Is viral interference between SARS-CoV-2 and the flu a myth? And if we don’t believe the PCR test can diagnose the presence of SARS-CoV-2 why should we trust it to diagnose the absence of influenza?
A lot to unpick here. There will no doubt be those who will claim that there was no SARS-CoV-2 virus at all and that all tests and all symptoms attributed to the presence of the 'novel' Covid virus were common colds, 'flu and viral and bacterial pneumonia. Then there will be those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 did not suddenly appear in Dec 2019 and the 'flu virus did not mysteriously disappear six months or so later - because viruses don't exist!
"Despite the similarity of the symptoms of flu with those of SARS-CoV-2 it was, at least initially, the infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 that differentiated it from the flu - its novelty was dependant on its perceived elevated lethality. However, over time the infection fatality rates for SARS-CoV-2 have converged on that for the flu and now the deadliness of one is indistinguishable from the other. Why then do we, three years later, do we consider SARS-CoV-2 to be more novel than flu or any other respiratory viral infection? Given that the symptoms of both overlap to an extent which makes each completely indistinguishable from the other based on clinical presentation, legitimate questions have been raised as to the circumstances that led SARS-CoV-2 to be identified as a novel virus in the first place."
Its novelty was not just defined by the scary infection fatality rate put out by the WHO and others at the beginning of the so called 'pandemic'. It was also defined by some relatively mild, but very unusual symptoms described by people who caught 'something' - even as far back as autumn 2019. There are plenty of people who've had colds and 'flu who will attest to feeling that there was something quite unique about this 'new' infection. Its novelty was additionally defined by a seemingly very unusual, if not unique, pathology when it manifested as severe or fatal disease. Its novelty was also defined by the highly skewed vulnerability curve, where the very old and those with co-morbidities were at disproportionate risk, whilst (unlike with 'flu) much younger people were at statistically zero risk.
So personally, I think it is entirely possible, likely even, that 'flu positive tests and symptomatic 'flu cases were attributed to SARS-CoV-2, but I think the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still present and causing disease.
I think you're on the same page as the authors. Getting to the truth of this is a really hard problem and this article is a great contribution.
Another confounder might be the nocebo effect. We were all bombarded with propaganda of the most perverse kind. If you didn't feel queasy before one of those stay home save lives adverts you sure as hell would afterwards. We ourselves took to turning off the adverts and we still do. it's become a habit. I recommend it.
I've tried to emphasize that the public really doesn't know what the true IFR was ... because we don't know:
1) How many people had actually been infected weeks or months before "official" Covid began to spread.
2) We also don't know how many people might have died from "early" cases of Covid (not many, but certainly some people).
If the truth was known about the huge number of people who had "early" cases, we all would have known this virus was nothing to really worry about. Also, I think the vast majority of "Covid deaths" that happened after March 2020 can be explained by iatrogenic and panic reasons. I think if "Covid" had never been discovered, the world probably wouldn't have even known we had the pandemic of the century.
I polled my patients via a newsletter in 2022. 40 % reported not having clinical COVID at that point. Going further this group data was consistent w regional and national reports.
So either these people already had it OR innate immunity protected them..
I did an informal survey on Facebook (before I was banned). I identified about 75 people who thought they had or might have had early Covid (myself and my two children are also in this group as we were sick in January 2020). I followed up with many of these people a year or so later, and only a tiny number reported later coming down with Covid. Myself and my two children have never tested positive for Covid after our Covid-like illnesses in January 2020.
I'm currently working on a story on the outbreaks on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (and a French aircraft carrier). Antibody studies were later done on both crews, showing that at least 60 percent and 65 percent of these crews had antibody evidence of prior infection.
Many of these positive antibody sailors tested negative for PCR tests during said outbreaks. So the virus was very contagious and PCR tests did not pick up most previous cases. Of note, only one sailor on both ships (N = 6,500) died, presumably from Covid complications). I actually think more than 60 percent of the crew of both ships had been previously exposed. IMO some crew members probably tested negative for antibodies because the antibody test occurred four to five months after some percentage of these crews had probably been infected ... and by the time these blood samples were collected, these antibodies had faded or were below "detectable levels" on the assays. That is, I don't think the antibody tests pick up all previously-infected people, especially if the test occurred many months after symptoms (or no symptoms for those who may have had asymptomatic cases).
I don't understand why these results/studies have been ignored. But given the implications, I probably do understand why this is the case. Also, I think the virus came on board both ships before "official Covid" had arrived. Data presented in the Roosevelt study on "symptom onset" dates supports this conclusion. Two of the 382 sailors on the Roosevelt who participated in this antibody study self-reported Covid-like Symptoms 98 and 99 days before their blood was collected (between April 20-24, 2020). This would date possible infections for these two crew members to around January 17 - when the ship left port ... and before the first "confirmed" cases in America. Twelve crew members (out of the 382 tested for antibodies) reported symptoms before the ship made its first port of call.
I don't know why all 4,800 crew members of the Roosevelt weren't tested for antibodies ... Then again, I probably know that answer too. More crew members being tested for antibodies (not just 7 percent of the crew) would have produced even more evidence of "early spread."
Finally, why hasn't there been a major study of people who think they had Covid before February 2020? Many of these possible "early cases" went to the doctor and have medical records. Many got flu tests at the time and most of these results were negative for the flu. My question: Couldn't some percentage of them have had Covid? If a big percentage of this study group never developed PCR confirmed Covid, wouldn't this possible study result suggest they had natural immunity?
So I also "get" why such a study has never been done and never will be done. In my opinion, certain officials did everything they could to conceal evidence of early spread. (And these efforts worked.)
For anyone interested in this subject, I've written maybe 25 articles on "early spread" at my Substack newsletter. I can report that this line of inquiry - for some reason - is definitely taboo in the mainstream media.
From your reply- “Many of these positive antibody sailors tested negative for PCR tests during said outbreaks. So the virus was very contagious and PCR tests did not pick up most previous cases. Of note, only one sailor on both ships (N = 6,500) died, presumably from Covid complications)”.
If the sailors had antibodies they would have full immunity. It stands to reason they would test negative as they weren’t infected. That’s a true negative test result. Not sick, no active virus, likely IgA mucosal antibodies and primed T cell immunity. Exactly what you would expect. Ditto for you and family.
The PCR testing is specific (see my prior discussion regarding debate about viral interference w testing). It’s true that going out past 20 replications leads to “fingerprint evidence “ and hence clinical correlation required. Very early infection or recovered recent infection or possible sub clinical inoculation all possible scenarios.
From what I understand of the biology (thanks to folks like JJ Couey), it's seems possible that the ever-present coronavirus swarm could have been contaminated with say, a synthetic clone. Since the PCR is based on genetically limited consensus sequences of N, Spike and RNA polymerase proteins there is no way these wouldn't pick up other coronavirus variants which are circulating all the time. This scenario would both account for random individuals to experience a "novel" infection/reaction (I can attest to that) but also support the appearance of the "one-natural-virus-going-round-the-world" narrative (which, based on the fidelity of RNA viral replication seems highly dubious) via a indiscriminate PCR confirmation.
I think it's important when discussing shutting down and vaccinating the world to have evidence not just opinion. There was no evidence that a virus was causing any new disease in Wuhan. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax. There is now much evidence that the so called fatality rate of the novel disease was caused by forced ventilation, midazolam, remdesivir, fear, loneliness and deliberate dehydration which were inflicted disproportionately on the elderly and those who have trouble breathing; the obese. This is a huge difference to how detox symptoms, known as the flu, experienced by many people, are treated; mainly with rest and hydration.
People saying they felt something different in Autumn 2019 is not acceptable as evidence. It is well known that people notice or retrospectively notice things they are primed to.
There is no evidence that there is a 'SARS-CoV-2 virus' -it is just a name given to some genetic sequences uploaded to the internet. There is no evidence that they form a genome for an entity nor that the entity not shown to exist is the cause of any symptoms new or old. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
I agree that the observed risk profile may have been created by the large number of iatrogenic deaths of the vulnerable and elderly in care homes and hospitals. But that doesn't account for the complete lack of symptomatic Covid in young people in the community vs. some symptomatic Covid cases in adults. Suggesting that a great many people imagined the uniqueness of their symptoms in retrospect because of some mental priming seems somewhat implausible to me.
Millions of people suspect they had Covid in the "cold and flu season" of 2019-2020. Many of these people point out that their symptoms were different in key ways from past bouts with the flu or other winter bugs. I'm in that group. I think I had Covid in January 2020. Also, not addressed in this piece, many people later tested positive for Covid antibodies. These results have been dismissed (by the narrative protectors) as "false positives" due to cross-reactivity. My question: Were ALL of these antibody tests awful and all of these positives "false positives?" What about the possibility of "false negatives?" I actually think the few antibody tests that were performed in the early weeks of the pandemic probably under-count the real prevalence.
I agree. We shouldn't dismiss millions of anecdotes .. Although we are doing the exact same thing with the millions of people who think they have suffered vaccine injuries. Ignore the anecdotes. Everyone is wrong.
Besides personal anecdotes, several dissenting doctors (who actually treated COVID) attest that severe COVID symptoms are unlike anything they've seen before.
Dr. Paul Marik, who successfully treated advanced cases in ICU until they tied his hands, has a paper describing the specific pathology:
Per Marik and others, the lion's share of COVID damage is caused by the virus' spike protein. So of course big pharma wisely chose the spike as the only antigen for the vaccine ("Well, we were in a hurry, and we already had it in the lab...").
The inhaled viral version ends up more in the lungs, while the injected vaccine version is happy to set up shop anywhere its lipid nanoparticles land. Either way, it's spike attacking the vascular endothelium, causing vascular and inflammatory disaster.
DoD: "Should we deliver our bio-engineered spike protein weapon with a virus or a vaccine?"
Very conveniently the symptoms of 'covid' seemed to include just about anything; rashes, loss of taste (common with loss of sense of smell when producing mucus), a blocked or runny nose), feeling tired or exhausted, a fever, a cough, a high temperature, chills, diarrhoea, feeling sick, being sick, a sore throat, an aching body, a headache, loss of appetite and shortness of breath- so it's not all surprising that many people experienced them.
That's true there is strong overlap with the flu. For me, the shortness of breath, terrible and painful "dry" cough, acute fatigue and loss of smell and taste were all different. I also didn't have the nausea and the large amount of phlegm I usually have with the flu. FWIW, I tested "negative" for the flu ... as did huge numbers of people who went to the doctor with these symptoms. Also, a lot more people were getting flu tests in the flu season of 2019-2020. So something else seems to have been going on. I've interviewed an administrator at a big clinic that was seeing tons of patients in December 2019 and January 2020. Her comment to me: "We thought there was something wrong with the flu tests." That is, people the doctors were seeing with flu symptoms weren't testing positive for the flu. So what made them this sick?
I also never tested positive for Covid after that January bout of whatever I had, which makes me think I developed natural immunity. Lots of people fall into the same category. Once they had non-Covid they didn't later get PCR confirmed Covid.
Hello, I didn't even know 'flu' tests were used generally, no one I know has ever been tested for it (in the UK). However, just like the 'covid' 'tests' neither the RNA sequences nor antigens the 'flu test' detects have been shown to come from a virus nor to be involved in causing symptoms. Of course there is something wrong with the flu tests! The flu virus has never been shown to exist or to transmit disease- not even the notorious spanish flu https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/how-does-transmission-of-illness The 'flus' are supposedly characterised by the ratio of H to N. The H stands for haemagglutinin which has never been shown to be a viral protein. It is possibly produced by the body as part of the homeostatic process (the symptoms of ‘flu’ are the healing not the disease). The N; the enzyme neuraminidase is definitely produced by the body and performs many metabolic functions, deficiency can lead to impaired vision, muscle weakness and disorders of the nervous system. Those taking inhibitors of neuraminidase such as Tamiflu should beware .https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/h5n1-avian-flu-and-not-a-glimmer
It is not surprising for someone to test negative for the sequences of unknown provenance. What made them sick instead? Same things as always; seasonal changes in pm2.5, emotional, work, financial, family stress, lack of sunlight, malnutrition. The sickness is the healing and the body returning to balance, which is will do if the body is allowed to rest and is not poisoned by medications or vaccines.
There was something different happening to people. It caused flu like symptoms for around 7 days and then around the 8th day people either got better or got moderate or severe lung inflammation. Dr. Shankara Chetty in South Africa noticed this difference and was able to treat it reliably and sucessfully, with existing cheap off label drugs, in thousands of patients. This doesnt say anything about flu infections that may have occurred instead or as well - they just werent remarkable.
There is now plenty of documented evidence that some labs were monkeying with the SARS coronavirus and doing gain-of-function work, resulting in a new virus SARS-CoV-2 sporting components patented by Moderna and the US govt. The widespread appearance in fall 2019 could indeed have been accidental or deliberate release from US bioweapons labs around the world.
Some athletes who went to Wuhan in October 2019 for the World Military Games became ill. I myself became ill end Dec 2019 and the symptoms were more circulatory than the flu. The IFR was early on calculated as around 0.17%. That was I assume without administering the remedies that proved to be effective but were pushed under the carpet.
Jaime Jessop, your comment is right on. Highly unlikely that the COVID narrative was simply concocted from the existing viral millieu.
Though the fatality rate was grossly hyped, and COVID "ate" everything from cancer to flu, there is still a convincing case for a novel virus ...
For all the reasons you articulated so well, plus one more: the strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered by Ralph Baric & Friends at the behest of the US DoD and NIAID.
I initially had the suspicion that the virus may not be real when the vaccines were produced with computer generated code and pseudouridine. That we suddenly needed to try a novel technology and not simply utilize the same process as the annual flu shots.
I find it interesting that you start your essay by saying that there's a theory that the virus might not exist, or that it might have existed long before, and then you end your essay by saying "I think the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still present and causing disease.", without actually delivering any specific evidence to back up your claims.
I personally think that we cannot reliably make any claims about the pathogen, but we do know that many jurisdictions did either not have any unusual mortality or experienced mortality that does not fit viral outbreaks (Denis Rancourt's paper on US Mortality)
The novelty of the pathogen, was not based on its lethality, but it was based on the novel detection described in Wu et al 2020. Strictly speaking, it remains unclear if samples of earlier pneumonia would have lead to the same virus detection results. Obviously, the lethality (~10%) is based not representative sampling in the first place and can be dismissed.
Lastly, if you look at the symptoms defined by CDC for COVID-19, there's actually no symptom that is distinct or new.
...or people's novel symptoms were caused by environmental toxins they were not previously exposed to (or exposed to at that intensity). Ask yourself if not a pathogenic virus-like particle, then what else could it be? Here's my list:
3) neurotoxic ingredients in food, consumer products and medication
One still has to unequivocally prove a direct link between any so-called virus (in this case 'SARS-Cov-2') and a specific set of symptoms. This has still not been demonstrated using a properly controlled RCT.
As an outsider, there appears to be an epistemological problem with virology and genomics.
The influenza virus have not "disappeared", it never manifested on such scale to begin with. The influenza numbers were inflated artificially for decades via RT-PCR testing, to coerce the cattle into seasonal "flu shots". COVID-19 was perceived to be a similar source of revenue by mainstream vaccine manufacturers, who planned to roll out traditional vaccines on a usual schedule. However, the mRNA developers successfully interdicted via "Operation Warpspeed", and the situation became somewhat chaotic, as we can now see
Many frontline health workers have observed the "phenomenon" of flu "disappearing" and covid-19 taking over. Patients with positive or suspected influenza became covid-19 positive as if overnight or over the weekend, after the PCR testing machines (my was Biofire) were upgraded with a new chip to detect covid-19. Most hospitals and ER rooms in Canada got their upgrades in mid March to April 2020. Not surprisingly after April 2020, all influenza "vanished" in Canada despite testing. 30K tests in 2021 zero flu found.
BioFire is just a lab machine that needed an upgrade when the supposed new pathogen "appeared". Most labs in US and Canada use BioFire but other brands rely on the same thing: Christian Drosten real PCR test. Wouldn't be ironic if someone with a name Christian turned out to be a monster? Germany is known for monsters, no?
We all knew it was a scam when the upgrade arrived but nobody talked. The flu vanished the moment the cycle treshold was over 35. Who lowered it for Biden but most labs didn't.
Is it possible the hospitals in the urban areas made that switch before the rural areas? Part of my theory with the disappearance of positive flu tests in the U.S. at that time -- based on CDC transcripts, Chicago and NYC flu data, and other sources -- is that urban centers comprise the lion’s share of surveillance in any year. The drop off and changes to testing protocols are most evidence in city-level data
If you are really interested in this subject, you should watch this video where Dr Roger Seheult of MedCram gives hints as to what happened when the BioFire multiplex testing kit got the SARS CoV2 upgrade in California.
Keep in mind John E Hoover and Cullen have their own theory what caused covid-19 symptoms. They believed H1N1 original Spanish flu was resurrected ;-)
Regarding your question, I'm almost certain the upgrades happened faster in the urban hospitals and ER departments vs rural hospitals and clinics. But, most of them, if not all, were up to date by April, as influenzas "vanished' Canada wide by April.
I know of small town ER physicians who never saw more than few covid-19 patients in the first few months of 2020, like an outspoken doctor from Own Sound, Ontario who got fired for criticizing the new covid-19 protocols.
You should know that some multiplex kits in US were recalled because doctors, like Dr. Peter McCullough complained they couldn't distinguish covid-19 from the flu. lol
Keep in mind, there is no such thing as a covid-19 Gold Standard test. It's a lie. There are hundreds of them and about 270 plus in US alone. Why so many different tests if the main strain of the virus is supposedly dominating the country and the world??? It's bogus PCR bias test to detect what they want to detect with 35 plus cycle threshold.
BTW: My hobby is quantum biology. Virus particles, if they exist, are not alive. Therefore they can't do what people claim they can do, like infect or replicate, because only life-systems can. This is the 2nd greatest scam in history of science...
Is there public documentation of these machines being replaced at that time? (I believe you; I am just wanted to document that it occurred, versus rely on anecdote.)
Unfortunate that people have put their eggs in the viral inference basket, BUT my memory is long, and I remember it being a pushback against the govt narrative that flu was gone due to NPIs.
The Biofire machines didn't get replaced, unless they were broken and beyond repair. They got upgraded with software to work with the new multiplex kits that now included the new test for covid-19. Once that happened, all other viruses "vanished"... A miracle happened overnight so a new theory had to come with it; SARS CoV-2 outcompeted them all lol.
How do dead viruses compete with each other??? ;-)
I've tried (unsuccessfully) to make a big deal out of the FACT that the CDC did NOT test any tranches of "archived" Red Cross blood before they ordered the lockdowns. The first tranche of this blood that was belatedly tested was collected Dec. 13-16, 2019. I argue this blood could have easily been tested for antibodies by the first week in March. If it had been, the public would have learned that 2.03 percent of blood donors from CA, WA and OR already had detectable levels of antibodies when they donated this blood. Since it takes one to three weeks for detectable levels of antibodies to form, this means most of those donors had been infected by November 2019 (if not earlier).
Also, the CDC only tested one tranche of archived blood when common sense says they should have tested numerous tranches from many different points in time from all sections of the country. The results of this ONE study were not published until November 30, 2020 - 11 1/2 months after the first batch of blood had been collected.
My hypothesis is that certain officials KNEW this virus was circulating and didn't want the public to know this. They were concealing evidence of early spread.
The start date of virus spread has always been way off. If this was known, every element of the Covid narrative might have been different. Most of the terrible things that happened very likely wouldn't have happened. Certainly, it would be impossible to "slow" or "stop" the spread of a super-contagious virus if the virus had already infected millions of people by November 2019 if not earlier. The IFR or CFR estimates would be completely different. We would have known much earlier that the virus was less lethal than the flu for the vast majority of people.
Of course, any real investigations into "early spread" would get us closer to learning who was responsible for the creation and spread of this virus. So I get why such investigations didn't happen ... and why so much effort seems to have been made to conceal evidence of early spread.
N = 106 - Number of Americans (from NINE states) who tested positive for Covid antibodies in the CDC's (only) Red Cross Antibody study.
N = 0 - Number of people who tested positive who were later interviewed by CDC officials to see if they happened to experience Covid symptoms weeks or months before they donated blood.
Conclusion/take-away: Don't investigate that which you don't want to "confirm."
Would also like to point out that Australia 2020 is an interesting case. They had no Flu. But they also had no Covid. I have heard two explanations: 1. Viral Interference by SC2 on Flu. This seems implausible because SC2 was not really all that present. So the logical questions might be: can a virus interfere with another virus without infecting? how much infecting needs to happen for a virus to cause VI on another virus? 2. Since Flu was absent almost everywhere in the world from March 2020 onward (hmmmm, just about the time the PCR tests went online), it (Flu) could not get to a remote island like Australia. This hypothesis is part "NPIs Work!" and part "Australia Is An Island" voodoo that I am having a hard time buying.
Thailand and Taiwan as well, no SC2 but no flu either, without the excuse of being an island (for Thailand). All good arguments for leaving viral interference in the cupboard.
FYI, there were some joint studies between Aussie researchers and U.S. researchers in 2019 involving flu and home testing/app tracking for flu -- which I think is interesting.
The CDC’s own official SC2/flu multiplex test was EUAd on July 2, 2020.
Early, no? What flu test was AUS using in *summer* 2020? Their flu testing curve in those months in wonky, to say the least
That is why NSW reports no False Positives but highlights the unusually low Real Positives, which resulted from Lockdown and Mask use, plus increased Hand Hygiene.
Simple explanation, Australia being an island nation, shut its borders after being the first country outside of China to use PCR to identify the Wuhan Covid19 case who arrived in Melbourne in January 2020.
Then Australia deliberately went for rapid, deliberate spread of Covid19 after epidemiologists, hired by the Queensland and Western Australia state governments, reported to "National Cabinet" that jabs would not prevent Omicron infestation.
How many people likely died due to lack of treatment for Influenza and secondary pneumonia because of faulty PCR tests and/or hospital protocols that allowed for only oxygen and ventilators for covid positives, worse, 'suspected' cases? Add in the midazolam + morphine protocols and it is certain these decisions, this ignorance, claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more.
says it all--brilliantly --In the early part of the pandemic doctors were incentivised to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, where the symptoms are indistinguishable from flu, for symptoms which would have hitherto been attributed to Influenza-like-illnesses (ILIs). That incentive was achieved by a combination of authoritative diktat by the WHO, who mandated that a respiratory death could be certificated as covid-19 deaths on the flimsiest of grounds, and the all-pervasive fear caused by the ceaseless propaganda about a novel and deadly virus. And this despite the fact that the UKHSA (Health Security Agency) had ruled that SARS-CoV-2 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.
I feel that you are close to the penny dropping. What was once called the flu (very limited testing and diagnosed from general symptoms of detox eg mucus, cough, headache, fever and inflammation and a seasonal round of deaths in care homes) was then called 'covid' (lots of testing with a PCR amplification technique for genetic sequences never shown to come from a 'virus'- an infectious entity plus lots of deaths in Spring 2020 caused by midazolam administration (not a good death) and deliberate dehydration to death of the elderly in care homes separated from the protection of their loved ones.)
There is no evidence of a novel virus. There is no evidence for any virus. There is no evidence that illness is transmitted by contagions.
There is lots of evidence that disease is caused by medications, loneliness, despair, lack of fresh air and exercise, malnutrition, insanitary conditions, stress, dehydration and vaccines.
"An unpurified sample from a covid patient was added to abnormal monkey kidney cells to form a cell culture. Antibiotics (harmful to kidney cells) and mitogens (to stimulate cell division) were added and the cell culture was starved of nutrients.
Damage to the cells and cell death that was observed and was said to show the presence of a virus. However, control cultures made using samples from sick patients without covid were not done. It cannot logically be claimed that it was the presence of a virus that caused the cell damage and deaths."
very similar to my timeline featuring Dr Li in Wuhan who also had no reason to think that symptoms of pneumonia in 7 people represented anything new when he quarantined himself with them and was subsequently martyred and Dr Drosten who developed a test before anything had happened, which made everything happen. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax
yes accepted for publication by the authors themselves and no due process of debate allowed - not suspicious at all for something with such massive, global consequences
I know that for whatever tests Tanzania was using for Covid in the beginning, a goat tested positive and even a pawpaw tested positive, lol. So President John Magufuli halted all testing from then on.
"Was covid-19 disease actually entirely new, or is it simply caused by misattributing flu, or the myriad of other causes of respiratory illnesses, as SARS-CoV-2? Or is there some other unknown mechanism that generates one or the other or indeed both?"
The mechanism that causes "other" respiratory illnesses is well known: it's called fear. It works so well that healthy people can't breathe and often collapse if they believe they have an illness because they think, or were told (after a positive PCR test), they were exposed to a pathogen even if it is an imaginary one...
CDC's own study proves how well this agent called fear works. Look at this:
"Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021"
"...The strongest risk factors for death were obesity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27–1.33), anxiety and fear-related disorders..."
The second strongest risk factor for death with a positive covid-19 test, after obesity, were anxiety and fear-related disorders??? And not a viral load, not pneumonia, not blood clotting, not cytokine storm, no nothing....as officially portrayed by so-called experts.
Apr 1, 2023Liked by Jonathan Engler, Norman Fenton
The "nocebo effect" doesn't get enough attention. This is the opposite of the "placebo effect." People's health outcomes are different because they are convinced they are going to die. This also affects the healthcare providers, who are often (falsely) afraid of their patients.
The way I have seen it this has not been the same with covid-19 fear mongering, unless people who tested positive knew it was a scam. I know this first hand. People in my close surroundings whom I have convinced viruses are dead particles and one can't kill something that is already dead fared better than those that did't believe me.
Once the fact that viruses were dead was accepted, most people didn't wash their hands and were better.
Remember, none of the other have been to a hospital or a nursing home surrounding like I have...
Have you? I have proof to back it up. What do you have?
There are no doubt systemic flaws with the PCR test.
"But focusing on this alone side-steps questions of cross-reactivity, non-specificity, cross contamination or some outcome synergistic with high amplification."
The Daily Beagle article's main focus was primarily the Cycle thresholds as you correctly observe, as broadening scope invariably expands article length (especially to do any justice of depth to a topic), and my informal observations in reader preferences is they prefer very compact, on-point, narrow scope articles with a slow ramp. I struggled to keep the Cycle threshold article contained to scope.
For example, I skipped the history of the issues with 'Low Copy Numbers' in DNA PCR test kits in legal cases because the extend would have added several pages. I also did not post the entire FOIA pages provided by NHS Trusts to avoid overwhelming the reader with usual FOIA bloat.
The LFT rebuttal felt a bit tacky, but I felt like highlighting a PCR flaw gave the false impression that LFTs were somehow more accurate or less prone to abuse compared to PCR, and I felt it was needed to suggest testing in general isn't secure.
I fully recognise PCR tests have many extensive flaws, however I feel it is better to do an in-depth look at flaws individually, as it allows for introducing laypeople to alien topics whilst also giving decent coverage of scope. It also gives nice, clean article breaks, and neatly compartmentalises information, so it is much easier to reference. I found readers were not fans of rapid-fire, multi-faceted coverage approaches of generalist topics (some of the worst performing articles).
I’d value the authors comments on these two articles I wrote. Both develop my hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was circulating widely across the globe (and America) months before the lockdowns (or when officials said the virus had arrived in America).
These articles largely focus on ANTIBODY evidence of prior infection (not PCR evidence).
This article presents mechanisms I believe were used by officials to conceal evidence of early spread:
This article summarizes some of the known evidence of Americans who have antibody (and symptom, clinical) evidence of having cases in November and December 2019.
The disappearance of influenza has always made no sense to me. This is almost-certainly explained by the authors' hypothesis that officials simply changed the flu tests.
We’ve already exchanged comments under one or both of those articles, which, as intimated, I thought very insightful and in alignment with my own thinking.
Clinically there was definitely something new and different which the doctors treating patients noticed, with unusual chest x-ray appearances and CT scans and with patients not responding to ventilation in the expected way. The new virus definitely has its own clotting issues too. It’s possible that this could have been circulating last quarter of 2019 without enough cases in one place to notice a clinical pattern and then when a massive increase in cases occurred it became clinically obvious. I remember in late 2020 ( when everyone was trying to guess how much covid would return for the winter) seeing a graph of the 4 types of coronavirus previously known from WestMountain Healthcare ( or some similar name for a conglomeration of healthcare providers in west USA ) and it showed spectacularly steep and sudden rises in one which would fall off to be replaced by the next etc. That looked like a good example of viral interference to me and they appeared to arrive out of the blue from nowhere.
I think it’s very likely that some cases of flu were misdiagnosed but I also believe there was a new entity ( maybe it was an infectious clone as per JJ Couey) which has a different clinical pattern.
There is also a phenomenon of multiple contacts getting ill ( at same time or sequentially) and all with similar symptoms but not all of them test positive on the rapid antigen tests.
From personal experience ( I’m a retired GP) I had something weird and frightening Nov/Dec’19 which I knew wasn’t the flu but hadn’t a clue what it was. I also had pathognomonic omicron in Dec’21 which was different to other seasonal colds which I’ve ( unusually for me) suffered from in the last 2 years.
A lot to unpick here. There will no doubt be those who will claim that there was no SARS-CoV-2 virus at all and that all tests and all symptoms attributed to the presence of the 'novel' Covid virus were common colds, 'flu and viral and bacterial pneumonia. Then there will be those who claim that SARS-CoV-2 did not suddenly appear in Dec 2019 and the 'flu virus did not mysteriously disappear six months or so later - because viruses don't exist!
"Despite the similarity of the symptoms of flu with those of SARS-CoV-2 it was, at least initially, the infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 that differentiated it from the flu - its novelty was dependant on its perceived elevated lethality. However, over time the infection fatality rates for SARS-CoV-2 have converged on that for the flu and now the deadliness of one is indistinguishable from the other. Why then do we, three years later, do we consider SARS-CoV-2 to be more novel than flu or any other respiratory viral infection? Given that the symptoms of both overlap to an extent which makes each completely indistinguishable from the other based on clinical presentation, legitimate questions have been raised as to the circumstances that led SARS-CoV-2 to be identified as a novel virus in the first place."
Its novelty was not just defined by the scary infection fatality rate put out by the WHO and others at the beginning of the so called 'pandemic'. It was also defined by some relatively mild, but very unusual symptoms described by people who caught 'something' - even as far back as autumn 2019. There are plenty of people who've had colds and 'flu who will attest to feeling that there was something quite unique about this 'new' infection. Its novelty was additionally defined by a seemingly very unusual, if not unique, pathology when it manifested as severe or fatal disease. Its novelty was also defined by the highly skewed vulnerability curve, where the very old and those with co-morbidities were at disproportionate risk, whilst (unlike with 'flu) much younger people were at statistically zero risk.
So personally, I think it is entirely possible, likely even, that 'flu positive tests and symptomatic 'flu cases were attributed to SARS-CoV-2, but I think the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still present and causing disease.
I think you're on the same page as the authors. Getting to the truth of this is a really hard problem and this article is a great contribution.
Another confounder might be the nocebo effect. We were all bombarded with propaganda of the most perverse kind. If you didn't feel queasy before one of those stay home save lives adverts you sure as hell would afterwards. We ourselves took to turning off the adverts and we still do. it's become a habit. I recommend it.
I've tried to emphasize that the public really doesn't know what the true IFR was ... because we don't know:
1) How many people had actually been infected weeks or months before "official" Covid began to spread.
2) We also don't know how many people might have died from "early" cases of Covid (not many, but certainly some people).
If the truth was known about the huge number of people who had "early" cases, we all would have known this virus was nothing to really worry about. Also, I think the vast majority of "Covid deaths" that happened after March 2020 can be explained by iatrogenic and panic reasons. I think if "Covid" had never been discovered, the world probably wouldn't have even known we had the pandemic of the century.
Yes, even now, there's no statistical representative sampling. Hence, all the numbers, except all-cause mortality, is worthless.
I polled my patients via a newsletter in 2022. 40 % reported not having clinical COVID at that point. Going further this group data was consistent w regional and national reports.
So either these people already had it OR innate immunity protected them..
I did an informal survey on Facebook (before I was banned). I identified about 75 people who thought they had or might have had early Covid (myself and my two children are also in this group as we were sick in January 2020). I followed up with many of these people a year or so later, and only a tiny number reported later coming down with Covid. Myself and my two children have never tested positive for Covid after our Covid-like illnesses in January 2020.
I'm currently working on a story on the outbreaks on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (and a French aircraft carrier). Antibody studies were later done on both crews, showing that at least 60 percent and 65 percent of these crews had antibody evidence of prior infection.
Many of these positive antibody sailors tested negative for PCR tests during said outbreaks. So the virus was very contagious and PCR tests did not pick up most previous cases. Of note, only one sailor on both ships (N = 6,500) died, presumably from Covid complications). I actually think more than 60 percent of the crew of both ships had been previously exposed. IMO some crew members probably tested negative for antibodies because the antibody test occurred four to five months after some percentage of these crews had probably been infected ... and by the time these blood samples were collected, these antibodies had faded or were below "detectable levels" on the assays. That is, I don't think the antibody tests pick up all previously-infected people, especially if the test occurred many months after symptoms (or no symptoms for those who may have had asymptomatic cases).
I don't understand why these results/studies have been ignored. But given the implications, I probably do understand why this is the case. Also, I think the virus came on board both ships before "official Covid" had arrived. Data presented in the Roosevelt study on "symptom onset" dates supports this conclusion. Two of the 382 sailors on the Roosevelt who participated in this antibody study self-reported Covid-like Symptoms 98 and 99 days before their blood was collected (between April 20-24, 2020). This would date possible infections for these two crew members to around January 17 - when the ship left port ... and before the first "confirmed" cases in America. Twelve crew members (out of the 382 tested for antibodies) reported symptoms before the ship made its first port of call.
I don't know why all 4,800 crew members of the Roosevelt weren't tested for antibodies ... Then again, I probably know that answer too. More crew members being tested for antibodies (not just 7 percent of the crew) would have produced even more evidence of "early spread."
Finally, why hasn't there been a major study of people who think they had Covid before February 2020? Many of these possible "early cases" went to the doctor and have medical records. Many got flu tests at the time and most of these results were negative for the flu. My question: Couldn't some percentage of them have had Covid? If a big percentage of this study group never developed PCR confirmed Covid, wouldn't this possible study result suggest they had natural immunity?
So I also "get" why such a study has never been done and never will be done. In my opinion, certain officials did everything they could to conceal evidence of early spread. (And these efforts worked.)
For anyone interested in this subject, I've written maybe 25 articles on "early spread" at my Substack newsletter. I can report that this line of inquiry - for some reason - is definitely taboo in the mainstream media.
From your reply- “Many of these positive antibody sailors tested negative for PCR tests during said outbreaks. So the virus was very contagious and PCR tests did not pick up most previous cases. Of note, only one sailor on both ships (N = 6,500) died, presumably from Covid complications)”.
If the sailors had antibodies they would have full immunity. It stands to reason they would test negative as they weren’t infected. That’s a true negative test result. Not sick, no active virus, likely IgA mucosal antibodies and primed T cell immunity. Exactly what you would expect. Ditto for you and family.
The PCR testing is specific (see my prior discussion regarding debate about viral interference w testing). It’s true that going out past 20 replications leads to “fingerprint evidence “ and hence clinical correlation required. Very early infection or recovered recent infection or possible sub clinical inoculation all possible scenarios.
From what I understand of the biology (thanks to folks like JJ Couey), it's seems possible that the ever-present coronavirus swarm could have been contaminated with say, a synthetic clone. Since the PCR is based on genetically limited consensus sequences of N, Spike and RNA polymerase proteins there is no way these wouldn't pick up other coronavirus variants which are circulating all the time. This scenario would both account for random individuals to experience a "novel" infection/reaction (I can attest to that) but also support the appearance of the "one-natural-virus-going-round-the-world" narrative (which, based on the fidelity of RNA viral replication seems highly dubious) via a indiscriminate PCR confirmation.
Just a thought.
Hiya,
I think it's important when discussing shutting down and vaccinating the world to have evidence not just opinion. There was no evidence that a virus was causing any new disease in Wuhan. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax. There is now much evidence that the so called fatality rate of the novel disease was caused by forced ventilation, midazolam, remdesivir, fear, loneliness and deliberate dehydration which were inflicted disproportionately on the elderly and those who have trouble breathing; the obese. This is a huge difference to how detox symptoms, known as the flu, experienced by many people, are treated; mainly with rest and hydration.
People saying they felt something different in Autumn 2019 is not acceptable as evidence. It is well known that people notice or retrospectively notice things they are primed to.
There is no evidence that there is a 'SARS-CoV-2 virus' -it is just a name given to some genetic sequences uploaded to the internet. There is no evidence that they form a genome for an entity nor that the entity not shown to exist is the cause of any symptoms new or old. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
Jo
I agree that the observed risk profile may have been created by the large number of iatrogenic deaths of the vulnerable and elderly in care homes and hospitals. But that doesn't account for the complete lack of symptomatic Covid in young people in the community vs. some symptomatic Covid cases in adults. Suggesting that a great many people imagined the uniqueness of their symptoms in retrospect because of some mental priming seems somewhat implausible to me.
Millions of people suspect they had Covid in the "cold and flu season" of 2019-2020. Many of these people point out that their symptoms were different in key ways from past bouts with the flu or other winter bugs. I'm in that group. I think I had Covid in January 2020. Also, not addressed in this piece, many people later tested positive for Covid antibodies. These results have been dismissed (by the narrative protectors) as "false positives" due to cross-reactivity. My question: Were ALL of these antibody tests awful and all of these positives "false positives?" What about the possibility of "false negatives?" I actually think the few antibody tests that were performed in the early weeks of the pandemic probably under-count the real prevalence.
I agree. We shouldn't dismiss millions of anecdotes .. Although we are doing the exact same thing with the millions of people who think they have suffered vaccine injuries. Ignore the anecdotes. Everyone is wrong.
Besides personal anecdotes, several dissenting doctors (who actually treated COVID) attest that severe COVID symptoms are unlike anything they've seen before.
Dr. Paul Marik, who successfully treated advanced cases in ICU until they tied his hands, has a paper describing the specific pathology:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354851581_A_scoping_review_of_the_pathophysiology_of_COVID-19
Per Marik and others, the lion's share of COVID damage is caused by the virus' spike protein. So of course big pharma wisely chose the spike as the only antigen for the vaccine ("Well, we were in a hurry, and we already had it in the lab...").
The inhaled viral version ends up more in the lungs, while the injected vaccine version is happy to set up shop anywhere its lipid nanoparticles land. Either way, it's spike attacking the vascular endothelium, causing vascular and inflammatory disaster.
DoD: "Should we deliver our bio-engineered spike protein weapon with a virus or a vaccine?"
Fauci: "¿Por qué no los dos?"
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/sars-cov-2-was-lab-made-under-project
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2021/09/spartacus/
Very conveniently the symptoms of 'covid' seemed to include just about anything; rashes, loss of taste (common with loss of sense of smell when producing mucus), a blocked or runny nose), feeling tired or exhausted, a fever, a cough, a high temperature, chills, diarrhoea, feeling sick, being sick, a sore throat, an aching body, a headache, loss of appetite and shortness of breath- so it's not all surprising that many people experienced them.
That's true there is strong overlap with the flu. For me, the shortness of breath, terrible and painful "dry" cough, acute fatigue and loss of smell and taste were all different. I also didn't have the nausea and the large amount of phlegm I usually have with the flu. FWIW, I tested "negative" for the flu ... as did huge numbers of people who went to the doctor with these symptoms. Also, a lot more people were getting flu tests in the flu season of 2019-2020. So something else seems to have been going on. I've interviewed an administrator at a big clinic that was seeing tons of patients in December 2019 and January 2020. Her comment to me: "We thought there was something wrong with the flu tests." That is, people the doctors were seeing with flu symptoms weren't testing positive for the flu. So what made them this sick?
I also never tested positive for Covid after that January bout of whatever I had, which makes me think I developed natural immunity. Lots of people fall into the same category. Once they had non-Covid they didn't later get PCR confirmed Covid.
Hello, I didn't even know 'flu' tests were used generally, no one I know has ever been tested for it (in the UK). However, just like the 'covid' 'tests' neither the RNA sequences nor antigens the 'flu test' detects have been shown to come from a virus nor to be involved in causing symptoms. Of course there is something wrong with the flu tests! The flu virus has never been shown to exist or to transmit disease- not even the notorious spanish flu https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/how-does-transmission-of-illness The 'flus' are supposedly characterised by the ratio of H to N. The H stands for haemagglutinin which has never been shown to be a viral protein. It is possibly produced by the body as part of the homeostatic process (the symptoms of ‘flu’ are the healing not the disease). The N; the enzyme neuraminidase is definitely produced by the body and performs many metabolic functions, deficiency can lead to impaired vision, muscle weakness and disorders of the nervous system. Those taking inhibitors of neuraminidase such as Tamiflu should beware .https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/h5n1-avian-flu-and-not-a-glimmer
It is not surprising for someone to test negative for the sequences of unknown provenance. What made them sick instead? Same things as always; seasonal changes in pm2.5, emotional, work, financial, family stress, lack of sunlight, malnutrition. The sickness is the healing and the body returning to balance, which is will do if the body is allowed to rest and is not poisoned by medications or vaccines.
Having PCR 'confirmed' covid is meaningless. The sequences used in the PCR have not been calibrated with having any symptoms or 'disease'! https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/there-is-no-covid
Jo
There was something different happening to people. It caused flu like symptoms for around 7 days and then around the 8th day people either got better or got moderate or severe lung inflammation. Dr. Shankara Chetty in South Africa noticed this difference and was able to treat it reliably and sucessfully, with existing cheap off label drugs, in thousands of patients. This doesnt say anything about flu infections that may have occurred instead or as well - they just werent remarkable.
There is now plenty of documented evidence that some labs were monkeying with the SARS coronavirus and doing gain-of-function work, resulting in a new virus SARS-CoV-2 sporting components patented by Moderna and the US govt. The widespread appearance in fall 2019 could indeed have been accidental or deliberate release from US bioweapons labs around the world.
Some athletes who went to Wuhan in October 2019 for the World Military Games became ill. I myself became ill end Dec 2019 and the symptoms were more circulatory than the flu. The IFR was early on calculated as around 0.17%. That was I assume without administering the remedies that proved to be effective but were pushed under the carpet.
Jaime Jessop, your comment is right on. Highly unlikely that the COVID narrative was simply concocted from the existing viral millieu.
Though the fatality rate was grossly hyped, and COVID "ate" everything from cancer to flu, there is still a convincing case for a novel virus ...
For all the reasons you articulated so well, plus one more: the strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered by Ralph Baric & Friends at the behest of the US DoD and NIAID.
I initially had the suspicion that the virus may not be real when the vaccines were produced with computer generated code and pseudouridine. That we suddenly needed to try a novel technology and not simply utilize the same process as the annual flu shots.
I find it interesting that you start your essay by saying that there's a theory that the virus might not exist, or that it might have existed long before, and then you end your essay by saying "I think the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still present and causing disease.", without actually delivering any specific evidence to back up your claims.
I personally think that we cannot reliably make any claims about the pathogen, but we do know that many jurisdictions did either not have any unusual mortality or experienced mortality that does not fit viral outbreaks (Denis Rancourt's paper on US Mortality)
If you look at the German ARI Rate, nothing unusual can be observed: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Sentinel/Grippeweb/grippeweb_ergebnisse_node.html, which suggests, that clinical illness levels in Germany were comparable with previous seasons.
The same is true for all cause mortality: https://www.mortality.watch/?q=%7B%22c%22%3A%5B%22Germany%22%5D%2C%22cs%22%3A0%2C%22ct%22%3A4%2C%22t%22%3A2%2C%22df%22%3A%222010+W10%22%2C%22dt%22%3A%222023+W10%22%2C%22m%22%3A0%2C%22pi%22%3A1%2C%22sl%22%3A0%7D
The novelty of the pathogen, was not based on its lethality, but it was based on the novel detection described in Wu et al 2020. Strictly speaking, it remains unclear if samples of earlier pneumonia would have lead to the same virus detection results. Obviously, the lethality (~10%) is based not representative sampling in the first place and can be dismissed.
Lastly, if you look at the symptoms defined by CDC for COVID-19, there's actually no symptom that is distinct or new.
...or people's novel symptoms were caused by environmental toxins they were not previously exposed to (or exposed to at that intensity). Ask yourself if not a pathogenic virus-like particle, then what else could it be? Here's my list:
1) electromagnetic radiation (cumulative effects of 3, 4 & 5g; WiFi routers; wireless headphones/watches etc)
2) e-cigarettes and other carcinogenic compounds
3) neurotoxic ingredients in food, consumer products and medication
One still has to unequivocally prove a direct link between any so-called virus (in this case 'SARS-Cov-2') and a specific set of symptoms. This has still not been demonstrated using a properly controlled RCT.
As an outsider, there appears to be an epistemological problem with virology and genomics.
The influenza virus have not "disappeared", it never manifested on such scale to begin with. The influenza numbers were inflated artificially for decades via RT-PCR testing, to coerce the cattle into seasonal "flu shots". COVID-19 was perceived to be a similar source of revenue by mainstream vaccine manufacturers, who planned to roll out traditional vaccines on a usual schedule. However, the mRNA developers successfully interdicted via "Operation Warpspeed", and the situation became somewhat chaotic, as we can now see
Many frontline health workers have observed the "phenomenon" of flu "disappearing" and covid-19 taking over. Patients with positive or suspected influenza became covid-19 positive as if overnight or over the weekend, after the PCR testing machines (my was Biofire) were upgraded with a new chip to detect covid-19. Most hospitals and ER rooms in Canada got their upgrades in mid March to April 2020. Not surprisingly after April 2020, all influenza "vanished" in Canada despite testing. 30K tests in 2021 zero flu found.
Another scientific miracle.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/influenza-remarkably-absent-in-bc-covid-19-pandemic-1.5878835
Let's not forget, there was not pandemic in Canada. If anything, it was in 2016-2017 flu season.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/443061/number-of-deaths-in-canada/
When this world-wide scam is exposed, or IF it is allowed to be exposed, heads will be rolling down the streets...
Interesting. Do you have more details about the upgrade process? What was used before Biofire?
BioFire is just a lab machine that needed an upgrade when the supposed new pathogen "appeared". Most labs in US and Canada use BioFire but other brands rely on the same thing: Christian Drosten real PCR test. Wouldn't be ironic if someone with a name Christian turned out to be a monster? Germany is known for monsters, no?
We all knew it was a scam when the upgrade arrived but nobody talked. The flu vanished the moment the cycle treshold was over 35. Who lowered it for Biden but most labs didn't.
Here are some links:
https://www.biofiredx.com/syndromic-testing/
https://www.biofiredx.com/covid-19/
If you have more questions, let me know.
If you don't believe in God, you will have to accept Satan exists when this is over...sorry to tell you this...
BTW: I knew something was not right when Israel, through a backdoor got an exclusive deal with BioNTech and then Pfizer.
I'm no prophet but this was it. I knew something was wrong.
What you’re saying makes sense with flu test data in different Canadian provinces in spring 2020. https://twitter.com/ewoodhouse7/status/1636734508845133824?s=46
Is it possible the hospitals in the urban areas made that switch before the rural areas? Part of my theory with the disappearance of positive flu tests in the U.S. at that time -- based on CDC transcripts, Chicago and NYC flu data, and other sources -- is that urban centers comprise the lion’s share of surveillance in any year. The drop off and changes to testing protocols are most evidence in city-level data
If you are really interested in this subject, you should watch this video where Dr Roger Seheult of MedCram gives hints as to what happened when the BioFire multiplex testing kit got the SARS CoV2 upgrade in California.
Keep in mind John E Hoover and Cullen have their own theory what caused covid-19 symptoms. They believed H1N1 original Spanish flu was resurrected ;-)
https://youtu.be/chn1UWAloF4?t=1277
Regarding your question, I'm almost certain the upgrades happened faster in the urban hospitals and ER departments vs rural hospitals and clinics. But, most of them, if not all, were up to date by April, as influenzas "vanished' Canada wide by April.
I know of small town ER physicians who never saw more than few covid-19 patients in the first few months of 2020, like an outspoken doctor from Own Sound, Ontario who got fired for criticizing the new covid-19 protocols.
You should know that some multiplex kits in US were recalled because doctors, like Dr. Peter McCullough complained they couldn't distinguish covid-19 from the flu. lol
Keep in mind, there is no such thing as a covid-19 Gold Standard test. It's a lie. There are hundreds of them and about 270 plus in US alone. Why so many different tests if the main strain of the virus is supposedly dominating the country and the world??? It's bogus PCR bias test to detect what they want to detect with 35 plus cycle threshold.
BTW: My hobby is quantum biology. Virus particles, if they exist, are not alive. Therefore they can't do what people claim they can do, like infect or replicate, because only life-systems can. This is the 2nd greatest scam in history of science...
Is there public documentation of these machines being replaced at that time? (I believe you; I am just wanted to document that it occurred, versus rely on anecdote.)
Not explicitly but word of mouth is that they were. The whole thing is a black hole.....
No really. Some companies brag about it to get more business...
Human interference
Unfortunate that people have put their eggs in the viral inference basket, BUT my memory is long, and I remember it being a pushback against the govt narrative that flu was gone due to NPIs.
You must have read this, right?
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/how-test-kits-are-used-to-perpetuate?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
The Biofire machines didn't get replaced, unless they were broken and beyond repair. They got upgraded with software to work with the new multiplex kits that now included the new test for covid-19. Once that happened, all other viruses "vanished"... A miracle happened overnight so a new theory had to come with it; SARS CoV-2 outcompeted them all lol.
How do dead viruses compete with each other??? ;-)
There was certainly a pandemic in Canada ;) https://www.mortality.watch/?q=%7B%22c%22%3A%5B%22Canada%22%5D%2C%22cs%22%3A0%2C%22ct%22%3A4%2C%22t%22%3A5%2C%22df%22%3A%222010+W11%22%2C%22dt%22%3A%222022+W44%22%2C%22m%22%3A0%2C%22pi%22%3A1%2C%22sl%22%3A0%7D
But thanks for that info about the chips. Do you have more info on that?
Pandemic? After 85% plus vaccination by 2022. If anything, vaxxed people died at higher rate than unvaxxed...
I've tried (unsuccessfully) to make a big deal out of the FACT that the CDC did NOT test any tranches of "archived" Red Cross blood before they ordered the lockdowns. The first tranche of this blood that was belatedly tested was collected Dec. 13-16, 2019. I argue this blood could have easily been tested for antibodies by the first week in March. If it had been, the public would have learned that 2.03 percent of blood donors from CA, WA and OR already had detectable levels of antibodies when they donated this blood. Since it takes one to three weeks for detectable levels of antibodies to form, this means most of those donors had been infected by November 2019 (if not earlier).
Also, the CDC only tested one tranche of archived blood when common sense says they should have tested numerous tranches from many different points in time from all sections of the country. The results of this ONE study were not published until November 30, 2020 - 11 1/2 months after the first batch of blood had been collected.
My hypothesis is that certain officials KNEW this virus was circulating and didn't want the public to know this. They were concealing evidence of early spread.
The start date of virus spread has always been way off. If this was known, every element of the Covid narrative might have been different. Most of the terrible things that happened very likely wouldn't have happened. Certainly, it would be impossible to "slow" or "stop" the spread of a super-contagious virus if the virus had already infected millions of people by November 2019 if not earlier. The IFR or CFR estimates would be completely different. We would have known much earlier that the virus was less lethal than the flu for the vast majority of people.
Of course, any real investigations into "early spread" would get us closer to learning who was responsible for the creation and spread of this virus. So I get why such investigations didn't happen ... and why so much effort seems to have been made to conceal evidence of early spread.
N = 106 - Number of Americans (from NINE states) who tested positive for Covid antibodies in the CDC's (only) Red Cross Antibody study.
N = 0 - Number of people who tested positive who were later interviewed by CDC officials to see if they happened to experience Covid symptoms weeks or months before they donated blood.
Conclusion/take-away: Don't investigate that which you don't want to "confirm."
Would also like to point out that Australia 2020 is an interesting case. They had no Flu. But they also had no Covid. I have heard two explanations: 1. Viral Interference by SC2 on Flu. This seems implausible because SC2 was not really all that present. So the logical questions might be: can a virus interfere with another virus without infecting? how much infecting needs to happen for a virus to cause VI on another virus? 2. Since Flu was absent almost everywhere in the world from March 2020 onward (hmmmm, just about the time the PCR tests went online), it (Flu) could not get to a remote island like Australia. This hypothesis is part "NPIs Work!" and part "Australia Is An Island" voodoo that I am having a hard time buying.
Thailand and Taiwan as well, no SC2 but no flu either, without the excuse of being an island (for Thailand). All good arguments for leaving viral interference in the cupboard.
Went back and looked at some of the CDC stuff. Mid 2020 they were talking about co-infections more than VI.
All signs point to a story around the tests. This smells like misattribution. Incentives + Narrative = Operation ILI
The simple absence of tests is not proof that Influenza was not present in Australia in 2020.
Mortality looks a bit lower, but the seasonal pattern (commonly referred to as the winter influenza/cold wave) is still present. https://www.mortality.watch/?q=%7B%22c%22%3A%5B%22Australia%22%5D%2C%22cs%22%3A0%2C%22ct%22%3A4%2C%22t%22%3A4%2C%22dt%22%3A%222022+W44%22%2C%22m%22%3A0%2C%22pi%22%3A1%2C%22sl%22%3A0%7D
I'm wondering if the lower level might simply have to do with difference in behavior and lack of tourism! Same in Taiwan.
They were giving tests. Bizarre pattern. Which tests? https://twitter.com/ewoodhouse7/status/1637626370166497280?s=46
FYI, there were some joint studies between Aussie researchers and U.S. researchers in 2019 involving flu and home testing/app tracking for flu -- which I think is interesting.
The CDC’s own official SC2/flu multiplex test was EUAd on July 2, 2020.
Early, no? What flu test was AUS using in *summer* 2020? Their flu testing curve in those months in wonky, to say the least
The State of New South Wales conducts routine Sentinel PCR tests for Influenza.
In the week ending 20 December 2020, the percent of influenza tests that were positive continued to be very low (<0.01%). Australia was in lockdown.
Get lots of data here:
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspx
What tests were they using? That’s the question.
Also, it makes no sense that the false positive rate wouldn’t be higher than that.
False positives are very rare and result from field contamination. They use PCR.
And field contamination was highly unlikely during time when all kinds of demands were being made on hospital and other labs? Doubtful.
Let's first account for the human interference factors; then we can see if natural phenomenon explain the rest. https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/1635856560026009600?s=20
That is why NSW reports no False Positives but highlights the unusually low Real Positives, which resulted from Lockdown and Mask use, plus increased Hand Hygiene.
Simple explanation, Australia being an island nation, shut its borders after being the first country outside of China to use PCR to identify the Wuhan Covid19 case who arrived in Melbourne in January 2020.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/first-detected-covid19-case-arrived
Then Australia deliberately went for rapid, deliberate spread of Covid19 after epidemiologists, hired by the Queensland and Western Australia state governments, reported to "National Cabinet" that jabs would not prevent Omicron infestation.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/australias-plan-to-deliberately-spread
How many people likely died due to lack of treatment for Influenza and secondary pneumonia because of faulty PCR tests and/or hospital protocols that allowed for only oxygen and ventilators for covid positives, worse, 'suspected' cases? Add in the midazolam + morphine protocols and it is certain these decisions, this ignorance, claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more.
This is a massive and unreported scandal. These people would have been much better off if the pre-Covid hospital/treatment protocols had been used.
says it all--brilliantly --In the early part of the pandemic doctors were incentivised to diagnose SARS-CoV-2, where the symptoms are indistinguishable from flu, for symptoms which would have hitherto been attributed to Influenza-like-illnesses (ILIs). That incentive was achieved by a combination of authoritative diktat by the WHO, who mandated that a respiratory death could be certificated as covid-19 deaths on the flimsiest of grounds, and the all-pervasive fear caused by the ceaseless propaganda about a novel and deadly virus. And this despite the fact that the UKHSA (Health Security Agency) had ruled that SARS-CoV-2 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease.
The advent of CLI (Covid-Like Illness) in mid-March 2020 -- at least in the U.S. -- facilitated the “handoff” as well.
I feel that you are close to the penny dropping. What was once called the flu (very limited testing and diagnosed from general symptoms of detox eg mucus, cough, headache, fever and inflammation and a seasonal round of deaths in care homes) was then called 'covid' (lots of testing with a PCR amplification technique for genetic sequences never shown to come from a 'virus'- an infectious entity plus lots of deaths in Spring 2020 caused by midazolam administration (not a good death) and deliberate dehydration to death of the elderly in care homes separated from the protection of their loved ones.)
There is no evidence of a novel virus. There is no evidence for any virus. There is no evidence that illness is transmitted by contagions.
There is lots of evidence that disease is caused by medications, loneliness, despair, lack of fresh air and exercise, malnutrition, insanitary conditions, stress, dehydration and vaccines.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
I wish you well
Jo
🐒
Lot of people are not aware of this
"An unpurified sample from a covid patient was added to abnormal monkey kidney cells to form a cell culture. Antibiotics (harmful to kidney cells) and mitogens (to stimulate cell division) were added and the cell culture was starved of nutrients.
Damage to the cells and cell death that was observed and was said to show the presence of a virus. However, control cultures made using samples from sick patients without covid were not done. It cannot logically be claimed that it was the presence of a virus that caused the cell damage and deaths."
Thank you, that is very true. I was unaware of it too until the beginning of 2020 when I started to smell the rotting corpse of virology.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/03/30/wuhans-mystery-illness-is-covids-foundational-lie/
very similar to my timeline featuring Dr Li in Wuhan who also had no reason to think that symptoms of pneumonia in 7 people represented anything new when he quarantined himself with them and was subsequently martyred and Dr Drosten who developed a test before anything had happened, which made everything happen. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax
Joo
A yes, Mr. Drosten and his testing protocol, that was peer reviewed in 24 hours.... And then all the questions or critics just ignored.
yes accepted for publication by the authors themselves and no due process of debate allowed - not suspicious at all for something with such massive, global consequences
Apparently in Kenya, the flu never went away and remained as prevalent as ever, even with all their masks and lockdowns.
https://www.juliusruechel.com/2022/01/the-false-god-of-central-planning.html?m=1#KENYA
Find out what/whose tests they were using. Togo, Pakistan, etc too
I know that for whatever tests Tanzania was using for Covid in the beginning, a goat tested positive and even a pawpaw tested positive, lol. So President John Magufuli halted all testing from then on.
I mean for flu
Not sure.
"Was covid-19 disease actually entirely new, or is it simply caused by misattributing flu, or the myriad of other causes of respiratory illnesses, as SARS-CoV-2? Or is there some other unknown mechanism that generates one or the other or indeed both?"
The mechanism that causes "other" respiratory illnesses is well known: it's called fear. It works so well that healthy people can't breathe and often collapse if they believe they have an illness because they think, or were told (after a positive PCR test), they were exposed to a pathogen even if it is an imaginary one...
CDC's own study proves how well this agent called fear works. Look at this:
"Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021"
"...The strongest risk factors for death were obesity (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27–1.33), anxiety and fear-related disorders..."
The second strongest risk factor for death with a positive covid-19 test, after obesity, were anxiety and fear-related disorders??? And not a viral load, not pneumonia, not blood clotting, not cytokine storm, no nothing....as officially portrayed by so-called experts.
Elephant in the room?
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm
The "nocebo effect" doesn't get enough attention. This is the opposite of the "placebo effect." People's health outcomes are different because they are convinced they are going to die. This also affects the healthcare providers, who are often (falsely) afraid of their patients.
The way I have seen it this has not been the same with covid-19 fear mongering, unless people who tested positive knew it was a scam. I know this first hand. People in my close surroundings whom I have convinced viruses are dead particles and one can't kill something that is already dead fared better than those that did't believe me.
Once the fact that viruses were dead was accepted, most people didn't wash their hands and were better.
Remember, none of the other have been to a hospital or a nursing home surrounding like I have...
Have you? I have proof to back it up. What do you have?
There are no doubt systemic flaws with the PCR test.
"But focusing on this alone side-steps questions of cross-reactivity, non-specificity, cross contamination or some outcome synergistic with high amplification."
The Daily Beagle article's main focus was primarily the Cycle thresholds as you correctly observe, as broadening scope invariably expands article length (especially to do any justice of depth to a topic), and my informal observations in reader preferences is they prefer very compact, on-point, narrow scope articles with a slow ramp. I struggled to keep the Cycle threshold article contained to scope.
For example, I skipped the history of the issues with 'Low Copy Numbers' in DNA PCR test kits in legal cases because the extend would have added several pages. I also did not post the entire FOIA pages provided by NHS Trusts to avoid overwhelming the reader with usual FOIA bloat.
The LFT rebuttal felt a bit tacky, but I felt like highlighting a PCR flaw gave the false impression that LFTs were somehow more accurate or less prone to abuse compared to PCR, and I felt it was needed to suggest testing in general isn't secure.
I fully recognise PCR tests have many extensive flaws, however I feel it is better to do an in-depth look at flaws individually, as it allows for introducing laypeople to alien topics whilst also giving decent coverage of scope. It also gives nice, clean article breaks, and neatly compartmentalises information, so it is much easier to reference. I found readers were not fans of rapid-fire, multi-faceted coverage approaches of generalist topics (some of the worst performing articles).
I’d value the authors comments on these two articles I wrote. Both develop my hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was circulating widely across the globe (and America) months before the lockdowns (or when officials said the virus had arrived in America).
These articles largely focus on ANTIBODY evidence of prior infection (not PCR evidence).
This article presents mechanisms I believe were used by officials to conceal evidence of early spread:
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/theory-officials-intentionally-concealed
This article summarizes some of the known evidence of Americans who have antibody (and symptom, clinical) evidence of having cases in November and December 2019.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/early-spread-evidence-in-one-document
The disappearance of influenza has always made no sense to me. This is almost-certainly explained by the authors' hypothesis that officials simply changed the flu tests.
We’ve already exchanged comments under one or both of those articles, which, as intimated, I thought very insightful and in alignment with my own thinking.
Thanks, Jonathan. Your writing is thought-provocking and important.
I thought it had disappeared due to the effectiveness of masks and distancing.
THAT'S WHY they insisted on masks and distancing. To plant in the minds of the rubes a plausible reason for the "disappearance" of the flu.
(I've actually overheard some masked individuals opining that was the reason nobody had "had the flu".)
It also disappeared in Sweden, which didn't lock down or wear masks widespread. There are plenty of videos on Twitter to confirm that.
Clinically there was definitely something new and different which the doctors treating patients noticed, with unusual chest x-ray appearances and CT scans and with patients not responding to ventilation in the expected way. The new virus definitely has its own clotting issues too. It’s possible that this could have been circulating last quarter of 2019 without enough cases in one place to notice a clinical pattern and then when a massive increase in cases occurred it became clinically obvious. I remember in late 2020 ( when everyone was trying to guess how much covid would return for the winter) seeing a graph of the 4 types of coronavirus previously known from WestMountain Healthcare ( or some similar name for a conglomeration of healthcare providers in west USA ) and it showed spectacularly steep and sudden rises in one which would fall off to be replaced by the next etc. That looked like a good example of viral interference to me and they appeared to arrive out of the blue from nowhere.
I think it’s very likely that some cases of flu were misdiagnosed but I also believe there was a new entity ( maybe it was an infectious clone as per JJ Couey) which has a different clinical pattern.
There is also a phenomenon of multiple contacts getting ill ( at same time or sequentially) and all with similar symptoms but not all of them test positive on the rapid antigen tests.
From personal experience ( I’m a retired GP) I had something weird and frightening Nov/Dec’19 which I knew wasn’t the flu but hadn’t a clue what it was. I also had pathognomonic omicron in Dec’21 which was different to other seasonal colds which I’ve ( unusually for me) suffered from in the last 2 years.
This was obvious almost from the start when I wrote this: https://lwgat.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-covid-mass-hysteria-in-colorado.html?m=1
It's almost as if there is a kakistocracy in place that requires "malicious stupidity" as a qualification.