Introduction
COVID-19
Louis. He tells me that he hopes he is
100% wrong about what follows, but proven
to be wrong only with good quality evidence. He
also assures me that he did not start out with any
preconceived conclusion. All the information gleaned
from trawling the internet is readily available and has
revealed many undisclosed facts. The original source
own unsupported opinion. Conclusions are drawn from the
facts. I've never before talked with anyone so passionate.
Louis's intention is to not persuade. Everyone is entitled
to their own opinion and Louis respects this absolutely.
Any opinion can only be based on good information.
The presentation below uncovers many facts that
have been kept in the shadows and paradoxically,
here is where there is the light of hope.
Any debate must discuss both sides of an
opinion. Persuasion can only happen
which they want to be considered and so
'allow' people to draw a distorted conclusion.
Millions are possibly exposing themselves
to what Louis considers, by the application
of real science, considerable danger
('vaccine') and he is very worried
After reading this (short) book, it is highly unlikely that any reasoning individual would ever (again) have a vaccine. The book was first published in 1992 but absolutely NOTHING has changed in nearly three decades. The FDA, CDC, and BIG Pharma are still under the terrible misconception (and that can only be a conscious and deliberate act) that vaccines are actually safe and effective.
Edward Jenner (who discovered the vaccination concept) admitted that smallpox was relatively unknown before he began his vaccinations. There were only a few hundred cases in England. After 17 years of mandatory vaccinations (compulsory Vaccination Act 1853) over the 2 years 1870 - 1871, in England there were 23,000 deaths. In Germany 124,000 people died in the same epidemic. Japan - 29,000 deaths (7 years). Australia terminated compulsory vaccination and the incidence of smallpox essentially disappeared (3 cases in 15 years). Jenner's own son died at 21 years of age and had been vaccinated more than once. James Phipps (the 8-year old boy who was originally vaccinated by Jenner in 1796 died aged 20. James had been re-vaccinated 20 times. They both died from tuberculosis.
Could there be a connection between the
smallpox vaccine and
tuberculosis, Louis? - DA
Today (24.04.2021) the answer to there being
any connection between the
smallpox vaccine + tuberculosis
would be an...
emphatic NO
Based on absolutely no evidence
This (video) is truly frightening
Watch it all. Can you STILL trust the
Can you STILL believe that there's
NO PROBLEM?
Improved sanitation (clean water) and fresh food (nutrition) changed society forever. Diseases were on the decline until... the introduction of vaccines. The incidence of death (caused by a 'live virus' began to rise. Even today with weakened or a 'killed' virus, the undeveloped immune system in babies (reliant solely on the mother's antibodies - blood circulation - transferring to the foetus before birth and human milk after birth) or the developing immune system in infants (it doesn't mature for several years) cannot build up a natural immunity to any foreign protein and focuses entirely on the vaccine - the source of foreign protein. The consequence of this is that the child is immunocompromised. The immune system can become confused and attack itself - the autoimmune response.
Scutiny of autoimmune diseases and neurologically-based disorders have just begun (1992). Multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, cancer, AIDS, and schizophrenia are just some of the disorders that are heavily implicated. Dr. Richard Moskowitz - Vaccines: a Reappraisal - recently concluded that the unnatural process of vaccination can lead to slow viruses developing in the body. These may bring about the "far less curable chronic diseases of the present."
Reiner Fullmich - 10.07.2020
The Truth will out!
Synopsis - Coronavirus Fraud Scandal
The full article contains relevent
and very important
background - essential reading
- The German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss), launched July 10, 2020, was founded by four trial attorneys to investigate and prosecute those responsible for implementing the economically devastating lockdowns around the world, as well as using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic
- The Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee will be working with an international network of lawyers to argue the most massive tort case ever - a case described as -
- “probably the greatest crime against
humanity ever committed”
Dr. Joseph Mercola post - 17.10.2020
“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s
19.08.2020
27.02.2021
11.04.2021
Canadian Supreme Court has accepted
the case for Crimes Against Humanity
presented by
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, R.F. Kennedy jnr,
& Dalores Cahill
05.05.2021
05.05.2021
- They argue that pandemic measures were intended to sow panic so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, and the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints
- Lockdowns were unnecessary, and any claim to the contrary is wrong, the Inquiry Committee insists. The virus was already in retreat and infection rates were starting to decline when lockdowns were imposed; scientific evidence shows a majority of people already have built-in protection against the virus due to cross-reactive T cell immunity, and the PCR test cannot be used to identify an active infection with SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus.
- While mortality statistics during the pandemic have been within the norms of any given year, meaning the pandemic has not resulted in an excess number of deaths or a death toll higher than normal, the collateral damage from pandemic response measures is nearly incalculable.
A Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
>>> WARNING <<<Very important - read this post in its entirety - DA
"The degree to which people have been
misled into believing that these vaccines
are known to be either safe or effective
is almost beyond imagination."
The Pfizer and ModeRNA
By referring to COVID-19 vaccines as "vaccines"rather than gene therapies, the U.S. Government
appears to be violating its own
15 U.S. Code Section 41, which
regulates deceptive practices
Dr. David Martin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr,
Rocco Galati, and Judy Mickovits PhD
Vaccination and Censorship:
The Truth Will Set Us Free
indemnifies many
against any wrong doing
Abstract: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
The first fact to bear strongly in mind is that the projected
value associated with 5G (07.10.2019) is...
US$12.3 trillion
US$12.3 thousand billion
US$12.3 million million (1 x 10^12)
This has been revised (07.11.2019):
US$13.2 trillion
The second 'fact' is that there are serious health issues associated with 5G. The symptoms are very much like the alleged COVID-19 set of symptoms (not a disease). The diatomic oxygen molecule is disrupted by the 5G microwave radiation and it cannot attach to blood haemoglobin. Oxygen is not transported around the body leading to breathing problems. Little in the way of 5G studies have been officially undertaken but the microwave radiation is dangerous yet is still declared safe.
It would be so easy to cover up the anticipated (later) health issues by the earlier introduction of a pandemic (5G will be everywhere) that simulates the symptoms of 5G radiation sickness. In Wuhan, China, where the first case of a SARS-like infection was discovered, 5G had very recently been 'switched-on'. People began dropping down in the street with serious breathing problems. So, the birth of an idea: SARS-CoV-2. A coronavirus has caused problems already: SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV... people are familiar with the explanation. Zoonosis (animal-to-human transmission) for human infection is claimed to have originated from bats and/or pangolins. Where is the evidence for this claim?
The WHO originally advised that PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction = molecular cloning) is the 'test of choice'. The Gold Standard. It is now (21.02.2021) backtracking (25.01.2021). Manipulation of results - control beliefs. Using a corrupted PCR approach has been central for the fraud to work. Nothing but false positives. It appears that the WHO has a similar imagination to science fiction author of Jurassic Park - Michael Crichton.
It is 'not fit for purpose'. That the WHO was involved is unsurprising since (global) health issues are involved. What is surprising is that PCR was the recommended 'test of choice'. The Gold Standard.
Notably, the incidence of seasonal 'flu is almost non-existent but COVID-19 numbers have (allegedly) climbed so fast in such a short time that a Worldwide 'emergency' was declared. By the WHO (11.03.2020).
The World Health Organisation has
faked a pandemic before (June 2009)
Although the pandemic did affect the UK, little was done to alert people of this 'major' issue. Certainly, not a call for vaccines and lockdowns. Some facilities/schools were closed and some people did lose their lives.
Louis, do you think it's possible that the seed of an idea was planted for a future pandemic that would need vaccines, lockdowns, social restructuring, destruction of global economies, bankrupting nations, wealth redistribution, huge and sustainable profits for Big Pharma, population control (mass extinctions), and a...
Bill Gates 😈 - AstraZeneca
very good reason
US$13.2 trillion
to use the COVID-19 'pandemic'
as a cover for the raft of expected
Estimated 4 million Microwave
Injured Veterans in the U.S.
We Have No Reason to Believe
5G is Safe
Symptoms are virtually indistinguishable from COVID-19 (or seasonal influenza). It is almost certain that the re-categorisation of 'flu incidence into COVID-19 had already begun a year ago [using the abused 'unfit for purpose' PCR molecular cloning procedure to 'diagnose' the 'disease' COVID-19 (a collection of symptoms)].
There is nothing to distinguish between
COVID-19 and the seasonal 'flu
Real Information from a Real Doctor
Much is made of mood and sunny weather. But nothing is mentioned about the sunshine vitamin (D). This vitamin (also a hormone) is produced in the skin through the action of sunlight. It enters the circulation and... surprise, surprise mood is lifted. Vitamin D is known to be linked to mood. More vitamin D, the less depressed. Conversely, a deficiency of this vitamin can cause depression (and negatively compromise the immune system). People with dark skin have higher levels of melanin in the skin and this reduces the amount of vitamin D synthesised. Those with dark skin and living at high northern latitudes are at most risk to being vitamin D deficient - and the most likely to get a cold or 'flu. A common cold (a rhinovirus) will not be detected by PCR if set up to find any coronavirus. There are many coronaviruses and most people will retain some debris, especially if a recent (current) infection. Using a high PCR threshold (Ct = 45) the false positive result will inevitably be interpreted as a COVID-19 'case' (another statistic - immediate quarantine). Normally, the (cycle number) is between Ct = 20 - 25 and as high as Ct = 30.
The difference between amplification of:
Ct = 20 > 1 million (2^20) and Ct = 45 >35 trillion (2^45)
x 34 million
This does not take into account the viral load. Doubling the amount of a pathogen in a sample would require one-half the Ct value (40 ---> 20) to reach the same threshold between non-infectious and infectious.
2^40 = 4^20 = 1 trillion
Maintaining the same cycle number but doubling the viral load, the number of false positives will be hugely increased. The sensitivity is over x 1 million
2^20 = 1 million
4^20 = 1 trillion
1 x 10^12/1 x 10^6 = 1 x 10^6
There has been no standardised value for Ct but more and more different devices have been authorised for use. More and more laboratories can perform PCR molecular cloning procedures (a skilled technique). The CDC makes no mention anywhere about a standardised number of cycles (Ct) and the threshold has never been determined.
The winter lockdown will bring sunlight/daylight to almost zero for most people. Under 'house arrest' and out-of-the-daylight. How convenient that the 'vaccine' roll-out coincided with the coming 2021 summer and the 'end' of lockdown. People will get more sunshine (vitamin D) and have a strengthened immune system as a result. Winter colds/'flu will decrease as will COVID-19 'cases'. It's always been notable that as COVID-19 'cases' go up, seasonal 'flu comes down. Roughly inversely proportional to each other. This strongly suggests a simple recategorisation. 'Flu becomes COVID-19 (by assumption) or vice versa - whatever is most conducive to the moment. The avoidable misdiagnosis could miss a bacterial 'flu that is easily treated by antibiotics.
The claim, however, will be that the 'vaccines' are working by bringing the numbers down. The 'vaccine' could even be a placebo saline solution. The numbers would still decline. Will this encourage 'vaccine' doubters to get inoculated with this unnecessary potential 'poison'? Probably, many will succumb and give their uninformed consent. Simply based on this trend (a lie that isn't explicitly communicated).
The terrible irony is that those who have been vaccinated and will have no symptoms, may still become infectious. Acquiring an infection after vaccination shouldn't generate symptoms (assuming the 'vaccine' works as 'promised'. It could even be a seasonal 'flu jab). This will then be the majority group that 'spreads the virus' and infects/kills the non-vaccinated. The Government response almost certainly would be that the COVIDiots who refused vaccination have only themselves to blame. It wouldn't be SARS-CoV-2 anyway. But possibly 'flu given to vulnerable people.
This scenario would suggest that the 'vaccine' is simply the 'flu vaccine. The mark-up by selling 'flu vaccine as the SARS-CoV-2 'vaccine' would be several x 100%. Clearly, imdemnifying everyone connected with inoculation (from manufacturers to those actually giving the injections) is not going to cause any real problems. There will be few claims for damages - even though they will be disallowed because of indemnification. The nose and throat can still harbour the virus. But a 95% efficacy (it will not protect all) is the wild claim but possibly much less. Whatever the minimum efficacy should be for 'authorisation' (not 'approval') , the data could easily be massaged to fit the regulations. If that was proven to be the case it would be...
Massive FRAUD
The variants will be blamed for the lack of effectiveness. A 'booster' (27.03.2021) will be required immediately, then an annual vaccination. People are likely to accept this as they have been conditioned with the seasonal 'flu 'jab'. Bill Gates 😈 stands to make a fortune (enough is never, ever, enough + absolute control). Every year the dividends to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will be huge. This philanthrocapitalist has invested $100s millions into 'vaccine' research (return on investment is ~20:1). Eugenics is his wildest desire. What Bill 😈 wants - Bill 😈 gets.
Sustainability = annual profit
One Co Kildare GP (who has the integrity to honour the Hippocratic oath and DO NO HARM has been suspended by the GMC for being honest - a sincere belief that the 'vaccine' could cause serious harm. The GP has refused to vaccinate his patients.
The GMC has acted disgracefully
and in complete
contradiction to its
The GMC doesn't understand the Hippocratic oath and what it means. It's very disturbing when politics is raised above human safety. These 'vaccines' have only been authorised and not approved as safe and effective products. This doctor (GP) does understand the true meaning of DO NO HARM but has been suspended for doing the right thing. The GMC seems to think its acceptable to risk the health and well-being of those under its care. GPs are expected to sacrifice themselves and their patients when they believe the 'vaccine' to be harmful (WILL DO HARM).
This is a doctor you can
trust, Louis - DA
Usually, in well-tested medicines, years (10 - 15) will pass before any financial returns could be seen. The patent coverage is just a few years in which to recoup the research and development, and manufacturing costs. Even a vaccine will take several years before long-term adverse effects will manifest. Shortening this period to just months means that only an interim analysis of data will be carried out. A long while before adverse effects will be seen. Incomplete trial data can declare a product safe when in fact it may be dangerous. These emergency-'vaccines' will have a patent coverage of many years. This implies that the 'vaccines' are expected to be used for many years. An annual 'booster' (16.04.2021) should be anticipated. Long-term profit-sustainability. It also implies that the 'new normal' will include (minimally) mask-wearing, social distancing, and probably lock-downs. Many will enter the totalitarian state/World Government era with the warm feeling that Government is keeping them safe. Totally duped and unaware of it.
Wearing a mask at all is very bad for health for no lesser reason than re-inhaling carbon dioxide and any shedded viral particle is dangerous. The obvious outcome is possible (re)infection. The created 'crisis' (engineered emergency) has coerced millions to give absolutely uninformed consent for a 'vaccine'. Disclosure of many important facts about these 'vaccines' has been deliberately withheld and led people to believe that they are taking an approved and safe product. This is not the case and if one person dies as a result of inoculation with any of these products then it becomes a case of state-endorsed murder. The UK Government has 'encouraged' and lied to people and given the manufacturers indemnity against any harm caused - including death - to anyone who is vaccinated. This means that anyone harmed as a result of having the vaccine cannot sue the Government for damages. The major difficulty will be proving that the 'vaccine' killed an individual or something else. Before the vaccine became available people died of nothing other than COVID-19 then afterward everything but the vaccine.
The 'crisis' was created by grossly amplifying a PCR 'test' and claiming it can show a positive SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is not possible. Polymerase Chain Reaction is a molecular cloning procedure and cannot diagnose a disease or a viral infection. People being forced to stay indoors - out of day/sunlight - have an increased risk of catching a cold (or 'flu) due to depressed levels of vitamin D. The human immune system is compromised by a deficiency of vitamin D. The Government has demonstrably failed to advise supplementation with vitamin D (4000 units).
The bonus is that many will be 'entertained' by the propaganda monitor (TV) and the dissemination of lies and half-truths on behalf of the British Government by the BBC. The distorted world-view of 'facts' that Government wants to spread around. Censorship of information is done by not reporting it. The most important denial of information is the way in which the PCR 'test' has been abused to enable the lie that has resulted in an untested and unapproved vaccine to be unleashed on a conned global population. Without the blatant lie from the abuse of PCR and everything that has followed (massaging 'case' numbers and deaths), the fraud couldn't work.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) 'test' was identified and declared by the WHO (World Health Organisation) as the test-of-choice to 'diagnose' a disease. Ever since, the much-abused 'test' that cannot do as the WHO insists can be done, has been the driving force that has created the situation of today (07.02.2021).
This 'test' has not been FDA-cleared
or approved and has only been
authorised...
Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA)
(The FDA has done nothing though
to stop the abuse - DA)
This 'test' has been authorised ONLY by the WHO and it's claimed that it can detect nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2, not for any other (specificity! - DA) viruses or pathogens. But, this test can only detect a fragment of RNA and never specifically a particular virus. An alleged new variant is also impossible to specifically identify with a PCR test. Only that 'an' unspecified coronavirus fragment had been detected. This is not the diagnosis of a specific (alleged) disease.
A possibly non-infectious trace of anything can be found by the over-amplification of any particle(s) present. A cycle-number of around 20 is normal but up to a cycle-number of 45 has been used. A difference of over x 34,000,000 (2^20 to 2^45). There is no standardisation of cycle-number so the test result from one facility cannot be compared to another and the 'infectious' threshold has never been established. There is no definitive proof that death can be caused by COVID-19 (the name given to the alleged disease). Anyone presenting with 'flu-like symptoms and subsequently dies is assumed to be from a COVID-19 infection. Although COVID-19 is from hereon in referred to as a disease (to avoid confusion), it is must be borne in mind that:
COVID-19: 'a set of clinical symptoms'
mRNA 'vaccines' are NOT vaccines
>>> CRITICAL READING <<<
CORONA false alarm?
(Censorship - MSM)
Already there is almost complete censorship by the media (being selective about what should not be reported. Not explicitly altering history but...). This ensures that the majority of those who rely on TV and newspapers are denied truth. Only 'the truth' that people ought to know is the 'one' according to Bill Gates 😈, Mark Zuckerberg, and... other 'control freak' billionaires. It is only a question of time until the internet itself is censored. Not just the search engines (Google does this already - use DuckDuckGo). By altering the algorithms selected 'hits' will not be found. They will be replaced by the 'truth' - the only one that is allowed (if no 'hit' was found, people may actually become suspicious! - DA). This ensures a completely one-sided 'debate'.
The 'hits' are currently simply 'adjusted' but the next stage will be to alter the source - selective deletions. Some www.sites will be removed. ISPs will have much, much tougher restrictions imposed. Domain hosts will be controlled. Information will cease to exist. Only propaganda will survive. A dystopian (1984) future on steroids.
There can only be the future as the past
never existed - we say so and you are
compelled to believe us. You are
not allowed to question what
never lie to you
Free Speech Threatened by
Censorship Extremists
Seasonal 'flu has all but disappeared and there are barely no cases. Of those unfortunate enough to have been hospitalised, how many had been inoculated with the annual (seasonal) 'flu vaccine? If they had not then it could be by an assumption that any 'flu-like respiratory issue would be a COVID-19 'case'. A PCR test (grossly over-amplified) may just be detecting a fragment of debris from an earlier infection, and the possible 'flu infection would go undiagnosed.
It is also entirely possible that the seasonal 'flu vaccine has been attenuated so as to be less effective. Someone presentating with 'flu-like symptoms, may actually have the 'flu. Does the South Korean experience present an example of a 'failed' 'flu vaccine? Where did it come from? South Korea or some other Big Pharma source (Korea Vaccine Co Ltd)?
Anxious people (stress caused by fear) confined indoors and out of sunlight will have depressed vitamin D levels. They will be more prone to acquire any infection. The number of alleged COVID-19 'cases' has risen as the incidence of seasonal 'flu has declined. Social distancing, closed schools and businesses, dramatically reduced travel are also claimed to explain the swing. The overall number of infections is roughly constant. This strongly suggests that the display of symptoms enables a COVID-19 diagnosis to be made by assumption even in the absense of a positive PCR 'test'.
The WHO has 'updated' (13.01.2021) its 'advice/guidance' on the use of PCR to 'diagnose' (can't be done - DA) the alleged virus/disease - nearly a year too late. It now discusses viral load and the inverse proportionality of the cycle number (Ct) with infection but it does not discuss the threshold (never established) over which non-infectious becomes infectious. Over-amplification (high Ct) will produce a false positive for 'a' coronavirus fragment - completely non-specific (the WHO has jumped before being pushed, Louis - DA).
COVID-19 vaccines are supposed to work by attacking and destroying a coronavirus particle - it is not a living entity. Just DNA. A string of amino acids (as peptides) and the specific order of the amino acids determines the structure of the virus. The virus has not been isolated in its pure form, yet it has been claimed to have had its genome fully sequenced (the identity and exact order of the amino acids determined).
If a sample of the alleged virus is cloned by PCR, the virus can be copied trillions of times (cycle number = 45: 2^45 = 35 trillion). Actually making this alleged virus. There has never been any concerns announced to deny this 'fact'. If the particle is genuinely SARS-CoV-2, then a substantial amount of the virus will be synthesised each time the PCR 'test' is run and a (false) positive result obtained. The tiniest trace allegedly found in the swab sample would then be 'amplfied' into large amounts of this 'deadly' virus. And as this procedure is alleged to have been performed millions of times (as a 'test') then the quantity of virus would constitute probably a small 'mountain' of this 'deadly' virus.
Multiple high Ct numbers would not be a
good idea if this virus really existed
If the belief of the existence of this virus were to be genuine, then a low Ct number (non-infectious) would be sensible. If there was a small amount of a virus present then the result is more likely to be negative. Low Ct and a high viral load (infectious) positives are more likely to produce genuine results but this would spoil the 'narrative'. The rate of any (non-specific) infection would be very low or completely absent.
2^45 = 35.2 x 10^12
(non-infective/infective threshhold) - low viral load
4^45 = 1.24 x 10^27
(infective) - greater viral load
By using a high cycle number (Ct = 45), a low viral load (non-infective) would produce a particular number of copies (35.2 x10^12). If this was considered the threshold over which non-infective becomes infective, then any higher the level of antigen would always be a (false) positive result.
2^45 = 35.2 x 10^12
(threshhold): non-infective --> infective
2^45 x 35.2 x 10^12 = 4^45 = 1.273940039 x 10^27
4^45 x 35.2 x 10^12 = 8^45 = 4.355614297 x 10^40
8^45 x 35.2 x 10^12 = 16^45 = 1.533176232 x 10^54
Anything less than the threshhold viral load would always produce a non-infective (negative) result. But even a low viral load with Ct = 45 means that over 35 trillion copies of (allegedly) highly infectious virus particles will be produced by simply performing a 'test'. Doubling the viral load and maintaining a high cycle number (Ct = 45), an extremely large number of copies of a highly infectious antigen will be produced. So, from a sample trace, very quickly (>1.27 x 10^27) particles will be 'manufactured' (C = 45). At each run of a 'test'.
If conducted properly, a Ct = 30 cycle number would produce:
2^30 = 1.073741824 x 10^9 = non-infective --> infective
But the movement across this threshhold is not on/off, red/green, go/stop. It is a gradual progression from the one to the other. For a doubling of the viral load, the number of cycles must be halved. This is why a reference standard must be used to enable a meaningful comparison of results.
2^30 = 4^15
If the cycle number is maintained for a higher viral load, the interpretation for a non-infective sample automatically becomes infective.
4^30 = 1.152921505 x 10^18 = infective
[threshhold Ct = 2^30 = 1.073741824 x 10^9]
(The values used are for illustration only)
what do you really know? - DA
The following argument is speculative but based on a logical appraisal of infection. A nasopharyngeal swab will remove a (physical) trace amount of a virus. The vaccine works in body liquids - mucus, saliva, blood... The vaccine will swim around until it encounters a viral particle. It should recognise it, attack it, and destroy it. The host will never exhibit the symptoms of infection. That the virus is present (PCR?) defines an infectious though asymptomatic individual.
Louis, would a vaccinated individual be 'tested'? If not, how could you know if the asymptomatic person was not infectious? Perhaps you'd just assume they weren't. It would spoil the 'narrative' though. Imagine the psychological affect on people if they'd been vaccinated and told they were still infectious. A vaccine is meant to make you bullet proof, isn't it?! Many believe this. It's one reason to do the 'right thing'. Save lives. Save the NHS. Protect yourself. Is it a case of Don't look, don't find? Totally illogical and contradictory.
Transmission would be by the same dynamic as a non-vaccinated person. The only difference being that the non-vaccinated person could know that they are infected if they displayed symptoms. A particle that exists outside the systemic fluids cannot be transported to a cell and should perish. It has no host cell in which to replicate (hijack the cell 'machinery') and so survive. The viral particle 'located' in the throat/nose could be transmitted and cause infection in a non-vaccinated person and so replicate and survive.
The vaccinated or non-vaccinated individual both have the same potential to infect, until the vaccinated person has ultimately destroyed all trace of the virus. A vaccinated person should quarantine for several days until the vaccine has taken effect. Destroyed any infection (outside the cell). The vaccine cannot work in an already symtomatic individual. The virus has entered a cell and started to cause damage.
CDC - Centres for Disease Control and Prevention
"In late 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged as a cause of severe respiratory illness (15). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a global pandemic (16). The common signs and symptoms of COVID-19 (e.g., fever, cough, and dyspnea) (17)...
can also occur with influenza illness
(21.08.2020)
"As of August 2020, SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate and cause severe illness in the United States and worldwide. The extent to which SARS-CoV-2 will circulate over the course of the 2020–21 influenza season is unknown. However, during the continued or recurrent circulation of SARS-CoV-2 concurrently with influenza viruses during the upcoming fall and winter, influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months can reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza, and can also reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient illnesses, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html."
Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being
wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global
nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or
other dangers we have not yet thought of
Stephen Hawking
1942 - 2018
Data Disaster
A Call for an Investigation Into the CDC’s
Conduct During COVID-19
To learn about the world around him, a
scientist must ask, observe, suppose,
experiment, and analyse
- In asking - the right question must be posed
- In observing - the significant must be distinguished from the unimportant
- In supposing - a workable answer (or hypothesis) may be predicted, but a scientist must be ready to abandon it
- In experimenting - the right instrument must be chosen or borrowed from the tool kit of some other branch of science
- In analysing - the scientist must, with his mind and his imagination, draw conclusions from the data his research has revealed
Science Building, Seattle World's Fair (1962)
Speculation begins by asking a question and this is generated from a hypothsis. No progress can ever be made unless a question is posed. Whether this is the right question to ask can only be known when a hypothesis is shown to be valid or not. The question may still be the right one. It is the hypothesis that is wrong. The proof-of-concept. A fair judgement can only be made once all the data are considered. Through experimentation and the careful scrutiny of observations will the hypothesis be shown to be wrong or possibly right. To determine whether the hypothesis is right or wrong, observations will show only if the aim of the experiment has been proven or not under the conditions of the experiment. Even then a spurious result can suggest and lead to a modified experiment that may better demonstrate the validity or otherwise of the hypothesis. Only by trial and error can the validity of the hypothesis (speculative by definition) be ascertained and then only with reference to the accepted facts at that time.
Results must be analysed and then the significant - observations that could realistically be suggestive but not proven - separated from the unimportant. Not those that necessarily support or dismantle the hypothesis but could even suggest the hypothesis may need tweaking. A hypothesis can still be essentially correct and a small adjustment can lead to a significant finding.
Relying only on peer-reviewed papers can never allow forward movement in new ideas. It is the nature of experimentation into uncharted territory. New territories can never be discovered without losing sight of the land. To think both inside and outside the box is essential to venture into new areas. The unexpected should then come as no surprise. Just another observation to be noted. Only later analysis will then allow the significant to be separated from the unimportant. To reject any realistically possible information is an example of bad science and closed-mindedness. Useful ideas can be missed (the wrong diagnosis made) by not considering all the information. Later assessment can then allow the rejection of unworkable suggestions. It is in the nature of a 'brainstorm' to not analyse and consider any suggestion until all ideas are collected. Only then can they be individually assessed to separate the 'wheat from the chaff'.
Positive results from suggested experiments (predictions) will strengthen the hypothesis but not necessarily prove or disprove it. If the results clearly show that the hypothesis is definitely wrong, then the experimental approach should be abandoned. No progress can be made. However, the determination of outcomes does depend on the correct tool being used. An analysis of data that has been wrongly acquired could lead to an incorrect conclusion. The hypothesis could still be right if the appropriate tool is used. It may be a different tool-box that needs to be examined and discussion with others from another discipline can determine the best tool that should be used for any possible outcome that is being investigated. Progress can appear to be slow but is guided by a thorough evaluation of outcomes. Any acceptance or rejection of results must be objective. Subjectivity and hypothesis never make good marriage partners. They are totally incompatible.
A careful and thorough scrutiny of all results will use the mind and imagination to determine what is useful (the significant) and that which is unhelpful (the unimportant). Like a good detective, believe nothing and challenge everything to ensure an objective approach. A clear and objective assessment of all the relevant information can then show data acquired iteratively is valid. Only then can a hypothesis be supported or not. It may not even be proven (it never can be) but predictive results that are always obtained by experimentation do make a hypothesis a valid supposition.
Conclusions can only then be drawn with any certainty if all the relevant information is once again reviewed. Everything must be explicable. Any rejected data is as important as the accepted results and reasoned argument must support all the data. The question originally asked is then regarded as valid and the hypothesis a reasonable supposition based on the results obtained by the experiments that were designed to reach the goal. Judiciously designed 'kill' experiments can close down a suggested approach very quickly and can save a great deal of time by not following a dead-end pathway.
& vaccine-induced autoimmunity
- a blocked or runny nose
- a sore throat
- headaches
- muscle aches
- coughs
- sneezing
- a raised temperature
- pressure in your ears and face
- loss of taste and smell. According to health body NICE, altered taste is an uncommon side effect of taking atorvastatin (search) - statins
- a sudden high temperature of 38°C or above
- in adults, the following temperatures suggest
that someone has a fever (viral fever):
Symptoms of (alleged) COVID-19 (viral fever)
- a high temperature – this means you do not need to measure your temperature
- a new, continuous cough – this means coughing a lot for more than an hour, or 3 or more coughing episodes in 24 hours (if you usually have a cough, it may be worse than usual)
- a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste – this means you've noticed you cannot smell or taste anything, or things smell or taste different from normal
COVID-19 (coronavirus) vs. 'flu:
'Experts' (who are they? - DA) say:
record low flu cases show how
COVID-19 is more contagiousand 'less forgiving'
('flu RECATEGORISED as COVID-19? - DA)
Louis, this is suggestive that apparent competition between the SARS-CoV-2 virus (if it exists) and the 'flu virus means that infection with the 'flu virus won't happen. SARS-CoV-2 is dominant. It alone infects. Presumably, the 'flu virus just 'goes away'. Some months ago, it was advised that the seasonal 'flu 'jab' was a good idea as a double infection would be catastrophic. This suggests that infection can be with two different viruses at the same time. Indeed, the eligibility was widened so that more people could get the 'flu 'jab'. It appears that the 'contagiousness' of SARS-CoV-2 is so dominant that nothing will get in its way. Not, of course, that the explanation is simply re-categorisation and the conversion of 'flu infections is into more COVID-19 numbers. The overall number of infections remains about the same. Just re-classification.
Death is classified as COVID-19 by assumption and a post-mortem is not necessary to perform (there being too many as the justification). An elderly person in a hospital (long-term defines un-well) is much-tested (at least once every 28 days?). If shown to be positive (with something), then a subsequent death since the last test will be assumed to be a COVID-19 death, even if the person had a terminal heart defect. Elderly dementia patients (care homes) are having 'best-interest' decisions made for them as they are unable to give their own informed consent. Visits from relatives are denied after isolating the person from any family help and advice. Those who could properly authorise 'best-interest' consent.
Whether or not to inoculate:
Coercion-by-fear has led millions into giving their misinformed consent to an unapproved-technology that has produced a 'vaccine' rolled-out (only through EUA - DA) under false circumstances. The number of infections has been grossly inflated and the emergency scenario of a 'pandemic' crudely engineered. The alleged virus (SARS-CoV-2) has never been proven to exist, let alone (assumed) to be the cause of death. A virus can never be isolated in a pure form and have its genome sequenced. The genome that was released by China must have been fabricated and computer-generated.The Pfizer figures illustrate how by misinterpreting statistics and not declaring important information, the heavily distorted (but much desired - DA) information has been released. The statistics of 162 infections from a non-vaccinated group compared to only 8 infections in a vaccinated group (170 total in the two groups) allows the confident assertion that 162/170 = 95.3% infections. This converts to 95.3% efficiency for the vaccine. This is a 'relative' efficiency. What is NOT revealed is that the two groups (placebo + vaccinated) were from -
What is the RNA, Louis? - DA
'vaccine' is DANGEROUS
posted by Louis Brothnias @ 4:54 am
<< Home