Thanks again, Paul, for mentioning my theories and writing. And thanks for mentioning the USS Theodore Roosevelt "case study." You are right that the PCR tests given to crew members showed about 19 percent had been infected. But what really floored me was the later antibody study of a sample of crew members that was done in late April 20…
Thanks again, Paul, for mentioning my theories and writing. And thanks for mentioning the USS Theodore Roosevelt "case study." You are right that the PCR tests given to crew members showed about 19 percent had been infected. But what really floored me was the later antibody study of a sample of crew members that was done in late April 2020.
Those antibody results showed that 60 percent of the crew had been "previously infected" ... based on their positive antibody results. A similar antibody study found a similar percentage of crew members on the Charles deGaulle French aircraft carrier had been previously infected.
There was also an antibody study of crew members on the smaller USS Kidd destroyer that suggested at least 41 percent of crew members had been previously infected.
In total, more than 7,000 sailors served on those three Naval vessels. From extrapolations of the antibody tests administered to a sample of crew members, I count about 4,200 who tested positive for antibodies or had been "previously infected." And there was only one reported death among these crew members. This man was 41 and I'm not 100-percent sure he really died "from" Covid, but maybe he really did.
Still, that would give us an Infection Fatality Rate of approximately 1-in-4,200 on these three ships, which all had major "outbreaks" in the worst-possible "spread" environments.
That gives us an IFR of around 0.03 percent. In other words, 99.997 percent of crew members infected by this alleged "deadly" virus ... did NOT die. My take-away: This virus was NOT "deadly" in the early months of Covid ... (I actually think it shouldn't be deadly today because I don't know why the IFR would later, suddenly, change.)
Did the virus suddenly become more lethal? If so, how?
Of course, I think the vast majority of "Covid deaths" (or "all-cause" deaths) were from the iatrogenic protocols and collateral damage from the lockdowns ... and the V-word.
This might be one of my more "contrarian" articles. I use a thought experiment - estimates on real "early" cases and "early deaths" - to show that this virus wasn't "deadly" between November 2019 and, say, the first week of March 2020.
This "novel virus" suddenly became dangerous in the spring of 2020 (after the "cold and flu season" and after millions of people had become "sick" with ILI/Covid symptoms.)
I've identified other curious elements of the USS Roosevelt Antibody Study. For example ...
The Navy and CDC only tested 382 (of more than 4,000 Roosevelt crew members) with an antibody test. At one point, Naval officials said they were going to test far more crew members. Why didn't they do this? They should have actually ordered every crew member to get this test (for "science.")
I suspect if they would have given more antibody tests to Roosevelt crew members, investigators would have found even more examples of likely "early cases." (The antibody study also showed as many as 12 of the AB-positive sailors already had experienced Covid symptoms before the ship's first port-of-call in Vietnam in early March 2020. Sailors self-reported symptoms in a questionnaire they filled out before they gave blood for their antibody tests. Two sailors who tested positive for antibodies self-reported symptoms before the ship left San Diego on Jan. 17, 2020. This suggests these sailors had Covid before the first "confirmed" Covid case in America!)
Also, the NAVY and CDC didn't even interview the sailors who tested positive. In such interviews, virus investigators could have asked these AB-positive crew members more questions about their symptoms and when they experienced these symptoms. I think this is yet another example of my maxim that public health officials do not investigate that which they do not want to "confirm."
(Also, the "watchdog" press had no curiosity about these eye-opening findings and the conclusions that flow from same.)
The government tries to confuse things so that the people will be steeped in scratching their heads. That way it leaves them free to plan the next onslaught and the next and the next. This is why the government has so many delays. It's not because they've got a lot of work to do - they use the delays to arrange the next plot.
It seems elementary to me that covid was simply a rebranding of the flu or cold that normally occurs seasonally. There were Pandemic Bonds issues in 2017 that paid out if a pandemic was called prior to June 2020. That really was the cause of the pandemic, let's face it.
Why does everybody assume what was tested via PCR had anything to do with Antibodies and had anything to do with people who came down with 'covid'. Might be completely unrelated simply to create the case numbers they needed. If they needed more they tested more with high cycle treshold Pcr tests if less test with another test or encourage of less testing by not paying for tests and not forcing it etc. So they had total control while also.controlling the graph makers at the universities. They made the graphs they needed with the pcr tests which were a propaganda tool.just like the masks. Yet that again does not mean all.is fake. People did die and its not just hospital protocols. Something was put out and they tried to make it look like a natural spread but it spread way to fast and anybody who knows how theses viruses spread said this is not natural the way it popped up suddenly in New York.city and in Italy but neighboring Austria had NO outbreak like Italy. People kept going back and forth between these countries for a while. Geert applying natural immunology is not applicable. His basis is wrong.
You've highlighted one of my main conclusions. The Covid PCR test is what produces "outbreaks" and ultimately the requisite fear. If they don't use these tests, there was no "outbreaks." Where they did use those tests, there was huge outbreaks.
That's why these tests weren't given to virtually any Americans before March 15, 2020. If they had been, these tests would have been showing many millions of positive "cases" in January, February and early March 2020. Our key public health officials intentionally delayed the roll-out of the PCR test (as flawed as it is). They also delayed the roll-out of antibody tests, which are much better at proving or showing possible "early cases."
Even Fauci said that a cycle threshold above 30 detects only "dead nucleotides". Some states were using 40 or higher. Only Florida required testing sites to make known their CT. Which meant nothing to most people anyway. I went to a testing site here (MA) and asked about their CT. The nurse glared at me - "Why do you need to know that?"
I asked the Alabama Department of Public Health to identify the cycle thresholds of these tests that were determining all of our "positive" Covid cases. The agency never answered my simple question. The No. 2 "scientist" in the agency did send me 10 paragraphs of scientific mumbo jumbo about the PCR tests ... but didn't answer my question. I need to do a story about the gobbledy-gook, obfuscating non-response I got.
Yes they switched to the Antibody tests later on when they were actually trying to test I think. That means that there was a disease causing agent they tried to test our antibody production to and not just propaganda. Meaning there was/ is something out there but it could be something very different than we are told and it could be 'variants' which are sprayed into certain strategic locations.
Some private or independent labs and clinics were doing "early" antibody tests beginning in March 2020. To this day, no state or federal health agency has reported what percentage of these early antibody tests were coming back "positive." And I've found examples that these clincis/labs WERE turning these results into their state health agencies.
This information has simply been concealed from the public. So much for "transparency."
The problem as I understand it with COVID antibody tests are the cross reactions with IgM antibodies of other common cold viruses. And if antibodies are present they are evidence of a past infection to which you have mounted a successful immune response. So what, pray tell, is the point of determining that you WERE sick but now you're not. I'd think you would know that anyway. The CDC explains it like this by way of rationalizing antibody tests: "You can have COVID and not know it." That would apply to about 90 percent of "COVID positives"; they weren't sick. But they can still transmit The COVID to others who would presumably have a 90 percent chance of not being sick. But that could have been prevented if they had, as the drug adverts say, Asked Their Doctor who would have tested them and told them they were sick even though they weren't sick. COVID "logic". As I recall the antibody tests used during the AIDS era were ELISA followed up with a "confirmatory" Western Blot. One unverifiable test "confirmed" by an equally unverifiable test. Are the same tests used for COVID? They used antibody reactions to certain proteins that were '"assumed" to be "specific" to "HIV". However there was no way of knowing which proteins, if any, were specific to HIV since the elusive HIV had never been properly isolated/purified and characterized despite a "Roman effort" by Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute. They gave him the Nobel Prize anyway. 25 years later. Strange. In addition if the proteins (I believe there were 12 in the ELISA test) were truly "HIV-specific" would not one reaction suffice to indicate (past) infection? The test required four reactions. This was not standardized, in Africa only two reactions were required. So theoretically an HIV - positive African could revert to negative by coming to the US. Not a trivial matter since an HIV positive diagnosis was considered a death sentence. It gets worse; the ELISA tests especially were notorious for cross-reacting to various and sundry diseases and conditions. Multi-parous women for instance were known to produce "false positive" test results (How could they know? What does that even mean?). In Central Africa women have on average six pregnancies during their lifetimes. The testing there involved pooling the blood of numerous women and testing it and, voila, ping for positive. On that basis Africa was declared to be in the grips of an "epidemic of biblical proportions" (OMG!) primarily affecting young adults of child-bearing age and so a population collapse was predicted. In fact the opposite occurred, the population of Africa exploded. And so on. I see I'm holding forth. Science is now science fiction, they make it up as they go. And modern medicine is a sick joke. There are exceptions such as yourself. Thank you for your good work
That's great info on the HIV/AIDS atibody tests and the Affrican testing protocols. AB tests are a big deal with Covid, per my Spidey Sense. The ELISA tests are supposed to be the "gold standard." I've identified tons of people who tested positive with an ELISA antibody test. Yes, the criticism of the tests is they are producing false positives from "cross reactivity." That might be the case in some people ... but I doubt every positive antibody test was a "false positive." I bet we really had more "false negatives."
The African protocols didn't involve testing for the most part but diagnoses were rendered mostly on the basis of clinical presentation using a specific definition of AIDS. There were numerous such definitions, the American one involved the expression of some 30+ diseases and conditions, everything from diarrhea to dementia to cervical cancer to nothing at all. These conditions had to be expressed with "HIV" present but then they came out with another definition that eliminated the "HIV" requirement! Then they eliminated the disease requirement! By 1997 nearly two-thirds of patients diagnosed with AIDS weren't even sick, they were in "good health". The first time in medical history that people were diagnosed with an allegedly 100 percent fatal disease on the basis of "good health". Until COVID that is. The CDC fixed this by no longer reporting the AIDS figures. Out of sight, out of mind. In Africa AIDS was diagnosed using the so-called "Bangui" definition which included diarrhea and persistent cough. Not exactly rare in Africa, where as one real scientist pointed out "Everybody has malaria". Also TB. The WHO estimates that half of all Africans have been exposed to TB and therefore have TB antibodies. So if an African has TB is it "AIDS TB" or "TB Classic"? There is no way of knowing without using diagnostically worthless tests that generate "false positives" and, as you mentioned, presumably false negatives as well. Whatever those terms even mean. "Science" marches on
In "The Real Anthony Fauci," RFK, Jr. points out that in Africa AIDS/HIV was a disease that infected everyone (including more females and children), while in America this virus, for some reason, only killed promiscuous homosexuals and IV drug users who share needles.
So why is the disease/virus different on different continents?
I posit that the people got sick from testing of 5G outputs. Italy had a lot of towers installed as did Wuhan probably New York too. The body has to get used to the new frequency pulses. They have to do testing on us, in a way that doesn't look like we are being used as lab rats. The body will react to frequencies it hasn't experienced before. I believe the body can get used to it though. But if you listen to other commentators and whistleblwoers, they have said that the government is planning on sending out pulses that will kill many people. Also they are using wifi technology weapons in street lights which they are installing in various places unbeknownst to most people. There will be nowhere to hide, that's how these diabolical types want it.
Thanks again, Paul, for mentioning my theories and writing. And thanks for mentioning the USS Theodore Roosevelt "case study." You are right that the PCR tests given to crew members showed about 19 percent had been infected. But what really floored me was the later antibody study of a sample of crew members that was done in late April 2020.
Those antibody results showed that 60 percent of the crew had been "previously infected" ... based on their positive antibody results. A similar antibody study found a similar percentage of crew members on the Charles deGaulle French aircraft carrier had been previously infected.
There was also an antibody study of crew members on the smaller USS Kidd destroyer that suggested at least 41 percent of crew members had been previously infected.
In total, more than 7,000 sailors served on those three Naval vessels. From extrapolations of the antibody tests administered to a sample of crew members, I count about 4,200 who tested positive for antibodies or had been "previously infected." And there was only one reported death among these crew members. This man was 41 and I'm not 100-percent sure he really died "from" Covid, but maybe he really did.
Still, that would give us an Infection Fatality Rate of approximately 1-in-4,200 on these three ships, which all had major "outbreaks" in the worst-possible "spread" environments.
That gives us an IFR of around 0.03 percent. In other words, 99.997 percent of crew members infected by this alleged "deadly" virus ... did NOT die. My take-away: This virus was NOT "deadly" in the early months of Covid ... (I actually think it shouldn't be deadly today because I don't know why the IFR would later, suddenly, change.)
Did the virus suddenly become more lethal? If so, how?
Of course, I think the vast majority of "Covid deaths" (or "all-cause" deaths) were from the iatrogenic protocols and collateral damage from the lockdowns ... and the V-word.
This might be one of my more "contrarian" articles. I use a thought experiment - estimates on real "early" cases and "early deaths" - to show that this virus wasn't "deadly" between November 2019 and, say, the first week of March 2020.
This "novel virus" suddenly became dangerous in the spring of 2020 (after the "cold and flu season" and after millions of people had become "sick" with ILI/Covid symptoms.)
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/covid-didnt-suddenly-become-deadly?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I've identified other curious elements of the USS Roosevelt Antibody Study. For example ...
The Navy and CDC only tested 382 (of more than 4,000 Roosevelt crew members) with an antibody test. At one point, Naval officials said they were going to test far more crew members. Why didn't they do this? They should have actually ordered every crew member to get this test (for "science.")
I suspect if they would have given more antibody tests to Roosevelt crew members, investigators would have found even more examples of likely "early cases." (The antibody study also showed as many as 12 of the AB-positive sailors already had experienced Covid symptoms before the ship's first port-of-call in Vietnam in early March 2020. Sailors self-reported symptoms in a questionnaire they filled out before they gave blood for their antibody tests. Two sailors who tested positive for antibodies self-reported symptoms before the ship left San Diego on Jan. 17, 2020. This suggests these sailors had Covid before the first "confirmed" Covid case in America!)
Also, the NAVY and CDC didn't even interview the sailors who tested positive. In such interviews, virus investigators could have asked these AB-positive crew members more questions about their symptoms and when they experienced these symptoms. I think this is yet another example of my maxim that public health officials do not investigate that which they do not want to "confirm."
(Also, the "watchdog" press had no curiosity about these eye-opening findings and the conclusions that flow from same.)
The government tries to confuse things so that the people will be steeped in scratching their heads. That way it leaves them free to plan the next onslaught and the next and the next. This is why the government has so many delays. It's not because they've got a lot of work to do - they use the delays to arrange the next plot.
It seems elementary to me that covid was simply a rebranding of the flu or cold that normally occurs seasonally. There were Pandemic Bonds issues in 2017 that paid out if a pandemic was called prior to June 2020. That really was the cause of the pandemic, let's face it.
Why does everybody assume what was tested via PCR had anything to do with Antibodies and had anything to do with people who came down with 'covid'. Might be completely unrelated simply to create the case numbers they needed. If they needed more they tested more with high cycle treshold Pcr tests if less test with another test or encourage of less testing by not paying for tests and not forcing it etc. So they had total control while also.controlling the graph makers at the universities. They made the graphs they needed with the pcr tests which were a propaganda tool.just like the masks. Yet that again does not mean all.is fake. People did die and its not just hospital protocols. Something was put out and they tried to make it look like a natural spread but it spread way to fast and anybody who knows how theses viruses spread said this is not natural the way it popped up suddenly in New York.city and in Italy but neighboring Austria had NO outbreak like Italy. People kept going back and forth between these countries for a while. Geert applying natural immunology is not applicable. His basis is wrong.
correct too
No viruses...all gaslighting by Big Pharma - http://tinyurl.com/548zk64x
You've highlighted one of my main conclusions. The Covid PCR test is what produces "outbreaks" and ultimately the requisite fear. If they don't use these tests, there was no "outbreaks." Where they did use those tests, there was huge outbreaks.
That's why these tests weren't given to virtually any Americans before March 15, 2020. If they had been, these tests would have been showing many millions of positive "cases" in January, February and early March 2020. Our key public health officials intentionally delayed the roll-out of the PCR test (as flawed as it is). They also delayed the roll-out of antibody tests, which are much better at proving or showing possible "early cases."
Even Fauci said that a cycle threshold above 30 detects only "dead nucleotides". Some states were using 40 or higher. Only Florida required testing sites to make known their CT. Which meant nothing to most people anyway. I went to a testing site here (MA) and asked about their CT. The nurse glared at me - "Why do you need to know that?"
I asked the Alabama Department of Public Health to identify the cycle thresholds of these tests that were determining all of our "positive" Covid cases. The agency never answered my simple question. The No. 2 "scientist" in the agency did send me 10 paragraphs of scientific mumbo jumbo about the PCR tests ... but didn't answer my question. I need to do a story about the gobbledy-gook, obfuscating non-response I got.
Yes they switched to the Antibody tests later on when they were actually trying to test I think. That means that there was a disease causing agent they tried to test our antibody production to and not just propaganda. Meaning there was/ is something out there but it could be something very different than we are told and it could be 'variants' which are sprayed into certain strategic locations.
Some private or independent labs and clinics were doing "early" antibody tests beginning in March 2020. To this day, no state or federal health agency has reported what percentage of these early antibody tests were coming back "positive." And I've found examples that these clincis/labs WERE turning these results into their state health agencies.
This information has simply been concealed from the public. So much for "transparency."
The problem as I understand it with COVID antibody tests are the cross reactions with IgM antibodies of other common cold viruses. And if antibodies are present they are evidence of a past infection to which you have mounted a successful immune response. So what, pray tell, is the point of determining that you WERE sick but now you're not. I'd think you would know that anyway. The CDC explains it like this by way of rationalizing antibody tests: "You can have COVID and not know it." That would apply to about 90 percent of "COVID positives"; they weren't sick. But they can still transmit The COVID to others who would presumably have a 90 percent chance of not being sick. But that could have been prevented if they had, as the drug adverts say, Asked Their Doctor who would have tested them and told them they were sick even though they weren't sick. COVID "logic". As I recall the antibody tests used during the AIDS era were ELISA followed up with a "confirmatory" Western Blot. One unverifiable test "confirmed" by an equally unverifiable test. Are the same tests used for COVID? They used antibody reactions to certain proteins that were '"assumed" to be "specific" to "HIV". However there was no way of knowing which proteins, if any, were specific to HIV since the elusive HIV had never been properly isolated/purified and characterized despite a "Roman effort" by Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute. They gave him the Nobel Prize anyway. 25 years later. Strange. In addition if the proteins (I believe there were 12 in the ELISA test) were truly "HIV-specific" would not one reaction suffice to indicate (past) infection? The test required four reactions. This was not standardized, in Africa only two reactions were required. So theoretically an HIV - positive African could revert to negative by coming to the US. Not a trivial matter since an HIV positive diagnosis was considered a death sentence. It gets worse; the ELISA tests especially were notorious for cross-reacting to various and sundry diseases and conditions. Multi-parous women for instance were known to produce "false positive" test results (How could they know? What does that even mean?). In Central Africa women have on average six pregnancies during their lifetimes. The testing there involved pooling the blood of numerous women and testing it and, voila, ping for positive. On that basis Africa was declared to be in the grips of an "epidemic of biblical proportions" (OMG!) primarily affecting young adults of child-bearing age and so a population collapse was predicted. In fact the opposite occurred, the population of Africa exploded. And so on. I see I'm holding forth. Science is now science fiction, they make it up as they go. And modern medicine is a sick joke. There are exceptions such as yourself. Thank you for your good work
That's great info on the HIV/AIDS atibody tests and the Affrican testing protocols. AB tests are a big deal with Covid, per my Spidey Sense. The ELISA tests are supposed to be the "gold standard." I've identified tons of people who tested positive with an ELISA antibody test. Yes, the criticism of the tests is they are producing false positives from "cross reactivity." That might be the case in some people ... but I doubt every positive antibody test was a "false positive." I bet we really had more "false negatives."
The African protocols didn't involve testing for the most part but diagnoses were rendered mostly on the basis of clinical presentation using a specific definition of AIDS. There were numerous such definitions, the American one involved the expression of some 30+ diseases and conditions, everything from diarrhea to dementia to cervical cancer to nothing at all. These conditions had to be expressed with "HIV" present but then they came out with another definition that eliminated the "HIV" requirement! Then they eliminated the disease requirement! By 1997 nearly two-thirds of patients diagnosed with AIDS weren't even sick, they were in "good health". The first time in medical history that people were diagnosed with an allegedly 100 percent fatal disease on the basis of "good health". Until COVID that is. The CDC fixed this by no longer reporting the AIDS figures. Out of sight, out of mind. In Africa AIDS was diagnosed using the so-called "Bangui" definition which included diarrhea and persistent cough. Not exactly rare in Africa, where as one real scientist pointed out "Everybody has malaria". Also TB. The WHO estimates that half of all Africans have been exposed to TB and therefore have TB antibodies. So if an African has TB is it "AIDS TB" or "TB Classic"? There is no way of knowing without using diagnostically worthless tests that generate "false positives" and, as you mentioned, presumably false negatives as well. Whatever those terms even mean. "Science" marches on
In "The Real Anthony Fauci," RFK, Jr. points out that in Africa AIDS/HIV was a disease that infected everyone (including more females and children), while in America this virus, for some reason, only killed promiscuous homosexuals and IV drug users who share needles.
So why is the disease/virus different on different continents?
I posit that the people got sick from testing of 5G outputs. Italy had a lot of towers installed as did Wuhan probably New York too. The body has to get used to the new frequency pulses. They have to do testing on us, in a way that doesn't look like we are being used as lab rats. The body will react to frequencies it hasn't experienced before. I believe the body can get used to it though. But if you listen to other commentators and whistleblwoers, they have said that the government is planning on sending out pulses that will kill many people. Also they are using wifi technology weapons in street lights which they are installing in various places unbeknownst to most people. There will be nowhere to hide, that's how these diabolical types want it.
No viruses exist...it's all gaslighting by Big Pharma - http://tinyurl.com/548zk64x