Archive for the ‘Viruses’ Category

Ten Million Screened Post-Lockdown in Wuhan. Prevalence of COVID-19 Very Low & No Evidence of Asymptomatic Transmission to Close Contacts

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Open Access

Published:

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China

Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5917 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.

Excerpts:

Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study.

The citywide nucleic acid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan recruited nearly 10 million people, and found no newly confirmed cases with COVID-19. The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.

Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious3, and might subsequently become symptomatic4. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-25. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.

_______________________

For more:  

Category:

research, Testing, Viruses

5G/EMF Webinar Dec. 3, 2020

https://myemfwebinar.com  Register Here

Blue-Opt-in-980x513-2

THURS DEC 3rd – 4PM ET

What we’ll talk about in this LIVE TRAINING

  • Why your neighbor’s Wifi is more dangerous than your own
  • The Cell Phone Towers that are reaching into your home
  • Your “Smart Mater” that emits MASSIVE amounts of EMF
  • The “dirty electricity” inside your walls
  • The new 5G technology that makes everything so much worse

_____________________

For more:  

 

 

 

Category:

Activism, Viruses

Japan: More Oct. Suicides Than COVID-19 Deaths. Mental Health ER Teen Visits Up 31%. Nearly 40% of Young Adults Thinking About Suicide

https://www.theblaze.com/news/japan-suicides-covid-deaths-pandemic

Japan had more suicides in October than all of the COVID-19 deaths during the pandemic

Is the cure more harmful than the disease?
Excerpts:

The CDC data found mental health-related emergency room visits increased 31 percent for children between the ages of 12 and 17 from March to October compared to the same period in 2019. There was also a 24 percent increase in emergency room visits for children between the ages of 5 and 11.

The increase comes as in-person school schedules have been dramatically reduced to stem the spread of COVID-19, limiting children’s interactions with peers and teachers. In addition, sports and extracurricular activities have been limited or canceled — conditions that could isolate children at home and causing anxiety, depression, lack of sleep and bad eating habits. (See link for article)

https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/more-young-adults-are-thinking-about-suicide-and-death-national-survey-finds/

More Young Adults Are Thinking About Suicide and Death, National Survey Finds

11-Nov-2020 by Rutgers University-New Brunswick
Newswise — Over a third (37%) of young Americans 18-24 report having thoughts of death and suicide and close to half (47%) show at least moderate symptoms of depression, according to a new nationwide survey by researchers from Harvard Medical School, Rutgers University–New Brunswick, Northeastern, Harvard and Northwestern universities.

Researchers say this is about ten times the rate observed in the general population prior to COVID-19.

The survey was published by The COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public’s Policy Preferences Across States.  (See link for article)

Category:

Activism, Psychological Aspects, Viruses

COVID Vaccine Monitoring Boards Riddled With Conflicts of Interest – FDA Doesn’t Care

ICAN Legal Update

 
As explained in a previous update, the boards overseeing the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials are supposed to be independent of pharmaceutical companies.  ICAN’s intensive investigation into these boards has revealed conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies that are shocking to the conscience.  ICAN, through its attorneys, has therefore filed a formal demand to remove these individuals from these boards.  
 
The FDA has now responded in a letter that fails to address any of these shocking conflicts and does not indicate it will take any action to rid these boards of pharmaceutical foot-soldiers.  This response is a shocking indictment of the conflict-ridden judgment that will be relied upon to assess the safety and efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccine.
 
The boards overseeing the COVID-19 vaccine trials are known as Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs).  As explained by pro-vaccine bioethicist, Art Caplan, regarding these DSMBs:
 
“They’re very powerful. They’re key guardians of science and safety and are as important if not more important than the FDA.”
 
There are four potential COVID-19 vaccines that are currently in Phase III clinical trials in the United States.  The clinical trials for three of these experimental vaccines – the ones to be sold by AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson – are being overseen by a DSMB created by Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (the NIAID DSMB).  The clinical trial for Pfizer’s experimental vaccine is being overseen by a different DSMB (the Pfizer DSMB). 
 
The members of these DSMBs were selected in secret.  They meet in secret.  Their identities are supposed to remain a secret.  This veil of secrecy has held with the exception of two members.  The identity of the chairperson of the NIAID DSMB, Dr. Richard Whitley, was mistakenly revealed by his university in an announcement that has been scrubbed from its website.  As for the Pfizer DSMB, made up of five individuals, one of its members, Dr. Kathryn Edwards, was apparently mistakenly revealed in a CBS article.
 
Selecting these individuals could only occur by turning a blind eye to their extremely troubling and blatant conflicts with pharmaceutical companies.  For example, ICAN’s investigation has revealed that one or both of these doctors have been, among other things, consultants for Gilead Science, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, Sequirus, La Roche, Allergan, Moderna, and Novartis;  advisors to Merck, Bionet, GSK, and Pfizer; paid speakers for Connaught, Lederle-Praxis, Wyeth Lederle, Glaxo, and Novartis; paid millions of dollars from these companies; and, on the tab of these companies, wined-and-dined to hundreds of meals and taken dozens of trips to exotic destinations.  Meaning, they have had duties to these companies as consultants and advisors, have been personally financially supported by them, and have been their mouthpieces to the public.  
 
Nonetheless, the American public is constantly assured by Dr. Fauci, Secretary Azar, and other public health officials that the DSMB members are independent of pharmaceutical companies.  For example, Dr. Fauci recently told the public that: “[P]eople need to understand that an independent body, the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, is beholden to no one, not to the president, not to the vaccine companies, not to the FDA. Not to me.” 
 
Only those wearing blinders could give Dr. Whitley and Dr. Edwards the label “independent.”  To head the “independent” DSMB, Dr. Fauci could have selected from a sea of potential scientists, many of whom have never consulted for a pharmaceutical company, were never on a pharmaceutical company speakers’ bureau, and have not had hundreds of meals and dozens of exotic trips paid for by pharmaceutical companies.  Instead he chose Dr. Whitely as its head.  Dr. Fauci makes a mockery of the term “independent” and calls into serious question his judgment and objectivity. 
 
ICAN, through its attorneys, headed by Aaron Siri, therefore sent a demand letter to the Director of HHS, Director of NIAID, Director of the FDA’s CBER, the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and POTUS.  This letter lays out in detail: the conflicts of interest that Dr. Whitley and Dr. Edwards have with pharmaceutical companies; the litany of lies told by Dr. Fauci and other public health officials regarding the supposed independence of the DSMBs; and demands that they:
 
“remove any member of the NIAID DSMB, including Dr. Whitley, who has ever been a consultant, has been on a speakers’ bureau, or has had meals or travel paid for by any pharmaceutical company.” 
 
The Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Peter Marks, has now responded in a letter that fails to address any of these conflicts, conceding the existence of these conflicts.  It also fails to provide any vow that the FDA will replace these individuals with those that are actually independent of pharmaceutical companies.  This response should send shivers down the spine of anyone considering the process by which the safety and efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccine will be evaluated. 
 
______________________
 
 
**Comment** 
 
And this right here is the reason we are in the fix we are in.  Conflicts of interest rage on unchallenged and unabated since Dr. Fauci started his kingship at NIAID over 35 years ago:  
 
This issue has been blatantly seen with Lyme/MSIDS for over 40 years:  
 

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Professors of Evidence Based Medicine on Danish Mask Study

**UPDATE, Nov. 2021**

Watch a series of brief videos where Tyson Gabriel, an industrial hygienist, safety engineer, and risk manager who trains doctors and has 20 years of experience implementing exposure prevention plans in industry, and is lead researcher for his team, examined each mask study on the CDC’s website.  Also see these reports.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-

By Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson

Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemask wearers

Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?

Yesterday marked the publication of a long-delayed trial in Denmark which hopes to answer that very question. The ‘Danmask-19 trial’ was conducted in the spring with over 6,000 participants, when the public were not being told to wear masks but other public health measures were in place. Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.  (See link for article)

Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford

______________________

**Comment**

In brief:

  • Half got 50 disposable surgical masks they were supposed to change after 8 hours.  Half didn’t wear masks.
  • One month later participants were tested with PCR, antibody, and lateral flow tests and compared with the control group.
  • No statistically significant difference was noted in infection rate between the two groups 

According to the article authors, these results reflect other reviews and nine other trials have found masks make little or no difference in infection rates.

More importantly there have only been 3 recent community trials showing a “total lack of interest from governments in pursuing evidence-based medicine.”  
And the only studies showing any effectiveness in masks have been ‘observational,’ (prone to recall bias) not with a randomized control group, unlike the Danish mask study.

I posted this before, but it bears repeating due to the fact there is 100% compliance in the military population:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/17/pro-mask-study-withdrawn-after-virus-spread-in-counties-analyzed-by-researchers/

Similarly to the campaign against HCQ treatment for COVID being maligned, the Danish mask study has also been maligned and picked apart in efforts of trying to downplay it:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/06/danish-newspaper-reveals-largest-study-on-masks-has-been-rejected-by-3-medical-journals/

Study here: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

More on the ineffectiveness of Masks:  

Detriments of mask wearing:

For a great review on all mask research:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/03/is-it-time-for-full-time-mask-mandates/

Category:

Activism, Viruses