Covid-19 News

  • Again I'll refer back to the New York Times article on Monday accusing the CDC of posting false data. This is why I called into question the CDC credibility . By the way, even after being caught the CDC stands by its statements . I have lost faith in the CDC and it looks like I'm in the majority. I'll admit it's very sad

    CDC is ruled by the FM/R/J mafia. It's all about the playbook of mentally forcing people into vaccination. An outdoor mask is the visible fascist sign that you agree with the fascists view of the story so you will be one more mindless machine blindly following their play book.

    I would not say this, if CDC would recommend real masks (FP95/98) and only indoors. But the intention behind outdoor masks is to make as many as possible people sick from indoor collected particles.

    Having reviewed “available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records,” the CDC found “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths”

    CDC is blatantly lying as these guys are payed for doing this. Not even the 1000% pro Vax Blair report is on this line.

    The Blair report gives a minimum of 3 deaths/million RNA shots.

    The reality is much higher and as said the 1.3% *0.01 of Pfizer Jab induced CoV-19 victims are not included!


    Far worse is that > 500 severe short term side effect are seen per Million of RNA shot. We here do not talk about long term issues that are guaranteed to occur over the next few years.


    Vaccinating people age <45 is organize criminal human experiment with a predictable number of deaths and cripples.

  • who make up bullshit and who do not realize that with a group of 145 million elderly people, 2,500 dying is normal.

    You should eat your bullshit. Most (deadly) strokes are seen among young and healthy people...


    E.g. The J&J vaccine had no single event among man age > 60. Pfizer had thousands. But J&J is bad for young woman possibly due to contraceptives. One event among younger man/mio..

  • CDC risk of coronavirus transmission outdoors greatly exaggerated, bombshell report finds


    10% benchmark is based 'partly on a misclassification' of some transmission, report claims


    https://www.foxnews.com/health…ly-exaggerated-report.amp


    A stunning New York Times report claims that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's estimate that the risk of coronavirus transmission while outdoors is around 10% is greatly exaggerated.

    Your link to Fox News does not work. I cannot find any of that text in the New York Times. But the story is not a "bombshell." It has been common knowledge for weeks. The numbers has been criticised from both inside and outside the CDC. It says "misclassification." That is a mistake, not fraud. It is an overly conservative estimate.


    Fox News tends to call ho-hum, unexciting scientific reevaluations "bombshells."


    As you know, yesterday, the CDC finally published relaxed guidelines based on a lower estimate of danger. So, it now agrees with the analysis. So what are you complaining about? You won't take "yes" for an answer.


    It is typical of stodgy bureaucratic agencies that they are too cautious and it takes them too long to relax a warning. Look at weather reports warning of flash floods and tornadoes. We get them all the time in Atlanta, but they seldom pan out. On the other hand, a tornado did twist a gigantic tree in my yard into a corkscrew, breaking it right off. So it does happen. (It came down right between the neighbor's parked cars. It would have flattened them, but it missed both.)

  • Every independent epidemiologist on earth has looked at this data, and the data from other national health agencies in Europe, Asia and Israel. No vaccine data in history has been more closely examined for anomalies. No vaccine has ever had this much detailed data collected. Never before in history have we had the kinds of supercomputers and AI now being used to look for anomalies. ("Anomalies" meaning correlations and unexplained excess deaths.) You say the CDC has no credibility. You have no reason to say this, but go ahead and ignore the CDC. Look at the data from any country. Look at analysis by any legitimate forensic specialists, doctors or epidemiologists. You will see they all agree.


    That has to be actual, sane, qualified specialists. Not the lunatic Death Cult members and amateur idiots cited by Wyttenbach, who make up bullshit and who do not realize that with a group of 145 million elderly people, 2,500 dying is normal. They have no idea what a "control group" means. Do you know what that means?

    Now you question my intelligence rather than post facts. But I do agree sane qualified specialist independent of the CDC or have you again skipped the times report of the CDC providing false data? Facts and studies not your nitwit opinion!!!

  • You got to be kidding, a mistake? You are so full of yourself that you actually believe that

  • Jed really, nice spin! But again just a spin, no facts no studies, just opinion. Posting false data is just okidokie in jed world. Oh ya mistake, hahahahahaha

  • Now you question my intelligence rather than post facts

    Yes, I do question you. I suggest you answer the question. Do you understand the need for a control group before concluding that the 2,500 deaths were caused by the vaccinations? Do you understand that we must compare these numbers to a similar group of people who have not been vaccinated?


    But I do agree sane qualified specialist independent of the CDC or have you again skipped the times report of the CDC providing false data?

    I cannot find the Times report. Your link to Fox News is broken. But the parts you quote do not sound like false data to me. This is disputed data, or a disputed interpretation of data. Scientists dispute things all the time. That's not "false." It is a difference of expert opinion. Sometime experts agree, and sometimes they don't. That's science for you.


    You got to be kidding, a mistake? You are so full of yourself that you actually believe that

    Why wouldn't it be a mistake? Do you think people at the CDC never make mistakes? They are never too cautious? They made terrible mistakes with the test kits in early 2020. They described these mistakes in painful detail. You can read all about it. If you are under the impression that scientists never make mistakes, you don't know much about science. Read the papers at LENR-CANR.org and you will found mountains of mistakes. I summarized some of the egregious ones here:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf


    See the wonderful quote from J. Watson, p. 13:


    "Much of the talk about the three-dimensional structure of proteins and nucleic acids was hot air. Though this work had been going on for over 15 years, most if not all of the facts were soft. Ideas put forward with conviction were likely to be the products of wild crystalographers who delighted in being in a field where their ideas could not be easily disproved. Thus, though virtually all biochemists . . . were unable to understand the arguments of the X-ray people, there was little uneasiness. It made no sense to learn complicated mathematical methods in order to follow baloney." The Double Helix, p. 23

  • Jed really, nice spin! But again just a spin, no facts no studies, just opinion.

    I cited what you posted! What you said! I said it sounds like a difference of opinion. You and Fox News say it was false, but to me it sounds like what scientists say when they disagree. Which they often do.


    Besides, the CDC has now come around to you way of thinking. They now agree that the risk is lower than they thought. So why are you still complaining? Whether was "false" or a mistake, they no longer say it.



    There are still good reasons for people to wear masks. Grocery store workers are uneasy, for good reason. Many have not been vaccinated yet. It takes about 6 weeks for full immunity with 2 doses, so it will be a while before they are fully protected from infected customers. They cannot tell who is vaccinated and who isn't. So, as a courtesy to them, and to set their minds at ease, I think people should continue to wear masks. Here is a press release from the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the union representing 1.3 million food and retail workers:


    "While we all share the desire to return to a mask-free normal . . . today's CDC guidance is confusing and fails to consider how it will impact essential workers who face frequent exposure to individuals who are not vaccinated and refuse to wear masks. . . .


    Millions of Americans are doing the right thing and getting vaccinated, but essential workers are still forced to play mask police for shoppers who are unvaccinated and refuse to follow local COVID safety measures. Are they now supposed to become the vaccination police?"

  • To answer your question yes control groups are part of the gold standard in experimental trials. Now back to the CDC! 14 months of conflicting advice to the public, tests, masks ,schools to posting questionable data, again I for one do not trust anything coming from the CDC and the polls show I'm in the majority. Therefore to avoid widespread skepticism in the study of vaers the CDC can no longer be trusted to investigate these cases. They did this to themselves.

  • jed an example of conflicting opinions with the CDC. I volunteered to drive people in my county to get the vaccine.

    Yesterday a woman I drove was going for 2nd shot but she had an infected tooth. She asked a nurse who responded saying it was ok within CDC guidelines. The director of advent health told the woman to go home and come back Monday. After speaking with the director he concluded that in his opinion the CDC is wrong. The director of advent health!!!


    I am not anti science nor an anti Vaxer. I have concerns that demand answers and none are forthcoming from the CDC, FDA, and the NIH except textbook answers=crap!

  • jed an example of conflicting opinions with the CDC. I volunteered to drive people in my county to get the vaccine.

    Yesterday a woman I drove was going for 2nd shot but she had an infected tooth. She asked a nurse who responded saying it was ok within CDC guidelines. The director of advent health told the woman to go home and come back Monday. After speaking with the director he concluded that in his opinion the CDC is wrong. The director of advent health!!!

    There are conflicting opinions among all scientists and researchers. Always. Everywhere. I know people at the CDC and I assure you there are conflicting opinions within the organization. Scientists tend to have strong opinions with lots of data to back them up. In my experience, physicists especially seem to have strong disagreements. Ask three of them any question and you will get back five different answers.


    However, there is general agreement about some things. For example, every legitimate expert will tell you that when evaluating the 2,500 people who died soon after the COVID vaccine, you must compare the vaccinated population to a control group. The number 2,500 is meaningless without that comparison. That is fundamental to statistics, epidemiology and related sciences.


    Conflicting opinions do not mean that someone is being dishonest, or hiding information. It means the data is inconsistent, or people interpret it differently. For example, some researchers think that ivermectin works, but others think it does not. The other day I posted some data from a negative study that indicated it does not. I have no idea why or what is happening, but I suppose supporters might say something like: "that study was flawed because they did not use enough" or "they started too late" or something like that. The supporters might be right. There may be other studies that show ivermectin does work when correctly used. I have no idea, but anyway, that is the sort of thing that happens in research. You should not jump to the conclusion that someone is lying, when 99.99% of the time, no one is lying but someone is incorrect, for any of a thousand reasons. Or both sides are somewhat right but somewhat incorrect.


    (One thing you can conclude from that negative study is that ivermectin is more difficult to use effectively than a vaccine. The vaccines nearly always work, and they require no special expertise and only a minute to administer. Much easier than ivermectin!)


    I am not anti science nor an anti Vaxer. I

    On the other hand, if you do not understand the need for a control group, then you are so ignorant you have no business taking part in this conversation, or saying anything about COVID or epidemiology. It is as if we are talking about cold fusion and you did not know the difference between chemical and nuclear reactions, or the difference between temperature and heat. You have to have a minimal understanding of basic science.


    I have concerns that demand answers and none are forthcoming from the CDC, FDA, and the NIH except textbook answers=crap!

    You have that backwards. Textbook answers are always the best ones. They would not be in the textbooks unless they were the consensus views of experts. They are supported by rock-solid experimental evidence. Controversial and unproven assertions do not make it into textbooks. Publishers see to it that textbooks are reviewed by outside experts. The last thing the publisher wants is a textbook that experts say has mistakes.


    That does not mean textbooks are always right, but that's how to bet, as Damon Runyon said.


    You seem to have the notion that we cannot trust mainstream scientific institutions and knowledge. Considering what has happened with COVID-19 and with cold fusion, that is a mind-boggling mistake on your part. The history of these fields shows that we can trust the mainstream. That experts and textbooks were right about these things. They proved it. The NIH and Moderna designed an effective vaccine five days after receiving the genome. Five days! (See the timeline below.) They deployed the vaccine within a year. They eliminated the disease in Israel even before reaching the predicted level for herd immunity. That's astonishing. That's the most magnificent accomplishment in the history of medicine. In cold fusion, the leading experts confirmed the effect within a year. They based their work on textbook physics, especially the laws of thermodynamics. They published peer-reviewed papers with irrefutable proof. Irrefutable, because no one has even tried to refute it. In COVID and cold fusion, the fringe-group outsiders have been wrong. The inside experts, the Fellows of the Institute, the people they name institutes after, and the Atomic Energy Commissioners have been right. Nitwit editors at Nature who have read nothing, and anonymous trolls at Wikipedia, have been wrong. Cold fusion and COVID research are the epitome of established science.


    External Content twitter.com
    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.

  • That researcher guy Eric Topol explained why the CDC delayed for a while before recommending that vaccinated people can go without masks. I did not know the reason. It makes sense. Here is his tweet:


    External Content twitter.com
    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.

  • Yes, I do question you. I suggest you answer the question. Do you understand the need for a control group before concluding that the 2,500 deaths were caused by the vaccinations? Do you understand that we must compare these numbers to a similar group of people who have not been vaccinated?

    The control group is here and very impressively large (Several millions). Just look at how many people did die after a flue shot. You will see that CoV-19 vaccines are 1000x worse!

    All CoV-19 patients death history do show. Onset of symptoms during less than 24 hours after jab.


    Topol (Twitter fake identity:) This will go down in history as one of science and medical research's greatest achievements. Perhaps the most impressive.


    Fact: The Pfizer vaccine use during a pandemic is organized mass murder: The best achievement since Dr. Mengele!



    Topol (Twitter fake identity:)

    Because it was unclear if vaccines protect against transmission—not just harboring the virus in your nose—but spreading it It's abundantly clear now, at least w/ mRNA vaccines, that transmission is rare.

    Why does Twitter non censor such idiots?

    Vaccinate still can spread more than enough virus to e.g. kill your child or wive as happened in Canada.

  • To answer your question yes control groups are part of the gold standard in experimental trials.

    They are not the gold standard. They are the only standard in experimental trials, epidemiology, insurance, longevity comparisons, or any other population-related science. No statistic is meaningful without a control comparison. You cannot know anything from the raw data without a standard to compare it to.


    Now back to the CDC! 14 months of conflicting advice to the public, tests, masks ,schools to posting questionable data, again I for one do not trust anything coming from the CDC and the polls show I'm in the majority.

    How do you know you are the majority? Which majority, of what group? Which poll do you refer to? Who is included in it? Members of the general public? Fox News viewers? The readers here? If you look at a poll, I suggest you be sure respondents are limited to professional experts in epidemiology, virology and other fields the CDC studies. People outside these academic fields usually have no way to judge whether the CDC is right or wrong.


    In this case we can of course judge them. It is obvious. Look at the data from Israel and the UK, for example. The number of cases and deaths fell to zero soon after deploying the vaccine. No rational person can deny that the CDC and the NIH experts were right. They proved it by eliminating the disease in a large population. There is no better proof.


    Therefore to avoid widespread skepticism in the study of vaers the CDC can no longer be trusted to investigate these cases.

    They have a legal obligation to investigate these cases. But any expert in the world can investigate them, because the database is open source. (So are similar databases in Japan and elsewhere.) You can be sure the other experts are investigating. You can be 100% sure that if they find a problem, they will reveal it, just as they revealed the blood clot problems with the adenovirus vaccines. Such information cannot be hidden in the 21st century.


    Also, you are wrong. The CDC can be trusted. You think it cannot, but you also think textbooks cannot be trusted, which is ridiculous. What else can't be trusted? Newton's laws? You, and some other people in the modern age, have take healthy skepticism to such an extreme it becomes gullible trust in your own gut feelings. It is one thing to question authority. Authority is never perfect, and no one is right all the time. It is quite another to declare that "textbook answers = crap."


    They did this to themselves.

    No, they did not. You imagine they do, but you have no basis for that. It may be your gut feeling, or it may be some anti-science garbage you picked up on the internet or at Fox News. The CDC, the NIH and other Federal agencies are still the best in the world at what they do. They make mistakes and they are burdened by bureaucracy, but anyone can see they saved tens of millions of lives. Possibly hundreds of millions. No research institutes in history have worked so fast or done so much.


    Of course Pfizer, Moderna and other make essential contributions, as did research institutes in other countries. It wasn't only the Federal agencies. But we could not have done it without them. Not just in 2020 but in the research they have done for the last 20 years in mRNA vaccines. This is one of proudest and best moments in the history of science. And here you are saying we cannot trust them! If you had been around on May 7, 1945, you would be saying: "We can't trust Eisenhower. The Germans did not really surrender. It was Eisenhower who surrendered! We lost the war!"


    Seriously, public health agencies completely vanquished the most dangerous virus in the last 100 years, but that is still not enough for you?!? What possible basis do you have to mistrust them? Some minor issue about 10% infection rate in open air? Is that the best you can come up with? Saving 100 million lives is not enough?? It's crazy.

  • This is one of proudest and best moments in the history of science.

    I suggest JedRothwell for the Dr. Mengele award. He agrees with WHO that wants people either dead or vaccinated instead of taking Ivermectin (see Goa latest WHO order). Official death count EU+US >10'000 direct CoV-19 vaccines deaths. A real great moment in history of vaccines.

    Now they cheat the children with arguments like: Protect your mother/Father and oh best you can travel again without restrictions.

    This is exactly what a Texas "Beef" does after it has been branded. So you agree to be"Beef". Welcome on animal farm!

  • Good question:


    https://www.lifesitenews.com/n…er-single-living-american


    Why was Jeffrey Zients, former management consultant at Bain & Company, who sat on the board of Facebook and also ran President Biden’s transition team — someone with no background at all in science or medicine — appointed White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator?


    Because people believe that daddy cool does it right. I warned that with Biden things will get much worse, as he is pushed by the FM/R/J mafia with only one goal. Give us 100'000'000'000 in two years...

  • wave that flag whooooweeeeee it made me stand and salute

  • wave that flag whooooweeeeee it made me stand and salute

    Do you have a substantive comment?


    Do you wish to say anything about the fact that the CDC and NHI made essential contributions to the vaccines? Do you agree the vaccines work, and this was by far the fastest and most effective medical research in history?


    Do you, or do you not, recognize the importance of a control population in population-related statistical analyses? If you don't recognize that, how do you propose we draw conclusions about the 2,500 dead people?


    You have not responded to any of these technical points. You have not answered any questions. All you have done is post snide comments, and childish sarcasm. That is not how to engage in a scientific discussion.