5 Filters

The real stats. from #HART Health Advisory & Recovery Team

"Today, on the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Coronavirus Act, a British law granting the UK government emergency powers to handle the Covid-19 pandemic, a team of 41 highly qualified doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists, public health experts and other academics dubbing themselves HART (Health Advisory & Recovery Team) sent a 55-page document to the UK government.

The document, called Covid-19 Response, was compiled to evaluate the measures that had been taken by the government over the past 12 months to combat the virus.

The ostensible reason for the document was the following: ā€˜As we approach the milestone of the expiry of the Coronavirus Act, all of us need to be well informed of the latest scientific data around COVID-19.ā€™

Wherever you live in the world, the information in this document - and the scientific references included in it ā€“ are well worth plowing through.

Much of the information is hugely revelatory about Covid and whether our understanding of, and various responses to, the virus have actually worked.

Revelation No 1: The incidence of Covid is only one-quarter of what has been reported

One big revelation is that the case numbers being bandied about every day on the nightly news may not be remotely accurate.

As Iā€™ve written about before, the PCR test, mainly used to diagnose Covid, works by taking a nasal sample from someone and amplifying the results multiple times.

The higher the amplification, the less accurate the test is.

In fact, after modeling based on the average amplification rates, the researchers have concluded that the incidence of infections is being overstated fourfold.

That means that instead of 4.3 million cases of Covid in the UK, the total number of cases are closer to 1 million. In America, instead of 30 million cases, the total number of infections is closer to 7.5 million.

Thatā€™s still a lot of cases, but nowhere near the number of cases of flu in a bad year. In 2018-9, for instance, America suffered an estimated 35 million cases of ordinary flu.

And if 3 out of every 4 people who test positive for Covid donā€™t have it, a percentage of those who supposedly died from Covid are likely to have died from other causes.

Revelation number 2: lockdown may not have done any good

Lockdown does not appear to have saved lives. Joel Smalley, a quantitative data analyst, said that since most countries had imposed lockdowns, it was difficult to study whether it had worked or not ā€“ except in two instances.

When comparing deaths between Sweden, which did not lock down, with the UK, which imposed lockdown for about seven months of the past year, Sweden fared better than the UK in terms of death rates per capita.

Now Sweden has many similarities to the UK, but of course a smaller population.

But the researchers also compared the incidence of Covid between North Dakota (which imposed restrictions) and neighboring South Dakota (which did not).

The result? Very little difference in the death toll.

ā€˜It is understandable, due to the immense harms that lockdowns have inflicted, societally, economically, psychologically, that there is a desire for it not to have been all for nothing. Unfortunately, this just doesnā€™t show up in the data,ā€™ wrote Smalley. ā€˜We may have to accept this inconvenient truth, particularly if it saves us from employing the same erroneous logic in the future.ā€™

What lockdown did do, says HART, was to cause at least 20,000 excess deaths in Britain among people who needed health care, such as cancer patients, and didnā€™t receive it in a timely fashion because they were being urged to stay home.

Revelation No 3: there are promising treatments shown to save lives

Besides successful treatment protocols like MATH+ created by a team of critical care specialists, whom Iā€™ve written about before, the report listed a number of promising treatment options that had been used on patients, such as vitamin D, certain basic steroids, and the anti-virals hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin when used in combination with vitamins and other drugs.

In one published study (Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2020; 21: 611-614) a team of Texas doctors had an amazing success rate with 922 highly vulnerable patients, many with cardiovascular disease at risk of death from Covid.

The patients remained at home and were treated with telemedicine. The doctors gave them two rounds of zinc, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin as anti-virals, plus one course of an antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) and inhaled budesonide (inhaled steroid to open airways) and/or an intramuscular dexamethasone (another steroid).

The 320 patients who got very severe Covid were asked to come into the clinics and were given urgent administration of albuterol nebulizer (a beta agonist drug), inhaled budesonide, plus supplemental infused B vitamins (thiamine 500 mg, folic acid 1 gram, vitamin B12 1 mg) and magnesium sulfate 4 grams.

Of those 320, only six had to go to the hospital and only one died.

And all 922 people were very sick patients.

Other studies show that ivermectin has an 89 percent success rate when used as preventive medicine and 79 percent success in preventing Covid in someone exposed to the virus.

This is only a quick smattering of the revelations in this document. There are many more about our attempts to deal with the virus, which Iā€™ll share next week.

For now, though, this group of brave individuals can help us all to take heart. Though nasty, the virus may not be quite as bad as we thought, and the solutions much simpler than we realize." https://lynnemctaggart.com/taking-hart-from-the-covid-statistics/?fbclid=IwAR0JVDPATV6X8zY4UAuucQrI-_SFYMSIEpC63HHJXU3DhZ-RHe0Sv1iNdTI

2 Likes

thanks @GKH it looks like a long read but I noticed malcolm kendrick is one of the 41 and I did enjoy his presentation here https://www.protectinghealthandautonomyinthe21stcentury.com/conference-live

ā€œmalcolm kendrick, manipulating science to endorse policy and market productsā€
so Iā€™ll see if any of it makes sense.

cheers

The sections work quite well as discrete articles based on the handful Iā€™ve read so far, mostly 2-4pp.

1 Like

Interesting paper - thanks for posting. Iā€™m keen to read through several of the chapters, but I can already tell you that the chapter on ā€œMortality data and COVID-19ā€ by Joel Smalley, MBA, is pretty poor.

Iā€™ll keep reading through the others though. Iā€™m curious how the number of cases can be apparently overestimated to such a high degree and yet the mortality is seemingly not questioned. Is Covid 4x more deadly than currently thought? I would suspect notā€¦ I wonder what they say.

Anyway as I said, lots to read, thanks for posting!

Anyone got alternative links for the HART link in this thread? Canā€™t get it to work. The ā€˜Taking HARTā€™ link comes up, but none of the internal videos will play.

What videos do you mean, RG? I donā€™t see anyā€¦ All I see is a PDF of the HART paper, and the article by Lynn McTaggart.

Am I missing something?

EDIT - sorry, I see them now. Was it the link that @CJ1 posted? If I click on the videos there, they seem to workā€¦

Itā€™s the link that CJ1 posted. Lots of video presentations offered there. but none of them seem to work. They pretend to start, then nothing happens.

Iā€™ll try it on something other than Safari.That often seems to be coy about playing videos.

Iā€™ve tried a few now, and they seem to work. Theres a short delay as they get started then theyā€™re off and runningā€¦

Hi all. I think itā€™s very useful as yet another lengthy list of people with professional qualifications dissenting strongly with some or all of the prevailing narrative. This dissent is being buried in mainstream discourse.

Iā€™d agree the Smalley section reads like commentary based on opinion, crying out for substantiation. Weā€™ve all seen many Britain and Sweden-type comparisons - this is a promising area but the specific policies of the regions being compared, especially the whats and whens, need to be nailed down. By the time you do that the reader has moved on to something more interestingā€¦ :slight_smile:
The reference to hospital-acquired Covid is interesting - he did give a reference study for that
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.02.21252734v2, a study which seems to show much or most of Covid is acquired in hospital. The presence of such a large overlooked factor would also explain why lesser measures are so frustratingly ineffective. A biggie, if confirmed.

Pontius: " Iā€™m curious how the number of cases can be apparently overestimated to such a high degree and yet the mortality is seemingly not questioned. Is Covid 4x more deadly than currently thought? I would suspect not"

I think this boils down to a question of definition - when is ā€˜Covidā€™ defined? If PCRā€™s overestimate ā€˜diseaseā€™ in the traditional sense the disease measured traditionally would be more ā€˜deadlyā€™ - but if only a fifth of those testing positive actually have the disease, and the world is using the same test, it comes to the same thing - the PCR having succeeded mainly in identifying ā€˜possiblesā€™, rather than confirming the pathogen in people with symptoms, as it was designed to do. If the ā€˜deadlyā€™ were allowed to be more conditional the picture would be less divisive; people could say things like eg ā€œItā€™s miles more deadly than the flu for older people with co-morbidities but less dangerous for children and about the same as flu for people in the middleā€ without causing offence. (I would add ā€˜If untreatedā€™, keeping the divide up :slight_smile: ā€¦)

2 Likes

Yeah and still stinking of eugenicsā€¦

The point I was making was around the fatality rate of Covid. If we accept that ā€œxā€ people died but decide that the pool of infected people was very much smaller than initially thought, then the fatality rate of Covid is correspondingly much higher for those who really did get it.

That makes it a much more deadly disease than first thoughtā€¦ Personally I donā€™t think this is the case. I donā€™t think the numbers of cases were very highly overestimated, as I said a number of times before.

Well said, totally agree :slight_smile:

Cheers

So Iā€™ve read through a couple more chapters now, and am a bit disappointed to be honest. In the ā€œZero Covid - an impossible dreamā€ they more or less seem to ignore countries that have taken a somewhat successful approach to track, trace and isolate, simply saying that itā€™s a bad use of economic resources (pfft - compared to what?) and confuse government cronyism with an actual trace, trace and isolate system. The author goes on to say:

No respiratory virus has ever been eliminated

Hmmmā€¦ really? I wonder what happened to the original flavour Sars-Cov? The virus most similar to our current one. Last I checked it wasā€¦errā€¦ eliminated. If we had taken appropriate action at the appropriate time, I believe we at least had a chance to eliminate Sars-Cov-2 the ā€œzoonoticā€™s revengeā€ as well. There is at least some evidence to suggest that the way this spreads is different enough to the flu that we might have been able to end it, had we tried early on, instead of the suicidal herd immunity strategy BoJo preferred.

I give that chapter 2/10 because 0/10 seems harsh.

I also read through the bombshell 80% false positive chapter ā€œThe ONS Infection Survey a missed opportunity in predicting outbreaksā€. Early on they say that

We seem to be taken by surprise time and again with alarms sounding only when ICUs are overrun

What a load of nonsense. Really. The alarms were sounding all over the place, and BoJo steadfastly refused to take any timely action. Ever. It took the threat of resignation of both Whitty and Vallance in October to force him to act. Indy sage was pleading with the government that ICUs would soon reach capacity and start overflowing. The authors of this chapter are simply wrong. There were weeks of warning - ample time for the idiot at No 10 to act.

More importantly, I tried looking into their statement that

On the ONS infecton survey around 80% of current posititives are Ct above 25ā€¦

but cannot find it anywhere in the paper they reference. Does anyone have any other source for this claim? Iā€™m curious as to where it comes from, and how much that Ct number has evolved over time. If anyone can find the source of this claim, Iā€™d be interested to see it. Especially as it is now being quoted elsewhere using this chapter as the source.

They then propose a model to act as an early warning sign for when infections and hospitalisations are rising (they could just talk to Indy sageā€¦) and this directly contradicts the model by Joel Smalley, MBA. They should have talked to each other.

There are a couple of good things in this chapter, but the poor referencing and outright lying sort of lowers the quality. Iā€™d give it 4/10.

Finally I checked out the chapter on asymptomatic spread. In general it was ok, but compared to the quality of the others I read it was outstanding. Overall it seemed to be quite a lot of supposition, with little real data to support any actual conclusion. 6/10

Iā€™ve not looked at the chapters on treatment etc. and I hope they are better. But the chapters Iā€™ve read so far are really quite badā€¦ Especially for professionals offering their professional judgement to the government.

Iā€™ll keep ploughing through them as I can. Iā€™m interested to hear any opinions that others have as they read through the chapters.

PP

I hope you can access the videos in
https://www.protectinghealthandautonomyinthe21stcentury.com/conference-live
I had safari issues but mainly when the family were all surfing I think it was my reception then!
I have only watched a few but I liked:
jacob puliyel, denis rancourt, malcolm kendrick which I mentioned above, rodney dietert ( on the microbiome).
l will get round to mercola, bigtree, kaufman and wakefield asap.
Surprisingly dolores cahill was incomprehensible, but maybe thatā€™s my poor science background.

the Hart papers posted by GKH are onthe reading list! Iā€™m so enthralled with Viktor Schauberger at the moment!

cheers

Schauberger always fascinating. Always a lot of mysticism mixed in with his insights, though. And since Iā€™m not quite on his wavelength with that field, Iā€™m often mystified about why he thinks a particular idea is demonstrably so. His quality, though, makes him worth time to study. On the side of Gaia and the angels! :slight_smile:

Having found a good link to the conference now, I watched Malcolm Kendrickā€™s presentation, and I have to say he underlines - with masses of detailed documentation presented, and much more linked - why Iā€™m so totally sceptical of everything weā€™re being told at present. We seem to have the misfortune of living in a time when deceit, corruption, and utter disregard for factual, objective reality is commonplace, whenever it suits the agendas of the perpetrators of this wrong-headedness. The examples Malcolm presents are scarifying!

And as he points out, whilst money-racketeering - more exactly WealthPowerStatus-racketeering - is indeed one big motivation, there are others, mainly to do with the comforting and stroking of emotions, and the defending of deeply-invested egotistical positions.

This is why Iā€™m so completely sceptical about the official narrative about whatā€™s really going on - which is utter bollocks. We know that widespread deceit, irrationality and blatant propaganda are being hosed out. You have to be dead asleep - or deep in the TDS/propaganda mesmeric trance - to not see all that. So the unavoidable question is - why? Why is so much effort being poured into the deceiving and rail-roading of the common citizens? Do the deceivers even believe their bullshit themselves. Many do, I wouldnā€™t be surprised; another doublethunk layer of complicationā€¦

And itā€™s observing the blanket universality of this effort to mislead at the moment which makes me say so emphatically that we really canā€™t trust any ā€˜factā€™ to be established so firmly that we can spring solid conclusions from it. We really canā€™t trust anything at all that weā€™re being told right now. Thatā€™s why direct personal observation becomes so paramount; that and a cultivated intuitive, odds-calculating, truth-sussing capacity.

That, incidentally, is why I listen to P seriously when he says heā€™s witnessed illness and death amongst his circle, and he witnesses directly testimony from medical professionals about the direness of the situation - at least in their neck of the woods; not so much here thoughā€¦ But if youā€™re catching that degree of direct experience, then it makes sense to conclude that there really is something desperately bad happening, of the pandemic kind. Maybe it is substantively worse than a bad flu year. Maybeā€¦

For myself, I remain baffled. I donā€™t know what to think with any settled certainty. I know what I suspect, strongly. But that doesnā€™t qualify as a surety of rightness so strong that you can stake your life - and your nearest and dearestā€™s lives - on it.

Iā€™m stuck with the deeply emotionally-unsatisfying requirement to stay open-mindedly sceptical, and to wait and see. :confused:

1 Like

Good recommendation there RG. Iā€™ll have a watch of Kendrick a bit later on.

Cheers

Rhis I think youā€™ve posted this on the wrong threadā€¦!