Rather well-qualified MD, with extensive experience working for Big Pharma, demolishes the ‘science’ and the politics behind the current ‘second wave’ panic-build propaganda; including the flat statement: “We now know that lockdown made no difference at all to the spread of the virus”! I go with the final line of his article too: “In the absence of vastly inflated case numbers arising from this test [PCR], the pandemic would be seen and felt to be almost over.”:
1 Like
PS: I can’t find how to classify this post as ‘Covid’. It doesn’t seem to appear in the categories list.
And for another laff-nugget drawn from the btls on the Off-G item that sparked this whole thread, a lovely freudian slip from Gates: “…the final solution…” SIC! That’s how stupid the psychopath is!
Sorry RG - I was playing around with the categories, and have set “covid” to be a sub-category of “health” (although maybe it should be a subcategory of “conspiracy”!). This might not be easily visible on your screen… I’ll reach out to you in a bit and we can see what to do about that.
Thanks @RhisiartGwilym, for a really interesting article. I have to say that I was initially very err… sceptical of the sceptics on this whole issue, but over time I am finding their arguments are getting stronger and stronger. This little site (5F), and the active stream of high-quality info is directly responsible for that. Thanks!
Overall, I found Yeadon’s points about pre-existing immunity, and the segmentation of the population by age to be very strong. He also made some very interesting points about the PCR test… and I feel like he knows what he’s talking about there.
Of course the ultimate proof of who is ultimately right will be if our hospitals start overflowing in the next couple of months, but I am gradually coming to the opinion that this (thankfully) is not likely. There are still some issues where both the official line and the sceptics seem to have glossed over some important things though. One such thing that bothers me slightly is the issue of, lets call them, hotspots.
In the modelling that is done, on both sides, there is a tendency to view large geographies as a whole, and this ends up “averaging out” effects over the country or region or state etc. From a high level view, this is perfectly reasonable, and is done all the time. It can lead us astray in our thinking though - here’s an example.
In London, where we had a direct stream of evidence based reporting from the likes of Dr Dan, I have no doubt at all that the pandemic hit hard there, and that a lot of people were infected. In Cambridgeshire, however, a short hop-skip away, there was no emergency. Talking to friends who work in Addenbrokes, there was no overwhelm, no piling up of bodies or other such markers of tragedy. That is true of many regions surrounding london - the eerie calm that many have reported from hospitals that were expected to be rushed off their feet.
Averaging out, we would then assume that maybe the virus has swept through these areas and that perhaps there would be no second wave. But averaging, in this case, gives us a false sense of security. As far as I can tell, there was no first wave yet in Cambs. It has yet to arrive. (An interesting point that I think is always forgotten is the question of why didn’t cambridge get hit, as the flow back and forth to london is massive? On this point I don’t agree with Yeadon - the only reason I can think of is that the lockdown stopped that flow, and therefore stopped the importation of cases into cambridge. Lockdown clearly had some benefit there, in my opinion).
So, even if there is no second wave in london (and other hard hit areas in the uk), there are many pockets that haven’t had a wave of any kind. Where I live, in particular, there is a large population of vulnerable people. These people are still at risk, should the number of cases rise to the point that they eventually spill over into our neck of the woods.
If, as I do believe, there has been no real first wave outside of some of the major urban areas, then the smaller urban and rural areas are still vulnerable to becoming what I called above, hotspots. These are much smaller populations, so the numbers of deaths should (again, hopefully) never reach the scale that we saw in April, but our ability to cope out in the less urban areas (hospital beds etc) are similarly smaller than london. That means there is still a chance of local hospitals being overwhelmed, leading to smaller scale versions of what happened in London.
So, although I agree with a lot of Yeadon’s points, I don’t think we should be complacent. Perhaps in hard hit areas (London, NYC, Madrid, Milan etc. etc.) there will be no second wave, the virus has not blown through everywhere yet. We still have the obligation and opportunity to protect the vulnerable in places where there was no significant first wave.
Ok - enough rambling. Thanks again for the article. I am finding all these high quality posts really useful.
Cheers
PP
I wonder if places like rural Cambs. have in fact had their waves of first infection, but attenuated enough to have kept it mild? If that has been happening, then we might scarcely notice it locally, if we’re lucky enough to be in the right place.
I mention this because, asking around, I get more and more anecdotes about people who, earlier this year, had a weird sort of ‘cold’, often a bit odd in various ways; and then something similar happened to me. And although I’m supposedly in the most acutely at-risk age group, for me too it was nothing much; just slight debility for three days (troughing vitC like a junky the while! 
)
I think that suggestion of different levels of exposure between city and country is probably spot on right. The key matter, though, might well be density of people: the less dense, the less intense - and stressing - the exposure to viral flows; not just this current proposed virus, but all the others floating amongst the air-plankton with which we air-breathers interact every moment of our breathing lives…
Then take into account the immunity status of individuals: average country-dweller versus average city-dweller. A rough answer to that query is that the out-of-town Brit has a distinct edge, simply because of the less stressed state of his/her life.
Just these two factors alone produce a complex paint-swirl of viral spread, and viral effect; and that’s by no means to throw in all the other factors likely to have significant effects. The hopelessness of the bulk of tests for yielding accurate stats about the evolving patterns, for example. The picture continues to unfold and clear.
Damn’ right, this sort of civil pondering and discussion teases out a better image of what’s really happening than other approaches. Vulcanism rools OK!
Incorrect, Captain. Vulcanism rules with a probability of 94.67128%.
I just started reading Twitter again yesterday, having not used it since 2011. (I only used it for a few months.) Wish me - and my pointy ears - good luck.
1 Like
I’m just coming to this late, and not yet read the article, but this doctor appears to be saying exactly what Didier Raoult has been saying for the last months, and for which he is currently being persecuted by mainstream French media and parliamentarians. astonishingly however, todays’ announcement by Patrick Valance predicted a death rate of 200 per 50,000 infections, following a month after that totally speculative peak rate. That is an incidence of 0.4%, which is EXACTLY the same percentage that Raoult estimated as the current death-infection rate of the virus, and is not significantly greater than for serious influenza outbreaks. Raoult also estimates the PCR test as 45% false positive, based on its over-sensitivity.
I don’t actually think the case numbers at the moment in the UK can be extrapolated as they are to make the case for another lock-down. I think they have grabbed the last opportunity to frighten the public, when numbers are actually starting to plateau.
THere was a case - debunked wrongly - of the “hockey stick” graph of CO2 and warming, which this resembles closely. Even the BBC today noted that there was a “slight rise” in cases today, and 11 deaths. Shamdemic.
Data: That’s 94.671283 recurring, Mr. Spock.
Spock: Quite right, Data. I rounded down to the nearest one hundred-thousandth of a percentage point, or we’d have been here all week.
Data: But we are here all week. It’s the Palladium.
1 Like
I heard recently that the “multiplier” used in the PCR test in the UK is 40, in France 45, and in fact, if after 10 there is no positive, you don’t have it! Can’t remember where I heard it so don’t ask me for a link.
If one accepts those figures, the 80 to 90% false positive looks real, even though the “test” is not a test as such.
Yes you remember correctly Pat - though I can’t cite where either. But in an analysis of the multiplication process in the PCR test, I read that a limit of 32 was sufficient, and to go beyond 35 was too sensitive. 40 is bad enough but 45 is totally off the scale!
What I’ve been more focused on in the UK recently is the admission in the scare about 50,000 CASES, that only 200 would die, oh as I said already above! Now today it’s shock horror and 6,000 cases, the most since May…
Meanwhile today in OZ we have a story about the “long-haulers” - with the little line that “24,000 have now recovered from CV19, with many still suffering symptoms and problems.” For the average listener “many” means about 2-5000, when this number may be less than 50, and less than 10 who had real conditions actually related to the Virus. The woman who still suffered 6 months later had had DVT and pneumonia “with” her COVID.
The big point of this here in Australia is to try to counteract the growing swell of people who see that getting the virus is no big deal, and better than living in fear. Just making them think there’s a chance of “brain fog” or some strange condition that comes on months afterwards is enough to make people avoid exposing themselves to a chance of catching it. Should they be so lucky!!
I’m sure I got the link below from @RhisiartGwilym , but don’t remember which thread. However, I think its worth reposting and there seems to me to be two key issues here. The first is:
" Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them"
And the second issue is:
"But the flaw in the test means …the probability a person testing positive has the virus is an absurdly low 6% "
If one accepts the arguments in the article, and Global Research is usually pretty solid, the false positive rate is 94%.
What is needed is the complicit and criminal media to come clean on “cases” which are not cases, and the “test” which is not a test.
Kit Knightly underlines yet more deceitful reporting on covid (with multiple exemplar links):
Thank you, Rhisiart, for the link to this article.
One of the comments to it was an eye-opener for me:
“This COVID, whatever it is, is the first communicable disease ever where EVERY DEATH is considered EVITABLE, and that creates a tremendous, unending tyranny.”
Good to ‘see’ you on here after many years of reading your observations on Media Lens, then with TLN before masks became the ed’s last stand.
Hi Bob. Thanks for the kind words. Hope to see you here regularly. As you can suss, we have a somewhat different ambiance here. I’m sure Keith could think of something bilious to say about it; but will he get the chance…?
And just in case anyone was really considering agreeing to a vaccine, countries with low flu vaccine rates have better Coroni outcomes! I get the “take your flu shot now” letter every year, and simply file it in bin99!
https://homevaccineeducationnetwork.com/flu-vaccine-and-covid-19
Me too. I file them next to my vitC stash, and use them for fire-lighters. (More than a quarter of a century now since my most recent brush with full-bore flu… )
“Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections.”
Anyone who has done actual tests on this, have reached the same conclusion.
What a pity that “the best scientific advice” (that money can buy!) cannot also agree with this, and we can all stop playing around with this 'flu and deal with it sensibly.
Ah but there are deadly serious purposes behind the playing around…