Covid-19 News

  • The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis…ection-sars-cov-2/5739959

    About the author:

    "Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has taught as visiting professor in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America. He has served as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has acted as a consultant for several international organizations. He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America's Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO's war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]"

  • Just buy some cheap Ivermectin. There is no reason to hide. Worldometer only shows 4 deaths/day in average for Sweden.

    Only rule people need to follow: Use an FP98 mask for trains/shops. Medical masks have absolute no value for

    Basically all people with severe infections get in from long stays indoors. Most of the time from the partner.

    Worldometer has a bug, the natioanl statistic present the dates of the deaths and the latest reported day has very few deaths due to the fact that reporting can take 10 days to trickle in. The true statistic is that we are plateauing on around 20 deaths a day.

  • This would be funny if it were not so tragic. It describes an influential member of the Death Cult who haunts Fox News and other places where ignorance and stupidity reign. People like this have killed hundreds of thousands of people.…mics-wrongest-man/618475/

    The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man

    In a crowded field of wrongness, one person stands out: Alex Berenson.

    . . . For the past few weeks on Twitter, Berenson has mischaracterized just about every detail regarding the vaccines to make the dubious case that most people would be better off avoiding them. As his conspiratorial nonsense accelerates toward the pandemic’s finish line, he has proved himself the Secretariat of being wrong:

  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, on the one-year anniversary of the lockdowns, invited back the scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration, signed at the offices of the American Institute for Economic Research, for a roundtable on the Coronavirus and the policy response. It is exceptionally educational, and points to the reality that the lockdowners have lost the debate for lacking any evidence that their soul-crushing policies are good for public health. These heroic scientists departed from the media/government narrative when it mattered most. As a result, some states followed their point of view and their views have shown to be correct during the worst policy year of our lifetimes.:

    The entire event was recorded. Complete transcript below.…079f588c7156d7d?src=embed

    • Official Post

    Had to double check this against other news sources, since if true the implications are huge. And yes, it checks out. From my understanding, the issue is this: The WHO backed PCR test cycles the sample to amplify the genetic material. Cycle it too many times (>30 according to one source), and the "false positives" are about 85-90% according to the NYT's.

    What I could not find was how many of the tests reported in official figures as positive, were cycled more than 30 times...therefore almost certainly false positives? The greater that percentage, the greater the ramifications.

    Anyone find another take on this?

  • Had to double check this against other news sources, since if true the implications are huge. And yes, it checks out. From my understanding, the issue is this: The WHO backed PCR test cycles the sample to amplify the genetic material. Cycle it too many times (>30 according to one source), and the "false positives" are about 85-90% according to the NYT's.

    What I could not find was how many of the tests reported in official figures as positive, were cycled more than 30 times...therefore almost certainly false positives? The greater that percentage, the greater the ramifications.

    Anyone find another take on this?

    It is well known that most (if not all) tests in the NA and EU are CT 35+

  • Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination

    We report findings in five patients who presented with venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia 7 to 10 days after receiving the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 adenoviral vector vaccine against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The patients were health care workers who were 32 to 54 years of age. All the patients had high levels of antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes; however, they had had no previous exposure to heparin. Because the five cases occurred in a population of more than 130,000 vaccinated persons, we propose that they represent a rare vaccine-related variant of spontaneous heparin-induced thrombocytopenia that we refer to as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia

  • Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial…-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext

    From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned—73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the budesonide group and one (1%) of 69 participant in the usual care group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0–50] vs 50% [15–71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference −0·12, 95% CI −0·21 to −0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference −0·10, 95% CI −0·21 to −0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events.


    Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19

  • more suppression!

    YouTube removes video of DeSantis coronavirus roundtable

    “Our policies apply to everyone,” a YouTube spokeswoman said in an email. It removed the video because it said the content violated its standards about “COVID-19 medical misinformation.” DeSantis’ office blasted the decision…oundtable/?outputType=amp

    TALLAHASSEE — YouTube has removed a recording of a roundtable discussion on public health that was held by Gov. Ron DeSantis last month after the video-sharing platform said it included information on mask-wearing that “contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities.”

    The March 18 roundtable discussion featured a panel of physicians who appeared to be hand-picked because their views aligned with DeSantis’ handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Among them was Dr. Scott Atlas, a radiologist who was a pandemic adviser to former President Donald Trump, as well as Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, of Stanford Medical School — all of whom have been critical of lockdowns and certain other measures amid the pandemic.

    .At one point during the nearly two-hour discussion, DeSantis asked panelists whether children needed to wear face masks in school. Kulldorf responded that “children should not wear face masks. No. They don’t need it for their own protection and they don’t need it for protecting other people, either.” Bhattacharya added that he thought it was “developmentally inappropriate” for children in school to wear face masks.

    YouTube pointed to those comments as example of content that violated its standards about “COVID-19 medical misinformation.” (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children ages 2 and older wear a mask when in public and when around people they don’t live with.)

    “Our policies apply to everyone, and focus on content regardless of the speaker or channel,” a YouTube spokeswoman said in an email Friday.

    Video of the roundtable — which is available at — was posted to YouTube by WTSP Tampa Bay and embedded in a news story about the event. The libertarian-leaning think tank American Institute for Economic Research first flagged the video’s removal from YouTube on Wednesday.

  • italy holding WHO accountable!

    Italy prosecutors: WHO exec lied about spiked virus report…95a0cfea1978dfdf8439849cc

    Italian prosecutors say a top World Health Organization official lied to them about a spiked WHO report into Italy’s coronavirus response, revealing private communications Friday that are likely to embarrass the U.N. health agency.

    Prosecutors in Bergamo placed Dr. Ranieri Guerra, at the time a WHO assistant director general, under investigation for allegedly making false declarations to them when he voluntarily agreed to be questioned in November. Guerra was the WHO’s liaison with the Italian government after Italy became the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in Europe last year.

    They have not charged Guerra with any crime, outlining their allegations in an interim investigative document sent to the Italian foreign and justice ministries that listed him as one of six people under investigation in their probe.

    Guerra did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. The Agi news agency quoted him as saying he was shocked and “deeply embittered” that prosecutors had placed him under investigation, that he expected WHO to respond to them and remained available for further clarification.

    “I have been and am in absolute good faith and I am amazed that the prosecutors have a different impression,” Agi quoted him as saying. Guerra added that he told prosecutors everything he knew at the time but did not have access to all information.

    Prosecutors are investigating the huge COVID-19 death toll in Bergamo and whether Italy’s lack of preparedness going into the pandemic played a role. Their probe expanded to include the spiked WHO report into Italy’s virus response, which revealed that the Italian government hadn’t updated its pandemic preparedness plan since 2006.

    WHO pulled the report from its website on May 14, a day after it went up, and never republished it. The document’s disappearance suggested that WHO removed it to spare the Italian government criticism, embarrassment and liability.

    Guerra was a top official in the Italian health ministry during 2014-2017, when the pandemic preparedness plan should have been updated to comply with EU directives.

    When asked at the time whether Guerra or the Italian government had intervened to spike the report, the WHO said it was removed by its regional office in Copenhagen due to “factual inaccuracies.”

    But documentation compiled by Bergamo prosecutors, first reported by Italy’s state-run RAI Report, indicated that Guerra maneuvered to have the report taken down and that the Italian government was upset with it. The documentation included private WhatsApp chats between Guerra and a top Italian public health official, Dr. Silvio Brusaferro.

    In one chat, dated May 14, 2020, Guerra wrote Brusaferro that the decision to pull the report was known to the leadership of the WHO: “In the end I went to Tedros and got the document removed,” a reference to WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

    In another chat four days later, Guerra wrote to Brusaferro that he was meeting with the Italian health minister’s cabinet chief about revising the report and that the minister’s office “said to see if we can make it fall into thin air. ”

    The WHO press office, in an email to The Associated Press on Friday, denied that Tedros was involved in spiking the report and insisted all decision-making about it was done by the Copenhagen office.

    “The director-general was not involved himself in the development, publishing or withdrawal of the report,” the email said, repeating that it was removed because it “contained inaccuracies and inconsistencies” and had been published prematurely.

    It added that Guerra was no longer an assistant director general but rather a “special adviser,” which it said carried the same rank.

    Prosecutors cited Guerra’s comments to them, which they said were contradicted by the facts, and concluded that “Guerra personally worked on the removal of the report from the WHO site.”

    Previously, emails had shown that Guerra tried to have one of the report’s main authors, Dr. Francesco Zambon, alter data in the report before it was published to say that Italy had “updated” its pandemic plan in 2016, which it had not. Zambon refused and filed an internal whistleblower complaint alleging that Guerra had tried to pressure him to change the data. Zambon recently resigned.

    Guerra has defended his role, saying the report was pulled because of factual inaccuracies and that he did not intervene to have it removed but merely wanted the errors corrected. He has said Italy’s 2006 pandemic plan was still valid and didn’t need to be updated while he was in charge of prevention at the health ministry.

    Dr. Giovanni Rezza, who is now in charge of prevention at the health ministry, has said that he didn’t see anything particularly problematic in the spiked WHO report, much less worthy of censorship.

    Guerra testified to prosecutors even though WHO’s legal office had advised WHO officials in November that they were under no obligation to respond to Italian prosecutors’ requests for questioning, given their diplomatic immunity as U.N. officials.

    Guerra had gone in his personal capacity and was questioned as someone informed about the facts, not as a suspect. But prosecutors ended up placing him under investigation because they said “he made false declarations.”

    Prosecutors laid out the allegations against Guerra in an eight-page formal request to the Italian Foreign Ministry, seeking its assistance in obtaining cooperation from WHO in their investigation

  • taking it to the extreme?

    German virologist warns of ‘permanent lockdown’ amid rising Covid infections…ing-covid-infections/?amp

    With an increasing number of patients being admitted to intensive care units, rising infections and not enough vaccinations, Germany is trying to manage another Covid-19 resurgence.

    On Friday 25,464 new Covid cases and 296 deaths were reported to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) within the last 24 hours.

    The number of cases per 100,000 residents within a seven-day period stood at 110.4.

    The situation today is much more difficult, Brinkmann said, despite the inoculation campaign. “Vaccination is there, but it is too slow and will not be able to stop this third wave,” she said, adding that testing alone is not enough.

    Brinkmann also said a long-term perspective is missing from the current management.

    “What’s actually going to happen in a few months? Surely with the strategy we’re following at the moment, I’ll be in a permanent lockdown for the rest of the year, if I’m unlucky,” she said.

  • SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN)…-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext


    From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days.


    A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals

  • T cells recognize recent SARS-CoV-2 variants

    Research suggests protective effects of vaccination remain intact…/2021/03/210330120650.htm

    When variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) emerged in late 2020, concern arose that they might elude protective immune responses generated by prior infection or vaccination, potentially making re-infection more likely or vaccination less effective. To investigate this possibility, researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, and colleagues analyzed blood cell samples from 30 people who had contracted and recovered from COVID-19 prior to the emergence of virus variants. They found that one key player in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 -- the CD8+ T cell -- remained active against the virus.

    The research team was led by NIAID's Andrew Redd, Ph.D., and included scientists from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the immunomics-focused company, ImmunoScape.

    The investigators asked whether CD8+ T cells in the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients, infected with the initial virus, could still recognize three SARS-CoV-2 variants: B.1.1.7, which was first detected in the United Kingdom; B.1.351, originally found in the Republic of South Africa; and B.1.1.248, first seen in Brazil. Each variant has mutations throughout the virus, and, in particular, in the region of the virus' spike protein that it uses to attach to and enter cells. Mutations in this spike protein region could make it less recognizable to T cells and neutralizing antibodies, which are made by the immune system's B cells following infection or vaccination.

    Although details about the exact levels and composition of antibody and T-cell responses needed to achieve immunity to SARS-CoV-2 are still unknown, scientists assume that strong and broad responses from both antibodies and T cells are required to mount an effective immune response. CD8+ T cells limit infection by recognizing parts of the virus protein presented on the surface of infected cells and killing those cells.

  • Had to double check this against other news sources, since if true the implications are huge. And yes, it checks out. From my understanding, the issue is this: The WHO backed PCR test cycles the sample to amplify the genetic material. Cycle it too many times (>30 according to one source), and the "false positives" are about 85-90% according to the NYT's.

    What I could not find was how many of the tests reported in official figures as positive, were cycled more than 30 times...therefore almost certainly false positives? The greater that percentage, the greater the ramifications.

    Anyone find another take on this?

    I've heard in Canada the cycle threshold can be over 40! First, some background. By false positive, it is false in the sense that there are no viable viruses detected, only tiny amounts of inactive viral debris. The viral debris is coming from a previous infection long since cleared, or from exposure to someone else who was shedding inactive viral debris, or (probably least likely) from inactive viral debris from a lab worker. We should understand that there is far more particles of inactive viral debris floating around out there than there are live viruses.

    The problem with the current narrative is that people are actively being led to think that testing positive (with cycles over 30) means one is currently infected! I've seen graphs that show the likelihood of testing positive drops by half at a week after symptoms start, and drops off a cliff after that. This may be why they decided to go to such high cycle thresholds in the first place, so they wouldn't miss those 'cases' that are tested late. But if so, they should have made it clear that the vast majority of these positive 'cases' are not infective!

    Instead, the message is going the opposite direction : we are being conditioned to regard everyone - whether they have tested positive or not - as a potential vector of disease, a potential biological terror threat to society. Unelected public health officials rub their hands in glee as we cower in fear, wear masks, get a vaccine and keep away from people. After all, It means the numbers will go down (so they think)! They are so myopic that is all they think about ; they seem oblivious to the greater harm they are doing to society. They are counting deck chairs while this ship capsizes, thinking they are doing their job and society a favour. They are the high priestesses of the new safety cult.

  • Everything we have been told based on the PCR tests would have to be reevaluated...reported case numbers, and deaths attributed to COVID for starters.

    The doctors I have spoken with say they are 100% sure of a COVID-19 diagnosis. It is easy to recognize. It does not look like other diseases. When someone is in the hospital, or someone dies, they have no doubt the underlying cause is COVID-19, although the direct cause may be pneumonia. They do not need to the test to verify it. The test is valuable for finding undiagnosed cases and mild cases, but you can be sure the deaths are caused by COVID-19.

    If anything, the number of cases far exceeds the number of positive tests. Many people were never tested when they were infected. The antibody tests reveal that.

    There is usually a problem with false positives and false negatives with tests of this nature. It may be this one has more false positives, but it is still useful.

  • Canada's Dr. Hodkinson speaks at Edmonton City Council meeting. About 4 minutes in he mentions the futility of Covid PCR testing, unless it is after a clinical diagnosis. I'm amazed the video hasn't been removed yet!

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    • Official Post

    This may be why they decided to go to such high cycle thresholds in the first place, so they wouldn't miss those 'cases' that are tested late. But if so, they should have made it clear that the vast majority of these positive 'cases' are not infective!

    I am curious as to the "why" also. Why the Ct (cycle threshold) was set so high? My first thought is follow the money, and the power, then what is left was probably good intent based off of bad WHO/CDC guidance.

    The hospitals here in the US for example must have loved the policy, because COVID patients are billed about 3x's more. In their shoes I would not say a thing and keep praying the scheme continues.

    Big story, and my guess is that it will be swept under the rug like so many other things in this pandemic. A few years from now when it no longer matters, we will probably find out the why, but it will be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory".