Wuhan coronavirus outbreak hysteria

General healthcare discussion, and Obamacare news.
Please note that specific help and support for Gregory Allan's book "How to Survive Hospital Costs Without Insurance" must be directed to the private Forum used for that purpose.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Wuhan coronavirus outbreak hysteria

Post by Firestarter » Sat May 30, 2020 4:12 pm

In Germany an “official” 93-pages report was drafted by a scientific panel appointed that is very negative about the lockdown in Germany under the guise of the coronavirus “pandemic”. This report has become quite controversial.
Stephen Kohn, the whistleblower who leaked the report, has since been suspended from duty.
Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, who is in charge of the ministry that drafted the report, had this to say about the report:
If you start analyzing papers like that, then pretty soon you’ll be inviting the guys with the tin foil hats to parliamentary hearings.

See some excerpts from the following story on this draft report (unfortunately the full report is in German).
• The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
• A reproach could go along these lines: During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.
(…)

More people are dying because of state-imposed Corona-measures than they are being killed by the virus.
The reason is a scandal in the making:
A Corona-focused German healthcare system is postponing life-saving surgery and delaying or reducing treatment for non-Corona patients.
(…)

“Therapeutic and preventive measures should never bring more harm than the illness itself. Their aim should be to protect the risk groups, without endegearing the availibilty of medical care and the health of the whole population, as it is unfortunately occurring”
“We in the scientific and medical praxis are experiencing the secondary damages of the Corona-measures on our patients on a dialy basis.”
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... lse-alarm/
(http://archive.is/gi3m8)


On 13 May 2020, a “scientific” looking report was published that shows that 2/3 of the excess deaths in England and Wales was NOT caused by COVID-19. This suggests that 20,000 deaths (of the 30,000 excess deaths) were caused by the draconian lockdown measures.
David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, said that Covid-19 did not explain the high number of deaths taking place in the community.
At a briefing hosted by the Science Media Centre on May 12 he explained that, over the past five weeks, care homes and other community settings had had to deal with a ‘staggering burden’ of 30,000 more deaths than would normally be expected, as patients were moved out of hospitals that were anticipating high demand for beds.

Of those 30,000, only 10 000 have had Covid-19 specified on the death certificate. While Spiegelhalter acknowledged that some of these ‘excess deaths’ might be the result of underdiagnosis, ‘the huge number of unexplained extra deaths in homes and care homes is extraordinary. When we look back . . . this rise in non-covid extra deaths outside the hospital is something I hope will be given really severe attention.’ He added that many of these deaths would be among people ‘who may well have lived longer if they had managed to get to hospital.’
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931
(http://archive.is/nMV8S)


The following report shows that immunity from prosecution for care homes in the USA is associated with more “COVID-19 fatalities”.
This report draws a strong association between nursing home fatalities, corporate ownership, and immunity from prosecution and third-party lawsuits.The data shows that 77 percent of total deaths come from states that gave immunity to corporations who owned nursing homes and healthcare facilities; moreover, 76 percent of total nursing home deaths come from states that have legal immunity status for these facilities.
(…)

Important Facts
•Legal immunity facing the COVID-19 apex kills: As of May 10, 2020, 62,031 deaths out of 80,796 total deaths come from states with some variation of corporate immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
•Of the ten states with the highest fatality rates, eight have corporate immunity and represent 93 percent of all fatalities, or 63,187 deaths. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania,Illinois, Connecticut, and Louisiana rank at the top of case fatalities.
(…)

•By calculating the average deaths per facility with fatalities by state(absolute number of NH deaths/number of NH facilities with fatalities), once again, New York and NewJersey lead in first and second place, with 12.6 and 9.2 average deaths per facility ,respectively (Figure 2). The national average death per facility is 3.6, which six of the twelve states that have nursing home immunity surpass.
(…)

•In looking strictly at the death rate in the nursing home population (absolute number of NH deaths/number of NH residents), we find that eight of the twelve states with immunity surpass the national average, which is 2.1 percent (Figure 3).
(…)

CONCLUSION
It is no coincidence that states that gave blanket legal immunity to for-profit businesses and corporations are the same states with the highest case fatality rates.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4cnp9drx3vf17 ... l.pdf?dl=0
(http://archive.is/I6VgP)


The following “scientific” looking paper describes that masks don’t prevent infection with the magical, mutated, novel coronavirus - COVID-19...
It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ial_policy
(http://archive.is/2EjD9)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Wuhan coronavirus outbreak hysteria

Post by Firestarter » Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:00 pm

Firestarter wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:25 pm
Following is an interesting interview with Knut Wittkowski, who argues that the social distances strategy to combat the pandemic is counterproductive. Wittkowski said the standard cycle of respiratory diseases is 2 weeks, after which "it's gone" if people were allowed to lead “normal lives”.
See some quotes:
You cannot stop the spread of a respiratory disease within a family, and you cannot stop it from spreading with neighbors, with people who are delivering, who are physicians — anybody.

[W]hat people are trying to do is flatten the curve. I don’t really know why.
But, what happens is if you flatten the curve, you also prolong, to widen it, and it takes more time. And I don't see a good reason for a respiratory disease to stay in the population longer than necessary.

About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won’t even have recognized that they were infected, or they had very, very mild symptoms, especially if they are children.
So, it's very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible
Here’s a new (to be deleted?) video with Knut Wittkowski.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6oOjaVmfB0

The Great Reset launched by World Economic Forum and HRH The Prince of Wales.
Seeking better form of capitalism as world recovers from pandemic.
Welcomed by UN, IMF, and companies Microsoft, Mastercard and BP.
Subscribe to World Vs Virus on Apple, Soundcloud or Spotify.

"The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit any more for the 21st century," said World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. "In short, we need a great reset."
This week's World Vs Virus is entirely devoted to the launch of the Great Reset - a project to bring the world's best minds together to seek a better, fairer, greener, healthier planet as we rebuild from the pandemic.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/ ... s-podcast/

https://youtu.be/X6pzXrEBqR0


At the start of April, biotech company Vir Biotechnology and UK pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced their partnership in working on coronavirus “treatments and vaccines”.
GSK invested $250 million in return for a 5.6% stake in Vir, making it the third largest shareholder

San Francisco-based Vir is also backed by Bill Gates (him again!), Japanese investment giant SoftBank and Abu Dhabi (the United Arab Emirates).

Investment firm Iconiq Capital has built a large stake in Vir Biotechnology; and is now Vir's eighth largest shareholder with a 2.8% stake worth $113 million.
Iconiq manages money for Silicon Valley moguls, including Mark Zuckerberg (of Facebook), Jack Dorsey (Twitter boss), and Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn founder): https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/new ... cures.html
(http://archive.is/sZzD3)


On 20 March, data in Denmark showed that one COVID-19 case on average would infect another 2.1. This information was held back because it was "not desired politically".

Instead Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in a speech used, and exaggerated, the already debunked 2.6 figure:
If one person infects three others and they each infect three, then nine people are infected. And if the nine again infect three, then we are at nearly 30 infected.
If 2.1 would have been used the number of infected would be 9.2. Even if 2.6 would be used this number would be only 17.6 (so a little more than half of “30”).

Denmark's top epidemiologist Kåre Molbæk and head of the Danish Health Authority Søren Brostrøm wanted to publish the new infection rate of 2.1.
On 12 March, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark had changed the Danish Health Authority from a "regulatory authority" to an "advisory" one. This allowed the government to ignore the Health Authority ‘s conclusion that Covid-19 was not sufficiently dangerous to impose medical martial law in Denmark:
The Danish Health Authority continues to consider that covid-19 cannot be described as a generally dangerous disease, as it does not have either a usually serious course or a high mortality rate.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20200529/leaked ... agency/amp
(http://archive.is/ZKWjG)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Wuhan coronavirus outbreak hysteria

Post by Firestarter » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:39 pm

Months before the corona “pandemic” was started, the biggest investment fund in the world, BlackRock where the Trump family invests their savings, authored a plan to go “direct” in the next crisis, blurring the lines between government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy.
The plan was rolled out in August 2019 at the G7 summit of central bankers.

On 17 September 2019, the U.S. Federal Reserve would begin an emergency repo loan bailout program, loaning hundreds of billions of dollars a week by “going direct” (similar to the BlackRock plan).
Then because of the coronavirus crisis, for the first time in history, US Congress handed over $454 billion of taxpayers’ money to the Fed that will be leveraged into a $4.54 trillion bailout plan.
Nobody will argue that the crisis was caused by government policy instead of any coronavirus...

In the United States, some 85% of the stock market is owned by the richest 10% of Americans.
Buying stocks will effectively make the wealthy even richer, while income inequality is already at the highest levels since the 1920s.

The BlackRock plan also explains the fiscal stimulus of the CARES Act with “direct” $1200 checks and deposits to “poor” Americans and Paycheck Protection Program loans and grants to small businesses.

BlackRock plays an important role in implementing the plan that under the guide of the coronavirus pandemic. BlackRock has even been hired by the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, and Sweden’s central bank to implement parts of the plan.
The Federal Reserve hired BlackRock to “direct” buy $750 billion in corporate bonds and bond ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). The BlackRock-run program will get $75 billion of this money to eat the losses on its corporate bond purchases, which will include its own Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) of which BlackRock is one of the largest purveyors in the world.

Three of the 4 authors of the BlackRock plan have previously worked at the central banks in the U.S., Israel, Canada and Switzerland.
Stanley Fischer: in 2005 went from Vice Chairman of Citigroup to become Governor of the central bank of Israel. In 2014 he became a Governor and Vice Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. After he resigned at the Fed in October 2017, he became a Senior Advisor at BlackRock in January 2019.
Philipp Hildebrand: was Chairman of the Governing Board of the Swiss National Bank from 2010 until 2012 (he abruptly resigned over a scandal in which his wife trades in currencies about which he had inside information). Hildebrand is now Vice Chairman of BlackRock and a member of its Global Executive Committee.
Jean Boivin: Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2010-2012, when he became Associate Deputy Minister at the Department of Finance of Canada. He joined BlackRock in 2014.
Elga Bartsch: has previously worked at Morgan Stanley in London: https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/06/ ... -the-plan/
(http://archive.is/8Y7p3)


See the following nuggets from the white paper...
A practical way of “going direct” would need to deliver the following: 1) defining the unusual circumstances that would call for such unusual coordination; 2) in those circumstances, an explicit inflation objective that fiscal and monetary authorities are jointly held accountable for achieving; 3) a mechanism that enables nimble deployment of productive fiscal policy, and; 4) a clear exit strategy. Such a mechanism could take the form of a standing emergency fiscal facility. It would be a permanent set-up but would be only activated when monetary policy is tapped out and inflation is expected to systematically undershoot its target over the policy horizon.

(...)

Any additional measures to stimulate economic growth will have to go beyond the interest rate channel and ‘go direct’ – [with] a central bank crediting private or public sector accounts directly with money. One way or another, this will mean subsidizing spending – and such a measure would be fiscal rather than monetary by design. This can be done directly through fiscal policy or by expanding the monetary policy toolkit with an instrument that will be fiscal in nature, such as credit easing by way of buying equities. This implies that an effective stimulus would require coordination between monetary and fiscal policy –be it implicitly or explicitly.
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/lit ... t-2019.pdf
(http://archive.is/Numac)


From the Netherlands, a similar policy was proposed in March for Europe; calling for the European Central Bank (ECB) to “go direct” in the next crisis.
Chapter 7 details a policy for the Eurozone that’s very similar to what BlackRock proposed in August 2019...
The ECB is reaching the limits of its monetary policy space, with negative interest rates and the limits of the sovereign bond buying programme in sight. This should induce fiscal policy makers to play a more active role in stimulating the economy were a new economic downturn to strike. However, it seems prudent for the ECB to also explore new options for monetary policy that could support such fiscal efforts to counter deflationary pressures. Following fiscal action, monetary policy space could be created using new instruments that have a more direct effect on the economy.

They refer to the “policy framework” of the BlackRock paper.
The effectiveness of such a policy framework would depend on it being implemented well in advance of the next downturn. A clear and credible stimulus strategy helps investors to understand what will happen and may thus reduce the amount of stimulus needed.
https://sustainablefinancelab.nl/wp-con ... onal-2.pdf
(http://archive.is/mMBg3)


A scheme like this has sometimes been referred to as “helicopter money”, a term coined by Milton Friedman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money


---------------------------------------------
On 5 June, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its reasons for why the sheeple should all be wearing a face mask. The main reasons for why healthy people should, isn’t to prevent them from being infected with the coronavirus (brainwashing seems to be the most important reason):
The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:
• reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;
• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;
• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;
reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);

• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han ... .4-eng.pdf
(http://archive.is/aSDge)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Wuhan coronavirus outbreak hysteria

Post by Firestarter » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:58 pm

The Wall Street Journal (of Trump’s and Rothschild’s friend Rupert Murdoch) looks forward to the end of humanity!
A piece about the wonders of transhumanism for which the coronavirus hysteria can be used...
https://youtu.be/QQxcuHF_QEM

Here’s the WSJ article.
Eternal life through advanced technology seems like a pipe dream for a society that, until recently, had trouble manufacturing enough masks to save doctors’ and nurses’ lives. Yet Covid-19 may turn out to be just the kind of crisis needed to turbocharge efforts to create what its advocates call a “transhuman” future.With our biological fragility more obvious than ever, many people will be ready to embrace the message of the Transhumanist Declaration, an eight-point program first issued in 1998: “We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering and our confinement to planet Earth.”
http://archive.is/aCylb


McKinsey has reported that up to one-third of US workers could be unemployed by 2030 because computers and robots have made man obsolete, adding around “60 percent of occupations have at least 30 percent of constituent work activities that could be automated”.

According to economist David Rosenberg:
the central bank is now becoming a hedge fund.
Adding low-quality corporate credits to its balance sheet is a whole different game.
… keeping zombie companies alive, rendering fundamental analysis and price discovery obsolete, and leading to a complete misallocation of resources.



Bloomberg reported that unemployed US workers should have received $214 billion in benefits, early June, but had “only” gotten $146 billion.
The Kentucky Career Center kept people waiting 10 hours before their unemployment claim help was handled: https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-d ... my/5716506


Earlier this month, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) reported that American billionaires have seen their combined net worth grow by $584 billion in the 3 months since the Covid-19 “pandemic” was started on 18 March and made more than 45 million Americans unemployed.
Image

Since 18 March, the combined wealth of America's billionaires has grown from $2.948 trillion to $3.531 trillion.
The five richest billionaires in the U.S. - Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison - saw their collective wealth grow by $101.7 billion from 18 March to 17 June 17.

According to Frank Clemente:
Their wealth increased twice as much as the federal government paid out in one-time checks to more than 150 million Americans. This orgy of wealth shows how fundamentally flawed our economic system is.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/ ... t-3-months


Or watch this interesting (strange) Coronavirus public information film from the 1970s.
https://youtu.be/5q7HkxNhnXA
Post Reply