Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #2: Lockdowns

[MrKK]

Anyone ever heard of before this year having a virus with no symptoms and then being called sick

Basic common sense tells me if you get a virus and have no reaction to it it’s because your body has a natural immunity to it....

If people can be naturally immune, why make such a unnatural vaccine

It's ludicrous, and now that the seed is planted people will forever fear they are harbouring a deadly virus (Covid or otherwise) even when they are perfectly healthy. There will always be a requirement for current measures under that mindset.

 

[MrKK]

Wheres this immunity in the UK EU US Sweden ?

Amongst all of the people who've been exposed but not infected? We hear about how rampant Covid is in the US but their total cases is <10% of the population, although obviously not every infection has been recorded.

 

[MrKK]

Its called containment

Wuhan contained it by stopping Chinese New Year because they saw it as a super spreading event ,then they can pool part all they

If you seriously think the Wuhan lockdown eliminated Covid from a country of 1bn people then you are deluded. You can't trust any data out of China.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Amongst all of the people who've been exposed but not infected? We hear about how rampant Covid is in the US but their total cases is <10% of the population, although obviously not every infection has been recorded.

• Data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, analyzed by The New York Times, showed that 200,700 more people than usual died from March to July this year during the pandemic
• This is 54,000 higher than the current confirmed COVID-19 death toll of more than 161,000
• The analysis looked at excess deaths recorded by the CDC that measured deaths by all causes compared to the same time last year
• The CDC noted that some deaths related to COVID-19 may accidentally be categorized under a different category

Data reveals 200,700 more people died than usual from March to July

An analysis of CDC data by The New York Times revealed that the United States recorded at least 200,700 more deaths from March to July this year than predicted - surpassing the death toll.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Hawk Dork]

If you seriously think the Wuhan lockdown eliminated Covid from a country of 1bn people then you are deluded. You can't trust any data out of China.

Not even the pool party footage ?

 

[Joey JoJo Shabad]

Whoever edited this video, has done a fantastic job.

 

[Joey JoJo Shabad]

A fair difference between the two in a short amount of time given here.

 

[Run n Spread]

Graph is from May where 22% of UK deaths were ascribed as covid. Of course that will up the infectious death average. Total deaths in England and Wales are higher only country but not at a 20 year high even

 

[MrKK]

Not even the pool party footage ?

Everything from China that is widely shared is propaganda. The CCP could easily find enough party faithful to attend a pool party concert with the aim of showing the world they'd beaten Covid, regardless of whether they had eliminated it or not.

Remember that China is the biggest beneficiary of all of the economic pain countries inflict on themselves by lockdown. It's not even a conspiracy that there was a concerted social media push from China to promote and support lockdown policies around the world.

EDIT: Added link

Twitter Removes Chinese Disinformation Campaign (Published 2020)

The company said the latest disinformation effort came with a new wrinkle: extolling the Chinese government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Lebbo73]

• Data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, analyzed by The New York Times, showed that 200,700 more people than usual died from March to July this year during the pandemic
• This is 54,000 higher than the current confirmed COVID-19 death toll of more than 161,000
• The analysis looked at excess deaths recorded by the CDC that measured deaths by all causes compared to the same time last year
• The CDC noted that some deaths related to COVID-19 may accidentally be categorized under a different category

Data reveals 200,700 more people died than usual from March to July

An analysis of CDC data by The New York Times revealed that the United States recorded at least 200,700 more deaths from March to July this year than predicted - surpassing the death toll.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What is the death rate in 2020?
7.612 per 1,000 people

In 2020, the table shows the global death rate to be at 7.612 per 1,000 people, which is a rate marginally higher than that from 2016 through 2019 but is lower than 2015 and all years prior to this.Sep 22, 2020
https://in.reuters.com/article/uk-f...he-lowest-rates-in-recent-years-idUSKCN26D0YP

See you next time Hawk Dork

 

[mouncey2franklin]

"Oh well that's why this virus is so different". Banging. Your. Head. Against. A. Brick. Wall.

100%. We are dealing with creatures who are incapable of critical, independent thought.

The guy who first helped develop and popularise theories of crowd psychology, Gustave le Bon, once wrote this:

"A crowd scarcely distinguishes between the subjective and the objective. It accepts as real the images evoked in its mind, though they most often have only a very distant relation with the observed fact."

Now think of the images which the masses have been bombarded with since January:

The masses never stood a chance.

You've got the fake-ass 'hospital in Italy' propaganda, which has been reused over and over again.

The 'balloon head' chicanery which only a moron could believe in.

The 'death trucks' in New York which were never anything other than props to help spread fear.

And then the 'mass graves' which are of course empty.

And that's just a sample of the images beamed into the heads of the masses on the daily for almost a year now.

It is over. They're cooked. Brains turned to mush. Forget about it.

Game over, man. Game over.

 

[Joey JoJo Shabad]

I can't remember hearing of any critically ill or deaths of the hero frontline workers for a virus that's suppose to be super contagious & deadly, But they chose to record video's of themselves dancing during the first wave of the pandemic because it was such a stressful period for most of them.

Anyway why is it dangerous for us to sing & dance now ?, But it was ok for the medical staff to sing & dance back then compared to the rules we've been told now .

 

[BlueE]

If that’s the case, why pose the question? Balanced reporting requires dissemination of information from a broad spectrum sources.

I agree, so you should tell Present to Past that. Despite disparaging other posters for not knowing anything about viruses, they can't anything post information to back claims they make and instead attack the poster or the messenger of evidence that shows something different.

 

[parsons nose]

I agree, so you should tell Present to Past that. Despite disparaging other posters for not knowing anything about viruses, they can't anything post information to back claims they make and instead attack the poster or the messenger of evidence that shows something different.

Some of what you post is of interest e.g. the treatments currently used in India to ameliorate the symptoms and worthy of further investigation. Kudos to you for sharing this information. Your concerns surrounding the expedition of the role out of the vaccine can be easily explained by a five minute search on the web. An explanation that most would find plausible.

 

[BlueE]

Didn’t India give Gatesy the boot after his polio vaccines paralysed a bunch of kids.
Maybe this why they can get away with a cheap effective therapeutic.

And Gates in charge of setting Federal Policy criteria for COVID in the US says Brix in a slip of the tongue.

Australian National Review - BILL GATES... LIAR, MURDERER, NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW

BILL GATES… LIAR, MURDERER, NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial...

australiannationalreview.com

 

[BlueE]

Some of what you post is of interest e.g. the treatments currently used in India to ameliorate the symptoms and worthy of further investigation. Kudos to you for sharing this information. Your concerns surrounding the expedition of the role out of the vaccine can be easily explained by a five minute search on the web. An explanation that most would find plausible.

What we were discussing wasn't about India, but about the experienced US medical pathologist that tested all his positive COVID samples from flu and found them all positive for strains of flu. This supports known evidence that the PCR, depending on the number of replications, is catching al other viruses, dead or alive, including the flu in the US.

But there it is ... for vaccines you and some others rely on a 5 min search of propaganda from media, that doesn't reflect the facts contained in the 92 or 52 page briefing documents from Pfozer or Moderna, published research, letters to FDA and other medical authorities and law suits.

 

[Run n Spread]

And Gates in charge of setting Federal Policy criteria for COVID in the US says Brix in a slip of the tongue.

Australian National Review - BILL GATES... LIAR, MURDERER, NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW

BILL GATES… LIAR, MURDERER, NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial...

australiannationalreview.com

Again Gates??? WTF has a computer programmer got to do with any of this? Why the quotes or why has he has any say in policy whatsoever?

 

[BlueE]

This is an English translation of a German lawsuit served against Prof. Dr Christian Drosten by Dr Reiner Fullmich.


Drosten came to national prominence as an expert on the implications and actions required to combat the outbreak in Germany, and it's worth reading presenting compelling evidence of the fakery discussed on this thread and here's a summary.

• The basic assumptions of Corona-Politics

The measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic (if indeed it is a pandemic) are based on the following assumptions:

● SARS-CoV-2 is a completely new pathogen that has jumped from animals to humans, is completely unknown to the human organism (meaning that no one is immune) and it can therefore spread exponentially.

● This pathogen is so insidious that it can even be passed on by people who have no symptoms themselves. Therefore, the only solution is to diagnose the COVID-19 disease (whether noticed or unnoticed in the population) by means of a PCR test.

● If the state does not intervene decisively, there is a risk of massive mortality and a dramatic overload of intensive care capacities. On the errors underlying these assumptions: the five lockdown fallacies Meanwhile, these assumptions are exhausted in a shallow narrative based on several successive and interlocking false factual claims.

1 The first false claim: No basic immunity

You yourself have pointed out in several episodes of your NDR podcast that SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to the old SARS virus of 2003. If SARS-CoV-2 were really an entirely new pathogen, it would be inexplicable why (and especially in non-lockdown states) so many people have survived the pandemic - a circumstance to which a high-profile authors' collective around the Nobel Laureate in chemistry, Michael Levitt, has drawn attention (Udi Qimron/Uri Ga vish/Eyal Shahar/Michael Levitt in Haaretz of 20.7.2020 https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hi9jfcqfct1n9/Haaretz- 20Jul20_ENGLISH%2012082020%20v3. pdf?dl=0). And it would also be inexplicable why the Infection Fatality Rate is now demonstrably in the range of a normal flu wave. This is proven by the meta-study by John Ioannidis, which was published online in the WHO Bulletin in October 2020 (https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf). But the World Health Organisation, too, has itself meanwhile indirectly conceded that the mortality is not higher than that of a normal flu.

Finally, the long incubation period of up to 14 days also indicates that the human immune system is already prepared for the pathogen. Beda Stadler pointed this out in an article in the Swiss Weltwoche (re-published at https://www.achgut.com/ artikel/corona_aufarbeitung_warum_alle_ falsch_lagen).

The authors Udi Qimron/Uri Gavish/Eyal Shahar/Michael Levitt, who are cited above, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hi9jfcqfct1n9/Haaretz-20Jul20_ENGLISH 12082020 v3.pdf ?dl=0), drew attention to the fact that pre-immunity already exists and that, due to this, no more than 20% of the population become infected with SARS CoV-2 in any of the countries studied. Claims to the effect that nobody is immune and that anyone can become infected have no basis in fact.

In case any misunderstanding arises: It is not disputed here that there can be severe and fatal courses of COVID-19. But the quantitative extent of the threat has been dramatically overestimated.

It is therefore misleading if you speak of exponential kinetics, this is precisely not happening. For those whose immune system can cope with the pathogen, further spreading stops. It is therefore also not true that the disease can increase exponentially if we are not in lockdown.

2. The second false claim: symptomless risk of infection

The assumption that a person can fall ill with COVID-19 completely unnoticed and pass the virus on to other people similarly unnoticed, and without obvious symptoms, is without evidence and is only supported by almost frighteningly weak studies.

The Robert Koch Institute itself admits in its SARS CoV-2 case report (as of Nov. 27, 2020) that symptomatic contagion plays only a minor role (https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/ InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Steckbrief.html;jsessionid=E17D33BAD7D55D3449CE3729AFCD4 104.internet052#doc13776792bodyText2). In this regard, it refers to a meta-study that, after evaluating hundreds of papers, ultimately concludes that the evidence would have to be much more robust (Oyungerel Byambasuren et al. in Official Journal of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada, https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf /10.3138/jammi-2020-0030).

It can hardly come as a surprise that not a single asymptomatic transmission of SARS CoV-2 was detected for the Corona outbreak in Wuhan (Shiyi Gao et al. in (2020) 11:5917 | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w). The false claim that a person can pass on the virus without symptoms is particularly perfidious, because it corrodes society: everyone sees in his fellow man only a highly dangerous virus spreader and reacts to this with disgust, aggression or at least with fear and panic. Since even schoolchildren are indoctrinated by parents and teachers, massive behavioural and developmental disorders are already foreseeable. You will also be held liable for this.

3. The third false claim: PCR-based diagnostics

Without the lie of a symptom-free risk of infection, no one would have come up with the idea of testing even perfectly healthy people for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR. In reality, PCR-based diagnostics are fraught with so many sources of error that it was downright irresponsible to introduce them for symptomless people:

● A PCR test cannot distinguish between lifeless viral debris from surviving infection, on the one hand, and from viruses capable of reproducing, on the other. In this situation, any mass testing of asymptomatic people will have fatal consequences: Since the vast majority of COVID-19 infections are inconsequential, a large number of people will be tested who are perfectly healthy and whose immune systems have coped with the pathogen, but who then carry these lifeless fragments. As will be seen, this is a source of error that will become apparent all by itself in the coming weeks and months. This source of error will not change even if your assertion in the podcast of September 29, 2020, that nevertheless with lifeless viruses the full virus genome is still detectable, were true.

● No test is 100% accurate. At low prevalence, even minor deficiencies in the specificity of the test system used are enough to noticeably diminish any beneficial predictive value of a positive test result. Even the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, has acknowledged this, namely in an ARD interview of 14. June 2020.

Nevertheless, testing continues en-masse - despite the continued low prevalence of COVID-19. And not all test systems used are equally specific - if only because nowhere is it prescribed what the minimum specificity of such a system must be in order to be allowed to be used at all. An example of this is an incident that came to light in Augsburg, Germany, in which 58 of a cohort of 60 people tested falsely positive. And this happened close to the time of the lockdown decision of the Conference of Minister Presidents. Such decisions are made on the basis of incorrectly determined case numbers and therefore with far-reaching consequences.

● If the test system only begins detection after a large number of replication cycles, the viral load is so low that active infection is ruled out. In the NDR podcast of May 7, 2020, you yourself referred to a study according to which a patient is considered "less infectious" above 25 cycles. In fact, the authors of a Canadian study failed to identify any replicable virus beyond 24 cycles (Jared Bullard et al. in Clinical Infectious Diseases, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ ciaa638). Nevertheless, when the new case numbers are added up again, nowhere is it checked at which Ct value the cut-off was set in the respective positive test case. This makes the result of a PCR test highly susceptible to manipulation - and thus susceptible to political influence when high case numbers are "needed" in order to intimidate the population. In any case, the values determined on the basis of a PCR test are not a sufficient basis for a complete shutdown of public life and interference with people's liberties on an unprecedented scale.

● A PCR test is not capable of distinguishing mere contamination from infection. As long as the viruses remain on the mucous membranes and do not enter the cells of the body, a person is only contaminated, but not infected. In this case, the viruses do not replicate and therefore do not pose a risk of infection. Nevertheless, a PCR test will deliver a positive result for such people. You yourself pointed out this problem in an interview with Wirtschaftswoche in 2014.

● The significance of a positive PCR test also depends on which and how many primers are searched for. The less specific these are for SARS-CoV-2, the lower this significance.

Conclusion: a positive PCR test is not the same as an infection. We don't know what happened in all the particular testing-labs. It is not surprising that Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer for Respiratory Research at Pfizer, strongly advises against the use of PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a recent article (https://lockdownstics.org/lies- damned-lies- and-health-statistics- the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/).

For this very reason, PCR tests are not only unsuitable for individual diagnostics, but also not even for screening. The only decisive factor must be how many people become ill, how many have to be hospitalized, how many have to be treated in intensive care and how many have to be ventilated.

The instrument for reliably assessing these events has long existed at the Robert Koch Institute, namely in the area of influenza surveillance: the Sentinel Program (see Section 13 (2) IfSG). It is incomprehensible why this is not also used to a much greater extent for COVID-19. Friedrich Pürner, the head of the Aichach-Friedberg public health department (who has since been transferred), recently called for the Sentinel instruments to be used for COVID-19 surveillance.

4. The fourth false claim: the menace of overload of the healthcare systems

Model calculations to the effect that millions of intensive care patients and hundreds of thousands of deaths were to be feared in Germany alone have never come true.

5. The fifth false claim: Restriction on freedom can be beneficial

Finally, the assumption that individual or collective restrictions on liberty had any positive effect on management of the pandemic is in no way tenable. Rather, the opposite is the case. This applies first of all to the widespread closure of retail stores and of educational and leisure facilities in March 2020.

6. The interlocking of the deliberately false lockdown claims

It is remarkable how conspicuously the lies behind the Corona measures are interlocked and interdependent. It is important to take a look at this, because in this way we can see that the entire measures are designed to be perpetuated without any regard for the actual incidence of infection.

● It is only because one assumes, against better knowledge, that a human being could infect others with SARS-CoV-2 without being ill themselves, that mass testing for this pathogen is being carried out. Every single one of us, so the doctrine goes, could be the unrecognized carrier of the deadly virus.

Now, in autumn and winter, when all respiratory pathogens increase their activity again, SARS-CoV-2 will also affect many people. For a significant number, the virus will simply sit on the mucous membranes and will not penetrate the cells of the body at all. In many others, the virus will enter the body's cells, but will be overwhelmed and killed by the immune system. These groups of people will form the clear majority. In all of them, positive test results will occur, and in the case of those infected without any adverse consequences, for up to three months after infection. When these test positive, they will, against better knowledge, be counted as "new infections". The number of people whose immune system has killed the virus will increase over the course of the cold season. Therefore, the number of people who test positive will also increase - without any of the resources in the healthcare system being used.

● The aggregate of "new infections" will therefore increase and be used by politicians to justify further interventions. Because, against better knowledge, positive tests are equated with new infections, the increase in "new infections” declared in this way will in turn feed the lie that the virus is highly contagious and that no one is immune leading to the imminent collapse of the healthcare system.

The way the infection situation is currently being portrayed, it is purposefully designed to ensure that the lockdown will never end. If this kind of data processing and data presentation is not stopped forthwith, we will be locked down until well into next spring. Everyone, including you, can imagine what this will mean not only for the economy, but also for the health of the population in general, which has already been described above.

 

[parsons nose]

This is an English translation of a German lawsuit served against Prof. Dr Christian Drosten by Dr Reiner Fullmich.


Drosten came to national prominence as an expert on the implications and actions required to combat the outbreak in Germany, and it's worth reading presenting compelling evidence of the fakery discussed on this thread and here's a summary.

• The basic assumptions of Corona-Politics

The measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic (if indeed it is a pandemic) are based on the following assumptions:

● SARS-CoV-2 is a completely new pathogen that has jumped from animals to humans, is completely unknown to the human organism (meaning that no one is immune) and it can therefore spread exponentially.

● This pathogen is so insidious that it can even be passed on by people who have no symptoms themselves. Therefore, the only solution is to diagnose the COVID-19 disease (whether noticed or unnoticed in the population) by means of a PCR test.

● If the state does not intervene decisively, there is a risk of massive mortality and a dramatic overload of intensive care capacities. On the errors underlying these assumptions: the five lockdown fallacies Meanwhile, these assumptions are exhausted in a shallow narrative based on several successive and interlocking false factual claims.

1 The first false claim: No basic immunity

You yourself have pointed out in several episodes of your NDR podcast that SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to the old SARS virus of 2003. If SARS-CoV-2 were really an entirely new pathogen, it would be inexplicable why (and especially in non-lockdown states) so many people have survived the pandemic - a circumstance to which a high-profile authors' collective around the Nobel Laureate in chemistry, Michael Levitt, has drawn attention (Udi Qimron/Uri Ga vish/Eyal Shahar/Michael Levitt in Haaretz of 20.7.2020 https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hi9jfcqfct1n9/Haaretz- 20Jul20_ENGLISH%2012082020%20v3. pdf?dl=0). And it would also be inexplicable why the Infection Fatality Rate is now demonstrably in the range of a normal flu wave. This is proven by the meta-study by John Ioannidis, which was published online in the WHO Bulletin in October 2020 (https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf). But the World Health Organisation, too, has itself meanwhile indirectly conceded that the mortality is not higher than that of a normal flu.

Finally, the long incubation period of up to 14 days also indicates that the human immune system is already prepared for the pathogen. Beda Stadler pointed this out in an article in the Swiss Weltwoche (re-published at https://www.achgut.com/ artikel/corona_aufarbeitung_warum_alle_ falsch_lagen).

The authors Udi Qimron/Uri Gavish/Eyal Shahar/Michael Levitt, who are cited above, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/72hi9jfcqfct1n9/Haaretz-20Jul20_ENGLISH 12082020 v3.pdf ?dl=0), drew attention to the fact that pre-immunity already exists and that, due to this, no more than 20% of the population become infected with SARS CoV-2 in any of the countries studied. Claims to the effect that nobody is immune and that anyone can become infected have no basis in fact.

In case any misunderstanding arises: It is not disputed here that there can be severe and fatal courses of COVID-19. But the quantitative extent of the threat has been dramatically overestimated.

It is therefore misleading if you speak of exponential kinetics, this is precisely not happening. For those whose immune system can cope with the pathogen, further spreading stops. It is therefore also not true that the disease can increase exponentially if we are not in lockdown.

2. The second false claim: symptomless risk of infection

The assumption that a person can fall ill with COVID-19 completely unnoticed and pass the virus on to other people similarly unnoticed, and without obvious symptoms, is without evidence and is only supported by almost frighteningly weak studies.

The Robert Koch Institute itself admits in its SARS CoV-2 case report (as of Nov. 27, 2020) that symptomatic contagion plays only a minor role (https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/ InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Steckbrief.html;jsessionid=E17D33BAD7D55D3449CE3729AFCD4 104.internet052#doc13776792bodyText2). In this regard, it refers to a meta-study that, after evaluating hundreds of papers, ultimately concludes that the evidence would have to be much more robust (Oyungerel Byambasuren et al. in Official Journal of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada, https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf /10.3138/jammi-2020-0030).

It can hardly come as a surprise that not a single asymptomatic transmission of SARS CoV-2 was detected for the Corona outbreak in Wuhan (Shiyi Gao et al. in (2020) 11:5917 | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w). The false claim that a person can pass on the virus without symptoms is particularly perfidious, because it corrodes society: everyone sees in his fellow man only a highly dangerous virus spreader and reacts to this with disgust, aggression or at least with fear and panic. Since even schoolchildren are indoctrinated by parents and teachers, massive behavioural and developmental disorders are already foreseeable. You will also be held liable for this.

3. The third false claim: PCR-based diagnostics

Without the lie of a symptom-free risk of infection, no one would have come up with the idea of testing even perfectly healthy people for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR. In reality, PCR-based diagnostics are fraught with so many sources of error that it was downright irresponsible to introduce them for symptomless people:

● A PCR test cannot distinguish between lifeless viral debris from surviving infection, on the one hand, and from viruses capable of reproducing, on the other. In this situation, any mass testing of asymptomatic people will have fatal consequences: Since the vast majority of COVID-19 infections are inconsequential, a large number of people will be tested who are perfectly healthy and whose immune systems have coped with the pathogen, but who then carry these lifeless fragments. As will be seen, this is a source of error that will become apparent all by itself in the coming weeks and months. This source of error will not change even if your assertion in the podcast of September 29, 2020, that nevertheless with lifeless viruses the full virus genome is still detectable, were true.

● No test is 100% accurate. At low prevalence, even minor deficiencies in the specificity of the test system used are enough to noticeably diminish any beneficial predictive value of a positive test result. Even the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, has acknowledged this, namely in an ARD interview of 14. June 2020.

Nevertheless, testing continues en-masse - despite the continued low prevalence of COVID-19. And not all test systems used are equally specific - if only because nowhere is it prescribed what the minimum specificity of such a system must be in order to be allowed to be used at all. An example of this is an incident that came to light in Augsburg, Germany, in which 58 of a cohort of 60 people tested falsely positive. And this happened close to the time of the lockdown decision of the Conference of Minister Presidents. Such decisions are made on the basis of incorrectly determined case numbers and therefore with far-reaching consequences.

● If the test system only begins detection after a large number of replication cycles, the viral load is so low that active infection is ruled out. In the NDR podcast of May 7, 2020, you yourself referred to a study according to which a patient is considered "less infectious" above 25 cycles. In fact, the authors of a Canadian study failed to identify any replicable virus beyond 24 cycles (Jared Bullard et al. in Clinical Infectious Diseases, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ ciaa638). Nevertheless, when the new case numbers are added up again, nowhere is it checked at which Ct value the cut-off was set in the respective positive test case. This makes the result of a PCR test highly susceptible to manipulation - and thus susceptible to political influence when high case numbers are "needed" in order to intimidate the population. In any case, the values determined on the basis of a PCR test are not a sufficient basis for a complete shutdown of public life and interference with people's liberties on an unprecedented scale.

● A PCR test is not capable of distinguishing mere contamination from infection. As long as the viruses remain on the mucous membranes and do not enter the cells of the body, a person is only contaminated, but not infected. In this case, the viruses do not replicate and therefore do not pose a risk of infection. Nevertheless, a PCR test will deliver a positive result for such people. You yourself pointed out this problem in an interview with Wirtschaftswoche in 2014.

● The significance of a positive PCR test also depends on which and how many primers are searched for. The less specific these are for SARS-CoV-2, the lower this significance.

Conclusion: a positive PCR test is not the same as an infection. We don't know what happened in all the particular testing-labs. It is not surprising that Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer for Respiratory Research at Pfizer, strongly advises against the use of PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a recent article (https://lockdownstics.org/lies- damned-lies- and-health-statistics- the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/).

For this very reason, PCR tests are not only unsuitable for individual diagnostics, but also not even for screening. The only decisive factor must be how many people become ill, how many have to be hospitalized, how many have to be treated in intensive care and how many have to be ventilated.

The instrument for reliably assessing these events has long existed at the Robert Koch Institute, namely in the area of influenza surveillance: the Sentinel Program (see Section 13 (2) IfSG). It is incomprehensible why this is not also used to a much greater extent for COVID-19. Friedrich Pürner, the head of the Aichach-Friedberg public health department (who has since been transferred), recently called for the Sentinel instruments to be used for COVID-19 surveillance.

4. The fourth false claim: the menace of overload of the healthcare systems

Model calculations to the effect that millions of intensive care patients and hundreds of thousands of deaths were to be feared in Germany alone have never come true.

5. The fifth false claim: Restriction on freedom can be beneficial

Finally, the assumption that individual or collective restrictions on liberty had any positive effect on management of the pandemic is in no way tenable. Rather, the opposite is the case. This applies first of all to the widespread closure of retail stores and of educational and leisure facilities in March 2020.

6. The interlocking of the deliberately false lockdown claims

It is remarkable how conspicuously the lies behind the Corona measures are interlocked and interdependent. It is important to take a look at this, because in this way we can see that the entire measures are designed to be perpetuated without any regard for the actual incidence of infection.

● It is only because one assumes, against better knowledge, that a human being could infect others with SARS-CoV-2 without being ill themselves, that mass testing for this pathogen is being carried out. Every single one of us, so the doctrine goes, could be the unrecognized carrier of the deadly virus.

Now, in autumn and winter, when all respiratory pathogens increase their activity again, SARS-CoV-2 will also affect many people. For a significant number, the virus will simply sit on the mucous membranes and will not penetrate the cells of the body at all. In many others, the virus will enter the body's cells, but will be overwhelmed and killed by the immune system. These groups of people will form the clear majority. In all of them, positive test results will occur, and in the case of those infected without any adverse consequences, for up to three months after infection. When these test positive, they will, against better knowledge, be counted as "new infections". The number of people whose immune system has killed the virus will increase over the course of the cold season. Therefore, the number of people who test positive will also increase - without any of the resources in the healthcare system being used.

● The aggregate of "new infections" will therefore increase and be used by politicians to justify further interventions. Because, against better knowledge, positive tests are equated with new infections, the increase in "new infections” declared in this way will in turn feed the lie that the virus is highly contagious and that no one is immune leading to the imminent collapse of the healthcare system.

The way the infection situation is currently being portrayed, it is purposefully designed to ensure that the lockdown will never end. If this kind of data processing and data presentation is not stopped forthwith, we will be locked down until well into next spring. Everyone, including you, can imagine what this will mean not only for the economy, but also for the health of the population in general, which has already been described above.

Lol. The good doctor of whom you speak is crackpot lawyer. So let’s not get carried away with his bona fides on the issue.

 

[BlueE]

From the same .pdf
On the question of basic immunity

In your statements in the NDR podcasts, you pointed out the genetic relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with the old SARS virus. You also know that the matter of how great the immunity is in the population depends on how well known a pathogen is to the human organism.

Herd immunity also applies to T-cell immunity: here you refer to different research results, but you do not consider the thesis of a 30% T-cell immunity from an earlier encounter with other human coronaviruses to be correct. In the same place you claim that we are not immunologically protected against the virus. You ignore contrary findings known to you, which indicate that basic immunity has been present for a long time.

2. On the subject of the danger of symptomless infection

In this respect you are charged with particularly serious and far-reaching misconduct. To put it bluntly: After you yourself had recognized that the supposedly symptomless source of infection from China did in fact have symptoms, there would have been only one adequate reaction for you and from China did in fact have symptoms, there would have been only one adequate reaction for you and your co-authors: You should have immediately withdrawn the case study. That study should never have been published as a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study has since been cited over 1,000 times. You have thus contributed significantly to creating the appearance of evidence that does not exist in reality.

Obviously, you have stuck to your deliberate misstatement that people can infect each other with SARS CoV-2 without any symptoms. On ZDF on 1st November 2020 (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/pano-rama/coronavirus-drosten-ostern-100.html) you said that everyone should behave as if they were infected themselves and wanted to protect others from themselves while, at the same time, one should act as if the other person were infected and should protect oneself from them. In this way you stoked up the very attitude of mind that is increasingly leading to aggression and rage: everyone sees in other people a spreader of the virus. And you obviously think that's perfectly fine.

3. About the PCR test

Until recently, you have defended the current practice of diagnosing COVID-19 by means of a PCR test. You know a lot about laboratory medicine. It cannot have escaped your attention that a PCR test cannot distinguish between replicable viruses and lifeless virus fragments and cannot distinguish between contamination and infection.

In connection with the Ct-value, you admitted in the NDR podcast of 1st September 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 54, transcript p.15), that the significance of the test result depends on the viral load. However, you ruled out a cut-off value of Ct = 30 as the upper cycle limit on the grounds of differences in quality of the test reagents and the machines.

You yourself concede that a positive PCR test does not mean a real infection. The consequence is that one should not draw any diagnostic conclusions from such a test result, but then you refuse to say this. And how do your statements from September 2020 relate to those of 7 May 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 39, transcript p. 3), when you still referred to a study that advocated Ct = 25 as the "magic limit"?

4. Your lockdown recommendations

You called for a drastic and decisive intervention (which could only be a political one) to stop the alleged exponential rate of spread of SARS-CoV-2. And shortly before the second lockdown was decided on October 28, 2020, you followed up in the NDR podcast of October 27, 2020 in view of the case numbers, you recommended that politicians should impose a temporary lockdown, this would be enforced above a certain case number. You attribute the low incidence figures of today to the lockdown in spring, although you know exactly that even the figures and graphs of the Robert Koch Institute do not support this analysis.

These "case numbers" are nothing more than a product of the PCR tests, which are diagnostically useless and which come about to a very considerable extent by testing ever more and more. Even allowing the fact that the percentage of positive test results has risen in the last few weeks, in view of the susceptibility to manipulation of the Ct-number (Cycle threshold value), this does not mean that the number of cases has increased.

Nonetheless, you have recommended the second lockdown without in the least questioning the causal origins of the case numbers. So you know perfectly well that the closure of workplaces, which threatens the viability of companies, is being mandated on the basis of pure hot air - namely on the basis of figures which must be seen as completely unscientific and are not adjusted in any way for the sources of error.

The same applies to the introduction of other restrictions on freedom, such as the introduction of curfews or the tightening of the mask requirement when the "Corona traffic light" jumps to red. And you are not trying to stop this misguided development; on the contrary, you are fueling it.

In an interview with DIE ZEIT on October 6, 2020, you defended the senseless adding up of absolute case numbers and the political determination of the completely arbitrary 7-day incidence values, because one could recognize the development early on the basis of the "new infections".

Since you have chosen to falsely equate a positive test with a new infection, this statement can only be understood in such a way that you prefer this interpretation. In this case, however, an increase in "new infections" - i.e. the number of positive test results - does not mean anything at all when it comes to the incidence of infection.

The overall truth is quite different: It is not the virus but only test results that are spreading exponentially. The virus itself cannot broadly spread in the community - precisely because the spread has long since progressed and basic immunity has long been present in the population.

The collateral damage of the Corona measures cannot have escaped you. By recommending a renewed lockdown on October 27, 2020, without any consideration of other threats to human life, you are personally responsible for all the damage caused by the Corona measures. In the NDR podcast of May 14, 2020, you expressed an assessment on this that is so cynical that we quote here your own words:

"These few tens of thousands, that would be something like a severe flu season in terms of pure deaths. But I think that would be compared to a significantly greater excess mortality over other years. That's the collateral damage in health because people don't go to the hospital because of the illness. That is, in all scenarios, we would not have a comparability with seasonal flu here either, but these are the pure cases directly caused by the virus. And that's not what we're recording in the excess mortality of influenza. We would have much higher excess mortality."

In plain language, this means that not only do you know that there is collateral damage, but you have the audacity to count those who die because of corona measures as COVID-19 deaths.

You belong to the signatories of the Leopoldina paper of December 8, 2020, which recommended a hard lockdown after Christmas. The very description of the action required shows that you, as well as all the co-signatories, have completely abandoned the principles of evidence-based science:

"More people died with coronavirus in the last 7 days than died on the roads in 2019."

The key thing is the preposition "with." The preposition "from" is not used Thus, the authors of the paper themselves admit that they are talking about deaths for which SARS-CoV-2 as a cause has not been proven. However, in the context of the rest of the text in this paragraph - clinics at breaking point, health departments overburdened, etc. - clever framing is used to create the impression that the problems in clinics have something to do with COVID-19. That this is not the case has already been explained under point 4 of this letter. Such an approach is light years away from the requirement of informed policy advice. And insofar as the paper compares the "new infections” between Germany and Ireland, this is once again based on positive PCR tests which, without sufficient data to interpret the test results, say nothing at all about the incidence of infection.

5. Causality and attribution

On July 28, when really no significant prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was detectable any more, the upper administrative court (OVG) Münster told us, stubbornly, that it was necessary to prevent an overload of the healthcare systems. Then again on December 4, 2020, the OVG Bremen tried to make us believe that asymptomatically infected persons are particularly dangerous.

Legal Consequences

By deliberately giving scientifically unfounded recommendations to politicians or by promoting such measures from a position of influence, you have also deliberately caused him unconscionable damage and are therefore liable to our client under Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for the harm already caused. In addition, you personally must rectify the misinformation you have put into the world in an equivalent manner and in this way avert further harm to our client.

The harm already incurred amounts to several hundred thousand euros. And every day that our client's karaoke bar is not allowed to open, the harm continues to worsen. We hereby demand in the name of and on behalf of our client a part payment of € 50,000.

Our client expressly reserves the right to assert claims in excess of the amount initially demanded. In addition, we request that you correct the following statements to those politically responsible and to the public:

Clarify that there is no reason to believe that SARS-CoV-2 could cause an uncontrollable number of deaths and ICU patients

● Clarify that the case study in the New England Journal of Medicine of March 5, 2020, in which you were involved and which supposedly proves an asymptomatic infection, is based on false data and therefore should have been retracted long ago

● Clarify that a positive PCR test cannot detect active infection and is therefore not suitable to establish a COVID-19 diagnosis on its own

● Clarify that collective restrictions on freedom do not do anything to contain the spread, but are proven to cause massive collateral damage

 

[BlueE]

Lol. The good doctor of whom you speak is crackpot lawyer. So let’s not get carried away with his bona fides on the issue.

I'm sorry, information was incorrect in the lawsuit?

I left many of the references he used out, but you can check them if you want, most are in English.

You can not resist attacking the messenger and although you pretend to want to look at both sides of the information you're are just as much of a troll as the others. And still not one of you has any empirical evidence to support what you say!

 

[Lethal Knights]

Amid Threat of Catastrophic Global Famine, COVID-19 Response Must Prioritize Food Security, Humanitarian Needs, Experts Tell General Assembly | UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Expert panellists addressed the General Assembly in the second day of an unprecedented special session dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic that has so far infected 65 million people and continues to claim 70,000 lives every week, citing possibly catastrophic global famine in the coming months...

www.un.org

The lockdown measures have been a strategy for the fortunate like many have said on here. I couldn’t imagine what starvation is like.

Deaths from starvation and poverty
don’t matter though

 

[Crankitup]

This vaccine push is bizarre again. Like this whole thing is a religion and a vaccine is the holy grail. Merry Xmas anyway.
It is untested and not effective for something that mutated. Yet everyone just swallows it

I remember reading somewhere about concerns that it affects the fertility of women too.

Fancy that.

Bill Gates (who thinks the world is greatly overpopulated sinks hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccines that affect fertility.

 

[Stronzo]

Living in Italy we’ve known many people who’ve contracted the virus, including my partner.

We believe it most likely came from the mother in law. She had a fever for 10 days. My partner had mild symptoms, a headache and some back pains for a couple of days. Myself and the kids never had symptoms and we never had a positive test.

We remained inside for 21 days. Then, by the rules here we could go out with or without a negative result as by then we’re no longer contagious.

An interesting point here is that those who’ve given positive tests here are considered already vaccinated.

Anyway, I’m over it. I say open everything up and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Run n Spread]

Sydney back in lockdown after 3 day pause. Apparently the virus took a breather over Christmas