98 Comments
Jan 30Liked by Martin Neil

We have not been and are not facing what RFK Jr has termed “a mismanaged pandemic,” a stance supported by most “health freedom” celebrities. What we are dealing with is fraud, tyranny and mass murder.

Reifying the Big Lie that there ever was a "pandemic" caused by a "unique viral pathogen" in 2020 covers up the crimes of what actually happened in the hospitals and nursing homes, covers up the staged events that created the illusion of a medical emergency and provides cover for those who designed and executed this operation.

Perpetuating the lie that there was a pandemic (all pandemics are fictions) justifies the “pandemic preparedness industry” through which Big Pharma Corporations and their investors can keep siphoning trillions from taxpayers via public/private partnerships- the public foots the bill, the private sector reaps the profits.

This bogus pandemic fairy tale needs to be confronted head on in the "health freedom movement" as those with the biggest audiences by and large reinforce the "pandemic" narrative and create fertile ground for justifying all sorts of future "emergency measures." .

There was no pandemic ever- there is no "lab leak"- there is no "unique viral pathogen"- there is no "China Virus"- there is no "bioweapon"- There is no "There" there.

It is all fraud piled on top of fraud.

The only pandemic that occurred was one of violent government and medical assault against people, of false attribution of death, and of intense propaganda using fraudulent tests and bogus studies.

The official narrative of "Covid" is fiction- all facets of it.

Expand full comment
author

You do need to move onto substack Allen. You would be doing us all a great service by doing so. I'd be first to sign up.

Expand full comment

Well I guess thanks- or should I say- "Why punish myself further?" Laughs.

As you likely know I write elsewhere.

Expand full comment
author

I didn't know!

Expand full comment

Where do you write?

Expand full comment

I will send you some articles.

Expand full comment

Well said Allen. Sums up where many of us stand. And thanks Martin and Norman for the update. Something disallowed by “The Science.”

Expand full comment

I would like to see the GBD authors revisit the GBD in the same way.

Expand full comment

What's a GBD?

Expand full comment
author

Great Barrington Declaration.

Expand full comment

Really well said, thank you. All I had was instinct that something was very wrong in 2020. Hysteria ,fear, panic and exaggeration on steroids were ever present from the beginning. Many people lost their lives to this manufactured event and I find this intolerable.

Expand full comment
author
Feb 1Liked by Martin Neil

Here's a note I sent to Jonathan and Jessica last week. Jonathan then forwarded it to Nick.

"Nick Hudson posted this tweet which I think is quite good:

https://twitter.com/NickHudsonCT/status/1749865747608694845

Here comes the "however."

What is missing from his analysis and much of the overall (largely excellent) analysis these past few months, which has served to further dismantle the notion of "pandemic", is pointing out/identifying the individuals and institutions that "ran the Covid show" and their checkered histories.

One could almost ignore virtually all of the prima facie evidence (though not advised) and simply point out that it's the exact same cast of characters from the last few decades of pandemic carpetbaggers that launched and ran the Covid scam and that should be enough.

Anyone who legitimately believes that proven pathological liars like Drosten, Ferguson, Gottlieb, Gates, Fauci, etc. and proven kleptocratic institutions such as Wellcome Trust, JHU, Gates Foundation, NIH, CDC, Imperial College etc., all of a sudden in 2020 became purveyors of truth, and honest caretakers of public well-being is deluding themselves or doesn't have a contextual understanding from which to work from.

At a certain point too much attention to the details can obfuscate these fundamental historical realities."

Expand full comment

There most certainly is a BioWeapon but it ain't the so called virus.

Expand full comment

Yup. The shots are the real gain of function continuing human experiment.

Expand full comment

I don't think you can conclude from the re-examined paper that "there is no lab leak, no unique viral pathogen, no China Virus, no bioweapon". They could have been present. (For example, recent evidence points to research grants for making a virus with SARs-CoV-2's genetic structure.) The re-examined paper just seems to be saying there is too much uncertainty and disagreement in definitions at the time to support making policy.

However there was a pandemic - of the mind. Memes are viral, and can evoke emotions and provoke behaviour. Government policies were fueled in part by a campaign of fearmongering. Other evidence, out of scope for the paper, points to BigPharma and the Military-Industrial Complex planning for this sort of event (e.g. "201").

Fraud indeed, with real harms.

Expand full comment

I'm not concluding that from this paper I'm concluding that from a few thousand hours of research covering all facets of this topic over the past 3+ years in addition to covering these frauds for twenty years preceding the Covid operation.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

Thanks for the update. I think you did quite well with the data you had available. I tell you who didn't do well with the data THEY had available (and still don't)...the CDC and other health authorities.

Expand full comment

The CDC lies and hides. It's their business model.

Expand full comment
Jan 30·edited Jan 30Liked by Martin Neil

As I post and write all the time, this is their key Maxim or m.o.: "Never investigate that which you don't want to confirm."

They didn't want to "confirm" that this virus had already spread around the world by November 2019. If they did confirm this, they would also be confirming that this virus was NOT "deadly."

Expand full comment

Iatrogenic deaths.

Clotshot deaths.

democide.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Martin Neil, Norman Fenton

Well done, Gentlemen.

Regarding risk, two related questions I've had for a long time are these:

1) By how much did SARS-CoV-2 infection increase the risk of hospitalization and death, divorced from iatrogenic harms, bias in cause of death attribution, etc. - and for whom?

2) When did those risks "begin"? How do we know/are we sure?

Expand full comment

I am SURE that many Americans were hospitalized with severe Covid before official Covid arrived in our country (supposedly around Jan. 19, 2020).

Here's a feature story I wrote (published by uncoverDC.com) on the near-fatal case of Tim McCain of Sylacauga, Alabama. Tim, who developed Covid symptoms in December 2019, was in ICU for 24 days and nearly died several times. He later tested positive for antibodies as did his wife, who has tested positive at least 3 times.

I don't think Tim was the only patient in America who was hospitalized with severe Covid. Note that the hospital wasn't talking about his non-case (although the director of ICU nursing later posted in a personal Facebook message that Tim "definitely' had Covid).

https://www.uncoverdc.com/2020/06/25/an-alabama-man-nearly-died-from-covid-19-the-first-week-in-january/

Expand full comment

Here's a perhaps "official" Covid death that happened in early January, involving a decedent who contracted Covid in December 2019. A doctor later changed her death certificate to cite Covid as the cause of death. Of course, this doctor isn't talking about why he did this.

This is from the Mercury News. One suspects there's a lot more unreported Covid deaths. So people WERE dying from Covid before Covid was supposed to be in America. Still, I don't think the number of these deaths was great enough to move, or show up on, any "all-cause death" graphs.

But we also don't know how many people really died from "early" (unreported or covered up) Covid.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/22/exclusive-first-u-s-covid-deaths-came-earlier-and-in-different-places-than-previously-thought/

Expand full comment

The only thing I'm sure of is that the U.S. government is telling exactly truths about any of this.

It sounds like Tim was hospitalized with severe respiratory illness/pneumonia and tested positive for flu. Do you know if he was tested for any bacteria or other agents?

Expand full comment

I don't know, Jessica. I doubt it. His positive flu test was about a week before his condition rapidly worsened. His first flu-like symptoms were Dec. 26th. At 3 a.m. on Jan. 3rd, he was in critical condition and the doctors at his local hospital rushed him to Birmingham in an ambulance. The doctor told his wife that he didn't know if he'd survive until he reached the hospital. Once in B'ham, his doctors immediately put him on ECMO, which his wife thinks saved his life (not the ventilator).

Expand full comment

I'm glad he recovered and wasn't maltreated.

I just checked WONDER for Alabama hospital inpatient respiratory disease deaths for his age group and sex, 2009-2020. Numbers are low, obviously, ranging from 12 to 34, with 34 being in 2018. His case sounds within range as a bad case of pneumonia/ARDS. It was unusual for him, because he hadn't experienced it before. I hope the positive flu test didn't direct the doctor from treating his symptoms. I can't tell from the article. (Could me I missed it.)

I'm not minimizing his illness, whatever the causes. Pneumonia can be very serious, as is sepsis. Any sedatives used could also have deleterious effects.

The antibody test result is neither here nor there for me. My understanding is that such tests for [what we call] "seasonal" agents don't make a lot of sense.

Expand full comment

He developed pneumonia, ARDS and Sepsis so all of those clinical markers match his medical history. But I still believe he had Covid because he tested positive on an ELISA antibody test. Further bolstering the fact that test wasn't a "false negative" is the fact his wife, who also became sick at the same time as him, also tested positive for antibodies. Tim never got another antibody test, but his wife got at least two more (she might have had another by now). All three tests were positive and her titre levels were still high two years after she was sick. What are the odds four Covid antibody tests were wrong?

I also think it's interesting their roommate was as sick as he'd ever been in his life at the exact same time. However, Ben Calfee never got an antibody test. I'd be stunned if such a test wouldn't be positive for Covid antibodies too. He'd probably test positive today just like I'm sure Tim and Brandie still are.

And why did their two teenage daughters test negative for Covid antibodies? They also had much milder symptoms.

Expand full comment

Clinical markers of....?

Arguably, even if the antibody test result is indicative of something, it doesn't mean it had anything to do with that illness, right?

They both could've been sick with whatever.

What are the odds that antibody tests for any coronavirus or influenza mean anything?

Expand full comment

Your discussion is very interesting. If I may be presumptuous enough to suggest you consider in any future work, "Consider the source". I have been following Fauxi for almost 40 years and he truly is the embodiment of "if his lips are moving, he is lying". Fauxi's AIDS lies, so brilliantly destroyed by the great Peter Duesberg, were legend long before the Covid Scam. As an example, Fauxi lied about heterosexual spread of AIDS for almost a decade. It is not a small thing to say is he fundamentally changed sexual relations by introducing the fear of AIDS. He intentionally did it to build massive support to finance his evil empire which expanded exponentially with the AIDS scam. He may have lied about the risks of heterosexual sex by factors of 1000, a monstrous lie, much like teenage Covid risks. When it didn't matter, Fauxi admitted he was wrong on that great forum for scientific debate, Oprah.

While this may be weak statistics, in law you can discount any information from someone who is a proven liar. Maybe we can create the Fauxian prior based on the Fauxi Factor:

Fauxi Factor = Frequency of lies times the Magnitude of the impact

Keep up the great work.

Expand full comment

A man only becomes a failure when they refuse to correct mistakes they can easily fix.

Expand full comment
Jan 31Liked by Norman Fenton

All I can add-being a dimwit when it comes to graphs and stats etc-is that 2 friends, dedicated followers of lockdowns, masks and the jabberwocky-have been afflicted by a variety of infections in the past 12 months or so; the younger one is struggling with a chest infection ,treated with antibiotics, but not tested for bacterial versus viral origin; last year,she had a severe bout of flu; the older friend developed severe shingles earlier this year, and caught the lurgy last year while on holiday in NZ: at least, the tests were positive.

These 2 would accept more jabs and still have not questioned the rationale for the official GBH imposed on us.

However, I'm gleefully noting the unravelling of the draconian nonsense inflicted by High Priestess Sturgeon and her commissars : burner phones, lost Whatsapp chats, Devi Sridhar's belated admission that Zero Covid was not-a good-idea:( many of us plebs could have told her so); and finally, the opportunity to employ lockdown intrusions to bolster the case for independence.

Expand full comment

My understanding is antibodies have also been debunked, or at least there is no controlled scientific experiment proving that antibodies are specific to a unique disease. In short there is no way to test for "covid" nor any "virus".

Expand full comment

Thinking further about the Fauxian prior based on the Fauxi, I realized I left out a critical, experimentally important component which I humbly submit for consideration:

Modified Fauxi Factor = Frequency of lies times the Magnitude of the impact times (Mainstream Media appearances) to the power of S

Where S = the number of major Scams Fauxi has run

FYI …S will be increasing soon

Expand full comment

Exponential Faucification

Expand full comment
Jan 31Liked by Norman Fenton

Yes, we can only work with the limited data available, which remains a problem until now due to Public Health Authorities hiding behind "individual record confidentiality" and, of course, once a death Certificate has been incorrectly issued, there is no going back.

The survival rate of 99.7% seems entirely realistic based on this and other data but again, as you correctly note, this is an overall figure not representative of each age cohort. In fact, it seems that for the age cohort below 70, there is a survival rate of 99.95%. This again reflects not only the weaaker immune response in older patients but also the iatrogenic effects of the response, particularly pronounced in older cohorts.

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Martin Neil

A lovely article, agree until the last paragraph. The last 3 bullet points have been chewed over in all sorts of other places, but are not supported by the analysis in this article. The counter factuals for the various contributions of altered medical care, eg what was "denial of appropriate medical care" and what would have been the outcomes otherwise, are essentially little more than educated guesses,

Expand full comment

No. The disease was spread far and wide long before the deaths rolled up in Spring 2020. The article covers this.

What changed? Panic, masks, removal of the elderly from their loved ones, suppression of helpful drugs, promotion of sedative and damaging drugs, which has been written up elsewhere on this very substack. Perhaps this is why the authors include this correct analysis in the concluding three bullet points.

Expand full comment

You cannot prove counter factuals. You can estimate and model (horror!!!) and argue, but the new analysis here adds nothing to this speculation.

Expand full comment

*Counterfactuals*. You mean *facts*, there is no need to make up a word. So, yes, as facts go, they are used as evidence to support or prove the cause of outcomes. If the main narrative orchestrated a false-cause fallacy as to cause of death, *facts* are used to debunk it, and then can also be used to support a correct cause.

Remember, the selling of snow shovels in late winter is not the reason why there are no blizzards for the following 9 months. *Spring, Summer, and Autumn* are not *counterfactuals*: they are reality.

Expand full comment

I think you will find counter factuals is a well established and understood concept

Expand full comment

Yes, and you are misappropriating its use in this context. The original story is FALSE. Thus, the iatrogenic nature of the facts are not countering *facts.* They are exposing the original story as lies. Again, counterfactuals only coexist with other facts. Not falsehoods. Hope you’ve got it now.

Expand full comment

Just in case you are still under the illlusion that counterfactual is a concept and word I invented myself, there is a succint mention of the concepts in Prof Fenton’s video on machine learning (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7vSiWRasxY) that you might find useful. For a fuller treatment of the ladder of causation, see Judea Pearl’s book The Book of Why. As Prof Fenton mentions, counterfactuals are in the realm of imagining. It is quite simple really, facts deal with the past, counterfactuals deal with speculation about the future; exactly the structure of the original post.

Expand full comment

Well clearly we do not agree on this topic. The arguments contained in the original post concern the past and the data. I assume you are not saying these facts presented in the original post are false? The alternative outcomes that might have happened if alternative policies were followed, as suggested in the final sentences, are counterfactuals. This is the third of the evidence sequence. Your argument seems to be that if the past facts are false, any alternative policies must be true. This is clearly nonsense

Expand full comment

.

I’ve Had Eight Shots

And I Want More !

The More Bizarre The Chemicals

The Better.

.

Expand full comment

What do you think about recent comments made by Paul Kelly, the Chief Medical Officer in Australia? See this transcript: https://www.health.gov.au/news/chief-medical-officer-professor-paul-kellys-interview-on-abc-news-breakfast-on-12-january-2024

Quoting Paul Kelly from the article:

KELLY: "I think I'm right in saying JN1 is a sub-sub-sub-sub variant of Omicron. So it's related to other previous ones that your listeners would have heard about. It's been labelled a variant of interest though by the World Health Organisation on the 20th of December. And so we are interested, we are monitoring, and we have seen in Australia over quite a rapid period, you know, since early December that that new strain has- is now the dominant strain in Australia, as has occurred in many other countries. As you said in your introduction, there's no evidence, though, that it's related to more severe disease. And when you look at the wave we're having now, which is substantial- you know, I know people that have COVID, I'm sure you and many of your listeners would also know people. So that's a sign that COVID is circulating in the community. But there's really been no evidence of an increased rate of death, even and including in aged care, and ICU rates remain relatively stable. So whilst there's a lot of cases, and yes, it has had an effect on hospitalisation as you mentioned, particularly in the eastern states, there is evidence to show that this wave is less severe than previous waves, and this is the way that we're going to see COVID now and into the future."

AND

KELLY: "...the hospitalisation- remember that as people come into hospital, they are tested. You know, I had to have some- something- a small procedure in November. And, you know, I was tested twice. I wasn't there because of COVID and ended up being negative, but- so some people that come into hospital are tested, but they're not there due to their COVID, if that makes sense. But that aside, there are people that are sick from this virus as has been the case all throughout. But we're not seeing the kind of, you know, huge disruption to the community or to health services, or that very, you know, massive severe disease and death that we were seeing earlier in the pandemic. And that's mainly due to hybrid immunity that we have at the moment from previous infection, but crucially, from our high vaccination rates."

AND

KELLY: ...And you mentioned that the vaccination rates could be improved and that they are being improved in the two weeks before Christmas, and that this will be in the- in our monthly report nationally will be published today demonstrates that that rate of vaccine did increase, particularly in older people and including in aged care. So I think that's heading in the right direction, and I would encourage anyone listening that is eligible for a booster to go and get one.

ORITI: Kenny, I want to ask you about that now. Let's turn our attention to the boosters. A month ago, we actually reported on this story. Two new boosters became available for Australians. Are you confident they're effective against J.N1?

KELLY: Yes, they are effective against J.N1 and all other variants that are currently circulating. So this was a shift in the vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna, reflecting the change in the virus over recent- over the last year. Of course, you can't do that on a real time basis like we do with flu vaccine. We do change that every year on the basis of what's circulating at the time. But then it takes time to make these vaccines. So these are XBB vaccines, which are closely related. They’re still Omicron and they still- the tests we've had both here in Australia and elsewhere is that it works against J.N1 as well.

ORITI: Are you concerned about the uptake though? I mentioned those figures in the introduction there. You did express some optimism a moment ago, but sent that message for people to go and get their boosters. I mean, it's clear a lot of people are not. A lot of people say: I've had my three or my four. That's it, I'm done for now. Are you concerned about that, that our immunity will wane over time? And we're going to continue to see more variants.

KELLY: Yeah. Look, I think one of the reasons why we're seeing a wave now and the previous waves is a waning of immunity. Of course, anyone that gets COVID now are protected from that- from the first three doses. And we have very high rates of three doses of vaccine, so they will get a boost to their immunity from this latest wave. I am concerned about the- those that are more vulnerable to severe disease – so that's people who are over the age of 75 in particular. And so the ATAGI advice at the moment is that they should be getting an extra dose, and that includes those in aged care.

The reality is, though, Thomas, as you've mentioned, that people are kind of sick of it. They feel that they're relatively protected. Their lived experience of COVID now is nowhere near as severe for most people compared with earlier in the in the pandemic, but it is still a serious issue for those that are more vulnerable to severe disease. And they definitely should be getting a vaccine along the lines of the ATAGI advice right now. There'll be more advice later in the year for the ongoing COVID vaccination program, and we'll obviously be talking about that at the appropriate time.

ORITI: Yeah, because I was going to ask, because the Department of Health website says: if you've already received your recommended doses in 2023, you don't need any other doses and should wait until new advice is provided. So you're saying we'll be expecting that advice later this year? Is that right?

KELLY: Yes. I think we certainly will want that before winter. I think we need to as similar- as countries like Australia in other parts of the world – the UK, thinking of the UK, US and Europe, for example – they're starting to get more into a pre-winter top up idea, if they’re- and there's a bit of different views there in different countries as to who should get a top up. But an annual booster or something like that might be where we go. But of course we'll be guided by the ATAGI advice, and they in turn will be guided by the best evidence at the time.

So for the moment, you're right. The people under the age of 75, there's no- if you've had a vaccine, and there's a lot that didn't during 2023, they shouldn't be getting another boost at this stage. But if you haven't had a 2023 booster, you can get one. For those over 75, it's highly recommended that they get a second booster, and for 65 to 74, that's a matter to discuss with your GP, including those with other high risk illnesses younger than that.

ORITI: We're almost out of time, but what if you're not? What if you're in your 30s, 40s? Happy, healthy – you're saying I could go and get the booster now. Is your advice they should? If they haven't got comorbidities and they're in a younger age group, should you just go out and get it?

KELLY: Look, I think that's a personal choice issue, if people- and it depends on how people are feeling about their own personal risk. In reality, people at that younger age group are not at- are no longer at risk of severe disease from- severe complications from COVID, really, in the majority. So it's a risk benefit equation people should consider. The other thing I'd say, though, Thomas, is those that are eligible in that higher risk group for antiviral treatments, they should have that plan with their GP, get a test and get a prescription. There was 93,000 people had antiviral treatment in December, which was the highest through the whole year. So that's encouraging that that’s- people are taking that advice. It also reflects what we were talking about before. That's a very key statistic we look at for what's actually happening in the community. It's sometimes more helpful than the actual- the voluntary information in that way.

END OF QUOTES

See full article here: https://www.health.gov.au/news/chief-medical-officer-professor-paul-kellys-interview-on-abc-news-breakfast-on-12-january-2024

Expand full comment
author

Kelly is clearly still deluded

Expand full comment

Paul Kelly is the Chief Medical Officer of Australia...

Under the Biosecurity Act 2015, Paul Kelly is also the Director of Human Biosecurity.

During the Covid 'emergency', Paul Kelly was the most powerful man in Australia. It was under his advice and the rest of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), that emergency measures were extended every three months, via then Health Minister Greg Hunt and the Governor General David Hurley.

Bear in mind that Australians were locked into Australia for two years, prevented from freely travelling overseas. We were also prevented from crossing internal borders. We were prisoners. Only politicians, movie and sports stars and other 'VIPs' were allowed to travel, the ordinary folk were incarcerated. Those who refused to submit to the Covid injections could be punished by losing their livelihoods, and participation in civil society.

In July 2021, I wrote to then Health Minister Greg Hunt, see: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/the-covid-emergency-and-medical-and-scientific-experts.pdf

Here's the summary of my questions to Greg Hunt:

- What is the definition of 'the emergency' you are using to justify the Governor General's declaration of a human biosecurity emergency under the Biosecurity Act 2015?

- What is the "specialist medical and epidemiological advice provided by the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) and the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer"? Has this been objectively and independently assessed? Please provide me with the AHPPC and Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer's advice, and the empirical evidence supporting this advice.

- Who are the members of the AHPPC and 'other experts' influencing Australia's taxpayer-funded response to covid-19 and the vaccine rollout? What are their names, role, qualifications/expertise, professional affiliations, and any conflicts of interest, these must be clearly listed on the AHPPC webpage.

I did not receive a response from Greg Hunt to my questions.

Some background on Greg Hunt - prior to entering the Australian Parliament in 2001, he was the Director of Global Strategy of the World Economic Forum 2000-2001 - responsible for the development of global strategy for the WEF, working directly to the CEO. See more in my recent substack post: “THEY FAKED A PANDEMIC TO INSTALL TOTALITARIANISM.” https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/they-faked-a-pandemic-to-install

Expand full comment
Jan 30Liked by Norman Fenton

"In conclusion we were naïve and too trusting of the authorities, but also at that time we were blind to the iatrogenic healthcare effects and the issues with PCR testing."

Perhaps, but it may be more accurate to amend the former part of that conclusion to read "In hindsight, we were too trusting of the authorities."

What was the alternative, hysterical admission to the conspiratorium?

You know best what conclusions to draw from such information as was slowly forced into the public sphere at the point of a solicitor's pen, but I require more evidence to blandly accept naivete as the reason for trusting these particular authorities.

The original pandemic response plan was measured and realistic. When it was abandoned in favor of..... what replaced it, the situation was not conducive to the sort of investigation that would have justified abandoning all trust.

That you might somehow think that you "should have known" would be natural and normal from any person with a conscience and sense of duty. So, fine; be regretful in your efforts to maintain intellectual and moral integrity, but don't be surprised when folks respond with "so you've got a conscience and 20-20 hindsight binoculars and think you should have done better? Perfectionists gonna perfectionist."

Sorry, prof, aim for perfection and be content with "very good indeed."

Thanks for the update and the link to the paper.

Oh, and thanks for sticking to the verifiable evidence. It's been quite the struggle for we onlookers to avoid haring off after the wildest of speculations being bruited about. A few such as yourself have been steadying influences, and the value of that is perhaps higher than you may realize.

Expand full comment

Boy, you are speaking my language. I've always thought we couldn't know the real IFR because nobody really knew how many people had contracted this virus pre "official Covid." That is, the denominator ("Covid cases" or "Covid infected") was completely unknown. And is still unknown.

I'm also suspicious of antibody results because I don't think these tests capture everyone who had a "prior infection." I also think public health agencies have concealed the number of people who tested positive for antibodies in the earliest antibody tests (which became widely-available only in late April 2020).

In my research, I have identified scores of Americans who had Covid symptoms in November and December 2019 and January 2020 who later tested positive for antibodies. What stands out to me about these results is that people in at least 17 states tested positive for antibodies. How could we have "isolated" cases or "no spread" if people in 17 far-flung states and communities all had Covid at roughly the same time?

These results tell me this virus was spreading person-to-person across the country. The virus didn't just fall out of the sky and infect a few people. Also, those people were infected by unknown people and they were spreading it to other people as well (those people just didn't get later antibody tests that we know of).

From this deductive-reasoning exercise, I conclude that tens of millions of people must have been infected before, say, March 1, 2020. My next question is: If this is true, where were all the excess all-cause deaths ... if the IFR was 1 percent, 3.4 percent or even 0.3 to 0.5 percent?

Nobody can find a spike in excess deaths in the world before March 1, 2020. FWIW, that includes China, supposedly the birth place of virus spread. In China, per China officials, fewer than 200 people in the entire country of 1.4 billion people had died "from Covid" by the end of January. Maybe China concealed Covid deaths, but even if there were, say, 2,000 Covid deaths by this date, the IFR would be miniscule - about the same as the flu, as the authors note.

Lastly, did the virus suddenly and belatedly become "lethal?" After the lockdowns to prevent spread? That also doesn't seem plausible to me.

Expand full comment

They did not want to "test" for antibodies. Hoffman LaRoche would have lost millions in not being able to do their licensing of the PCR. (Just for the authors here, when did you first run across the videos of the inventor of PCR?) I also wanted to see again if Hoffman LaRoche was at any time, on the Steering Committee of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security or any of the major PCR using companies. The Center has decided to hide that information from the public. My take, NOBODY should ever trust the pronouncements from that Bloomberg School of Public Health or their Center for Health Security nor any of theirs or other graduates holding a MPH.

Expand full comment

IMO officials intentionally delayed the roll-out of the PCR tests and the antibody tests ... to conceal evidence of early spread.

After some "positives" were coming back on the antibody tests, officials smeared those results as "junk" tests, stating that ALL of these results must be "false positives" (probably from "cross reactivity.")

For my part, I say ALL of these tests couldn't have been false positives. Did the antibody tests suddenly get better in, say, 2021? Also, was every one of the "negative" results accurate? That is, there apparently were no "false negative" antibody test results.

Expand full comment

I think these four articles (which I wrote) support the authors’ points:

This one is a thought exercise on what the IFR would be if 10 million Americans had been infected by, say, mid-February 2020. (Ten million cases would be less than 3 percent of the U.S. population)

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/covid-didnt-suddenly-become-deadly?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

-- What was the IFR on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (and Charles deGaulle and USS Kidd) naval vessels? My answer: Based on antibody results, It was approximately 1-in-4,200 cases.

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/exclusive-first-confirmed-cases-in?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

-- In this article, I present evidence that shows the first Covid cases did not occur in Wuhan, China in December or November 2019. Spread had already gone global weeks or months before this. At the end of this long article, I summarize the known (antibody-confirmed) cases around the world that happened/occurred before December 2019.

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/case-zeroes-in-world-did-not-come?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

-- It still boggles my mind that no public health expert in America ever considered the possibility that the big spike in Influenza Like Illness in America (that began earlier in November 2019) has never been considered as possible evidence this virus was already making millions of people sick in America - months before the Wuhan outbreak.

https://billricejr.substack.com/p/flu-season-of-2019-2020-was-one-of?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Expand full comment

For your citations I would ask for each case, what were the number of co-morbidities

Expand full comment

Co-morbidities usually apply to people who died "from" or "with" Covid. None of the people I've identified as "early cases" died. Tim McCain was over-weight (304 pounds when he got sick), which probably/perhaps explains his very severe case.

Also, Tim did test positive for flu and later tested positive for Covid antibodies. The fact he was co-infected with influenza and Covid might also explain his very severe case.

His wife, who also became sick and tested positive for antibodies (three times), also got a flu test when she was sick and her flu test was negative.

Expand full comment

Did you read Francis Collins blog post on quantum dots that can mimic viruses? Can antibodies be fooled into production? These are crazy times...

Expand full comment

Haven't read it. One thing I admit would pour cold water on my "early spread" hypothesis is if ALL the antibody results were bogus. I place great weight on the positive antibody tests we do know about. I agree that some of these might have been 'false positives," but I don't think all of them were. I also think that some of the "negative" results might have been positives - and I know some people don't even produce antibodies. So if we throw out some "positive" antibody results, that number would be offset by the infections that were probably missed or not correctly detected by the same tests.

As some know, studies have shown that detectable levels of antibodies fade in a matter of two or three months in some people. So WHEN someone got their antibody test might be very important to accurate seroprevalence studies. For example, if someone was infected in November 2019 and didn't get an antibody test until mid-May 2020 - and the result was "negative," I don't think this result definitively proves this person didn't have Covid in November.

The people I've identified who tested positive tended to have had more intense cases of Covid. I think people with mild or asymptomatic cases are more likely to NOT produce antibodies later. If this is true, those tests might be missing some/many "mild" cases?

Also, I'm a cynic. Look at the companies and labs who do the authorized antibody tests. Could these test producers (Abbot, Quest, etc.) have created tests that were more likely to produce smaller numbers or percentages of early cases? I don't rule out that possibility either.

Expand full comment

This isn't a criticism directed at anyone. I wish that we didn't talk about it (the virus) being 'covid' or Covid-19'....it makes it something 'special' or even 'novel' ( as the KC Keith with his questioning of a witness in the Hallett Inquiry was at great pains to establish). Yes, I know we've had Asian Flu, Russian flu, Swine flu but the common denominator is the term 'flu'. Fauci is on record saying that people weren't sufficiently scared of the 'flu ( too complacent for Big Pharma's ops, perhaps) so this flu like illness was specifically labelled 'Covid-19'..and people could 'own' that label in a way that wasn't 'just' the flu going around. All the fear propaganda and draconian restrictions plus the jabs were built on that term, 'Covid-19'. For me it was the virus, a flu like illness, circulating in 2020, which caused no greater impacts on mortality than other flu like illnesses, which circulate this country and others in different parts of the world.

A neighbour still talks about having had Covid-19 recently....it has become established as something worth talking about! A badge of belonging.

Expand full comment
author

I agree but many still think covid had something special.

Expand full comment

Yes, the best marketing plan designed, after analyzing why the swine flu, bird flu, ebola hoax, and I know that I am missing at least four more 'everyone is going to get sick and die' that were featured on the cover of Time Magazine. If the CDC sweeping 40k influenza deaths into the Wuhans column circa April 2020 wasn't enough for you to figure out the whole thing is pure fraud, you never will.

Expand full comment

A conspicuous curiosity is the fact that the "Covid-19" deaths follow the same age/risk stratification and seasonal curve of flu/pneumonia at the same time that flu inexplicably vanished from the face of the earth while all pneumonia deaths were suddenly called “Covid” using mass death certification fraud.

Expand full comment

See my comment above.

Expand full comment