I’ve received several more messages relating to “not very busy” hospitals, staff being laid off and so on – while the media, of course, tries to keep up the pretence of mass death and deadly conditions etc.
Miles Mathis on CV19
The well-known researcher Miles Mathis has posted a document about the CV scam and he makes some excellent points and also includes an interesting breakdown of some of the figures. See http://mileswmathis.com/covid.pdf reposted here: https://cvpandemicinvestigation.com/miles-mathis-covid-19-what-they-dont-tell-you
In the previous update, I linked an article and video about the 2 California Doctors who were basically saying (as many of us have), CV is no different to a normal variety of flu in terms of fatalities. However, one reader pointed out:
I understand the point of sharing this interview, but how can you agree with them asking more testings, given that previously you have shared Dr Kaufman’s analysis of the RTPCR test being used?? I mean Dr Kaufman really got the point of this scam, and how it has been perpetrated through a useless test (btw it’s the same test that’s been used since the 90’s to diagnose the HIV/AIDS scam!).
I agree with most of what these doctors pointed out, and I am sincerely glad that more and more professionals are speaking out against this lockup, but promoting more testing is actually a big part of the agenda (more testing=more positives). There is no proper testing being used to detect this alleged virus, therefore there technically is NO virus ’till it’s been purified and proven to be the cause of ANY disease. Dr Kaufman also has proven through peer-reviewed studies, how not COVID-19, nor H1N1, ZIKA, or SARS have ever properly fulfilled Koch’s postulates (neither River’s principles).
The same observation is pointed out in this video:
Dr Shiva Ayyadurai – He Explains The Whole “She-bang”
This is very good overall. I think the interviewer is also good (she challenges the interviewee), but I wonder if she is out of her depth…
From a US Immunologist
A US Immunologist (who wished to remain anonymous) wrote to me a few days ago, providing some useful comments and small corrections for my report. In separate emails, they made the comments below.
There is speculation that although the supposed new “virus” is purported to be extremely contagious, it does not seem to be virulent. (And in my opinion, is most definitely NOT causing a pandemic of any kind whatsoever.)
Regarding the differentiation between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19:
Although I have no issue with how you are proceeding with the designation in your document, I think the distinction is very significant and worthy of re-evaluation. With the lax use, people are conflating the virus with the disease condition. This is an intentional tactic and dangerous (Words Matter). We saw this with HIV and AIDS eventually being conveniently combined to create equivalency. AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) was well known for a very long time. It is merely a label for a variety of symptom manifestations associated with a dysfunctional immune system for which the cause is unknown (hence “syndrome.” They always tack on “syndrome” when they will not be identifying the cause for a collection of symptoms.)
Once they declared HIV as the “cause” of the 1980s incidence of A.I.D.S., they combined the virus and disease into one term: HIV/AIDS. Since then, everyone interprets acquired immune deficiencies as only HIV related. AIDS = HIV and HIV = AIDS. Both are wrong, but it’s the second understanding that is the more dangerous. Just because one tests HIV positive does NOT mean they have or had “AIDS” or any other disease; that is, they may be (and likely are) symptom free because, of course, they are not sick. Pregnancies can give a false positive HIV result, so clearly HIV+ does not equal AIDS, which has a myriad of causes. Further implications of this conflation have been far reaching for the public. I will not go into them here.
We are falling for the same ruse with coronavirus and COVID-19. It will not bode well. It will be used to manipulate the public into directed/managed group think. (Coronavirus is a family of viruses and many are associated with the common cold. Now we will forever associate CV – any of them – with a disastrous, deadly pandemic.)
Incidentally, in classic immunology, a positive antibody test historically meant one was protected from a disease. Only with the advent of HIV did they flip the understanding to mean a positive antibody test meant one HAD the disease AND was contagious. They will do the same thing with this CV circus. When testing goes large scale, will they use the test results to declare one is infected or protected? Both? Answer: they will use the test results in whatever way suits their narrative at the time.
Further, Abbott Laboratories developed the first widely used HIV antibody test. It is nonspecific and the package insert stated that results are not to be used for diagnostic purposes. Abbott has also launched an antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The package insert contains the following: “Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection or to inform infection status.” No doubt, this directive will be ignored, too. (*Also see below which I read after I thought I had finished this email.)
Currently there are 49 tests approved for use under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). Which ones are being used in statistics gathering? How do they compare to one another? How are results being applied clinically?
What is an EUA? The United States (U.S.) FDA has made this test available under an emergency access mechanism called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The EUA is supported by the Secretary of Health and Human Service’s (HHS’s) declaration that circumstances exist to justify the emergency use of in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) for the detection and/or diagnosis of the virus that causes COVID-19. An IVD made available under an EUA has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared IVD. FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met, which includes that there are no adequate, approved, available alternatives, and based on the totality of scientific evidence available, it is reasonable to believe that this IVD may be effective in the detection of the virus that causes COVID-19. The EUA for this test is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 declaration justifying emergency use of IVDs, unless terminated or revoked (after which the test may no longer be used). Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/136599/download
A Local Reporter Does His Duty!
I received a message via Richard D Hall that some leaflets that Richard quickly designed, which a volunteer printed out and distributed in his hometown, had been mentioned in a story in his local paper:
The report is inaccurate for several reasons – it describes a “leaflet” as a “pamphlet”; it picks quotes at random – for example, a quote is picked from the Miles Mathis article (linked above) and not attributed. There is no website link given (look at the image of the leaflet) and it claims credentials of the author aren’t given. It doesn’t mention me by name, nor my report, nor that the website (not given) contains a great deal of information. Clearly, the reporter has not read much of the website – rather, he has immediately sided with the narrative and then muddled a few things together and made it harder for any reader to check what has actually been stated and why it has been stated. So what’s new here? Nothing! He’s just proved one of the quotes he uses about the media to be correct!
Look at “Recent Posts” on the website : https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/category/news/
Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Check-The-Evidence-772857093052741/
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/check_evidence
Follow on Linked in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-johnson-a1487b19/
Or if you don’t use social media, you can use an RSS reader and use the link on the http://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress site for RSS