubation and ventilation, on the other hand, were wrong and killed people in many places.
The Nigerian dead in Sweden
I was aware of such a case with the same puzzling symptoms, which had been described in 2014 by Swedish pneumologists in a young patient from Nigeria who had died of the disease.
At that time, an enzyme deficiency was suspected and actually found to be a possible cause after death, which occurs in many regions of Africa in 20 – 30% of the population.
It is the so-called glucose-6-dehydrogenase deficiency, or “G6PD deficiency”, one of the most common genetic peculiarities, which can lead to threatening haemolysis (dissolution of red blood cells), mainly in men, when certain drugs or chemicals are taken. The following map shows the distribution of this deficiency (Source and explanations here).
This hereditary trait is particularly common among ethnic groups living in areas with malaria. The modified G6PD gene offers advantages in the tropics. It makes its carriers resistant to malaria pathogens. However, G6PD deficiency is also dangerous if those affected come into contact with certain substances found in, for example, field beans, currants, peas and a number of medicines.
These include acetylsalicylic acid, metamizole, sulfonamides, vitamin K, naphthalene, aniline, malaria drugs and nitrofurans. The G6PD deficiency then leads to a disruption of the biochemical processes in the red blood cells and – depending on the dose – to mild to life-threatening haemolysis.
The debris of the burst erythrocytes subsequently leads to microemboli, which block small vessels throughout the organs. What had caused the illness and death of the young man from Nigeria remained unclear at the time.
An alarming discovery
I looked at the drugs that can cause severe hemolysis in G6PD deficiency and got really scared. One of the substances that is called very dangerous in all forms of this enzyme deficiency is the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
But this is precisely the substance that Chinese researchers in Wuhan have been recommending against SARS since 2003. Along with the virus from Wuhan, HCQ now came back to us as one of the therapeutic options and was accepted as such. At the same time, HCQ was recommended as a promising agent against Covid-19 for further clinical trials with the support of WHO and other agencies.
According to reports, production of this drug is to be increased in Cameroon, Nigeria and other African countries. India is the largest producer of HCQ and exports it to 55 countries.
Werner Baumann, Chairman of the Board of Management of Bayer AG, announced at the beginning of April that “various investigations in laboratories and clinics” had provided first indications that chloroquine might be suitable for the treatment of corona patients. The company then provided several million tablets.
There are now hundreds of trials worldwide, planned or ongoing by different sponsors, in which HCQ is used alone or together with other drugs. When I looked at some large studies to see if patients with G6PD deficiency were excluded, I found no evidence of this in most study plans.
In the USA, for example, a large multi-center study with 4,000 volunteers from healthy medical staff is being prepared. Here, however, the term “hypersensitivity” is only used in general terms, as is the case with all drugs with regard to allergic reactions.
In a chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine study by Oxford University (NCT04303507) with a planned 40,000 participants, the risk of G6PD deficiency is also not mentioned. In another large study by the Pentagon, though, there is an explicit warning to exclude G6PD deficiency patients from the study.
The following graph, based on information from the WHO database, shows how many studies on Covid-19 and HCQ have been initiated – and how few of them take enzyme deficiency into account.
Mostly only the cardiac complications of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are mentioned, which in Brazil led to the premature termination of a study with 11 deaths of 81 subjects. However, it seems that worldwide little attention is paid to this further serious side effect.
In addition, due to the lack of alternatives, HCQ has been tolerated and massively applied in many countries since the beginning of the year as part of a so-called “compassionate use”. In medicine, compassionate use refers to the use of not yet approved drugs in emergency situations.
During this research, more and more results of more precise evaluations of the deaths in especially affected cities were received. In New York and other cities in the USA, it was reported that the vast majority of fatalities were African Americans – twice as many as could be expected based on the proportion of the population.
Also from England, where the mortality data from Euromomo shows an increasing death rate since the beginning of April, it was reported that 35% of about 2000 seriously ill people, twice as many as expected, came from ethnic “minorities” (“black, Asian or other ethnic minority”), including doctors and medical staff.
A major doctor’s death in Italy remains in urgent need of clarification. The death of about 150 doctors and only a few female doctors are associated with Covid-19.
Although age may have played a role in many of these cases, it should be noted that a high prevalence of G6PD deficiency has also been described for some regions of Italy and that in Italy up to 71% of those who tested positive with PCR, as well as the staff, had a prophylactic high level of HCQ. The same applies to Spain.
Among the first 15 Covid-19 deaths in Sweden, there were 6 younger migrants from Somalia.
Therefore the frightening result of my research is that typical severe courses with haemolysis, microthrombi and shortness of breath without typical signs of pneumonia occur more frequently where two factors come together:
- Many patients with ancestors from malaria countries with G6PD deficiency
- Prophylactic or therapeutic use of high-dose HCQ
This is exactly what is to be expected in Africa, and this is already the case everywhere where migration is causing a large proportion of the population coming from malaria countries. The following diagram shows the process flow schematically.
Cities such as New York, Chicago, New Orleans, London, or even large cities in Holland, Belgium, Spain and France are such centers. If the test is widely used in these migration hotspots and is expected to be positive in about 10 to 20% of the population, many people from the G6PD countries will also be among them.
If they are then treated with high-dose HCQ, either prophylactically or as part of a “compassionate” use, as planned, then those severe clinical pictures will also be evoked in young people, as has been presented to us by the sensational press, and which keep our fear of Covid-19 alive.
It is unknown how many times this deadly combination has already led to victims. There has been no discussion of the issue among those responsible in the WHO and in governments. There is also a frightening lack of knowledge and sense of responsibility among doctors who are accountable for the treatment of Covid-19 patients or for the staff treating them.
Once again: This connection applies not only to Africa, but also to large parts of Asia, South and Central America, Arabia and the Mediterranean region.
However, the cases mentioned have nothing to do with Covid-19 disease. A PCR test result leading to the prophylactic prescription of HCQ is sufficient to cause severe disease in up to one third of the people from high-risk populations treated in this way.
HCQ treatment for G6PD deficiency is a dangerous malpractice
This could be remedied immediately if all treating physicians worldwide were informed about the contraindication of HCQ. However, the WHO, the CDC, the ECDC, the Chinese SARS specialists, the medical associations, the drug authorities and the German government and its advisors are carelessly neglecting to inform the public. In view of the ongoing programmes, this appears to be gross negligence.
It is malpractice to treat people with G6PD deficiency with high-dose chloroquine derivatives or other drugs known to be dangerous for them. Under the WHO label “‘Solidarity’ clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments”, healthy people are exposed in a hurry to authorised, life-threatening experiments. Hundreds of clinical trials, mostly worthless observational studies with parallel approaches, very often also run with HCQ as one of the alternatives.
German drug legislation prohibits the use of unauthorised drugs, but the government still encourages this. A non-validated test that is not approved for diagnostic purposes provides the pretext for the use of life-threatening medication – given an infectious disease where there is still no evidence that it poses serious risks beyond the risk of the annual flu epidemic.
At full throttle into the catastrophe
The dangers of this epidemic are presented with the help of scientific imposture. An unsuitable test from Berlin provides the pretext for deadly measures all over the world.
The consequences of these mistakes lead to emergencies in many regions, which are attributed to an epidemic. This creates precisely the wave of fear so many in business and politics are now riding and which threatens to bury our fundamental rights.
The public, the media and the medical community hardly seem to be surprised that in New York and other centres more than twice as many “African Americans” die as would be expected due to their population share. Even in the studies of deaths in the USA and elsewhere, the risk posed by G6PD deficiency is almost always ignored or forgotten.
When sought-after virologists and other experts have been announcing for a long time that there will be a wave of deaths and terrible conditions in the cities in Africa, do they know about these connections? Or are there other provable reasons that justify such momentous prophecies? Finally: Is all this just a matter for science or also for public prosecutors and courts?
Originally published at Multipolar Magazine. Further information and graphics can be found on the author’s website. Also available in German, French and Portuguese.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is an internist and pulmonary physician, specialist for hygiene and environmental medicine as well as for public health and social medicine. He was, among other things, a public health officer in Schleswig-Holstein, a lecturer at universities and technical colleges, chairman of the expert committee for health-related environmental protection at the Schleswig-Holstein Medical Association and member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
What a load of Tosh !!
Africans have used Hydroxychloroquine & Quinine based drugs for nearly 100 years !
Hereditary Immunity is the reason for BAME deaths as Flu is a White Man’s disease ……..
Is there any evidence that there is such a thing as “asymptomatic transmissions” with regards to sars-cov-2? This seems to be the most effective scare tactic that these politicians use to scare the population? Is there any way or any sources that can be used to debunk this? Thanks.
I have been following Dr. Wodarg since the beginning of the crowned flu. The man is acutely qualified to comment on the subject. Thank you by the way for providing this excellent English version of his writing. After reading it again, my only question is this: are these corona viruses endemic to the human biome in a certain percentage of the population (10 to 20%) or will each and every infection eventually get cleared by the immune system in 1 to 3 weeks or however long it takes?
It strikes me as no coincidence that these PCR tests must gather cultures from deep nasal passages, where the “hidden enemy” will always be lurking in a percentage of the population, thus prolonging forever the “pandemic” until Gates et al. have their way with us.
I meant to say virome lol! Drat this tablet.
“The modified G6PD gene offers advantages in the tropics. It makes its carriers resistant to malaria pathogens. However, G6PD deficiency is also dangerous if those affected come into contact with certain substances found in, for example, field beans, currants, peas and a number of medicines.”
Can anyone explain the above to me?
G6PD is apparently a piece of our genome that allows immunity towards malaria – probably coding for some type of protein that recognizes the parasites.
Seems also to be good for aiding the digestion of food.
I will safely say that, once again, diet plays a huge role in our wellness (duh.) Also look into epigenetics – changes in our DNA triggered by telomerase. Environment, and WHAT WE EAT.
I am new to terrain theory and such ideas but they are obviously on solid ground and I have been won over, although I am not convinced that viruses are real and I don’t believe in biological evolution. Blame Dr Andrew Kaufman for my doubts about viruses. I’d like to know more though. I totally agree with you on diet (maintaining your terrain). Mine is near perfect and has been for years. But I don’t complicate things. I strive for two main objectives, namely quality (meaning organic, if possible) and balance. Fruits, vegetables and assorted colors (which I believe means something, but I can be corrected here), without overdoing anything is the ticket. I also don’t eat red meat (which is mainly for religious reasons), although I do eat fish, depending.
The issue I had with the quoted section is that I can’t tell whether Wolfgang is there talking about the G6PD or a modified version of it.
Yes, Dr. Kaufman has been wonderful through this whole ordeal.
In the middle of reading “What Really Makes You Ill” Parker, Lester – whom he has interviewed via podcast.
I’m a super fan of Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Peter Glidden, Dr. Carl Pfeiffer, Dr. Rhonda Patrick, Dr Max Gerson (and Charlotte).
This foolish medical industrial complex is destroying people. I cry “euthanasia” to skeptics, but they have had a looong history of euthanasia.
1. Chemotherapies – 98% fail
2. Radiation therapies
3. Addiction to opiate prescription
And that is just recent history. Nevermind AIDS, Polio, TB, Ebola, and the mountain of prescription drug complications…
Here’s Dr. Glidden from March, wish I saw this earlier:
And not banned from YouTube (yet)…
I would also ask you reconsider your stance on biological evolution.
All of Dr. Richard Dawkins work is phenomenal.
Thanks. I find Michael Denton to be the closest thing to a scientist whose work proves that there is a God and special creation. I have to admit that I am biased. I want to believe in a God who has the power to destroy this awful, cruel, nightmarish system of things, because we clearly can’t.
Relative to all that is mentioned in this thread… Please check in with Dr Zach Bush, so as to enhance what these other great scientists mentioned have revealed…
I like Zach’s thinking, mostly.
Don’t let Dawkins’ brand of atheism interfere with his work in Biology… although I know that can be difficult sometimes.
Perhaps Odin can intervene in world affairs 😉
David Crowe has been nailing fake viral diseases for years (although I must admit, I only discovered him since the start of the “Covid-19” saga ). Check him out on:
and / or
Who the fvck neg hits you??
Mike Ellwood says, “Huge Database of Research from PHD for ready consumption via Web Address.”
*someone hits vote down wtf.
Thanks for your support WP 🙂
For what it’s worth, I have consciously decided, some time ago actually, never to down-vote anyone. I either make a comment (positive or negative), or just move on.
Bottom of page 3, going into 4:
Thanks. I listened to a long interview of David Crowe by Greg Carlwood: https://www.thehighersidechats.com/david-crowe-coronavirus-the-risks-the-testing-the-treatments/
It was very interesting. I was disappointed though when Greg asked David about 5G and he completely wimped out. He admitted that he was biased and he deflected, in my opinion, by associating 5G specifically with 30Ghz, as I recall. In other words, I can accept bias; David works as a telecomm consultant. But dishonesty – the “Look! Over there!” ploy – speaks to David’s character. He would know that when most people talk about the problems of 5G they refer to the 60Ghz frequency, which some think may interfere with the human body’s ability to properly absorb oxygen. (My understanding is that 5G will use a range. I’m only saying that when most people talk about the problems of 5G, they use the 60Ghz figure. David would know that.) David should have said, ‘Yes, I know that there’s controversy, but I will have to pass on talking about that because in am a telecomm consultant’. Even with that, David’s working for and with the enemy there, whatever other good work he’s doing.
I haven’t listened to that interview (I will try to do so), but David lays out his position on 5G here:
The case he made seemed reasonable enough to me, although I can’t say that i know much about this area.
Awesome info, this guy really gets it!
Now put this info on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS!
Thanks for the links Mike, very interesting set of papers/projected book. Much to get through and I have only just scratched the surface. I wonder just how much attention to such details government ministers are aware of given their many varied responsibilities. I know as a layman it takes me ages to get through scientific data, peer reviewed and otherwise, which opens up the probability that our goverment heads are skimming the surface and taking what their ‘advisors’ say as an ultimate ‘truth’. The greatest flaw in this is who is on whose payroll or favoured donation list – follow the money. Cui bono. And that inevitably leads one to an Agenda.
My apologies, after I re-read that second paragraph I wrote, I should have chosen a better rhetoric. Also, key word in your quote is “modified.”
Modified human gene? Through what means? When? Vietnam? Vaccination program?
G6PD is critical to the normal function of red blood cells. Thus, G6PD Deficiency can lead to a condition called hemolytic anemia (a form of anemia caused by the destruction of red blood cells) when an affected individual is exposed to certain foods, infections or medications (collectively known as ‘triggers’).
These ‘triggers’ can cause unwelcome byproducts to accumulate in the body and damage red blood cells. Usually, the G6PD enzyme in the body PROTECTS the red blood cells from damage by these byproducts… but when an individual is G6PD deficient, that layer of protection is not there in sufficient quantity.
Many people with G6PD Deficiency display no symptoms at all until AFTER the red blood cells have been damaged by one of the ‘triggers’:
-certain foods (particularly broad beans/fava beans, which are not only harmful to EAT but may also act as a trigger when merely touched)
-bacterial or viral infection
Penelope, just curious if you happen to be the wife of Stathis. I’m trying to locate him. We worked together in NYC 30 years ago. Appreciate his contact info. Much appreciated, Jeff C.
Microthrombi – a known Covod19 complication, is noted by the doctors in Russia. No ethnic minorities there. In the UK everyone is “treated” with paracetamol, no HCQ is ever prescribed, yet notably there are still far more deaths amongst ethnic minorities. Interesting theory, but cannot be applied universally.
Darker skinned peoples in higher latitudes (UK, NYC, Germany, Italy, etc) are notoriously vitamin D deficient leading to poor immune responses to viruses. Lighter skinned peoples at higher latitudes make vitamin D more easily in low sunlight conditions but even a large proportion of them are deficient. Australia is an interesting contrast with a large light skinned population, middle latitude and much lower proportion of vitamin D deficiency.
These deficiencies can cheaply and easily be removed through vitamin D3 supplements.
Thank you, I’ve been reading about studies on vitamin D – promising indeed. Dosages are unclear, however.
Really high quality mineral and vitamin supplements from this source and a lot of scientific research also… https://maddiet.co/vegan-vitamin-d/
Liposomal Vitamin C is worth investigating also…. Almost equivelent to intravenous Vitamin C and you can make it at home easy enough.
If I could ask Wolfgang one question it would be this: Have you used Koch’s postulates in order to first deterimine whether there ‘is’ a covid 19 virus?
Arby, yes I too wonder if there is a covid 19. But since they have found antibodies to it, does that establish its existence? I’m not sure really.
Koch’s postulates (originally for bacteria) states that one isolates a virus, then infects an animal with it as a means of establishing its existence & identity. I think an apologist for NOT following Koch’s postulates in working w viruses would say that viruses are attenuated by being isolated and thereafter can’t infect an animal. That is, that Koch’s postulates aren’t applicable to viruses.
I have no idea if this is a good argument and invite comment regarding it– and the whole question of demonstrating the existence of a specific virus having no unique symptoms.
Koch’s postulates were meant to find and isolate viruses, as far as I know. There was no need to look so hard for bacteria. They believed there were viruses before they claimed to have discovered them. Why? They noticed bacteria whenever they looked at sick people, thinking that the bacteria, instead of being a result of sickness, caused it. Via extrapolation, then, when they couldn’t find bacteria (I think it was with polio victims) on sick people (which mens what exactly, I don’t know), they assumed that it was something even smaller. This was before the electron microscope came along. When the electron microscope came along, they saw all kinds of small things they never saw, including exosomes, which we exude and which perform a communications function within the body and possibly even between humans. They say that they can’t distinguish between exosomes and viruses. But they also don’t try very hard to use Koch’s simple, reasonable, 4 postulates and tests with controls to establish specific viruses and the profi oriented global Rockefeller health care system has a lot to do with that. Andrew Kaufman lays it out pretty well.
I’ve got lots to learn here. Re-exmamining the start of “The Rooster In The River Of Rats,” it looks to me like Koch’s postulates are, as Dr Kaufman says, meant to find micro-organisms period. That would be germs and any micro-organisms. And I’d still like Wolfgang Wodarg’s answer.
Arby, When you search Koch’s Postulates wikipedia presents it as for bacteria. Then I got the idea that Koch’s may not always work for viruses from this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182102/
I’m not saying it’s correct you understand, but I’d like to look at both sides. Thanks for the link. (Exosomes sound intriguing)
Wow, that’s quite a selection of material; I didn’t know it was possible to do that w/o ads. What is BitChute? You’re largely preaching to the choir on all the stuff you highlighted. I’m actually more interested in what we can DO to stop the lockdown/surveillance/vax juggernaut headed our way.
Re: the anti-vax video, you might want to look at this article that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly about how the polio vaccine was contaminated w simian viruses. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/02/the-virus-and-the-vaccine/377999/
Here are two anti-vax videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQsVTlMsQrI
I have a large file if you want it.
Sorry moderator, I meant to copy only the text of the link, not the screen w arrow.
Don’t know why that happened.
I’ve listened to Dr Tenpenny before. She and Dr Andrew Kaufman had a three-way discussion with filmaker Marcy Cravat which I found interesting. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_m0MtGsjdk ) I agree with most of what she says. However, both her and Dr Kaufman said a few things that I thought were too wacky. Dr Tenpenny said that we are spiritual beings having a physical existence and then proceeded to talk about our spiritual energy, which sounds suspiciously, to me, like she’s talking about something ‘not’ spiritual. (I agree that our souls are insubstantial although those who I studied the Christian Bible with wouldn’t agree with me about that.)
Dr Kaufman talks about how if you talk nice to your body’s water, you’ll feel euphoric. This is too new agey for me. He refers to an experiment done with rice in water, where you have (I assume uncooked) rice in 3 jars of cold water that you watch for 30 days. With one glass you say “Thank you!” With one glass you say “You’re an idiot.” With the 3rd glass, you ignore it. The two glasses of rice that you don’t say nice things to, don’t fare well. One turns black and one stinks. The jar of rice that you say thank you to smells nice. Mind you, He follows that up with some quite reasonable stuff. But I won’t be saying nice things to my body’s water any time soon.
I replied. It may show up later, so I’ll have to come back to this.
Arby, please see this:
Also my two links in my reply, above, to Penelope.
Indeed. I am now in the position of having to need that someone prove to me that viruses exist because I find LOTS of reasons to believe that they don’t. If only David Crowe was working for the enemy (pushing 5G). Without the benefit of that particular book, I’ve learned much about this just from reading tons for my blog posts about covid 19. The best explanations that I’ve heard (videos) are by Dr Andrew Kaufman. The material that he, and James Corbett, present on the Rockefeller designed health care system that dominates the planet really clinch for me. A couple of books I’m definitely going to buy are “World Without Cancer” by G. Edward Griffin and “Murder By Injection” by E.C. Mullins. Janine Roberts’s has a book that interests me as well.
Right now, I’m in living in a waking nightmare (and am deteriorating badly as a result). I actually quit my job (out of principle), but was facing the street (which I’m not tough enough to even try to live on) and so I called my boss back and asked to walk back my decision to not cooperate on their abusive health care check rules. He ‘says’ that the client requires it, but the client is the city of Toronto. So I asked the city people who I work with if they have to do the health check at the start of every shift. One person said “no,” and another said that there wasn’t anything like a website (which I’m directed to for my health check) but they are to report to their supervisor if they are experiencing symptons (signs of life). The abuse, everywhere and by everyone with any authority, is OFF THE CHARTS! I told my boss that I stand by everything in my email to him officially stating that I would not comply, but if I am not asked to lie, I’ll do it. He said okay. The thing is, I know that this is just the beginning of the abuse, not the end. If I can last until January, I’ll get one more government cheque (I’ll be 65) and can at least feed myself if I have to quit my job and live with family (and there’s really no one there, except one cousin, who may or may not be willing to take me). So just doing something as normal as buying books, or talking about it, suddenly makes me pause. Will I even have a job and money to do that?
I meant to say “If only David Crowe wasn’t working for the enemy.” I do that all the time.
Have they really found antibodies specific to Covid-19?
And while we are at it, picking holes in the PCR test:
I must admit, I’m hardly an antibody expert. But those antibody tests are looking for IgM and IgG antibodies. As far as I can determine, while there are four subtypes of IgG antibody,
they don’t seem to be specific to any particular type of pathogen. So I am a little unclear how their presence or absence signifies anything much?
Would anyone like to clear this up for me?
I found the following extract of a book on the molecular biology of the cell, which gives a good, not too difficult overview of the immune system. I won’t use blockquotes, as the italics used make it less easy to read, and I won’t give a conventional link, because 3 or more links usually puts you into moderation:
BEGINNING OF QUOTE:
The Adaptive Immune System
Our adaptive immune system saves us from certain death by infection. An infant born with a severely defective adaptive immune system will soon die unless extraordinary measures are taken to isolate it from a host of infectious agents, including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. Indeed, all multicellular organisms need to defend themselves against infection by such potentially harmful invaders, collectively called pathogens. Invertebrates use relatively simple defense strategies that rely chiefly on protective barriers, toxic molecules, and phagocytic cells that ingest and destroy invading microorganisms (microbes) and larger parasites (such as worms). Vertebrates, too, depend on such innate immune responses as a first line of defense (discussed in Chapter 25), but they can also mount much more sophisticated defenses, called adaptive immune responses. The innate responses call the adaptive immune responses into play, and both work together to eliminate the pathogens (Figure 24-1). Unlike innate immune responses, the adaptive responses are highly specific to the particular pathogen that induced them. They can also provide long-lasting protection. A person who recovers from measles, for example, is protected for life against measles by the adaptive immune system, although not against other common viruses, such as those that cause mumps or chickenpox. In this chapter, we focus mainly on adaptive immune responses, and, unless we indicate otherwise, the term immune responses refers to them. We discuss innate immune responses in detail in Chapter 25.
Figure 24-1. Innate and adaptive immune responses.
Innate and adaptive immune responses. Innate immune responses are activated directly by pathogens and defend all multicellular organisms against infection. In vertebrates, pathogens, together with the innate immune responses they activate, stimulate adaptive (more…)
The function of adaptive immune responses is to destroy invading pathogens and any toxic molecules they produce. Because these responses are destructive, it is crucial that they be made only in response to molecules that are foreign to the host and not to the molecules of the host itself. The ability to distinguish what is foreign from what is self in this way is a fundamental feature of the adaptive immune system. Occasionally, the system fails to make this distinction and reacts destructively against the host’s own molecules. Such autoimmune diseases can be fatal.
Of course, many foreign molecules that enter the body are harmless, and it would be pointless and potentially dangerous to mount adaptive immune responses against them. Allergic conditions such as hayfever and asthma are examples of deleterious adaptive immune responses against apparently harmless foreign molecules. Such inappropriate responses are normally avoided because the innate immune system calls adaptive immune responses into play only when it recognizes molecules characteristic of invading pathogens called pathogen-associated immunostimulants (discussed in Chapter 25). Moreover, the innate immune system can distinguish between different classes of pathogens and recruit the most effective form of adaptive immune response to eliminate them.
Any substance capable of eliciting an adaptive immune response is referred to as an antigen (antibody generator). Most of what we know about such responses has come from studies in which an experimenter tricks the adaptive immune system of a laboratory animal (usually a mouse) into responding to a harmless foreign molecule, such as a foreign protein. The trick involves injecting the harmless molecule together with immunostimulants (usually microbial in origin) called adjuvants, which activate the innate immune system. This process is called immunization. If administered in this way, almost any macromolecule, as long as it is foreign to the recipient, can induce an adaptive immune response that is specific to the administered macromolecule. Remarkably, the adaptive immune system can distinguish between antigens that are very similar—such as between two proteins that differ in only a single amino acid, or between two optical isomers of the same molecule.
Adaptive immune responses are carried out by white blood cells called lymphocytes. There are two broad classes of such responses—antibody responses and cell-mediated immune responses, and they are carried out by different classes of lymphocytes, called B cells and T cells, respectively. In antibody responses, B cells are activated to secrete antibodies, which are proteins called immunoglobulins. The antibodies circulate in the bloodstream and permeate the other body fluids, where they bind specifically to the foreign antigen that stimulated their production (Figure 24-2). Binding of antibody inactivates viruses and microbial toxins (such as tetanus toxin or diphtheria toxin) by blocking their ability to bind to receptors on host cells. Antibody binding also marks invading pathogens for destruction, mainly by making it easier for phagocytic cells of the innate immune system to ingest them.
Figure 24-2. The two main classes of adaptive immune responses.
The two main classes of adaptive immune responses. Lymphocytes carry out both classes of responses. Here, the lymphocytes are responding to a viral infection. In one class of response, B cells secrete antibodies that neutralize the virus. In the other, (more…)
In cell-mediated immune responses, the second class of adaptive immune response, activated T cells react directly against a foreign antigen that is presented to them on the surface of a host cell. The T cell, for example, might kill a virus-infected host cell that has viral antigens on its surface, thereby eliminating the infected cell before the virus has had a chance to replicate (see Figure 24-2). In other cases, the T cell produces signal molecules that activate macrophages to destroy the invading microbes that they have phagocytosed.
We begin this chapter by discussing the general properties of lymphocytes. We then consider the functional and structural features of antibodies that enable them to recognize and neutralize extracellular microbes and the toxins they make. Next, we discuss how B cells can produce a virtually unlimited number of different antibody molecules. Finally, we consider the special features of T cells and the cell-mediated immune responses they are responsible for. Remarkably, T cells can detect microbes hiding inside host cells and either kill the infected cells or help other cells to eliminate the microbes.
Lymphocytes and the Cellular Basis of Adaptive Immunity
B Cells and Antibodies
The Generation of Antibody Diversity
T Cells and MHC Proteins
Helper T Cells and Lymphocyte Activation
END OF QUOTE
(That book is not browsable, but extracts can be searched for)
Book is: Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition.
Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, et al.
New York: Garland Science; 2002.
www DOT ncbi DOT nlm DOT nih DOT gov/books/NBK21070
According to Prof Dolores Cahill this is not correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9GbVZOcT18 Would be great to hear your views. Thanks for the amazing work BTW and I will certainly will support you.
Dr. Wodarg, when I google hydroxychloroquine and G6PD I get many explicit denials that there is any problem with those with the trait taking the drug. I understand that the Pentagon thinks it’s a problem, but are there any studies that confirm this?
I have no knowledge of the G6Pd aspect, but there are other potential problems with hydroxychloroquine:
Nevin is plainly on the BigPharma payroll or a fellow traveller. HCQ has been used by tens of millions with hundreds of millions of doses, and is VERY safe as far as medications go. The campaign to denigrate a drug widely used to treat malaria, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other auto-immune disease has been ferocious and fanatical, and the reason is obvious. HCQ is safe, effective and cheap, unlike BigPharma shite like remdesivir and the future ‘vaccines’.
HCQ may be very safe under most circumstances, and yet:
Source: Acute hemolysis by hydroxycloroquine was observed in G6PD-deficient patient with severe COVD-19 related lung injury
The ‘study’ simply asserts that the haemolysis was caused by the HCQ. It did not state what the patient’s progress was after the withdrawal of HCQ and blood transfusion. And virus is known to cause haemolysis. And they had not established whether the patient had to more dangerous ‘Mediterranean’ variant of G6PD deficiency. Colour me unimpressed.
You obviously didn’t listen to the podcast. And as I said in another reply to you: Who makes HCQ? Well, quite a few “Big Pharma” players, for a start, even if it is out of patent.
You probably didn’t even read the part of the podcast description which reads as follows:
I wonder why you are so obsessed with HCQ. I won’t be so crass as to assume you are on the “Small Pharma” payroll, or a fellow traveller.
I think Remington-Nevin’s aim is to try to ensure that not too many people suffer from “sudden and lasting neuropsychiatric effects” of this “safe” drug which you are so in love with.
To appear not to comprehend that there is a difference to BigPharma profits between a medication available at a few dollars, max, per dose, and one that costs THOUSANDS, renders your contribution void, in my opinion at least. The piece about rheumatoid arthritis is pure conjecture ‘probably’ as an assertion impressing only fools. I’m obsessed with the fanatic efforts by BigPharma, its stooges and ‘useful idiots’ apparently driven by Trump derangement Syndrome to stop a cheap and effective treatment being used, to lessen human suffering and cost. That certainly obsesses me.
Didier Raoult’s own website notes that there are serious side effects to hydrochloraquine. I take Jon Rappoport’s point that chemicals are bad. We have been brainwashed into thinking that manmade chemicals are natural. They are not natural nor are they safe (even if some are not terribly dangerous) and that’s doubly true when you consider the kind of people making and pushing chemicals. They are capitalists. Capitalists are gangster and scammers, offspring of the Rockefeller designed – chemicals (made from oil) are profitable – world.
Bless you all! It warms my heart to read all your comments!
I sent this as an email to Dr. Wodarg yesterday. Hoping for a reply:
I have been following your arguments on the Covid-19 phenomenon with interest.
In your recent article, ‘Covid19: A case for medical detectives’, that I’ve just read on OffGuardian, you write,
“… How can a test that turns out positive for the many different SARS viruses of bats, dogs, tigers, lions, domestic cats and humans, which have been changing and spreading worldwide for many years, be called specific for the detection of an allegedly only four-month-old SARS-CoV-2?
Apparently it is a sensitive test that produces too many positive results. Therefore it can also detect many – in the meantime naturally recombined – SARS-like pathogens. This does not deny that the viruses from Wuhan were also among those.
However, the test seemingly also measures earlier SARS variants that are constantly altering, can change hosts quickly and are not found in virologists’ databases. However, these were and are obviously not considered to be extraordinarily dangerous.
So how do we know that the discrepancy between the many harmless infections and the few more severe courses is not due to the fact that different variants are found equally well with the test used? Especially since it turns out positive even for animal variants! …”
Unfortunately, you didn’t provide a reference for your claim that the currently-used SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests are non-specific. I tried to follow up this lead and I found that Dr. Drosten his colleagues claim – in a 23 January 2020 article in Eurosurveillance – to have demonstrated that this test is specific:
“… Cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses
Cell culture supernatants containing all endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV)229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1 as well as MERS-CoV were tested in duplicate in all three assays (Table 2). For the non-cultivable HCoV-HKU1, supernatant from human airway culture was used. Viral RNA concentration in all samples was determined by specific real-time RT-PCRs and in vitro-transcribed RNA standards designed for absolute quantification of viral load. Additional undiluted (but not quantified) cell culture supernatants were tested as summarised in Table 2. These were additionally mixed into negative human sputum samples. None of the tested viruses or virus preparations showed reactivity with any assay.
Exclusivity of 2019 novel coronavirus based on clinical samples pre-tested positive for other respiratory viruses
Using the E and RdRp gene assays, we tested a total of 297 clinical samples from patients with respiratory disease from the biobanks of five laboratories that provide diagnostic services (one in Germany, two in the Netherlands, one in Hong Kong, one in the UK). We selected 198 samples from three university medical centres where patients from general and intensive care wards as well as mainly paediatric outpatient departments are seen (Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong). The remaining samples were contributed by national public health ser vices performing surveillance studies (RIVM, PHE), with samples mainly submitted by practitioners. The samples contained the broadest range of respiratory agents possible and reflected the general spectrum of virus concentrations encountered in diagnostic laboratories in these countries (Table 2). In total, this testing yielded no false positive outcomes. In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen but they were negative upon retesting with the same assay. These signals were not associated with any particular virus, and for each virus with which initial positive reactivity occurred, there were other samples that contained the same virus at a higher concentration but did not test positive. Given the results from the extensive technical qualification described above, it was concluded that this initial reactivity was not due to chemical instability of real-time PCR probes but most probably to handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests and controls during this evaluation study. …”
(Corman Victor M, Landt Olfert, Kaiser Marco, Molenkamp Richard, Meijer Adam, Chu Daniel KW, Bleicker Tobias, Brünink Sebastian, Schneider Julia, Schmidt Marie Luisa, Mulders Daphne GJC, Haagmans Bart L, van der Veer Bas, van den Brink Sharon, Wijsman Lisa, Goderski Gabriel, Romette Jean-Louis, Ellis Joanna, Zambon Maria, Peiris Malik, Goossens Herman, Reusken Chantal, Koopmans Marion PG, Drosten Christian. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):pii=2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
Do you have evidence that their confidence in their test’s specificity is unfounded?
Keith Fisher, you say ” In total, this testing yielded no false positive outcomes.” How do you know that? Is not the test your only confirmation that the virus is present? What is your confirmation that the test-positives are accurate? There are no distinguishing symptoms and there are no electron microscope photos. Is there any proof whatever that the virus is a distinct entity?
Penelope, you’re quoting there from the research paper that I’ve quoted from. They’re not my words:
Oh, sorry Keith.
Keith, I have some questions for you.
If COVID-19 really exists why is it that:
— every single person they show us who is allegedly suffering from it doesn’t show convincing symptoms and/or says very strange things inconsistent with reality.
— we are presented with “miracle survivor” stories that also are not consistent with reality and could be dangerously misleading
— such a scanty picture is painted of a woman who her husband told us went into ICU with a cough and 10 days later was dead.
Links to people below are in Point 5 in blog post
— 40-year-old Ulster pastor not showing signs of symptoms
— 41-year-old Italian not showing signs of symptoms
— 39-year-old London patient in ICU. If she’s ill enough to be in ICU it seems very odd that she’d be well enough for an interview not to mention the fact that surely interviewing in ICU would be completely against protocol. Notice how when she coughs her head goes out of view (when she coughs away the cough sounds real but there’s nothing to say it’s not inserted audio). She shows us her wrist with what looks like taping of tubes and says, “They’ve had to sew that into my artery.” That makes no sense. She tells us she has a cannula, another cannula and a catheter. The nasal cannula makes sense but it’s difficult to know what she’d need the other cannula and catheter for. Her laboured breathing is not particularly convincing.
— Australian hire-car driver who drove home a passenger on the Ruby Princess and became infected, not showing signs of symptoms. We also wonder why the footage of her is such poor quality – devices don’t take such poor quality footage these days. She said that her passenger had letters on her saying she was OK. You wonder why the driver didn’t check the letters and if the passenger did have a letter how did she get this letter because we are told that the passengers were let off simply because they were considered low risk. We are not told elsewhere that they were all given letters.
— 3 Americans, showing zero signs of symptoms
— 82 year-old North Staffordshire grandfather makes miracle recovery – with antibiotics. How is this possible if antibiotics are said not to be a cure?
— 90 year-old Washington grandmother makes miracle recovery from “death’s door”, potato soup being her secret weapon. No images of her suggest she is ill. A 52 year-old MIami man, “gaspin'”, “on the brink of death” and thinking his “days were done” recovers miraculously with anti-malarial, chloroquine. Of course, the media is simply reporting what the alleged sufferers feel has helped them … but surely for such a serious problem if potato soup and chloroquine have not been scientifically proven to help sufferers shouldn’t the media be warning viewers?
Interview with Graeme Lake, Ruby Princess passenger who went on cruise with his wife, Karla, to celebrate her 75th birthday and who allegedly died from COVID-19 after disembarking the ship. The only symptom mentioned is “dry cough” yet she went into ICU and after 10 days (in ICU presumably) she was dead.
1. The reporter says Karla started showing symptoms at Day 8 of the 13-day cruise while Graeme says he believed she picked up the virus on the 2rd or 3rd day before the trip ended. Graeme also mentions that they both had a dry cough but Karla’s kept getting worse and worse. He says, “I kept saying, ‘you’re coughing bad’. I didn’t take any notice.”
Comment: Graeme’s estimation of when she picked up the bug doesn’t match with the reporter or with the sense of a cough going on for a few days on the boat. If he said he “kept saying, ‘you’re coughing bad'” how can he then say that he didn’t take any notice. Obviously, he noticed. Generally, when people say they kept repeating something to a person the obvious follow-on is it that the person they have been addressing didn’t take any notice.
2. We are told Karla ended up in Caboolture hospital at which point Graeme says, “She was coughing but we talked and she said she’s fighting … and she was fighting.” This doesn’t really make sense. How was she fighting simply “coughing”?
3. We are told she went into ICU and 10 days later she was dead, however, we are given no sense of trajectory from dry cough to death. Why couldn’t she have been saved in ICU and what were her symptoms that led her to be put there – the only symptom we are told of is “dry cough”? What symptoms led her to death?
4. He says, “This cruise has ruined us, ruined her completely.” Strange to say “us” and not to repeat it with “ruined” but to switch to “her” the second time. Also, to use the word ruin in relation to death. Death is beyond ruin.
5. He says, “It’s really devastated. Even now I’m still struggling.” It’s odd to use the word devastated in this context without following it with “me” or “us” (family) and how can he say “still struggling” when his wife has only just died.
Hi Petra. I’m asking if there’s proper scientific evidence – or at least reliable anecdotal medical reports – that the kinds of things you say are true.
I know Keith that that’s what you’re asking for, however, I believe that they can tie us up with all kinds of stuff – whether or not the virus has been isolated, whether or not the tests work, the endless statistics and so on but that is not the only approach. With psyops you can sweep away all the mountains of information designed to distract you and occupy your mind and look for evidence in more simple ways, eg, what real life evidence are we given of any virus illness beyond the norm? Because that is the crux of the matter, no? Is there a virus illness beyond the ordinary, not whether or not there is a virus but is there a virus illness beyond the ordinary? It is not enough to isolate the virus, what must be shown is that it causes the sickness and death that it is said to cause. What if the virus is shown to exist? It matters not if it’s not shown to be infectious or shown only to be causing the same kind of illness as other viruses.
The question is: is there evidence of virus illness beyond the ordinary?
The answer: no, there is not.
Yes, I think I understand what you’re saying Petra. My concern is that if I’m questioning a mainstream narrative about something, I genuinely want to find good, specific evidence for competing claims. Can some kind of ‘reality’ be seen, through all the smoke and fog of the news media’s spectacle of infotainment?…
It is well known that the PCR tests are useless.
Here is a good reference for how the tests are non specific – http://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/FDATestSummary.pdf
Hi John. I’m asking if there’s proper scientific evidence – or at least very reliable anecdotal medical reports – that the SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests are non-specific.
That website from page 6 onwards lists the limitations taken directly from the test labels. I think that is quite reliable scientific evidence when the manufacturer of the test is explicitly saying it’s limitations on the test label including being “non-specific.” Do they really need to do anecdotal medical reports when the manufacturers admit to it in plain sight?
Almost all of the reasons for false positives are practical ones due to difficulties implementing the test, from taking the specimen to analysis. These are important, of course, but I was looking for substantiation of Dr. Wodarg’s claim that even if the test is performed perfectly, in an ideal way, it is still nevertheless non-specific to SARS-CoV-2.
In the table at the end, ‘Summary of Common Limitations’, it includes “Coronavirus: The test may be positive due to the presence of other coronaviruses.”
Only a small number of statements in the ‘Summary Table’ seem to suggest this kind of non-specificity of the test even in ideal circumstances, and they don’t seem to be clearly explicit about this. So: Are the phrases “cross-contamination by target organisms” and “non-specific signals in the assay” euphemistic – or just scientific – ways of saying that the tests aren’t chemically specific for SARS-CoV-2? These are the six statements that I found:
– “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus.”
– “There is a risk of false positive results due to non-specific amplification and cross-reactivity with organisms found in the respiratory tract.”
– “There is a risk of false positive values resulting from cross-contamination by target organisms their nucleic acids or amplified product, or from non-specific signals in the assay.” (x2)
– “Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those tested can lead to erroneous results.”
– “the SARS-CoV-2 Fluorescent PCR Kit may cross-react with SARS-coronavirus… There is a risk of false positive values resulting from cross-contamination by target organisms, their nucleic acids or amplified product, or from non-specific signals in the assay…”
Well,Keith, CDC says “Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.”
Clinical observation can’t reveal any symptom specific to the virus. Consideration of epidemiological information merely asks us to consider the test of an earlier near by individual to be more reliable. And patient history is what is being specifically ignored whenever a positive test is present, in order to ascribe the death to covid rather than underlying disease.
But you are seeking proof that the test DOES NOT possess specificity. Isn’t that akin to proving a negative? I can cite no evidence that there is no mouse in the pantry. I can only point out the evidence of his droppings & gnaw-marks if his IS in the pantry.
If one alleges the test possesses specificity he must cite evidence. I say it doesn’t; show me your proof. Onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive. A non-mouse leaves no evidence.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg posts several links on his website to studies by Drosten et al. that ‘prove’ that their test targets viruses known to have been established in the human virome well before the so-called emergence of sars-cov-2.
One link references a study from as early as November 2010, titled:
Genomic Characterization of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus in European Bats and Classification of Coronaviruses Based on Partial RNA-dependent RNA Polymerase Gene Sequences
But especially interesting is a study referenced from January 2014, titled:
Ecology, Evolution and Classification of Bat Coronaviruses in the Aftermath of SARS
From the abstract of that study, you can quote the following:
(The emphasis is mine.)
Now put that together with this quote from the detection study of the 2019 novel coronavirus:
Clearly, then, the Drosten test is sensitive to a range of viruses known since at least 2014 to have been established in the human (and other) virome(s). Thus, indeed, as Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg asserts: “Drosten’s test detects SARS-like viruses, that preexisted worldwide before Wuhan.”
If you are testing for a pathogen already widespread in a population, it’s not the pathogen that’s novel and propagating, but your testing and its misleading results. In effect, the so-called ‘pandemic’ is an artifact of the testing.
– I’m aware that human coronaviruses have been known about since they were first described by Dr.s June Almeida and David Tyrrell in the mid-1960s. “One sample in particular, which became known as B814, was from the nasal washings of a pupil at a boarding school in Surrey in 1960.” (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52278716).
For a more academic reference, see Kenneth McIntosh, ‘Commentary: McIntosh K, Chao RK, Krause HE, Wasil R, Mocega HE, Mufson MA. Coronavirus Infection in Acute Lower Respiratory Tract Disease of Infants. J Infect Dis 1974; 130:502–7’, Journal of Infectious Diseases 2004; 190:1033-41 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15295713).
– More importantly here, the references that you cite are all from before the 23 January 2020 paper by Dr. Drosten and his colleagues, ‘Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR’, so – clearly – those references can’t say anything about the claims they make in it about the specificity of their test for SARS-CoV-2.
” clearly – those references can’t say anything about the claims they make in it about the specificity of their test for SARS-CoV-2.a”
What exactly is the quote from the ‘Detection study’ saying: it is saying that because the testing reacted positively to ‘phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade ,’ it should also react positively to the hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 virus, since both the outliers and the hypothetical virus at hand belong to the same clade. Consequently, anything belonging to the clade at hand would presumably have the potential to trigger a positive reading, no?
And the 2014 study makes the case that the clade at hand is already a part of the human virome.
So much for the specificity of the Drosten PCR test . . .
Indeed, I was relying on what Dr. Drosten’s team said about their test’s specificity, which they summarise in ‘Results’ (at the beginning, on p.1) by stating that their test
But yes, I did wonder about that section of the paper that you quote from, ‘Detection range for SARS-related coronaviruses from bats’, where they write,
I assumed this statement meant that their test would not register a lot of false negatives by failing to give a positive result with minor variants of SARS-CoV-2. But does this actually mean – as you seem to be suggesting – that their test will produce a lot of false positives by picking up viruses that are similar to SARS-CoV-2 but that don’t actually cause Covid-19 illness? I guess this is a question…
Drosten et al. designed a PCR test presumed to specifically target the also presumed unique RNA signature of the hypothetical (because as yet to be isolated) SARS-CoV-2 virus, but in the absence of any actual RNA samples of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus:
(The emphasis is mine)
Source: Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
The test which is supposed to be specific to SARS-CoV-2 has been validated by ‘positive’ readings of genetic material related “to the 2003 SARS-CoV.”
Therefore, the test reacts to — exactly as Wolfgang Wodarg has put it — “SARS-like viruses.”
To emphasize the point: the test, on Drosten’s own admission, is LESS THAN specific to SARS-CoV-2, since something OTHER THAN SARS-CoV-2 has been relied upon to ‘validate’ the test.
And to repeat: Drosten’s 2014 study, referred to above, established the fact that the “SARS-like viruses” at hand, i.e., likely involving bats, are also likely part and parcel of “four of the six known human CoVs (HCoV),” that is to say, likely to include elements of those phylogenetic outliers from the European rhinolophid bats that were used to ‘validate’ the test.
I think, therefore, that Dr. Wodarg is quite justified in his assertions about the non-specificity of the Dosten test, to which Drosten et al. themselves attest.
Thanks, Norman. I’m not a biochemist, so I’ve been finding this quite difficult to understand. But am I right in thinking, then, that the Drosten team’s Results summary is highly misleading?:
To me, as a layperson, this statement gives the impression that they had demonstrated that their test reliably and specifically detects SARS-CoV-2. But from your analysis of their paper, this statement doesn’t appear justified.
So maybe, as you say, Dr. Wodarg is right. But it would have been better if he’d made this argument himself, with reference to the Drosten team’s paper. As Dr. Wodarg’s argument in this article stands, it leaves an open goal to anyone who wants to say it’s the unsubstantiated claim of a ‘conspiracy theorist’.
An email I’ve just sent to Dr. Drosten:
— — —
I have read your team’s paper on the development of the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 / 2019-nCoV:
Victor M Corman, Olfert Landt, Marco Kaiser, Richard Molenkamp, Adam Meijer, Daniel KW Chu, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider, Marie Luisa Schmidt, Daphne GJC Mulders, Bart L Haagmans, Bas van der Veer, Sharon van den Brink, Lisa Wijsman, Gabriel Goderski, Jean-Louis Romette, ‘Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR’, Eurosurveillance, 25(3), 2020.
A recent study appears to suggest that the specificity of SARS-CoV-2 tests hasn’t been verified:
“[T]he specificity of each assay was not evaluated in the present study and should be determined.”
(Sibyle Etievant, Antonin Bal, Vanessa Escuret, Karen Brengel–Pesce, Maude Bouscambert, Valérie Cheynet, Laurence Generenaz, Guy Oriol, Gregory Destras, Geneviève Billaud, Laurence Josset, Emilie Frobert, Florence Morfin, Alexandre Gaymard, ‘Sensitivity assessment of SARS-CoV-2 PCR assays developed by WHO referral laboratories’, medRxiv preprint, 4 May 2020; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.03.20072207)
Could it be that your test will yield false positives by picking up viruses that are similar to SARS-CoV-2 but that don’t actually cause Covid-19 illness? This seems to be an important question, given that your test was developed – without actual samples of the SARS-Cov-2 virus – by making it sensitive to perhaps fairly generic SARS-CoV RNA.
1) Your test was not developed with actual samples of the SARS-Cov-2 virus:
The present report describes the establishment of a diagnostic workflow for detection of an emerging virus in the absence of physical sources of viral genomic nucleic acid. Effective assay design was enabled by the willingness of scientists from China to share genome information before formal publication, as well as the availability of broad sequence knowledge from ca 15 years of investigation of SARS-related viruses in animal reservoirs. The relative ease with which assays could be designed for this virus, in contrast to SARS-CoV in 2003, proves the huge collective value of descriptive studies of disease ecology and viral genome diversity.
Real-time RT-PCR is widely deployed in diagnostic virology. In the case of a public health emergency, proficient diagnostic laboratories can rely on this robust technology to establish new diagnostic tests within their routine services before pre-formulated assays become available. … Comparable evaluation studies during regulatory qualification of in vitro diagnostic assays can take months for organisation, legal implementation and logistics and typically come after the peak of an outbreak has waned.” (p.6)
“A novel coronavirus currently termed 2019-nCoV was officially announced as the causative agent by Chinese authorities on 7 January. A viral genome sequence was released for immediate public health support via the community online resource virological.org on 10 January (Wuhan-Hu-1, GenBank accession number MN908947), followed by four other genomes deposited on 12 January in the viral sequence database curated by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID). The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans. The species also comprises a large number of viruses mostly detected in rhinolophid bats in Asia and Europe.” (p.1)
“In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (p.2)
“The intended cross-reactivity of all assays with viral RNA of SARS-CoV allows us to use the assays without having to rely on external sources of specific 2019-nCoV RNA.” (p.3)
“Before public release of virus sequences from cases of 2019-nCoV, we relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak. We downloaded all complete and partial (if > 400 nt) SARS-related virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020. The list (n = 729 entries) was manually checked and artificial sequences (laboratory-derived, synthetic, etc), as well as sequence duplicates were removed, resulting in a final list of 375 sequences. These sequences were aligned and the alignment was used for assay design (Supplementary Figure S1). Upon release of the first 2019-nCoV sequence at virological.org, three assays were selected based on how well they matched to the 2019-nCoV genome (Figure 1). The alignment was complemented by additional sequences released independently on GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org), confirming the good matching of selected primers to all sequences. Alignments of primer binding domains with 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV as well as selected bat-associated SARS-related CoV are shown in Figure 2. …
To obtain a preliminary assessment of analytical sensitivity, we used purified cell culture supernatant containing SARS-CoV strain Frankfurt-1 virions grown on Vero cells.” (p.3)
“Although both assays detected 2019-nCoV without polymorphisms at oligonucleotide binding sites (Figure 2), we additionally generated in vitro-transcribed RNA standards that exactly matched the sequence of 2019-nCoV for absolute quantification and studying the limit of detection (LOD).” (p.4)
“Following the rationale that SARS-CoV RNA can be used as a positive control for the entire laboratory procedure, thus obviating the need to handle 2019-nCoV RNA, we formulated the RdRp assay so that it contains two probes: a broad-range probe reacting with SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV and an additional probe that reacts only with 2019-nCoV. By limiting dilution experiments, we confirmed that both probes, whether used individually or in combination, provided the same LOD for each target virus. The specific probe RdRP_SARSr-P2 detected only the 2019-nCoV RNA transcript but not the SARS-CoV RNA.” (p.4)
2) Your team presented evidence of the test’s specificity for SARS-Cov-2:
“Cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses.
Cell culture supernatants containing all endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV)229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1 as well as MERS-CoV were tested in duplicate in all three assays (Table 2). For the non-cultivable HCoV-HKU1, supernatant from human airway culture was used. Viral RNA concentration in all samples was determined by specific real-time RT-PCRs and in vitro-transcribed RNA standards designed for absolute quantification of viral load. Additional undiluted (but not quantified) cell culture supernatants were tested as summarised in Table 2. These were additionally mixed into negative human sputum samples. None of the tested viruses or virus preparations showed reactivity with any assay.” (p.6)
“Exclusivity of 2019 novel coronavirus based on clinical samples pre-tested positive for other respiratory viruses Using the E and RdRp gene assays, we tested a total of 297 clinical samples from patients with respiratory disease from the biobanks of five laboratories that provide diagnostic services (one in Germany, two in the Netherlands, one in Hong Kong, one in the UK). We selected 198 samples from three university medical centres where patients from general and intensive care wards as well as mainly paediatric outpatient departments are seen (Germany, the Netherlands, Hong Kong). The remaining samples were contributed by national public health services performing surveillance studies (RIVM, PHE), with samples mainly submitted by practitioners. The samples contained the broadest range of respiratory agents possible and reflected the general spectrum of virus concentrations encountered in diagnostic laboratories in these countries (Table 2). In total, this testing yielded no false positive outcomes. In four individual test reactions, weak initial reactivity was seen but they were negative upon retesting with the same assay. These signals were not associated with any particular virus, and for each virus with which initial positive reactivity occurred, there were other samples that contained the same virus at a higher concentration but did not test positive. Given the results from the extensive technical qualification described above, it was concluded that this initial reactivity was not due to chemical instability of real-time PCR probes but most probably to handling issues caused by the rapid introduction of new diagnostic tests and controls during this evaluation study.” (p.6)
3) Your team asserts that the test has broad sensitivity:
“At present, the potential exposure to a common environmental source in early reported cases implicates the possibility of independent zoonotic infections with increased sequence variability. To show that the assays can detect other bat-associated SARS-related viruses, we used the E gene assay to test six bat-derived faecal samples available from Drexler et al. and Muth et al.. These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. Detection of these phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade suggests that all Asian viruses are likely to be detected. This would, theoretically, ensure broad sensitivity even in case of multiple independent acquisitions of variant viruses from an animal reservoir.” (p.4)
This may mean that your test would avoid registering false negatives by failing to give a positive result with minor variants of SARS-CoV-2. However, could this also mean that your test may produce false positives by picking up viruses that are similar to SARS-CoV-2 but that don’t actually cause Covid-19 illness?
A senior scientist at a U.S. research institute, who has investigated the reliability of the SARS-Cov-2 PCR tests, has told me that, apart from practical, clinical issues with test implementation, they do in themselves appear to be specific to this particular virus:
“As far as I am aware there is no evidence of cross-reactivity problems with the Charité test, and the cross-reactivity assessment by Christian Drosten and his team appears to have been thoroughly and competently conducted. There are some instances of positive results for negative samples in cross-reactivity or sensitivity analyses involving this assay (e.g., the weak positives mentioned in the Corman paper, and positives reported in some online preprints), but they all appear to be of the “clinical” not the “analytical” sort, that is, probably due to contamination incidents in the labs conducting the assessments, and not any indication of a problem with the protocol.”
Bbrother you nailed it.
The basic problem is the persistent over-simplification of all matters. The basic broad approach of the program is this: the virus = the deepest blackest poison you’ve ever come across in your life therefore cower down and in place while we tell you what to do. This simplification is more easily grasped, versus a citizen’s need to be a bit of a medical detective, inspired by Dr. Wodarg.
Now, this continued Official Narrative mind-set has been subject to repeated questioning from the finest minds and experts in the field, and this has caused some adjustments to the program. My inference here is this: clinging to oversimplified and generalized smoke-blowing approaches indicates we have either a) what I call honorable stupidity; or b) willful ignorance.
Trump for example may be honorably stupid. That is, hey, everybody makes mistakes! Clinging on to them, however, in the face of actual evidence that challenges your suppositions, suggests something is wrong here.
That this IS the program is gradually seeping in now to JQ Public, with consequent resentments. At this time we are looking at problems in Fresno, in LA, and in Michigan. where a barber is in trouble. Last week a hair salon lady was treated brutally in Texas. Notably, not all police are happy with these developments. A ZH article indicates the open up vs keep it closed conflict in the US is roughly the same as the blue-state vs red-state breakdown of the 2016 election.
This on the Fresno couple out for a breakfast with accompanying Nazi goose-stepping by one customer.
Taking into consideration Dr. Wolfgang Bodarg’s assertion/warning of deadly harmful effects of hydroxychloroquine to dark skinned and southern nations COVID-19 patients, is it possible the early-on recommendation(s) of hydroxychloroquine by one President Donald Trump had an extremely unpleasant, covert, and solely nefarious intent?
Perhaps some brave man or woman journalist will ask Mr. Trump for clarification and/or correction.
Inquiring minds demand to know.
Jerry, it’s not all dark-skinned or southern people. It is only those individuals who are carrying the G6PD deficiency. Even though it confers a benefit in the presence of malaria, the deficiency is widespread– occurring in large parts of Asia, in the American Indian, in those descended from West Africa, Sardinia & Sicily.
I’ve been looking for some confirmation that the presence of the G6PD deficiency causes intolerance/severe sequelae from either chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine but have found only explicit denial that this is the case. Still, in NYC Blacks are 25% of the population, but more than half the fatalities. I would really like to know of any documentation linking G6PD deficiency and chloro/hydroxychloro
Exactly. Chloroquine is a known risk to G6PD deficiency sufferers, but HCQ is NOT.
Chloroquine and HCQ are not approved for use by the NHS, so unlikely to explain the high BAME mortality rate in UK – although most of the victims’ frontline jobs, susceptibility to poverty, crap housing, poor diet and diabetes probably does.
Chloroquine causes the haemolysis in G6PD patients, but HCQ does not.
And the possibility they were unnecessarily placed on highly dangerous invasive ventilators, possibly being managed by insufficiently trained staff.
Apologies – on quick reflection I recognise that my reply at 11.38,whilst valid, doesn’t actually address your point. It’s late, I’m tired, I can’t think straight trying to read all comments and watching video links… Tomorrow’s another day! 😀
No problem Judy! I hope you slept well.
I won’t say much, other than thank you for your investigation and for helping to clarify really important dynamics of the situation, so we can all find our way with a clearer perspective.
This discussion is one of the clearest and most insightful i’ve encountered and it will only serve to complement what you have shared in your article… Please take the time to settle down and go on this journey with this highly qualified medical scientist and master healer, Zach Bush.
His research into the catastrophic effects of Glyphosophate, in which he discusses more fully in other videos, is worthy of an award in service to humanity and the planet…
Glyphosate is perhaps the coup de grace for Life on Earth. The sadly defunct Institute for Science in Society showed it for years, but who the eff cares, so long as the profits roll in?
The European Union pushes glyphosate.
The cousin of Agent Orange… Enough said, and millions of gallons poured into the environment every year for decades and it stays there for 50 years or so… Devastating, and so obviously connected with every major degenerative disease which is plaguing humanity right now, along with other pollutants deemed safe through scientists following ‘scientific protocols.’
Thanks very much for posting that truly excellent video.
Such an expansive and insightful perspective, which rings true for me on an intuitive gut level.
An inspiring and informative interview. Thanks for posting.
Pretty special eh… Plenty more in his back catalogue to check in with around a variety of subjects.. His insight into the damage caused by EMF radiation is also worth discovering.
That is the most informative and stunning video I have watched on this subject of viruses, the human body, nature and th eplanet in general. If you are short on time, just watch the last ten or fifteen minutes – emotionally awesome.
Yes, it was an education for me and i wish there had been a science teacher like him at school… i may have been inspired to learn more…. i remember watching a programme on TV years ago, which was a more mainstream science account of how our immune systems and DNA have evolved through the millenia through the interaction with viruses… This interview has deepened that knowing and i have a new, friendly inner dialogue with the viruses, bacteria etc which compose the body i inhabit now… The exosome dynamics along with what some quantum biologists are also touching upon makes a great deal of sense also..
I heard him on The Highwire too. I like his thinking. Along with Dr Andrew Kaufman and Jon Rappoport (who is not a doctor, but talks to lots of them), I think Zach is more right than wrong. I’m not sure about the existence of viruses however. They really look to me like a clever cover for polluting industries cranking out deadly manmade chemicals and wanting to hide the fact that they are causing people to get sick. What better solution to come up with to that problem than a solution that is also profitable?
I don’t agree with Zach, however, about biological evolution. I wonder whether he’s familiar with Michael Denton’s work? And I don’t agree with either Zach or Del Bigtree about Christianity. (And Del’s American exceptionalism really loses me.) Zach’s spirituality may satisfy him and impress others, but, in my view, insofar as he has shared it with us, it doesn’t accord with reality in my view.
Nobody has all the answers to the mystery of creation and from what i’ve gathered from Zach so far, then he’s humble enough to acknowledge that, and that’s good enough for me, amidst his vast scientific wisdom and spiritual vision, and knowing of the interconnected nature of all things… A fraction of such scientific knowledge inflates the ego of many scientists who work within the institutes of scientific materialism… You’d obviously have to ask him if he’s familar with Michael Denton and ask him a few questions around your world view to see where you can meet..
For me, he’s tuned in to the spirit of Nikola Tesla and also the great Viktor Schauberger who were greatly misunderstood and maligned by people who weren’t open to the subtle energies of the universe… If the insights of both these scientists had been followed then we would inhabit a much different world today and there would be less suffering and degradation to the biosphere, which is now in a critical state, although we have seen during this planetary pause, how quick Mother Nature can begin to rejuvenate if we humans can just come back into alignment with natural principles.
Acknowledged. Good suggestions.
Thanks for the nod towards Michael Denton.
This is not directly on topic, but has anyone read anything about the Canada-based non-profit “Journalists for Human Rights”? There was a puff piece in my local paper today about how they are “training journalists to fight coronovirus conspiracy theories” in… Mali.
Interesting. Mali, where the UN is stepping up “peacekeeping”. JHR apparently also has efforts to “train journalists” in Syria. I did a bit of googling but everything I read was anodyne (though even Wikipedia describes the language in the JHR entry as reading “like an advertisement”). Does anyone have any better information they could share links to in a comment? Thanks.
Says all you need to know, intelligence agency.
LOL please don’t go to Wikipedia for impartial facts.
Exactly! The name screams disinformation.
When you say Googling, do you mean with Google? I honestly don’t know what to recommend in the way of search engines, but I do know that I would not be using Google. It’s deliberately and profoundly stupid.
I have massive respect for Peter Koenig, and I agree with over 95% of this, just don’t click on his couple of links. I did physics and maths at University. I can accept that weather modification is possible, but only very locally – about as far as the next cloud, if you are gliding. Not even all the energy that the US Military have, can change the weather, except very locally, and even then they would probably fck it up, and their own bioweapons would rain on them.
Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with Peter Koenig, even if he did use to work for The World Bank. It is perfectly O.K. to resign, even from the CIA, and take the risks of telling the truth, as best as you know it, knowing you could be arrested, incarcerated, impoverished or even assassinated, if your views are sufficiently well publicised, now exceedingly difficult, except for a few alternative independent websites of which there are few left.
“Corona Tyranny – and Death by Famine”
Interesting. Peter is a great, not perfect, source of information. I use his stuff all the time, and disagree with stuff when I feel that it’s off.
Tony, surely everyone must know by now that more will die by the lockdown than by “the virus”. As I read the impressive display of analysis and brainpower in the present thread I wondered if we ought not instead be bending our efforts to finding a way to stop the lockdown.
Those who are visiting the destruction of the world economy upon us are few in number; we are many, but disorganized. I know we need a simple platform that many people can get behind, but what do we do about all the positions of authority being taken by those who “go along” with the present deviltry?
The technocrats have put their incompetence on full display. Piss up and brewery come to mind. Unfortunately, the con men do not have to be bright. Only faster than their Muppet victims, who also have put their Muppetry on full display.
The con men have one more advantage: they work together, like pickpockets in a Paris street. The great billionaires and bankers have shown us their ethic and their MO. They are dumb scum but they work together and right now they’ve got it sealed pretty tight.
This is the one area in which even half-honest media could really have helped reveal this corporate-political wickedness to the world’s population. By not doing so, they have become public enemy No. 1 in my book. The Guardian and the BBC have become filthy rags within the space of just a couple of decades.
The guard & beeb are complicit criminals.
It’s always about money and control. Populism or right wing conservatism was on the rise all around the world. The EU was under threat from it as was the UK, USA, some Asian countries, India, South America and Australia. The left was losing and they knew it. They needed a reset.
United Nations were crying out for money 8 months ago and were going broke just like the EU.
Trump was squeezing China and Iran with tariffs and also the EU plus getting them to pay more for Nato.
It’s all about stopping Trump and Populism or right wing conservatives. MSM won’t report on that rise much for fear of populism gaining confidence around the globe which would destroy their narrative of labels like fascists and Nazis.
A heath pandemic just gives them more money via Government grants and bailouts for their failed policies. The United Nations and big pharma included.
That’s the reason why they want more tests so they can try and highlight Trump before Novembers election. Didn’t want him to campaign on a record economy and have momentum with large rallies.
Communism and the left were under pressure and didn’t like it. Some leftist would rather burn it to the ground than give it up.
Hell hath no fury like a leftist scorned.
You’d say ‘What an advertisement for the Right!’, but this is pretty typical of the type.
The release from the lockdown in the UK, is far more extensive than I realised. I have no doubt, that this news will seriously annoy a lot of people, for various different reasons, but my son is delighted, and so am I. We weren’t expecting this for months if at all this year, which would have been finacially crippling and health debilitating. I pity the poor musicians, who they refuse point blank to let out and work.
“I have no doubt, that this news will seriously annoy a lot of people”
Well, it greatly pleases me – though I don’t have a boat.
There’s no need to qualify your satisfaction at this development Tony!
A short visual aid about RT-qPCR tests!
That link is wrong!
Great article , but the panic spun up by propagandists and profiteers has worked beyond their wildest expectations and there is no end to these draconian measures in sight and won’t be until some real resistance arises , perhaps when starvation as a result of the disrupted food chain kicks in.
mcdonagh4, in the US 3 companies control 2/3 of all meat-production. (slaughtering) They keep talking about workers sick w the virus & about meat inspectors who have it. I’m afraid this is a prelude to their shut-down. You see, Gates has come out with “plant-based meat”.
Price of meat is already increasing, and lots of feeder farms are already in trouble.
We should never have permitted such centralization in agriculture generally, of course. All hail to Cargill, etc.
The UK government’s Guidance states:
I really do wonder about the quality of the expert, scientific advice the government is using. I am wondering if they even know the size of the coronavirus. And I would certainly have liked to have seen the “evidence” that they claim this guidance is based upon. In fact, I would have thought that the responsible thing for the government to do was publish all the scientific research that is allegedly determining policy.
Here’s a link to the Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do
“I really do wonder about the quality of the expert, scientific advice the government is using”
I’ve been wondering that for many many months, Steve!
A family cultivates the old fortune-telling business as “futurology” to make a living. Instead of crystal balls, pendulums, the laying on of hands and reading coffee grounds, complex theories are created http://horx.com. That seems much more serious.
Of course an extraordinary family also has to have an extraordinary name. You can’t just be called Meyer, Müller or Schulze! No, it has to “horx” in a nutshell, that’s how it is memorable for every normal mortal. They also want to surf on the Corona wave.
Lord have mercy.
Listen carefully, this article isnt bad, and infact fits into some of the erlier reports I read some weeks ago about the damanges done to lungs, witch was the case regarding at least in my humble opinion the reason for me to attack electromagnetic polution per.see and then the reports about issues that was surpricingly similare to whats called high altitute sickness and that one kicks in to anyone, and dont comply to some peoples narratives about what kind of people that got this pneumatic problems since thiis issue can affect even highly trained people it dont matter but never the less the effect is equal to what is been described in this article above, ox deprivation and what that causes of problems.
And despite HQO and Zink is good for us, it may be bad for others and I somehow finds that to be credible, as pointed on above.
Then comes critizism, I usually dont go for bashing others that makes coments, I am used to this kind of dissinfo from years back and sees them imidiatly, but well founded and reasoanted critics are highly usable and should in no way be critizised despite their arguments, better undestanding comes from reading everything, the sole reason for me going silent isnt because of the case, aka scamdemic, but information over load, we all need to take an break and instead educate our self so we at least have an better understanding of what we are acctually reading, I was much better informed by one coment that was writen by someone called Toby Russell and also Sam, this two are what I define as exemplary and smack on the target, because this uh…. demic stinks high heaven, and dont forget the MSMs in this either in Norway they have scared people shitless and in the comentary fields they are pathetic, and echoes the idiotic babbeling we get from the MSM, whom never gives anything even remotely conected to critizism what so ever, not that this case was any different since its been sumptomatic form much of their articles for decades, apart from the usual clickbaits about some brain dead influenser whom have managed to make waffles standing on their heads or something equally important in this days.
The fudging of stats and the MSM constand propaganda, is to this day the slaughterer of fellow humans, crashing our economy, etc, they are the one setting the agenda, they feed the class off scumbags witch is called polticians, this MSM the so called “experts” is where gets their “education” from etc, etc, they are our problem, nobody else, and please, in this time we need to be consistent, and respect eatch others meanings, and of course there will be one liners etc to downright well pissers but they usualy stik out like pimps on our asses and should be by now easy to spott, but not everybody is just because their opinion diverts a bit from ours, find the cracks and work from there.
I dont go further since most of it is been writen about but we must focus on flushing out the facts and start to make touches and pitchforks, for the coming days and weeks to even the score, that, is where we are now when as predicted this uh…. epidemic is fizling out, as always since this isnt anything else than a anual flu but this time hyped beyond recongition and sanity by the we know who.
Every medication can be bad for you. In fact HCQ, unlike chloroquine, is not a risk to G6PD sufferers. The campaign against HCQ by BigPharma and its stooges, with its lies and disinformation, is because it is cheap and effective, unlike BigPharma’s preferences.
Thanks Richard, it’s very important to note the distinction between HCQ and CQ.
A couple of quick references:
Richard, it was the professor, author of the article that we are commenting on who said that HCQ was a danger to those having the G6PD trait. In searching the web, I found numerous denials that either HCQ or CQ were counter-indicated for G6PD.
You keep repeating that HCQ is OK for G6PD, but CQ isn’t, but even though you’re directly contradicting this article you’ve not supplied a reference. Please do.
I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth a re-run:
Now, cue Richard le Sarcasm for one of his regular defences of a toxic (even if cheap and off-patent) drug…
( Vitamin C – l-ascorbic acid – is also cheap and non-patentable, and has the virtue of not being toxic, and has benefits to the human body way beyond combating viral illnesses ).
So how much does BigPharma pay you-or are you just a useful idiot? HCQ has been used by tens of millions for decades with very few side-effects, and ALL drugs have side-effects-particularly if you are forced to keep taking it despite being intolerant to it. Vitamin C by all means, Vitamin D, too, or Quercetin and Zinc that does the same ionophoric transfer across cell membranes the HCQ achieves.
Richard, you flatter me. I’m retired and my pension is my only income. I am utterly opposed to “Big Pharma” and all its ways. I’m certainly not paid by them.
I may be an idiot, but I only hope to be useful by sincerely recommending to everyone that they build up their health and their immune system by a combination of many things, like excellent nutrition, avoidance of junk food, avoidance of excess alcohol and recreational drugs, avoidance of excessive stress, and where possible, avoidance of environmental pollution (not always exactly under the individual’s control, obviously), and taking moderate exercise. And getting sunlight where possible.
In addition (because our foodstuffs are imperfect, no matter how hard we try), most people will need to supplement vitamin C, vitamin D, and minerals like zinc (we agree on that), magnesium and selenium. I have a secondary list of supplements (all also non-patentable), but I needn’t go on; you get the idea.
Now, I say that I am opposed to “Big Pharma”, and I am, and you may say that I’m a hypocrite because some firm has to make the kind of supplements I’ve mentioned, and these firms could also be regarded as part of “Pharma”. However, because they are non-patentable, any firm that has the capability can make them – no one can have a monopoly in them, and thus they are not of much interest to the likes of Glaxo-SmithKline who make profits by the billion, not the million.
The same is true also, of course, of your hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Some firm has to make them. From a quick google, I see that Novartis, Mylan and Teva make chloroquine, as does Bayer. (There may be others; I didn’t look for long). Do they count as “Big Pharma”? I dunno. You tell me. You are the hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine enthusiast around here.
So, would you personally take them?
Mike, forgive my spleen. I agree entirely with vitamin supplementation, eating healthy organic food and avoiding medications wherever possible, particularly vaccines. But HCQ is useful in this emergency, and is off-patent and made by generic drug producers like those in India, who donated 25 million doses to Greece in recognition of years of support for the Indian industry. That, in my opinion, is NOT BigPharma, the blood-sucking scum who are perhaps the worst of all capitalist vermin.
Mefloquine is not hydroxychloroquine .. and there is significant difference between taking hydroxychloroquine for only 4 or 5 days and the long-term use for rheumatoid arthritis or malaria.
My view, hydroxychloroquine (with G6PD deficiency and Long QT syndrome screened-out) has merit in assisting the majority population towards herd immunity while the sick and old remain in lock.
I don’t know if you listened to the interview, but the reference to Mefloquine was to a previous interview with the same interviewee. The interview I linked to is only (or primarily) about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine.
I take your point about the short-term vs long-term use, but I thinkRemington-Nevin’s point is that (for a small number of people only, perhaps) even short-term use could be quite dangerous.
My view would be: why take the risk, when there are low-cost alternatives with much less risk (i.e. vitamins and minerals)?
No didn’t listen to the interview, really no need, have heard the same same a hundred times.
Remove the risk groups and carry on.
EXACTLY!!As if BigPharma gives a stuff over ANYTHING but profits.
The WHO did a meta-analysis of HCQ, published in 2017, and cardiac complications and found no examples of sudden cardiac death (the complication allegedly risked)in patients despite hundreds of millions of doses taken over decade. NONE.
Look at this graph lockdown countries and weep.
Sweden – deaths per day:
Hey, that’s one nice and relatively flat epicurve. New York City has a nice epicurve too, with hard lockdown … not so flat. Note the peak death day is almost the same in both places (almost all US states seem to peak in terms of deaths on April 8 or so). Nice of this virus to coordinate so well between so many locations, but that’s down to good, coordinated PR and its panic.
NYC: epicurves here
April 4 was the peak date for deaths in Greece with 9.
Here’s a really great bar graph that compares the lockdown w no-lockdown countries. And it’s per million, so readily comparable. I don’t know how to import just the graph, but it’s nearly at the top of the link, and of course comes from right here at off-guardian.
Dr. Kyle Cameron-Sidell was misquoted here, I think. Dr. Cameron-Sidell said that the disease he is seeing that is called Covid-19 is not a pneumonia. He did not say “no COVID-19”. He said in an article “COVID-19 lung disease, as far as I can see, is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one.
Rather, it appears as some kind of viral induced disease, most resembling high altitude sickness.” and he said “the ARDS that we are seeing, that the whole world is seeing, maybe nothing more than lung injury caused by the ventilator.” I am not sure that makes a difference but want to point it out.
Another (yet another) extremely well qualified and experienced medical professional comes forward (this time from Ireland) to explain what we all here know. Professor Delores Cahill interviewed below. Spread before redaction:
does she look the pillar of healthy.
Can you upload?
Authoritative guest Professor Delores Cahill – concludes that immunologists knew there was no reason for lockdown. SARS Covid 1 circulated the globe in 2003, extensive immunity spread at that time, with deaths reaching 770 people in the world. There have been two more SARS variants since, every three or four years, meaning that 7-15% of people already had antibodies that would test positive for Covid-19. If you have this coronavirus you are immune for life. Many others do not get attacked by the virus at all!
Even among elderly people, with no need for extensive quarantine. Vitamin C, D and Zinc would boosted the immune system if necessary. The quarantine of the elderly could have ended in April. No-one needed to die at all. HCQ was indeed a valid treatment, that cost 10-cents a tablet, is mass produced, widely available, and has been used for 60 years.
The CDC knew from its own presentation into influenza A, B and Covid appeared early in the year, did the usual 4 week circulation and peaked in very early March, with the U.S. population clearing the virus within 10 days. Instead the lockdown has switched off nature’s natural cure of herd immunity – as Drs Erickson and Massihi explained in their banned briefing.
Damning, daming evidence on the fraud perpetrated by governments and the media.
That’s just my synopsis of what Prof Cahill said, BTW. I always forget to add that!
My contribution is the sentence: :Gates and cronies are promoting pseudo science.”
Crank, you modestly named person, thanks very much for that refreshing draught of cool, clear science. Data integrity. Research integrity. Personal responsibility. So shines a good deed in a naughty world.
Thankyou for posting this. One of the most interesting videos I’ve seen on the subject.
I’m afraid I don’t believe in any virus illness at all, crank. I believe we have been propagandised with two notions:
1. There is a pandemic
2. There is a virus illness but it is exaggerated and the response is excessive
I can find no clear evidence of any virus illness beyond the ordinary but I do find evidence supporting no virus illness beyond the ordinary.
I apologise for hijacking this post, but this recent development (09.05.2020) in Germany needs to be shared far and wide, and as fully as possible.
An unnamed, high-ranking civil servant from the Ministry of the Interior has leaked a 192-page document that includes an analysis he wrote on the effects of the lockdown on Germany. The propaganda press is attempting to smother it. The Ministry of the Interior is dismissing it as the unauthorised opinion of a single man. But it was carefully written with expert, external help, passed multiple times along the proper channels, and repeatedly blocked at every step of the way. Now it is in the public domain.
I’ve translated an article by Dr Gunter Frank, who is collaborating with a website called Achse des Guten (Axis of Good, achgut.com). It’s long but, as I say, very important. If this leak exposes what strongly looks likes a conspiracy against the German people, then there’s a very good chance the rest of the conspiracy will also be exposed globally. The entire document includes the full analysis and all relevant email communications within the Ministry of the Interior as the man in question attempted to have his urgent recommendation – that the lockdown be ended immediately – heard.
#### ARTICLE BY DR GUNTER FRANK BEGINS #####
The Corona Paper: How the Ministry of the Interior conjured the risk
Dear readers, the information I’m sharing with you today really ought to initiate the immediate cessation of the lockdown, assuming we still have more or less functional institutions, authorities, judiciary and media. What follows is a story that reminds us of Watergate and whistleblowing, but is happening now, today, and we’re in the thick of it. Because I am a doctor interested above all in people, I will recount what follows from precisely that interest.
Perhaps you are familiar with my corona articles. Their matter-of-fact and sound approach has garnered considerable approval. This prompted an employee of the Federal Ministry of the Interior to ask for my help in writing his analysis of the lockdown’s medical consequences. My more than 20 years experience in nutrition and obesity have taught me how unwilling the authorities and institutions are – I don’t even want to mention the media – to confront the actual empirical evidence. So the answer to the following question came as no surprise: Hasn’t the Ministry already completed an analysis of the consequences of the corona protection measures? The incredible answer: Sadly, no. The Ministry of the Interior employee said he had pushed on several occasions for an analysis of this kind to be written but his requests fell on deaf ears, and he was even threatened with consequences if he didn’t cease his demands. That he contacted me anyway was thus a very courageous act: the man knew that this path would not be easy for him.
I consequently furnished him with the addresses of my professional network. My colleagues wasted no time in getting down to work, on top of their professional duties (as heads of university institutes and heads of clinics), to the degree that the Ministry employee was able to complete a robust and expert assessment of the medical consequences of the lockdown within a week.
The result was of no surprise to any expert: The consequences, looking purely at the medical factors, will be far graver than those Corona virus could ever have caused. And of course we then have to also include the economic, social and political consequences. Each depends on the other, but the focus of this analysis was the medical aspects, such as for instance the 2.5 million operations, follow-up treatments, and early screenings not carried out during the Corona months, as well as the restrictions placed on care homes.
He completed the analysis yesterday. In addition to the medical consequences of the lockdown, the analysis also states that the [lockdown] measures should never have been implemented: At no point in time did the corona infection ever have the potential of causing a national catastrophe of any significant threat to the general population relative to the scale of the national catastrophe-protection measures. All of the data supports this view, even the data from the RKI [Robert Koch Institute]. He sent the analysis on the afternoon of 8 May 2020 along the correct channels, including to the various regional states’ ministries of the interior. He also included a detailed analysis of how errors were made in drawing up the corona measures, and where the systemic error lay in the decision-making process.
It is as I thought: The important data is negated and no professionally correct interpretation finds its way to any of the Ministry’s departments, and is subsequently not in ministerial working documents. Furthermore, the public, but primarily the mainstream media, continues to applaud the process, rather than draw attention to these fundamental failures. Those who nevertheless draw attention to these facts – exemplars named here are Professor Sucharit Bhakdi and Professor Stefan Hockertz – are forced to do so on internet outlets, a fact that is then used to denounce them as outsiders. This mechanism gravely weakens our society, so that it is now no longer able to react proportionately, as guided by relevant experts, to crises. The content of the employee’s analysis makes plain that there is no longer any alarm bell that can effectively warn politicians that the danger of stampeding headlong down the wrong path is great.
The response from the Ministry was prompt
The analysis, sent into the ministerial bureaucracy, produced within two hours an answer from the Ministry to all involved scientists. Below a copy of the email’s text:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the matter at hand is the work of a single employee. The employee was neither involved in the crisis committee nor was he tasked or authorised to conduct an analysis of this sort nor to publish it. The analysis reflects his private opinion and not that of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community.
On behalf of,
Gemeinsamer Krisenstab des BMI/BMG
A few answers to this email from the experts involved:
Dear Ms. H.,
Thank you for your response. Because we are dealing here with a most urgent situation, because Mr XY is acting in the interests of your house and of the republic, and because we ourselves, though not invited to participate in the crisis committee, are nevertheless proven experts, I believe it would not only be intelligent but also politically and objectively reasonable to permit extraordinary actions in these extraordinary times. I note your position. I do not, however, agree with it.
Prof. Dr.Dr.phil. Harald Walach
Dozent und Gastprofessor
Dept. Psychologie, Universität Witten-Herdecke
Dear Ms. H.,
Please understand that many highly regarded scientists are watching you and your ministry, and that all reactions are being carefully documented. The truth will most certainly come to light in the not too distant future. Those responsible will then be held to account.
If you have yet to recognise the truth, I invite you to earnestly acquaint yourself with the subject matter, for your own good. We are not conspirators, rather we seek to help our country correct and end a wrong that has caused incalculable harm to countless people.
Dear Ms. H.,
Thank you for your email.
I note that you do not disagree with the content of Mr XY’s analysis. Furthermore, I have heard that Minister Seehofer [Minister of the Interior] has expressly encouraged initiative among his staff. I therefore hope that Mr XY is not refused a hearing.
Dear Ms. H.,
Thank you for your email.
Even though we are indeed discussing an analysis from a single member of the BMI who was not involved in the crisis committee, nor authorised to create or publish such an analysis, it would nevertheless be advisable to properly examine its contents.
It may be, formally speaking, an unusual action on the part of this employee, but, dear Ms. H., we currently find ourselves in the most unusual times. And these historical times justify proactive initiative that we, the citizens, are entitled to expect from our ministries.
And so I expect, subsequent to your formal observation that I have noted here, that you indeed familiarise yourself with the analysis – we will be most happy to assist with our expertise.
Dear Ms. H.,
In view of the dramatic situation currently evident in many areas of patient care, and which are growing worse by the day during this lockdown, I ask you, please, to not insist on formal responses, but to deal with the details of the case. As a citizen, I count on the fact that the named, grave health problems caused by the lockdown are considered in the appropriate relation to the risks posed by the corona infection. Might I ask you whether this has been sufficiently considered and where such findings can be read?
That was the communication from the relevant scientists to the representative of the crisis committee. The employee of the Ministry of the Interior has been suspended as a consequence of all this, and a meeting with his department head has been scheduled.
The email with the complete analysis as an attachment is now present in every inbox of every ministry of the interior of all Germany’s regional states. Likely no one one there has read it yet. Formally, all employees who read the Ministry of the Interior’s analysis must forward it along the chain of command due to its alarming content. The problems highlighted in the analysis ought to lead to immediate responses if those involved act in accordance with their responsibilities. We shall see.
How do we handle such explosive information?
The question is now in the open: How do we handle such explosive information? I have therefore drawn up a list of contacts to assist the Ministry employee with other excellent support networks. We should also develop an intelligent strategy with which to communicate this invaluable process, such that it be taken up by the mainstream media after the regional ministries have had the opportunity to evaluate the explosive analysis. achgut.com offers these confidential networks, because achgut.com takes the big-picture perspective and does not want to report in haste. Excerpts from the analysis have nevertheless found their way via other channels to the media.
Whether it is right to report before the regional ministries have had the chance to react to the analysis’s almost 200 pages of comprehensive expertise, I cannot say. Whatever the answer, the cat is now out of the bag. It is for this reason that I am responding here in coordination with achgut.com. The editors have the entire analysis and are assessing the extent to which it may be quoted. Further articles will follow.
Reckless leadership in the biggest crisis since World War II
To the degree that I am able to evaluate it, I believe the Ministry employee’s concerns are justified and credible. Professor Gunnar Heinsohn has known him for years. The man is in full possession of his faculties and dispatches his professional duties with a strong sense of his responsibilities. It is precisely because of this that he has acted so courageously, and now needs the public’s support. Should the attempt be made to present him as an outsider and brand him as a psychotically unbalanced individual so as to minimise the impact of his analysis, the public should intervene.
This man has proven that our government has recklessly driven the country into the biggest crisis since World War II. It is vital this matter be closely investigated. We must again recall that expert criticism of the government is a fundamentally important aspect in the functioning of our democratic, law-based nation. Should worthy and renowned critics be sidelined from the public debate with arrogant gestures and pilloried in public, defamed as “corona deniers” for example, we are weakening our society’s ability to find effective solutions to the great challenges it faces.
It is exactly this task that has now fallen to us due to the corona virus, and we must pay the price in coin and blood. The first lesson from the corona disaster must therefore be to correct this situation. Politics and media must finally accommodate genuine debate. We have the expertise and specialist knowledge to overcome the toughest crises. We just have to employ this potential once again. The way the public debate is currently being organised will mean our democratic, law-based nation will not be able to cope with subsequent “corona crises”. To be continued.
#### ARTICLE BY DR GUNTER FRANK ENDS #####
The situation is developing rapidly. I’m having a hard time keeping up with all the information and the translation load, but will post more on this matter in the form of replies to my comment here, unless there’s a better way of sharing this information to a wider public.
I agree that
At no point in time did the corona infection ever have the potential of causing a national catastrophe of any significant threat to the general population relative to the scale of the national catastrophe-protection measures”. I myself had looked at the data at the beginning and frankly as a mathematician could not find anything suggesting a catastrophe. However in the country Im in, Im still isolated in this respect. More and more voices are being raised against the lockdown, but not against the claimed dangerosity of the virus. Some British and American colleagues certainly realised the absence of any significant threat and there have been articles from people mentioned in the article you quote. But, any new report would be welcome. Have you any idea whether the report is available? I guess I could always try to get in touch with Dr Gunter Frank.
This is the report:
The link came from Lockdown Skeptics:
google translate of a bit of it
” The state-ordered protective measures, as well as the diverse social activities and initiatives that originally caused the collateral damage but have now lost all meaning, are still largely in force. It is strongly recommended that they be lifted completely in the short term in order to avert damage to the population – especially unnecessary additional deaths – and to stabilize the potentially precarious situation in the critical infrastructure. 8. The deficits and failures in crisis management have consequently led to the communication of incorrect information and thus triggered disinformation among the population. (A reproach could be: The state has proven itself to be one of the largest fake news producers in the corona crisis.) From these findings it follows that: a) The proportionality of interferences in the rights of e.g. There are currently no citizens because the state has not adequately weighed up the consequences. The BVerfG requires an appropriate weighing of measures with negative consequences (PSPP judgment of May 5, 2020). b) The situation reports of the BMI-BMG crisis team and the federal state reports to the federal states must therefore immediately carry out an appropriate risk analysis and assessment. o contain an additional department with meaningful data on collateral damage (see e.g. explanations in the long version) and are free of unnecessary data and information that is not required for hazard assessment because it makes it difficult to keep an overview. o Key figures would have to be formed and placed in front. c) An appropriate hazard analysis and assessment must be carried out immediately. Otherwise the state could be liable for any damage incurred.”
And Google Translate can translate PDFs quite effectively…
And there’s this from achgut.com:
Thank you. Keep it coming. Surely the truth has to come to light soon.
I just posted another article into this thread, in case you’re interested.
Dangerousness is more euphonious. Three months ago no-one knew how dangerous the virus was, and we still don’t know the full gamut of threats. Hindsight is usually more accurate than foresight.
Thanks, that is just what we needed to maybe break open the whole global conspiracy.
Here is another article from achgut.com published 11 May by Dirk Maxeiner.
#### ARTICLE BEGINS ####
The Corona Paper: This is what really happened, Mr Seehofer
Now that the Corona Paper from the Ministry of the Interior is making its rounds in the media, a conspicuous attempt is being made to present its author as a troublemaker or sinister tool of right-wing circles, working alone. In a press briefing on Sunday, the Ministry stated that:
The employee of the BMI [The Ministry of the Interior] outlined and distributed his private opinion and possibly the opinion of those involved with the document. This independently undertaken “analysis” was conducted outside the author’s professional jurisdiction, and outside the organisational unit within the BMI in which he was active. He received neither instruction nor authorisation for this document.
Their statement does not correspond with the facts. The employee of the “Critical Infrastructure” department (KRITIS) was in communication with his department heads from 23 March 2020 at the latest, officially and in writing, about an initial report on his risk analysis, and was even praised for his initiative, which was deemed “relevant and well executed”. This communication has been documented in writing and is in the possession of the participating scientists.
After a change to his unit’s management, the author attempted to forward his critical analysis to ministerial level, but was brought to a sudden stop on 5 May. It is particularly odd that this occurred through a “Department of Crisis Management and Civil Protection”.
And it’s not as if the Office of Interior Minister Horst Seehofer learned about the paper only yesterday. On 25 April, the paper’s author wrote directly to Christoph Hübner, Horst Seehofer’s office manager. As an upstanding German civil servant, the author also documented this process, as well as the subsequent written exchange. He directed a letter to the Interior Minister and asked the office manager to forward it, with the analysis included as an attachment, directly to Horst Seehofer. The text is as follows:
Dear Minister Seehofer,
The welcome address you gave to BMI colleagues in March 2018 made a deep impression on me. You spoke of your goals and expectations. Among other things, you called upon us to express our own opinions, even if they deviate from policy. You said you sought this because, in your experience, only freedom of expression leads to good decisions. You didn’t only call on us for our opinions but even for contradiction in the event that a well-founded opinion warranted it.
In recent weeks, the need has been growing in me to act on your words, because I have been unable to make any headway with a serious concern along other channels. I would have given up had you not in that very address expressly called upon us to act courageously, and promised that nobody who expressed their opinion need have anything to fear from you.
At the moment, the health aspects of the crisis committee’s work still dominate so powerfully that other equally important aspects can be easily overlooked and neglected. In my professional area – the protection of critical infrastructure – this has grave consequences. I note that facts were created and are still being created in the crisis-resolution process that can and to some degree already have initiated difficult to control dynamics in our critical infrastructure. In my view, there is an urgent need to address more systematically our looming loss of control over the problem.
The attached reworking of my findings does not make for an edifying read. The situation is too serious for that. I describe erroneous developments and offer suggestions that may help correct our course. It is important to me that I make no personal attack on or offend anyone, despite the multiply critical nature of my report.
Clumsiness and mistakes occur in every crisis simulation, so how could it be otherwise during a real crisis. More important is what we make of the situation. Whether our country gets off lightly or has to reckon with terrible damage will depend in my view on how we now deal with erroneous developments in our management of the corona crisis.
Over the last few weeks, I have spoken with many colleagues in various units in the BMI, in the departments and in subordinate authorities such as the BBK, as well as with the employees of businesses and organisations. My experience from these conversations is that my professional interpretation is no esoteric, isolated opinion. I have yet to meet a single person who sees the basic problems differently to that which I set out in my paper. Each of my conversation partners confirmed my findings with equal conviction and expressed their biggest concerns and fears. There were several varieties of response to my question as to whether something really ought to be done: “It’s not my responsibility”, “That’s not expected of me”, “Even if I wanted to, I wouldn’t be able to change anything”. That might also be true of me, but my sense of responsibility drives me to at least try.
On the very same day, office manager Christoph Hübner sent a terse response that he had read the letter but would not be forwarding it. He claimed to have no time to read the attachment (the analysis). He suggested he would be happy to discuss how they might “allow the ideas to flow into a more promising channel”.
#### ARTICLE ENDS ####
I’m translating another article from the same author that was published 13 May. I should be finished later today.
Well, when invited by managers to share, opinionate or even contradict,
this is manager speak for:”I dare you…!”
Separates the thinkers from the followers and individuals from the group.
Thank you for doing this. Much appreciated.
I admire the optimism on display here (re the truth coming to light, followed by potential consequences) and I really hope this happens. It may be that even the potential for this to happen will cause some politicians in other countries to re-think their positions (assuming they have that option, of course), if only in an attempt to put themselves on ‘the right side of history’ in the eyes of their voters.
My feelings more or less exactly. We must apply pressure where we can. Wasting these opportunities is not an option.
Here’s yesterday’s article by Dirk Maxeiner, providing us with yet more detail on the Corona Paper:
#### ARTICLE BEGINS ####
The Corona Paper: Seehofer in his bunker
Now that the Corona Paper has been made available to everyone by achgut.com and can be downloaded here, the public has the opportunity to assess for itself the validity of the analysis contained therein. Essentially, the paper argues that the wholly exaggerated corona panic and the consequent political measures enforced in Germany could result in far more fatalities than from the illness itself. Equally explosive in implication is the discovery that the political powers have obviously made no assessment of the consequences of the measures enacted. This fact could lead to grave judicial consequences, for example in the form of civil-damage procedures.
As recently as last Sunday – an unusual workday for a Ministry – a hastily cobbled together press conference was held in an attempt to smother the growing conflagration, and present as the author’s “private opinion” the paper he sent, unauthorised, under the Ministry’s letterhead. This representation does not fit the facts. Ministry colleagues including management were involved in the paper’s creation and even expressed praise for it, as achgut.com has shown here. Unit head KM4, who praised his colleague’s document, was suddenly removed from his post a few weeks ago, a very mysterious occurrence considering his replacement will be pensioned in a few month’s time. Normal post changes do not look like this.
In meetings behind closed doors in the last few days, the attempt has been made to label the paper’s author as pathological, even describing him as a troublemaker and crank. Oberregierungsrat (senior councillor) Stephan Kohn – his name has now been published in the media – currently heads the project “Renewing the national KRITIS Strategy” (Critical Infrastructures) in the BMI.
Instead of finally getting to grips with the content of the paper, behaviour we are entitled to expect from a responsible minister of the interior, the bearer of the bad news was immediately decapitated, as in: “Prohibited from carrying out his professional affairs” since the beginning of this week. This is especially noteworthy because in his welcome address to the Ministry of the Interior, Minister Seehofer made special mention of his high regard for open criticism from his ministry colleagues. Stephan Kohn wrote to him on this point:
The welcome address you gave to BMI colleagues in March 2018 made a deep impression on me. You spoke of your goals and expectations. Among other things, you called upon us to express our own opinions, even if they deviate from policy. You said you sought this because, in your experience, only freedom of expression leads to good decisions. You didn’t only call on us for our opinions but even for contradiction in the event that a well-founded opinion warranted it.
Help us, professors of moral courage!
Kohn’s opinion was well founded for the simple reason that he recruited the advisory assistance of 10 highly renowned German professors and scientists when authoring the analysis. One phenomenon Ministry of the Interior officials seem not to have taken into account: moral courage. The participating scientists took sides with Stephan Kohn in a statement that achgut.com published on Monday, pointing out, “In our estimation, the civil servants addressed by this paper ought to initiate an immediate reassessment of the protection measures, for which we would also offer our advisory services”.
But people at the Ministry of the Interior obviously prefer to stay within their self-congratulating bubble. It could come to light that a far ranging, erroneous corona policy has been executed, and questions as to who was responsible will be asked. Domestic regional [Länder] authorities were instructed, according to today’s BILD-Zeitung, that the paper should be “considered irrelevant, and destroyed”.
The Bild-Zeitung dedicates a detailed title story to the scandal (“More deaths from corona regulations”). In the article, the participating scientists, including Professor Peter Schirmacher from Leopoldina (The National Academy of Sciences, which advises Chancellor Merkel, among others) are allowed plenty of column inches.
The media’s reaction to the issue is becoming increasingly critical of policy and its credibility. While initially a large portion of the media, including state-funded media, uncritically parroted the fairy tale about a subordinate troublemaker’s private opinion, it quickly emerged that not everyone was on the same page. “Spiegel” and “Zeit” were conspicuous with their deviant analyses – appropriate for journalism. The usual media herd instinct has not quite switched to high gear.
Appalling bunker mentality
Today’s reports in Bild have lifted the case to a new level and have Jens Spahn [Health Minister] running for cover: Spahn claims to have asked in April for a “new daily routine in clinics” with more operations for non-corona patients, and urgently asked people to “go to the doctor”.
Meanwhile the story is no longer about the Corona Paper itself, but about how criticism is handled in German governmental institutions. It is here that we see an appalling bunker mentality.
If decision makers are too similar in their thinking and worldviews, they quickly fall victim to groupthink. Information that could raise doubts about conventional thinking are excluded from the start or denigrated as obviously wrong. An insular bunker mentality develops in such groups that often leads to wholly erroneous assessments of the actual situation.
The more dependent people are on others or on their information, the higher the risk that collective errors are made. Wiser groups consist of people with differing perspectives, which are independent of each other. Without a diversity of worldview, things go wrong.
Oberregierungsrat Stephan Kohn has, entirely unintentionally, proven this. And this is the actual, dangerous message for Horst Seehofer and the rest of German politics.
#### ARTICLE ENDS ####
How could the Gates Foundation which has spent about $250 million annually since 2007 on Malaria Research and Development in Africa not know of the effects of chloroquine on many Africans?
Even the BBC noted on April 28th “Tablets containing chloroquine have long been used in the treatment of malaria to reduce fever and inflammation, and the hope is that they can also inhibit the virus that causes Covid-19…. There are also risks of serious side effects, including renal and liver damage.” https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731
Instead of expert advice, what we got was a media slanging match using Chloroquine to bash Trump. The aim was to discredit HCQ completely. Several U.S. governors banned it. The BBC published a list of which countries are allowing it… but failing to point out that the “serious side effects” apply to a specific sub-set of the population. Who is the biggest private funder of health reporters in the press and TV? Bill Gates.
Where was Bill Gates’ team of anti-malarial researchers… to point out that, yes HCQ can work but we know it is harmful to certain population groups?
Come on, Bill Gates loves the world, especially little children and he does so much good work in Africa. And yet, as people of African extraction began to die, where was from Bill and his team… CRICKETS.
What could have been Bill Gates’ interest in not ponying up? Why didn’t he help us find the quick path to using HCQ safely? Because the media was busy slamming HCQ as not usable at all!
I suspect Bill preferred his vaccine. HCQ detracted from the MILLIONS WILL DIE! story and the corollary that we must all wait for Bill to ride into town on his horse with a vaccine.
When he had an opportunity to save lives, Bill Gates put his personal profit first.
I found the article very interesting, with regards to possible reasons re much higher death rates among people with dark skins who have moved to Northern Climates. I was initially more convinced that the main reasons would be due to a deficiency in Vitamin D, due to lower absorption / conversion of sunlight through dark skin. It was well known over 60 years ago, how important sunlight was for kids such as myself who lived in highly air polluted Northern Towns. My mum used to give me cod liver oil, because it is rich in Vitamin D.
Whilst I thought I understood the arguments with regards to HCQ ( synthetic quinine) for early treatment – largely being banned (no money in it – out of patent) – though many doctors were convinced it worked well in early treatment), no drug or treatment is good or bad in all situations for different people. For example, I am very much against the use of antibiotics, except as a last resort, when they really can mean the difference between life and death. But my father was allergic to penicillin, and when he was given it for a minor infection, it nearly killed him.
I still think Vitamin D is exceedingly important, and the best source for it is sunlight. Keeping entire populations terrified and afraid to go out, will decimate their immune systems, making them far more vulnerable to all kinds of diseases.
That appears to be the agenda. It’s a mass cull via multiple methods including impoverishment and starvation. In theory people in The UK are from today, allowed to go to the beach. When it warms up a bit again, that is exactly what we will do.
If you don’t ignore this thing, and carry on as normal, as best you can, it will kill you.
The Monday episode of ukcolumn, was devastating in what it exposed. The core is after about 8 minutes. It is a very powerful psychological operation using the most outrageous techniques, as documented by The UK Government. This keeps getting deleted.
“UK Column News – 11th May 2020”
People with black skins die disproportionately because of poverty, malign neglect, risky employment and co-morbidities caused by poverty through poor diet etc.
I don’t know enough about HCQ to either agree/disagree with your assertions.
However, do you have evidence that all of the people to whom you refer were in fact victims of poverty, malign neglect, risky employment and attendant co-morbities?
Notice I stressed the word “all”, because yours is a sweeping statement that does not appear to allow for, for example, medical practitioners, high earners etc within that demographic.
Does it come down to a binary “black people are poor” which is why they’re dying disproportionately; white people are better off which is why they sit within the seasonal flu death range?
HCQ is very safe. Safer than chloroquine. Safer than many, many other medications. The campaign of lies and disinformation against it is driven by BigPharma, who HATE all cheap medications, and by the Trump Derangement Syndrome fanatics.
This is interesting it suggests if people become ill. The wrong treatment is being used making the illness worse , possibly leading to death.
My wife is from the Philippines like many from this country her blood has Thalassaemia
This natural adaptation seems to give protection to Malaria that is common in Asia.
Thalassaemia results in smaller blood cells this can effect the oxygen production. It can lead to anaemia.
My blood group is ‘O’ rhesus negative this can also lead to anaemia.
In New York I wonder If the dust from the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 is a factor.
The twin towers almost completely turned to dust that covered a large area of New York.
The dust contained asbestos and many other toxic elements.
Many fire men and rescue workers have died or become seriously ill with severe lung problems from the dust.
Many people were covered in the dust , it also entered many buildings .
The health advice at the time of the collapse was that the air was safe.
The clean up of New York required the removal of all this dust.
The lungs of anyone that cleaned up the dust in the street or there houses could be effected.
Asbestosis and other lung diseases can take decades before there effects become obvious.
Japan has not had a lock strong down advice has been given to voluntary follow restrictions that are similar but not as severe as the Lock down restrictions in the UK and elsewhere. With just 16,000 case some 657 reported deaths
Based on the reported sentinel surveillance data, the estimated number of influenza patients who visited medical facilities between week 36 of 2018 and week 17 of 2019 was approximately 12,000,000
between week 36 of 2018 and week 17 of 2019). Approximately 3,400 excess deaths were observed nationwide in the 2018/19 season, which was estimated to be similar to the average year .
Thanks Brian. Regarding New York, the numbers are totally implausible, New York City especially. The infection rate is 100 times worse than the whole of Asia for example. The problem is supposedly so bad that some days New York has a bigger increase in cases than the rest of US. This is impossible as it means the rest of US would have reducing cases (ignoring recoveries). There seems to be a strong correlation between extent of lockdown and the infection rate, even when lockdown came early. It is also noticeable that the higher infection rates affect states with Democratic governors. How about that?
Brian, I’m afraid the “toxic dust at the WTC” and “twin towers turning to dust” is all propaganda. They don’t turn buildings to dust in controlled demolitions, that would be such a huge waste of energy. They only cut the support columns to bring them crashing to the ground. The dust at the WTC was perfectly benign and was pushed out at the time of the demolitions.
This benign dust was really quite magical and had a multiplicity of functions:
— to make the collapses more spectacular
— to make controlled demolition less obvious
— to make WTC look like a warzone, enhancing the sense of enormity and terror of the event
— to provide distraction in the form of Judy Woods’, “Where did the towers go?”, nonsense
— to allow crisis actors to be “interviewed” on a day other than 9/11 all covered in dust so that they more convincingly match up with the WTC-covered-in-dust scene.
— to provide distraction and to entrench the sense of evilness of the perpetrators making real death and injury more plausible in the alleged deaths of first responders and others due to illness caused by the toxic dust.
See more here: https://911crashtest.org/?p=4008
Just to add: I think dust may be used to great effect in psyops generally. It was also used in: —– the staged Battle of Mogadishu (aka Black Hawk Down) – https://youtu.be/igpjAuwBE7M
— the faked Collateral Murder video – https://youtu.be/5rXPrfnU3G0?t=286
Furthermore, New York has a high transient population. Many of the people living there in 2001 left a long time ago.
David, far too many people involved in 9/11 were at Ground Zero. Controlled demolitions do not normally result in toxic dust. There was no reason for toxic dust, we can see it was part of the propaganda campaign targeted at truthers to enhance the sense of evilness of the US government, increasing the plausibility of them allowing the deaths of 3,000 of their own citizens and injuring 6,000.
Petra, I really appreciate your honesty in admitting you hadn’t actually read the article, before you commented on it. I guess we all do that a bit. I usually find the comments more interesting than the article. I agree with you on many things. I think you are highly intelligent and well meaning. (I also have a naturally affection for Australians – blokes mainly, and also some Kiwi girls) – cos they have the same sense of humour as me, and say exactly what they think (I have tried to moderate mine recently)
However, you don’t half come out with a lot of sh1t, and I wasn’t going to mention Asbestos dust in NYC – but keep on posting. You get a lot of stuff right about the psyops, but none of them are that black and white. There are always other possible explanations. Your idea that you keep writing re 9/11 – that no one died – is completely ridiculous. However, it may actually be almost true, for the London Bombings, but these people who control these things, have absolutely no problems, with actually killing people at the same event, as well as completely faking most of it. You are very brave, and currently making more sense, much of the time than Caitlin, who seems to have become infected. Do you know her? She’s honest too, but mistaken. Not sure about Bernhard – but I hope he recovers.
I don’t claim absolutely that no one died, Tony, what I say is that death and injury were staged and I provide the very clear evidence for that here:
I doubt that anyone died and I do claim most strenuously that there is zero evidence of anyone dying but I wouldn’t say for sure that no one died. If you have any evidence for the death of any specific person or people please let me know what it is.
I also say that anyone who speaks of 9/11 as a psyop and yet believes in real death and injury hasn’t a clue what a psyop is. In a psyop you don’t do things for real unless you want them for real. If they persuaded us that 110-storey steel frame buildings collapsed due to jet fuel fires and that a 200-ton airliner not only penetrated one of those 500,000-ton buildings but sailed through to the other side, nose cone intact, then, of course they can also persuade us of real death and injury when none happened. They’ve been doing these things since at least the Great Fire of London in 1666, Tony, they know how to persuade us of just about anything, OK? Real death and injury where there was none? A piece of cake. Just look at the ludicrous “evidence” for it. It will shock you how pathetic it is. I was gobsmacked when I first suspected it was staged and went to look at the visual evidence. I face-palmed massively and couldn’t believe it had taken me so long to work it out when I knew they staged death and injury in various other events. You can never underestimate the power of propaganda and how clever it can be … until you really wake up to it.
9/11 had a two-pronged propaganda campaign: one directed at the believers and one directed at those who recognise controlled demolition (CD). The one directed at the CD people was all about maintaining belief in real death and injury so as to stymie them from getting out the truth. Armed with an important truth (CD) but an equally important lie (real death and injury) the CD people can get nowhere because the believers will simply not accept that the US government killed all those poor people in the buildings. And, ironically, the believers are correct in this instance where the CD people are not! That would never be the perps’ MO. Never in a million years.
Part of the CD-people-targeted campaign is “how evil the US government is”. So we have:
— the PNAC document and Operation Northwoods (whether real or faked – could even have been faked that far back – who the hell knows?) pushed out at an appropriate time
— the buildings locked at the top to stop people escaping
— the people targeted in the buildings (both towers and Pentagon) for investigating fraud
— the toxic dust. Did you see the $1 billion quote for asbestos removal? Yeah, right.
There was no toxic dust, Tony, cos 9/11 was a psyop in the form of a Full-Scale Exercise comprising smaller exercises and drills pushed out as real and many of the first responders were in the know. Thousands of people were in the know, Tony cos … death and injury were staged. It was essentially a big drill where buildings were destroyed. That was it.
Conversation between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7, the third building to collapse at the WTC on 9/11, after its collapse: https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224
“Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]
“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”
“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”
Please come back and tell me, Tony, that the conversation above does not reveal that Brian Williams and David Restuccio knew what went on on 9/11. I dare you.
And, yes, Tony, I know Caitlin. She banned me from her website even though everything I said obeyed any kind of etiquette of civility, logic, on-topicness, etc one could impose. That’s how much she supports free speech. She’s been told she has COVID-19? Now that is funny I have to say.
And all the asbestos in the Twin Towers? How did that magically disappear?
What I’m saying, Richard, is that I think the asbestos bill was faked. $1 billion! I think they removed any asbestos if there was any just as they do for any other skyscrapers they bring down. Why would it have been more difficult to remove the asbestos in the twin towers asbestos than that in any other buildings? You’re not catching onto the design of the truther-targeted propaganda for 9/11, Richard. Wake up!
Tricky yet not wholly implausable. Would suggest that fake-tears-performance Jon Stewart is now engaged in fake activism.
Thanks to his advocacy/intercession congress grants the sick first responders much needed funds/relief. Which they otherwise would not.
There are probably a lot of first-responders who are sick from one thing or another in their job. It’s pretty damn hazardous and no doubt some got sick from their experience at Ground Zero for one reason or another but the “toxic dust” is propaganda – even if to some degree there was some toxic dust as there may always be in controlled demolitions. I don’t know.
Stripping asbestos requires workers in space suits. People may have noticed.
All kinds of things went on in the twin towers that no one seemingly noticed, didn’t they, Richard? It seems no one noticed the setting of explosives. I’m sure they could have removed asbestos without people knowing about it. They just have to close floors and do it at night or whatever.
In the first place, however, we don’t even know whether asbestos was actually in the towers. I think we can assume that the hard-to-believe $1 billion asbestos bill was part of the propaganda campaign to make people believe in the “evilness of the perps” so as to reinforce the plausibility of them callously allowing the people in the buildings to die.
The towers weren’t built until 1973 and by that time the dangers of asbestos would have been known, especially by the power elite. And, as many say quite plausibly, as it was known at the time the buildings were erected that they would be coming down I’d say there’s a very good chance there was no asbestos in the buildings in the first place. However, regardless of whether there was or there wasn’t, I don’t see great issue in removing it without being “noticed”.
Richard, you need to inject some agility into your thinking. Your thinking is a little on the plodding side, no? Plodding thinking doesn’t work for analysing what the power elite does to us – they’re so far ahead. After all, they’ve had millennia of experience and somehow we have never caught on.
I suspect Wodarg is a BigPharma disinformationist. The campaign to demonise hydroxychloroquine, safe, off patent and cheap ie a threat to BigPharma profitexpectations, has been frenetic. If this ‘risk’ that those with G6PD deficiency face risks from HCQ is real, then in places where the population has high levels, they need to do screening, and perhaps give ivermectin or some other medication (I await the ‘revelation’ that ivermectin causes your head to explode). In people with no G6PD deficiency, then HCQ is safe (contrary to the disinformation)highly effective given early on and prophylactically, and cheap. As for the cardiac deaths garbage, the WHO did a meta-analysis in 2016, published in 2017, found NO sudden cardiac deaths as a result of HCQ administration, despite hundreds of millions of doses. And, of course, as is usually the case, Wodarg posits that most of the medical establishments are more or less murdering patients with HCQ, a favourite trope for the denialist cultists.
You really like toxic drugs don’t you Richard?
Why use any toxic drugs when vitamin C is a non-toxic alternative, and which has many positive functions within the human body?
Yes, Vitamin C is good, but HCQ, compared to most medications, is NOT ‘toxic’. And it works.
Mike, I agree that preparation is best, but once infected you need to stop the virus entrenching itself. HCQ works as an ionophore to transport zinc into cells, where the zinc disrupts viral replication. All medications have side-effects in some or many, but HCQ is pretty safe, and, in my opinion, on the balance of risk and reward, using HCQ makes sense. Better than hyper-expensive and utterly useless remdesivir.
If any special treatment is indeed warranted or necessary for this ‘pandemic’.
If what you say is true, Richard, that might explain this entry in Wodarg’s Wikipedia article:
As chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee Wodarg co-signed a proposed resolution on December 18, 2009, which was briefly discussed in January 2010 in an emergency debate and he has called for an inquiry into alleged undue influence exerted by pharmaceutical companies on the World Health Organization’s global H1N1 flu campaign.
“… he has called for an inquiry …” I’m sure he did and what became of it?
Probably deep cover, or he’s been bought off more recently. Every man has his price.
Clear enough, early treatment which includes hydroxychloroquine has merit.
In addition to G6PD deficiency consideration is also required for the 1 in 7000 with Long QT syndrome.
On further reading I find that it is chloroquine that causes haemolysis in G6PD deficiency patients, but NOT HCQ. All is resolved. The long QT syndrome stuff has been dredged up by BigPharma-as if they give a flying eff over side-effects, when money is to be made.
Supposing we play along with G6PD deficiency and Long QT syndrome narratives .. narratives that do not exclude the merit of hydroxychloroquine treatment as the risks (if any) can be managed.
Agree hydroxychloroquine has been the target of vicious suppression.
Does Wodarg add to the suppression, no he draws attention to it.
I got an email notification in which you apparently said this:
However, I just cannot find this post under this article (although I did click on the link in the email). Did you delete it? (how do you do that?). Or maybe admin did. Or maybe it was just a system glitch.
Anyway, I wanted to try to reply to this, so have chosen one of your other postings to reply to in the hope that you will see it. Your comment relates to the David Crowe interview with Remington-Nevin in the TIM series dated 28 April 2020. You didn’t want to listen to it, so I listened to it again, so you don’t have to 🙂 (I understand that not everyone has time to listen to hour long interviews, so I am not criticising you at all).
However, he (Dr Remington-Nevin) may have said some things of which you weren’t aware.
A very approximate paraphrase of some of what he said: He mentioned in passing the well-known ocular and cardiac side effects. On the latter, the elderly who are the main risk group for COVID-19 may well have pre-existing cardiac problems, so cardiac side effects of this class of drug could be more of a problem for them than the general population.
However, his main concern was neuropsychiatric effects which may be permanent in some cases.
One of the main uses of this class of drug other than for Malaria has been in the rheumatology community, and it has been maintained that these drugs have been used safely for 70 years. However, this ignores the fact that a significant number of the order of 10% of patients (treated by this community) can’t tolerate the drugs and have to quickly come off them.
[you talk about removing the risk groups], but for the neuropsychiatric effects he is concerned about, it’s not possible to tell in advance which patients are likely to be most affected. So the advice in the past has always been “titrate to effect or to toxicity”. And given that the use of these drugs for COVID-19 is by definition a recent phenomenon, there is no established dose for COVID-19, and we’ve heard of some very large doses (measured in grams) being used. Considering these effects could be permanent, this is a serious concern.
If toxicity is signified (by neuropsychiatric effects) it suggests that the drug has reached the brain, where it is likely to remain. Given that the risk groups for COVID-19 include the elderly, suddenly deprived of contact with their families and in fear of dying, might be displaying some of the signs of these side effects in any case (paranoia, hallucinations), and it might be hard for clinicians to distinguish those from side effects of the drug.
In the early days of the Coronavirus panic, given that the this class of drug had a known antiviral effect in vitro, it was reasonable to consider their use for COVID-19. However, real life in vivo use is not the same as lab tests.
Our recent experience with COVID-19 has been that they haven’t proved the magic bullet that some people had promised or hoped for. He thought it was telling that although the US President had been encouraging their use, he had not mandated their use in the military even though as their Commander in Chief, he would have been entitled to.
End of paraphrase.
There is more here:
(This is me writing now, not a question from Remington Nevin): Would you be happy to have these drugs (chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine ) administered to you, or to a parent or grandparent, or other elderly relative?
‘Missing post’ can be found further down among the comments.
I think Remington-Nevin is rather alarmist.
Yes this old Anglo I would be happy to take hydroxychloroquine together with azithromycin and zinc.
I notice your link to the Quinism Foundation page is dated 20 March 2020.
Short read (and written before the anti-hydroxychloroquine campaign had begun) ………
Alarmist in the service of BigPharma-a typical PR campaign. The links may be discerned one day. It’s how the scum operate.
Dr William Wodarg is controlled opposition as I have no doubt most prominent doctors voicing the opposition side are. His absurd schtick is that this alleged pandemic is a conspiracy at the scientist-level – sure, scientists are involved and the fraudulence among them is pretty breathtaking but the fraud is obviously at a much higher level. This article is propaganda, one of the many articles pushed at us to divert us from what the fact that this alleged pandemic is, in fact, a complete hoax, a psyop, a nonsense and a disgrace.
I think a lot of people really struggle to come to terms with the scale of the corruption and erect defensive mechanism to try and prevent themselves having to do so.
A global totalitarian system with seemingly absolute power over everyone on the planet has been established – now that is very scary indeed.
Notice the suggestions of the mind and ask in your heart “Is this true of me?”
You CAN hypnotise yourself with fear and fascination with fear, along with narrative investment in conflict.
The opportunity of a conflicted situation – addressed within our part in it – is to resolve by accepted decision. As long as you assign responsibility for your life to an externally set causation, you will be conflicted with what actually moves, calls or impels as the true desire of the heart.
Recognising and reorganising priorities under compression can mean releasing investment in false or masking narratives to align wholly in who you now accept yourself to be.
Coercion and deceit operate a force based and toxic economy – no matter how cleverly the pain is redistributed, mapped out or isolated from. Is this ‘power’? Or is it the perversion of a true economy in the attempt to support illusions to which we have become normalised and habituated?
And so yes, the shifting from dream-habit to dread nightmare is the revealing or unmasking of a negative or segregative and conflicting division, that is brought to awareness – but cloaked in the symbol and sign of the dream. Waking, is not to nightmare – but from the mind-capture of the dreaming state. The character in the drama is not the self-awareness of recognition in the heart. Love is the power of the reversal of a denied, locked-down and isolated heart. But love is the extension of who you are in what you think, feel, say and do.
If we give loving support to a mind or narrative that undermines, terrifies and crushes us, we might ask – ‘what purpose does this serve for me now?’ – Because we always have some ‘pay-off’ at some level to our behaviours – often from long past or deep core experience in formative years.
You may be right – if Wodarg is a controlled opposition then he is by definition ‘hanging out’ part of the story.
Who is the root of the tree. If we X-out Wodarg, what is the only logical direction to go: cui bono? Which we can find using historical perspective. We know population control is part of the agenda of the vaccine pushers – from the mouth of Bill Gates himself.
Which population would be targeted … is already being targeted… for reduction… by Bill Gates’ father, board member of Planned Parenthood?
Why is this a combined MEDIA + MEDICAL EVENT targeting health, purity and **** in the 2020. What drove the eugenics efforts in 1930s Germany? The media and the medical profession. What is the word I am leaving out.
What is the *** word that the media+medical effort targeted last time? In Darwin’s time, in Rockefeller’s time, in Thomas Watson of IBM’s time, in Huxley’s time, in William Henry Gates II’s time? That word would be RACE.
Larry Keen https://youtu.be/aHHvCiXNKcY
You don’t like competition in the conspiracy stakes, do you.
Richard, I think I’ll stop replying to you. In this case I have no idea what you’re talking about and when I do have an idea, eg, your ludicrous belief in some magical maximum number of psyops (which, of course, you are unable to specify), there is no point in replying because of your persistent obduracy.
Sorry, I’m becoming incoherent. I agree with the first half, but not the second.