JayTe
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The science of the coronavirus is not disputed. It is well documented and openly admitted:
- Most people won’t get the virus.
- Most of the people who get it won’t display symptoms.
- Most of the people who display symptoms will only be mildly sick.
- Most of the people with severe symptoms will never be critically ill.
- And most of the people who get critically ill will survive.
This is borne out by the numerous serological studies which show, again and again, that the infection fatality ratio is on par with flu.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Absolutely, I agree.
Great news! So all those 100,000 dead US citizens are actually asleep, holding their breath in coffins. When can they go home?
I gave this article a one-star rating, because it presumes that, as its latest cited study (by the libertarian-billionaire-funded John Ioannidis) named its key variable “seroprevalence, i.e. how many people in population samples have developed antibodies for the virus,” is a fair measure of whether or not a person has the Covid-19 virus. In other words: it ASSUMES that ALL (100% of) Covid-19 infected individuals have already developed antibodies against the infection-agent, Covid-19. How stupid is that?
Here is the CDC’s statement:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html
“Antibody tests should not be used to diagnose COVID-19. To see if you are currently infected, you need a viral test.”
Eric,
I refer you to the following. I posted an article from the Ron Paul institute that summarises it.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
I guess you didn’t hear that the RT PCR test which you are calling a viral test, in field tests where they used a mathematical model to determine its accuracy, they have come up with 80% false positives. That is because it used to amplify small strands of RNA so it is not testing for a virus. In fact: – No virus isolated from any samples of any of the original patients (i.e. 7 of 9 sick individuals whose lung fluid samples were used in China) – What they did was reconstruct a sequence of RNA through a process of… Read more »
The sequences are quite unique. Have you actually had a look at what these sequences look like? I recommend it. It is code, like binary code, except that instead of zeros and ones you have four letters. The combination of the letters and the length of the string make it unique. Just like a piece of writing. This short segment of text I am writing here now is unique and distinctly so compared to all the other texts on the internet. The gene sequencing and identifying is basically how search engines work. You enter part of the text that is… Read more »
I would also add that if a person has not developed antibodies that either they have not had the disease or that their innate immune system resolved it quite quickly. So you are talking mostly about increasing the number of people who have had the disease but who have not died from it. It would make the mortality rate even lower! It is not stupid. Just math and common sense.
Not quite correct. If a person has been in contact with the virus but did not develop anti-bodies, then the viral load was either not sufficient to cause an infection and create anti-bodies – you could call their immune system resolving it quickly, although, really there wasn’t much to resolve. For corona viruses if there is no infection, even a mild one that does not cause [noticeable] symptoms, then there will be no anti-bodies. Or, as the other option, the infection has been too recent to develop enough anti-bodies that will show up in tests. That takes time. The final… Read more »