Categories
Blog

Current Events Analysis: Social Engineering, Medical Martial Law, Staged Riots- VladTV Interview w/Lord Jamar

June 2, 2020 |   Lord Jamar: Most People Looting Are White, Some Riots Are Staged By Paid Agitators | VLADTV |

 

“Lord Jamar came through for a special interview with VladTV to speak on the death of George Floyd and the protests that have followed. Jamar explained that while he has said that it’s time for a revolution, he believes that the current situation has been planned to instate martial law on U.S. citizens. Jamar went on to speak about paid agitators leading the riots and looting, which he said has been done by mostly white people. To hear more, including Jamar questioning the details surrounding George Floyd’s death, hit the above clip.”

Link To Video

Categories
Blog

Florida mistake on child COVID-19 rate raises question: Can Florida’s numbers be trusted?;Tens of thousands of cv19 test results in Florida are questioned

July 25, 2020 | By  | South Florida Sun Sentinel |

Testing for COVID-19 takes place at the Miami-Dade County Auditorium in Miami. An error in children’s testing data has raised questions about the reliability of the state’s testing data. (Mike Stocker / South Florida Sun Sentinel)

“An error by the Florida Department of Health produced a COVID-19 positivity rate for children of nearly one-third, a stunning figure that played into the debate over whether schools should reopen.

A week after issuing that statistic, the department took it back without explanation. The next weekly report on children and COVID-19 showed the rate had plunged to 13.4%.

The department blamed a “computer programming error” for the mistake, in response to questions from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Experts said the change and the failure to explain it to the public calls into question the state’s data at a time when accurate and trustworthy information is crucial to a society grappling with an unprecedented health crisis.

“It’s unacceptable to publish information that changes so dramatically that it warrants explanation, and then to not provide any explanation,” said Jason Salemi, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of South Florida College of Public Health in Tampa. “I’m trying to get an understanding of why the number changed so much, what underlies it — and can we trust this new number.”

The unexplained revision of the child positivity rate follows months of complaints and legal fights over what many see as a lack of transparency in the COVID-19 information provided by the administration of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.”

Link To Full Article

 


 

 

Tens of thousands of cv19 test results in Florida are questioned

Bailey Gallion Jayne O’Donnell

USA TODAY NETWORK July 22, 2020

“Federal regulators are investigating a Texas laboratory that a Florida hospital chain dropped last week because of delayed and unreliable COVID-19 test results.

AdventHealth, which has 45 hospitals in nine states, terminated its Florida contract with MicroGen DX due to concerns about the validity of some of the 60,000 tests MicroGen had processed for the system because the lab left them at room temperature for days, according to an AdventHealth statement. The specimens should be refrigerated at 2 to 7 degrees Celsius (about 32 degrees Fahrenheit) and then put in freezers at -70 degrees Celsius after three days, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

MicroGen promotes shipping COVID-19 sputum (mucus) samples through FedExon its website.”

 

Link To Full Article

 

Categories
Blog

Andrew Kaufman on the Highwire w/Del Bigtree

 

 

July 16, 2020 |  Re: CV19 Questions, Facts, and Science

andrewkaufmanmd.com   thehighwire.com    Link To Video

 

 

 


 

 

Categories
Blog

No More Fake News: “Does wearing a mask cause diagnostic tests to read false-positive for COVID?”

July 23, 2020 | by Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com |

“Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses?

Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day?

How is that possible?

Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.

It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection.

Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.

Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.

If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased.

In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences.

People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.

In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs.

For example, let’s consider the PCR: From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:

“…non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

Now let’s consider the antibody test—

Business Insider, April 3, 202: “Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”

That’s just a sprinkling of sources on both the PCR and antibody tests—revealing that both of these tests DO spit out false-positive results. Many of those false-positives are the result of cross reactions with irrelevant germs.

And as I stated at the top of this article, if wearing masks increases the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in the body, then it’s quite likely that masks will, in fact, contribute to false diagnoses of COVID.

Now, we come to a different angle on this story. Everyone is aware that governors and other politicians are ramping up orders to wear masks to new insane levels. If indeed this order will result in more diagnosed COVID cases…

How can we avoid looking at the financial incentives?

It turns out that the states are receiving federal money for EVERY COVID case.

The reference here is Becker’s CFO Hospital Report, April 14, 2020, “State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case”:

“HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act…”

“Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.”

“Alabama
$158,000 per COVID-19 case

Alaska
$306,000

Arizona
$23,000

Arkansas
$285,000

California
$145,000

Colorado
$58,000

Connecticut
$38,000

Delaware
$127,000…”

The article goes on to list every state and the money it will receive for EACH DIAGNOSED COVID CASE.

If mask wearing increases the likelihood of a COVID diagnosis, then: those states forcing new widespread mask dictates will be multiplying their federal $$$.

And if you really want to cover the bases, every method of fake case-counting will have the same ballooning $$$ effect for the states.

ALL the so-called containment measures—masks, quarantine, isolation, distancing, lockdowns, economic destruction—bring on fear, stress, loneliness…lowering immune-system function…leading to more infections…which means more germs replicating in the body…which means more false-positive COVID diagnostic tests…and more human destruction…and more $$$ for the states.”

SOURCE:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/state-by-state-breakdown-of-federal-aid-per-covid-19-case.html

 

Link To Source

Categories
Blog

“Respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination.”; Over 40 Scientific Peer Reviewed Articles related to hazards and ineffectiveness of wearing face masks

June 3, 2019 | Chughtai, A.A., Stelzer-Braid, S., Rawlinson, W. et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis 19, 491 (2019).| BMC Infectious Diseases

“Respiratory pathogens on the outer surface of the used medical masks may result in self-contamination. The risk is higher with longer duration of mask use (> 6 h) and with higher rates of clinical contact. Protocols on duration of mask use should specify a maximum time of continuous use, and should consider guidance in high contact settings. Viruses were isolated from the upper sections of around 10% samples, but other sections of masks may also be contaminated. HCWs should be aware of these risks in order to protect themselves and people around them.”

Link To_Full_Document_s12879-019-4109-x

 


 

 

Cloth Masks – dangerous to your health?

“The study found was much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks.” Link To Full Article

 

 


 

Over 40 Scientific Peer Reviewed Articles related to hazards and ineffectiveness of wearing masks:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18500410/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00173017
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18331781/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35797-3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577#T1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21477136/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28039289/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20584862/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531371/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29855107/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29678452/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25806411/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23108786/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5333967/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744?fbclid=IwAR12HeAketDFKOavIkJ1bp3jSXkdKCVeMJ-m6EKHjhI5yo29JTTffi4W9pw
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567?fbclid=IwAR2_9XD4W1lVHr_RjT-_GMKCxwSSuM4gDqYxxHBGnkBgT6ojLC72Sv1Meqo
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
http://www.medtau.org/ice-ccm/pandemic/N95.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/disaster-medicine-and-public-health-preparedness/article/testing-the-efficacy-of-homemade-masks-would-they-protect-in-an-influenza-pandemic/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/11/3/494/397025
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-12-106
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7

“Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95″) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:”

• Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419.
N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

• Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. DOI:10.1017/S0950268809991658
None of the studies reviewed showed the benefit of wearing a mask in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

• bin-Reza et al. (2012), “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.”There were 17 eligible studies. […] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

• Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
“We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in the associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

• Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934-1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681

• Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs. Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824-833. DOI:10.1001/jama.2019.11645
“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371, completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs. medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

• Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.
Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

“Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

• Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?

• Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?

• Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerosolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?

• What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?

• How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?

• What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?

• Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?

• Are there negative psychological consequences of wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?

• What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?

• Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?”