Covid-19 News

    FM1 - good question.


    Let me ask you one in return. Do you think everyone should make the same recommendations about Vitamin D? if so who should evaluate the evidence to determine what that recommendation is?


    PS - what that doctor says is as you know no evidence that Vit D causes lower COVID severity. You would expect that association anyway because low Vit D is associated with many other known COVID risk factors. There have been similar associations with other diseases, when RCTs have not shown any causal relationship.


    PPS - CDC does recommend Vit D:


    https://www.cdc.gov/nutritionreport/99-02/pdf/nr_ch2b.pdf


    Still, what constitutes the optimal intake of vitamin D remains a matter of some
    disagreement. Current recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (1997) call
    for 200 international units (IU) [5.0 micrograms (µg)] of vitamin D daily from birth
    through age 50, 400 IU (10 µg) for those aged 51–70 years, and 600 IU (15 µg) for
    those older than 70 years. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture 2005) older adults,
    people with dark skin, and people exposed to insufficient UV B radiation should
    consume extra vitamin D from vitamin D-fortified foods or supplements. The
    American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer
    Prevention echo this recommendation (Kushi 2006). Some experts say that optimal
    amounts for all adults are closer to 800–1000 IU (20–25 µg) daily (Vieth 2007; BischoffFerrari 2006; Dawson-Hughes 2005). The tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D is 2000 IU
    (50 µg) per day in North America and in Europe; however, some scientists are calling
    for an upward revision (Hathcock 2007; Vieth 2006).

    Well my friend, what is your daily dose? Do you agree with recommended daily intake. I think the levels are wrong and studies have shown this all posted a year ago. In April we lowered our daily supplementation from 5000units a day to 2000 units, we spend lots of time outside but will jump back to 5000 now for the coming fall/flu season. As for the CDC, I have yet to see a direct comment for public use of vitamin D in any media headlines! End of story!!!!

    Quote from Fm1

    Dr. Herd said while the exact relationship is still unclear, it does appear that patients with lower levels of vitamin D have a higher association with COVID-19.

    The Irish report stated" strong support for causal relationship" ..tm 13.53

    but too cheap and no patent for Bigpharma


    wait for Vit DAGC<X from Pfizer..

    External Content www.youtube.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.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    The Irish report stated" strong support for causal relationship" ..tm 13.53

    but too cheap and no patent for Bigpharma


    wait for Vit DAGC<X from Pfizer..

    External Content www.youtube.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.

    God does love the irish

    Quote from Fm1

    Well my friend, what is your daily dose? Do you agree with recommended daily intake. I think the levels are wrong and studies have shown this all posted a year ago. In April we lowered our daily supplementation from 5000units a day to 2000 units, we spend lots of time outside but will jump back to 5000 now for the coming fall/flu season. As for the CDC, I have yet to see a direct comment for public use of vitamin D in any media headlines! End of story!!!!

    Well daily dose would depend on blood test of level? I guess you have done that.


    In absence of blood test for anyone > 60 years I'd say 800 - 1200 units/day. But it does depend a bit on diet.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Well daily dose would depend on blood test of level? I guess you have done that.


    In absence of blood test for anyone > 60 years I'd say 800 - 1200 units/day. But it does depend a bit on diet.

    Both of us have had our blood levels checked. The funny thing is my doctor's eyes were popping out at mine at 85Ng/mL, CDC recommended 20-40, while my wife's oncologist thought she had reasonable level at 80. You also avoided how much you are supplementing. You did say a year ago you were taking vitamin D

    NYT's Bret Stephens hits Fauci in scathing op-ed: 'Covid misinformation comes from the top, too'

    Stephens said Fauci 'lied' about when he expected the US to reach herd immunity


    NYT's Bret Stephens hits Fauci in scathing op-ed: 'Covid misinformation comes from the top, too' | Fox News


    New York Times columnist Bret Stephens took aim at Dr. Anthony Fauci Tuesday amid the Biden administration's efforts to combat so-called coronavirus "misinformation."


    In a piece headlined, "Covid Misinformation Comes From the Top, Too," Stephens stressed the "misinformation saga" goes beyond "charlatans peddling fake cures and political conspiracy theories," pointing to the recent fiery clash Fauci had with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., over whether the U.S. government funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that may have led to the coronavirus outbreak.


    "Fauci is almost certainly right on the technical merits … But the larger truth — obscured until recently by fervent efforts (including by Fauci) to dismiss the lab-leak theory for the origins of the pandemic — is that the U.S. government’s scientific establishment did support gain-of-function research that deserved far more public debate than it got," Stephens wrote. "Also incontrovertibly true is that beneficiaries of that funding engaged in deceptive tactics and outright mendacity to shield their research from public scrutiny while denouncing their critics as conspiracymongers

    He pointed to the explosive report from Vanity Fair last month that revealed State Department officials were told not to explore the Wuhan lab's gain-of-function research because "it would bring unwelcome attention to U.S. government funding of it."


    "If millions feel that some public-health experts are not as heroic or as honest as their media stenographers make them out to be, there’s a good reason for it," Stephens wrote

    The Times columnist then called out Fauci over his comments about herd immunity, insisting he "lied" "about what he saw as the threshold figure" because, according to Fauci's interview with the Times in December, because of "his gut feeling that tthe country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks." He also listed the CDC's faulty overestimation over the outdoor spread of COVID and its study that claimed Black and Hispanic children were "at greater risk of being hospitalized," which became a contributing factor to schools being closed despite consistent evidence that schools were never a superspreader for children.


    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP


    "The impact of this misinformation on everyday life has been immense … The credibility of public-health experts depends on the understanding that the job of informing the public means offering the whole truth, uncertainties included, rather than offering Noble Lies in the service of whatever they think the public needs to hear," Stephens argued.

    He concluded, "So, by all means, let’s continue to expose and denounce misinformation coming from the fever swamps of Alternative America. But it won’t do sufficient good until the guardians of public health hold themselves to a higher standard of truthfulness and accountability. Physician, heal thyself."

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Flu is more dangerous that Covid-19 for those < 55?

    Influenza can be dangerous. I knew a young person who died from it. It leads to pneumonia which can be very dangerous. The only time in my life I was hospitalized was from influenza and pneumonia. However, the statistics plainly show that COVID is far more dangerous for anyone, at any age. Furthermore, influenza seldom produces long-term "long haul" damage, * whereas COVID often does. No one knows how long the long haul will be. It could be the rest of your life. Millions may suffer from it.


    COVID is much worse than influenza for all age groups including children. Children seldom die from influenza these days, whereas ~297 have died from COVID. There have been 3.6 million pediatric cases of COVID, 13.6% of total cases. ~15,000 children have been hospitalized, which is a very high number, and far more than are hospitalized for influenza. As of April 2021, children are now 21% of new cases. Children may not be dying, but just getting COVID is a serious matter, and often painful, frightening, and long lasting. See:


    Children make up nearly 21% of new COVID-19 cases




    * The 1918 influenza did damage many people's lungs, and it brought about early deaths in the 1920s and 30s.

    Quote from Fm1

    Both of us have had our blood levels checked. The funny thing is my doctor's eyes were popping out at mine at 85Ng/mL, CDC recommended 20-40, while my wife's oncologist thought she had reasonable level at 80. You also avoided how much you are supplementing. You did say a year ago you were taking vitamin D

    I'm happy with 1000 / day.


    Pushing up blood levels of anything way beyond what is normal is something I'd not do.


    THH

    Quote from Fm1

    "Fauci is almost certainly right on the technical merits … But the larger truth — obscured until recently by fervent efforts (including by Fauci) to dismiss the lab-leak theory for the origins of the pandemic

    Just to point out. Non-political not directly involved views from here are that we don't know for sure if it is lab leak or direct zoonotic, but on examination the lab leak theory still looks less likely. And that the "Chinese attempt to make a weapon gone wrong" theory was never feasible - even though that is the one that was all over the media (it was conflated with the lab leak theory by many people). People will change their mind given evidence.

    Quote from Fm1

    Stephens said Fauci 'lied' about when he expected the US to reach herd immunity

    Well, Fauci did say he changed his mind about this, increasing the likely level of herd immunity from ~70% to ~80%. He also said the public may be more inclined to believe his revised estimate, which I think is true. The rational portion of the public, anyway. Many other experts also increased their estimate of herd immunity based on new data. Stephens also accuses the CDC of making "a faulty overestimation over the outdoor spread of COVID." In other words, Stephens is accusing scientists of being wrong, and of revising their estimates and educated guesses. My guess is that Stephens knows nothing about science and has never participated in research. Or even prosaic industrial R&D, or programming, or anything else that calls for actual, hands-on, physical work in ways that have never been done before. I expect the only kind of work Stephens has done involves blathering. Because anyone who has done R&D knows that most of the time you are off base, out of focus, or flat out wrong. When someone said to Stan Pons that he was wrong about neutrons, he said 'well, we were right about the heat, and in our line of work, being right half the time is a very good batting average.' (I don't recall his exact words. It was a casual conversation.)


    Stephens sounds like a know-nothing amateur standing on the sidelines, criticizing something he knows nothing about, and demanding a level of perfection that no human could achieve. Like someone who has never been on a parallel bar saying: "those Olympic gymnasts are clumsy oafs; I could do better than they do."

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    And that the "Chinese attempt to make a weapon gone wrong" theory was never feasible

    If this is a bioweapon, we have nothing to fear from the Chinese military. They are a paper tiger. Their ships will sink when launched. Their missiles will never hit the target. COVID is the worst imaginable military bioweapon. It kills mainly elderly people, who seldom participate in wars. It sickens or annoys far more people than it kills or disables. It takes weeks to do anything. The battle would be over long before it takes effect. There was no antidote when it as launched, so it would affect Chinese soldiers as much as any others. Now there is a vaccine, so it has been rendered useless. Any army opposed to the Chinese will vaccinate all troops. Okay, perhaps the launch was a mistake, but that is also grossly incompetent.


    As it happens, the Chinese military is very good. The navy is larger than the U.S. navy, and more modern. Their missiles could easily sink all U.S. carriers and other capital ships long before the U.S. ships got within launching distance of the Chinese navy or coastline. U.S. aircraft carriers and other weapons are as obsolete as wooden warships were in 1862, during the Battle of Hampton Roads between the ironclad Merrimack and the Monitor. The wooden warships were only good for Confederate target practice. They were destroyed without a single Confederate casualty. If the Union Monitor had not arrived, every U.S. Navy ship would have been sunk in a week, and the blockade would have been broken.


    Bret Stephens is wrong about COVID and science, but he was right about the U.S. military, in this article:


    The U.S. Military: Like the French at Agincourt?

    America risks a catastrophic defeat if it doesn’t radically change the way it thinks about war.


    Opinion | The U.S. Military: Like the French at Agincourt? (Published 2019)
    America risks a catastrophic defeat if it doesn’t radically change the way it thinks about war.
    www.nytimes.com


    I would not take his word for it, but several generals and admirals have written the same sort of thing.

    Quote from Navid

    For those able to follow science and want to understand what is happening broad spectrum


    ukcolumn.org/live


    Live NOW


    I see the evil mainstream media (in this case a local paper) is getting a bit annoyed with ukcolumn:


    Fury after anti-vaxxer tells kids vaccine 'will kill you'
    Parents are outraged after their children were 'harassed' while walking alone
    www.kentlive.news


    ukcolumn's view is that no-one can be trusted. That of course means that we are in a post-modern future where one set of expert advice is as good as another - after all you can find experts to argue anything you want - e.g. that AGW does not exist, in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.


    Science generally does not rule out even very unlikely hypotheses whereas people tend to process things as possible - not possible.


    Thus the less insane anti-vaxers will spread the messages:

    • Vaccines can kill you / make you magnetic / change your children - without a best effort assessment of the probabilities of each of these outcomes.
    • COVID is not serious except for "unhealthy" or "old" people - without a best effort assessment of the risks of COVID for different ages and subgroups


    Did you know that ukcolumn viewers have found scientific proof that there are no viruses

    THE FINAL REFUTATION OF VIROLOGY – UK Column Community


    When will the scientist or doctors get it and the alternative and independent media as they still talk about viruses and re-enforce the virus lie now analysing the gain of function, virus shedding , testing, cases etc. that covid is the new flu virus, that vaccines are good but not the covid one.

    There are no viruses , vaccines have caused harm and death for decades, they do not prevent anything and have gotten away with crimes against humanity for over a century .vaccine are like a religious initiation.

    Even on this forum we are going around in circles, it is like a game as people cannot comprehend the magnitude of scientific fraud as majority of health scientist and health professionals have taken part in it and majority of people had some form of jab. People either do not want to get out of their indoctrination or cannot understand basic principles ( ABC) of science.

    Vaccines are Religion, not Science


    I am happy to engage with the less insane sounding aspects of ukcolumn content. Here is a ukcolumn opinion comment on the AstraZeneca very rare clotting side effect


    As readers here know even the official UK advice on AstraZeneca vaccine (I chose UK since it is home grown and we tend to be nicer to it than other regulators) says:

    Blood clotting

    The MHRA is carrying out a detailed review of reports of an extremely rare blood clotting problem affecting a small number of people who had the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.

    It's not yet clear why it affects some people.

    The COVID-19 vaccine can help stop you getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19. For people aged 40 or over and those with other health conditions, the benefits of being vaccinated with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh any risk of clotting problems.

    For people under 40 without other health conditions, it's preferable for you to have the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccine instead of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.


    And the linked detailed patient leaflet on AstraZeneca

    Very rare (may affect up to 1 in 10,000 people)

    • Following widespread use of the vaccine there have been extremely rare reports of blood clots in combination with low level of blood platelets. When these blood clots do occur, they may be in unusual or atypical locations (e.g. brain, liver, bowel, spleen).


    So that is what the mendacious mainstream media says about the well reported and largest of the current COVID vaccine side effects. It looks to me pretty fair? Other regulators, with lower COVID rates (UK likes to tun hot) will put that age cutoff higher - although the evidence for that is changing with delta being so transmissable. and also probable 2X more deadly (which would move any age cutoff up +6 years).


    What looks to me to indicate baked in bias with a permanent chip on the shoulder is the ukcolumn reporting on the same facts. Cherry-picking sound-bites to make it seem as though the regulators are minimising risks here and deceiving people.


    THH

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Well, Fauci did say he changed his mind about this, increasing the likely level of herd immunity from ~70% to ~80%. He also said the public may be more inclined to believe his revised estimate, which I think is true. The rational portion of the public, anyway. Many other experts also increased their estimate of herd immunity based on new data.

    Estimates of herd immunity depend critically on the R value of the virus. Original - 2.7. Delta: 6 - 8.


    It is not scientists changing their minds, it is the fact that we now have a different and more infectious virus. It is quite dishonest for any politicians to portray this as scientists making a mistake.


    I mean, mistakes were made, no doubt. But on this one scientists have always said new variants will emerge, and statements about the virus depend on which variant you are talking about.


    It is also complicated by the fact that herd immunity comes from vaccination + natural immunity - and the effect of the latter (how long it lasts, how good it is) is not well understood and changed again by a new variant to which those naturally immune to old vaiants will have less immunity.


    One problem is that if you give a proper answer (a) you bore your audience (b) it gets reported as one tiny out of context sound bite (c) you have so many if the elses that no-one can use what you say.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Estimates of herd immunity depend critically on the R value of the virus. Original - 2.7. Delta: 6 - 8.


    It is not scientists changing their minds, it is the fact that we now have a different and more infectious virus. It is quite dishonest for any politicians to portray this as scientists making a mistake.

    Yup. I should have mentioned that. Here is what Ashish Jha has to say about it:


    [T]he biggest thing about the Delta variant that I think has been a bit of surprise is just how contagious it is. It is way more contagious than any variant of this virus, and that really changes things. And it changes things in terms of how much population immunity you need. It changes things in terms of what the breakthrough infections are for the vaccinated. . . .


    . . . we are starting to see some data around the durability of the vaccines, at least as far as preventing breakthrough infections. And this is preliminary data from the UK, preliminary data from Israel, maybe a little data from the US, that as you get six, seven months out of vaccinations, you start seeing some more breakthrough infections, particularly in elderly people.


    [So what does it mean to say that the delta is “more contagious”?]


    So if you start with the original strain, the original Wuhan strain from last year, from 2019, 2020, the Alpha variant, which was the one originally from the UK, B117, that was a super contagious variant. If you remember back in March, April, we were like, “it’s a race between the variant and the vaccine.” We were trying to beat the Alpha variant. And that we thought was 50 to 70% more contagious than the original Wuhan strain.


    This one is, and again, people have different numbers, kind of in the 60 to a hundred percent more contagious than the Alpha variant. All right, so what does that all mean? And how do you think about it? There are a couple of ways of thinking about it. One is, if you look at the amount of virus in the nose, throat of a patient with Delta variant, it’s about a thousand times more virus than what we saw with the previous strain. So it’s a lot more with a much higher viral load.


    Another way people think about this is where the original Wuhan strain virus, the average person might have infected two or three people, about three people. The Alpha, we thought the average person infects four to five. The Delta variant now, the average person may be infecting six to eight. And if you think about exponential growth, 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, that’s pretty substantial growth. 1, 6, 36, three, four generations of spread and it’s massive, you just get to much higher numbers, much, much faster with the Delta variant.


    Ashish Jha: On the Delta Variant, Vaccines, and where things to stand
    On the Delta Variant, Vaccines, and where things stand with Covid-19.
    conversationswithbillkristol.org

    The race to the bottom.


    More serious than Ukcoloumn's anti-vax lies, is the "post-truth" of its political stance.


    Just ignore their content, and consider what they say about news and scientific information, and what this means:


    Why should I trust the UK Column?

    Put simply, you shouldn't.

    The question of whether or not to trust a news organisation is a false choice.

    Making such a choice is promoted by government, the old media, and two new organisation types: the fact checker and the trust provider. It disenfranchises readers, viewers and listeners. It is based on the principle that if you trust the media organisation you are visiting, there is no need for you to check the information they present.

    So we ask you not to trust us. Instead, view everything published here with a critical eye. Where possible, primary source material is made available for everything we publish: check it; make up your own mind.


    Superficially sounds good, does it not? You might think the comment here about trust providers is somewhat self-serving. For example Newsguard is not so negative about "trust no-one - not even us":

    Why Should You Trust Us?

    • Because we are trained journalists who have spent our careers dedicated to the profession. We care deeply about reliable journalism’s pivotal role in democracy. (In case you’re wondering, our experienced journalists come from diverse backgrounds and have no political axes to grind.)
    • Because you can see the credentials and backgrounds of everyone responsible for every NewsGuard reliability rating and Nutrition Label that you read. For the names and biographies of our staff and contributors, click here.
    • Because we have an ethics and conflicts of interest policy to which all of our analysts and editors have to agree. You can read that policy here.
    • Because we are totally transparent about how we make all of our decisions. Our Nutrition Label write-ups explain what is behind our decisions. We disclose and explain in detail the nine criteria we use to rate each news site on its journalistic practices. We’re not a black box algorithm.
    • Because we make concerted attempts to get comment from every website’s editor or manager before we write anything negative about the site, and always include the comment in our Nutrition Labels (or make changes after weighing the comment and realizing our initial conclusion was wrong). Algorithms don’t call for comment.
    • Because we will post any complaints from website proprietors about anything we have written about them. And we will answer them publicly – and when warranted will make corrections, publicly, after we consider the complaint. You can read our policy for correcting errors or mistakes here.
    • Because we accept no fees from the news websites we rate. (Our revenue comes from the platforms and search engines for licensing our ratings in order to include them in their feeds and search results.) We rate all news and information sites among the more than 6,000 sites responsible for 95% of engagement with news in the U.S., U.K., France, Germany and Italy.
    • Because bringing more information to people about the news sources they encounter online is our only business. Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable.

    NewsGuard has problems with Uk Column:

    The Trust Tool rates the site 17.5 out of 100 for news credibility and transparency and warns readers to “proceed with caution”.


    So why are NewsGuard (which is very transparent) and other fact checkers run by journalists needed now? Let us look at ukcolumn's own comment for the answer:


    The question of whether or not to trust a news organisation is a false choice.

    Making such a choice is promoted by government, the old media, and two new organisation types: the fact checker and the trust provider.


    Right. Basically, in a post-truth world, what is true is a personal choice. There can be no correct rating of "this is more reliable than that". 2 + 2 = 5 - if your social network says it does.


    Now, Navid and others would say - if you are not schoolchildren spoon-fed information by a corrupt government you need to work this out for yourself.


    How? Only experts can properly judge the science. Everyone else is then picking experts, or news summaries of experts. Experts will disagree. That is a good thing, science could not progress of all scientists has the same opinion. And experts will change their views as new evidence comes in. The problem is that a few experts can be found to back any zany idea you like - especially if it is a conspiracy theory. Experts are susceptible to CT thinking as anyone else, when thinking outside their primary realm of expertise (and some experts are just bad at thinking full stop. No profession is uniformly competent). Any scientist can write a paper on anything and get it published in a relatively low impact journal, or as a preprint. So scientists with strong political views (they are human) can cherry-pick science and put together apparently good cases for pretty well anything that only disintegrate if you do a detailed references and citation check.


    That detailed check is very time-consuming, and requires quite a lot of specialised background information. It cannot be done by a typical citizen. So how do we decide which web sites are promoting truth, and which are less reliable?


    (1) go with social media links

    (2) choose what seems to have views we are instinctively in sympathy with

    (3) use independent journalism where there is credible evidence the journalists see their job as to correct obvious misinformation and warn you when sites are unreliable.

    (4) look for mainstream reviews in high impact journals that are peer reviewed to death and avoid the most obvious bad arguments (they will still not agree - that is science).


    The conspiracy theory sites misuse science to promote - to a largely non-scientific public - extreme views (right or left it does not matter).


    In the post-truth world that ukcolumn promotes there is no way for a citizen to distinguish between the sources of information that are more and less accurate. That means, inevitably, that all questions of fact becomes tribal disputes where groups of people with similar political/religious/societal ideas develop their own groupthink supported by similar-minded scientists and news organisations.


    And any question that affects public policy where science can give "best effort" advice becomes one where pretty well everyone is given biassed views, according to their social media likes.


    So we need journalists. In fact democracies have always relied on and needed journalists to expose wrong-doing and tell a well-researched best effort truth. It is only in recent years that journalistic integrity has been partly eroded, with many newspapers having no time to dig into facts and sort them out, and wanting headlines that are on message. I think more seriously people's trust in independent jourmalism has sharply decreased because people tend to trust the news they share on social media with groups of like-minded people.


    That is a very serious problems for the free world.


    ukcolumn would have us believe journalistic integrity does not exist.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    From my previous post quoting Hilda's analysis of two wildly different early COVID IFR meta-analyses we had some uncertainty still about vanilla COVID IFR.0.2% - 0.68%.

    We have 10300 deaths and now about 4'000'000 infected. So IFR is 0.25 overall but now we talk about people age < 65 that only represent 3% of the victims. So the IFR for age <65 is 0.0075. For people younger than 55 its below 0.001...

    So now you should understand why the pandemic is over and all restrictions now are terror from FM/R/XXX/B mafia.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    08:38
    and you heard the date correctly 2002

    where the NIAID

    Everybody should listen to this video. It's about what I said quite a few times. This virus has been placed in many places by the FM/R/XXX/B mafia to generate an infinite amount of vaccine money. I mentioned the 2019 New York event the 2019 Japanese corona that failed due to tetanus cross immunity and finally the 4 Italy placements in mid 2019 that also failed. One cases in Spain is still open.


    The video tells all facts related to patents from 2002 to 2015 that covered the full DNA of SARS COV-2. So it's clear that all of SARS COV-19 DNA has been patented long before of the outbreak. It also explains why Sanofi is paying the France government to ban/punish all possible treatments. As mentioned before Sanofi holds the base patents for embedding RNA in the vaccine and a large chunk of teh virus DNA.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Everybody should listen to this video. It's about what I said quite a few times. This virus has been placed in many places by the FM/R/J/B mafia to generate an infinite amount of vaccine money. I mentioned the 2019 New York event the 2019 Japanese corona that failed due to tetanus cross immunity and finally the 4 Italy placements in mid 2019 that also failed. One cases in Spain is still open.


    The video tells all facts related to patents from 2002 to 2015 that covered the full DNA of SARS COV-2. So it's clear that all of SARS COV-19 DNA has been patented long before of the outbreak. It also explains why Sanofi is paying the France government to ban/punish all possible treatments. As mentioned before Sanofi holds the base patents for embedding RNA in the vaccine and a large chunk of teh virus DNA.

    Here we go again...


    Patently False: The Disinformation Over Coronavirus Patents
    Since the pandemic started, some public figures with a pronounced distrust of authority have gone on a patent hunt. We have seen Mike Adams, the Plandemic…
    www.mcgill.ca


    Patently False: The Disinformation Over Coronavirus Patents

    It’s easy for the conspiracy-minded to show patents claiming the new coronavirus was an “inside job”, but it is apparently much harder for them to even glance at the first page of these patent applications

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.