Dr. Rick Bright, formerly a director of the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”), was ousted in March /April 2020 by the Trump administration after filing a whistle-blower complaint about the HHS’s promotion of HCQ as a treatment for Covid. According to Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Bright blocked access to HCQ and “this obstruction to life-saving medication was a death sentence for over 500,000 Americans.” In March 2021, Bright joined The Rockefeller Foundation as Senior Vice President of Pandemic Prevention and Response.
At the ‘Universal Flu Vaccine’ forum in 2019, Bright said “there may be a need, even an urgent call, for an entity of excitement out there which is completely disruptive, not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes” and Fauci agreed.
Bright also said: “it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that and beam it to a number of regional centres, if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch to be self-administered.”
Universal Flu Vaccine, Washington D.C., 28 – 30 October 2019
The clip above was taken from a forum hosted by the Milken Institute. You can watch the full forum’s discussion HERE on C-Span or HERE on Bitchute.
The Milken Institute
The Milken Institute (“MI”) is an economic think tank based in California. It publishes research and hosts conferences that apply market-based principles and financial innovations to social issues. Its strategic partners include the usual suspects such as various financial institutions and The Rockefeller Foundation.
MI was founded in 1991 by its chairman Michael Milken. In 1990 Milken was convicted of securities fraud and last year was given a pardon by President Trump. The White House statement called the charges against Milken – of which there were originally 98 — “truly novel.”
Like the World Economic Forum (“WEF”), MI has annual Global Conferences which have been called “Davos with Palm Trees.” And like WEF’s Young Global Leaders, MI has their Young Leaders Circle. Another similarity is that both receive money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (“BMGF”). BMGF has granted US$3,3 million to WEF and US$4,4 million to MI over the last couple of decades.
MI, like WEF, seems to be pressing a ‘sustainability’ message and although there are a number of similarities between the two organisations there are also some differences. One significant difference being the price of admission. In 2014 Milken was US$8,500 – US$12,500 while Davos was US$87,000. And, the participants of MI’s Global Conference are more hardcore finance, while Davos’ are more government-centric.
Apart from the obvious BMGF common connection, there are visible direct links between MI and WEF. For example, a search for “Milken Institute” on WEF’s website returns 163 results between 2012 and 2021, and MI is one of 10 named core collaborators on WEF’s ‘Global Standards Mapping Initiative: An overview of blockchain technical standards’.
Universal Flu Vaccine Links with the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid Injection
University of Oxford’s Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill created Vaccitech in 2016 and it is Vaccitech which holds the patents and royalty rights for AstraZeneca’s Covid injection.
Prior to Covid, Vaccitech’s main focus, especially in 2019, was the development of a universal vaccine for the flu. To fully finance Hill and Gilbert’s Vaccitech, and specifically its quest to develop a universal flu vaccine, Oxford Science Innovations sought £600 million from “outside investors,” chief among them the Wellcome Trust and the venture-capital arm of Google, Google Ventures.
At the same time, BMGF was also funding research to develop a universal flu vaccine. The BMGF effort originally partnered with Google’s co-founder Larry Page and his wife Lucy. But, in 2017, BMGF joined forces with governmental and non-governmental organizations to form the Global Funders Consortium for Universal Influenza Vaccine Development to “support the creation of a universal influenza vaccine.”
In 2018, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”) unveiled a strategic plan for research efforts and a bill was introduced by several US senators calling for $1 billion over the following five years for development of a universal flu vaccine. By this time, as indicated above, both BMGF and Page’s Alphabet (Google) were already involved, having put down money for private developers CureVac and Vaccitech, respectively.
In 2019, Fauci, Director of NIAID – NIAID being one of the 27 institutes and centres that make up the NIH – was a panellist at the MI’s forum discussing, or rather promoting, a universal flu vaccine.
EXPLOSIVE VIDEO Emerges of Fauci and HHS Officials Plotting for ‘A New Avian Flu Virus’ to Enforce Universal Flu Vaccination (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft Published October 6, 2021 at 8:15am
Here’s the transcript:
Michael Specter: Why don’t we blow the system up? I mean obviously, we can’t just turn off the spigot on the system. We have and then say, hey everyone in the world should get this new vaccine that we haven’t given to anyone yet. But there must be some way that we grow vaccines mostly in eggs the way we did in 1947.
Fauci: In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried-and-true egg growing which we know gives us results that can be beneficial, I mean we’ve done well with that. There must be something that has to be much better. You have to prove that this works and then you’ve got to go through all of the clinical trials: phase 1, phase 2, phase 3, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, it’s going to take a decade.
Bright: There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive, that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.
Fauci: So we really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza and it’s going to be very difficult to change that unless you do it from within and say, I don’t care what your perception is, we’re going to address the problem in a disruptive and in an iterative way because she does need both.
Bright: But it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that.. to a number of regional centers if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch of self-administer.
Monday Night Emergency Broadcast: Video Emerges of Fauci and HHS Plotting TO Stage Massive Health Scare Using “New Virus” 1,736,722 views · Oct 4, 2021
En la actualidad, parece que entre 64 600 y 407 400 personas en Estados Unidos han perdido la vida a causa de estas vacunas (utilizando un factor de subregistro de 6.5, como sugieren los CDC,2 o un factor de 41, según los cálculos de Steve Kirsch, director ejecutivo del COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund), y eso es en un solo año.
ICYMI: CDC just published a paper that admits that VAERS is underreported by at least 6.5X
This was easy to miss since it wasn’t specifically called out, but a CDC paper published a week ago confirmed (once again) that VAERS is very underreported, even when people are urged to report by HHS Steve Kirsch Jan 6 372220 It’s hard to keep up with all the data coming out of the CDC, but I try my best.
And sometimes, you strike gold every now and then.
Here’s one such paper that was brought to my attention by Dr. David Wiseman. It was written by authors from the CDC and FDA. So you can trust it:
COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5–11 Years — United States, November 3–December 19, 2021
Now look carefully at the second paragraph in the “Review of V-Safe data” section:
Approximately 5.1% of parents reported that their child was unable to perform normal daily activities on the day after receipt of dose 1, and 7.4% after receipt of dose 2. Approximately 1% of parents reported seeking medical care in the week after vaccination; most medical care was received via a clinic appointment (441; 0.6%). Fourteen (0.02%) children reportedly received care at a hospital; information regarding reason for hospitalization was available for five children and included appendicitis (two), vomiting and dehydration (one), respiratory infection (one), and retropharyngeal cellulitis (one). Parents and guardians of all hospitalized children were contacted; two parents completed VAERS reports, and one revealed hospitalization was reported in error.
In short, 13 child hospitalizations (since one of the 14 was a mistake), yet only 2 VAERS reports were filed.
What is stunning is that even after the parents were expressly asked by HHS to report to VAERS, only 2 complied with the advice.
Of course, these are relatively small numbers, but it is evidence that even in a best case scenario, VAERS is likely to be underreported by at least 6.5. So we know they know. They just don’t want to admit it. Ever. Not even in the same paper! They just say at the end that VAERs is underreported and V-Safe is voluntary. They don’t quantify it for you.
COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5–11 Years — United States, November 3–December 19, 2021
Weekly / December 31, 2021 / 70(5152);1755–1760
Anne M. Hause, PhD1; James Baggs, PhD1; Paige Marquez, MSPH1; Tanya R. Myers, PhD1; Julianne Gee, MPH1; John R. Su, MD, PhD1; Bicheng Zhang, MS1; Deborah Thompson, MD2; Tom T. Shimabukuro, MD1; David K. Shay, MD1 (View author affiliations)
During November 3–December 19, 2021, v-safe enrolled 42,504 children aged 5–11 years who received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (Table 3); second dose information was available for 29,899 (70.3%) of these children. During the week after receipt of dose 1, local (23,290; 54.8%) and systemic (14,734; 34.7%) reactions were frequently reported; systemic reactions were more frequently reported during the week after dose 2 (12,223; 40.9%) than dose 1. Reactions were reported most frequently on the day after vaccination for both doses. The most frequently reported reactions after either dose were injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Fever was more frequently reported after dose 2 (4,001; 13.4%) than dose 1 (3,350; 7.9%).
Approximately 5.1% of parents reported that their child was unable to perform normal daily activities on the day after receipt of dose 1, and 7.4% after receipt of dose 2. Approximately 1% of parents reported seeking medical care in the week after vaccination; most medical care was received via a clinic appointment (441; 0.6%). Fourteen (0.02%) children reportedly received care at a hospital; information regarding reason for hospitalization was available for five children and included appendicitis (two), vomiting and dehydration (one), respiratory infection (one), and retropharyngeal cellulitis (one). Parents and guardians of all hospitalized children were contacted; two parents completed VAERS reports, and one revealed hospitalization was reported in error.
En un artículo del 14 de enero de 2022 en el diario The Japan Times,3 Brahma Chellaney, profesor de estudios estratégicos en el Centro de Investigación de Políticas de Delhi, destacó la necesidad de identificar los errores que ocurrieron durante la pandemia de COVID, y para ello debemos investigar lo que sucedió en China.
“Si queremos prevenir otra pandemia de coronavirus en el siglo XXI, es obligatorio comprender las causas de la actual”, escribe Chellaney.
“El COVID-19 ha causado más de 5.4 millones de muertes. Pero eso es solo el comienzo, la cantidad de víctimas de la pandemia incluye tasas mayores de obesidad, desempleo, pobreza, depresión, alcoholismo, homicidio, violencia doméstica, divorcio y suicidio.
Y a medida que la variante ómicron alimenta las tasas de infección y perturba la economía en muchas partes del mundo, la fatiga pandémica se transformó en una impotencia.
Nuestras posibilidades de eliminar el COVID-19 cada vez parecen más lejanas. Pero mientras intentamos descubrir cómo vivir con el virus, también debemos identificar los errores y accidentes que nos trajeron hasta aquí. Y eso significa analizar de manera juiciosa a China”.
The great COVID-19 coverup
To eliminate the virus, past missteps need to be identified — that means looking at China China has embraced obfuscation rather than transparency as the world tries to determine if COVID-19 emerged naturally in wildlife or was leaked from a lab. | REUTERS BY BRAHMA CHELLANEY PROJECT SYNDICATE Jan 14, 2022
En los primeros días del brote inicial en Wuhan, China, el régimen chino negó cualquier evidencia de transmisión de persona a persona, una mentira que después repitió la Organización Mundial de la Salud en un tuit del 14 de enero de 2020.4 Menos de dos meses después, la OMS declaró al COVID-19 como una pandemia mundial.
CORONAVIRUS Published March 18, 2020 WHO haunted by January tweet saying China found no human transmission of coronavirus By Nick Givas| Fox News
De acuerdo con el diario South China Morning Post,5 el gobierno chino tenía claro que el virus se propagaba entre las personas. Los registros del gobierno vistos por el South China Morning Post rastrearon el primer caso conocido de COVID hasta mediados de noviembre de 2019, y a partir de entonces se reportaron de uno a cinco casos por día. Sin duda la transmisión estaba ocurriendo.
Exclusive | Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17
Government records suggest first person infected with new disease may have been a Hubei resident aged 55, but ‘patient zero’ has yet to be confirmedDocuments seen by the Post could help scientists track the spread of the disease and perhaps determine its source Josephine Ma Published: 8:00am, 13 Mar, 2020
Al negar la probabilidad de transmisión de persona a persona, el gobierno chino y la OMS permitieron que el virus se propagara a través de las fronteras internacionales durante varias semanas. China también expulsó a todos los periodistas de Estados Unidos, lo que provocó este tuit del 18 de marzo de 2020, de un reportero de Axios, Jonathan Swan:6
“Terrible. Necesitamos reportes precisos de China con urgencia. La pandemia se originó en Wuhan y en un principio se encubrió por las autoridades chinas. Un estudio de la Universidad de Southampton descubrió que pudo haber existido una REDUCCIÓN del 95 % en los casos y menos propagación si Beijing hubiera intervenido 3 semanas antes”.
De hecho, las autoridades en Estados Unidos se han enfocado en proteger a China de las consecuencias. Por ejemplo, en febrero de 2020, científicos de Estados Unidos relacionados con los Institutos Nacionales de Alergias y Enfermedades Infecciosas (NIAID) y los Institutos Nacionales de Salud, publicaron una “declaración de consenso” en la revista The Lancet, en la que “condenaron de manera enérgica” la “teoría de la conspiración” de que el virus fue creado por el hombre y que se filtró de un laboratorio.8
CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 395, ISSUE 10226, E42-E43, MARCH 07, 2020
Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19
Charles Calisher Dennis Carroll Rita Colwell Ronald B Corley Peter Daszak Christian Drosten et al. Published:February 19, 2020DOI:(20)30418-9 (20)30418-9/fulltext
Después, criticaron a Richard Horton, editor en jefe de la revista The Lancet, por su defensa y apoyo al régimen chino, y además lo acusaron por usar la revista para perseguir causas políticas y sofocar el debate científico.9 La tendencia de The Lancet parece inconfundible en este caso.
En enero de 2021, 14 expertos mundiales enviaron una carta a The Lancet en la que argumentaban que “el origen natural no está respaldado por argumentos concluyentes y que no se puede descartar un origen de laboratorio”. Horton rechazó la presentación y afirmó que “no era una prioridad” para la revista.10
World’s most famous medical journal The Lancet is accused of doing China’s dirty work – by denouncing the Covid lab leak theory as a conspiracy, writes IAN BIRRELL
By SPECIAL INVESTIGATION BY IAN BIRRELL FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY PUBLISHED: 22:01 GMT, 26 June 2021 | UPDATED: 11:56 GMT, 27 June 2021 Earlier this year, the prominent German psychiatrist Thomas Schulze sent a proposal to Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of world-renowned medical journal The Lancet, suggesting they start a debate over the complicity of Chinese scientists in the persecution of Uighurs.
En lo que parece haber sido un acto de reciprocidad benéfica para sus aliados de Estados Unidos, en marzo de 2021, el WIV eliminó de su sitio web las menciones de su colaboración con el NIAID/NIH y otros socios de investigación de Estados Unidos, luego de que los miembros del Senado comenzaran a interrogar al Dr. Fauci sobre la forma en que financió la investigación de ganancia de función en el WIV.11 También eliminaron un artículo científico que hablaba sobre la investigación genética del virus del SARS.12
‘Here we go again’: Rand Paul clashes with Fauci (for the 4th time)
Yesterday was the fourth time Rand Paul clashed with Anthony Fauci during a hearing. If the senator thinks these exchanges help him, he’s wrong.
Will SARS come back
2015-12-04 | AAA [print][close] The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV underscores the threat of cross-species transmission events leading to outbreaks in humans. Recently, Prof. Zhengli Shi and Xingyi Ge from WIV, in cooperation with researchers from University of North Carolina, Harvard Medical School, Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology and etc, examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, the scientists generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. On the basis of these findings, they synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. The work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.
Mencioné por primera vez que el brote tenía las características de una fuga de laboratorio en un artículo del 4 de febrero de 2020. Un informe de evaluación de la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa de Estados Unidos del 27 de marzo de 2020, señaló que tal vez el SARS-CoV-2 se liberó de forma accidental de un laboratorio de enfermedades infecciosas.13 Sin embargo, esto ocurrió un año antes de que los principales medios de comunicación dejaran de descartar la evidencia.14,15
The Controversial Experiments and Wuhan Lab Suspected of Starting the Coronavirus Pandemic
BY FRED GUTERL , NAVEED JAMALI AND TOM O’CONNOR ON 4/27/20 AT 3:34 PM EDT
In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened.
After seeing a risky lab, they wrote a cable warning to Washington. But it was ignored.
Some Scientists Question W.H.O. Inquiry Into the Coronavirus Pandemic’s Origins
Those who still suspect the outbreak in China may have been caused by a lab leak or accident are pressing for an independent investigation.
La comisión de la OMS encargada de la investigación del origen del SARS-CoV-2 también descartó la teoría del origen de laboratorio sin realizar una investigación real.16,17 Sin embargo, la reacción violenta y la incredulidad fue tan grande que18 el director general de la OMS, Tedros Ghebreyesus, se retractó y prometió que se investigaría más a fondo.
After Wuhan mission on pandemic origins, WHO team dismisses lab leak theory A worker walks outside the Wuhan Central Hospital on Saturday. (Ng Han Guan/AP)By Gerry Shih and Emily Rauhala February 9, 2021
After Wuhan mission on pandemic origins, WHO team dismisses lab leak theory
OPEN LETTER
Call for a Full and Unrestricted
International Forensic Investigation into the
Origins of COVID-19
March 4, 2021
Introduction
Finding the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is critically important to both better addressing the current pandemic and reducing the risks of future ones. Unfortunately, well over a year after the initial outbreak the origins of the pandemic remain unknown.
As scientists, social scientists, and science communicators who have been independently and collectively looking into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe it essential that all hypotheses about the origins of the pandemic be thoroughly examined and full access to all necessary resources be provided without regard to political or other sensitivities.
Based on our analysis, and as confirmed by the global study convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Chinese authorities, there is as yet no evidence demonstrating a fully natural origin of this virus. The zoonosis hypothesis, largely based on patterns of previous zoonosis events, is only one of a number of possible SARS-CoV-2 origins, alongside the research-related accident hypothesis.
Although the “collaborative” process of discovery mandated by the World Health Assembly in May 2020 was meant to enable a full examination of the origins of the pandemic, we believe that structural limitations built into this endeavor make it all but impossible for the WHO-convened mission to realize this aspiration.
In particular, we wish to raise public awareness of the fact that half of the joint team convened under that process is made of Chinese citizens whose scientific independence may be limited, that international members of the joint team had to rely on information the Chinese authorities chose to share with them, and that any joint team report must be approved by both the Chinese and international members of the joint team.
We have therefore reached the conclusion that the joint team did not have the mandate, the independence, or the necessary accesses to carry out a full and unrestricted investigation into all the relevant SARS-CoV-2 origin hypotheses – whether natural spillover or laboratory/researchrelated incident.
We are also concerned that the joint team’s work has been inaccurately reported by the media as an independent investigation whose conclusions reflect those of the WHO. The February 9, 2021
Wuhan joint press conference was a good example of this misunderstanding. Although the findings were those of the joint team, they were widely reported as representing the WHO itself.
As strong supporters of the WHO and its mission, we believe it must be made clear that any findings of the joint committee, while potentially useful to a limited extent, represent neither the official position of the WHO nor the result of an unrestricted, independent investigation.
For this reason, we believe it is essential that the contours of a full and unrestricted investigation be outlined to set a standard against which current and future efforts can be evaluated. (1).pdf
En marzo de 2021 publiqué un artículo20 que presenta el trabajo del Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, un médico general en Cheshire, Inglaterra, quien se propuso a equilibrar el alarmismo que ocurre a manos de la atención médica y los medios de comunicación, en especial en los últimos dos años. Puede leerlo aquí.
Top Eight Covid lies – Dr Malcolm Kendrick via Dr Mercola
by Editor | Mar 22, 2021
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, has made it his mission to add some balance to the widespread fear-mongering that occurs at the hands of the health care lobby and media, including in regard to COVID-19
- The top COVID lies include that there’s no such thing as naturally acquired herd immunity and that vaccines induce stronger and longer lasting immunity than recovery from natural infection
- COVID-19 death statistics are also misleading, and the universal mask mandates and lockdowns said to save lives are a farce
- Other COVID lies include the myth of asymptomatic spreaders driving the pandemic and the “official” narrative that the virus didn’t leak from a laboratory accident
1.No Such Thing as Herd Immunity — Except From Vaccines — Herd immunity occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community. When the number susceptible is low enough to prevent epidemic growth, herd immunity is said to have been reached. Prior to the introduction of vaccines, all herd immunity was achieved via exposure to and recovery from an infectious disease.
Eventually, as vaccination became widespread, the concept of herd immunity evolved to include not only the naturally acquired immunity that comes from prior illness but also the temporary vaccine-acquired immunity that can occur after vaccination.
In the case of COVID-19, however, we’ve been told that the idea of natural herd immunity to COVID-19 is not achievable — and even considering that it could be is “deadly and dangerous.”2 Yet, a curious thing happened. When vaccines became available, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity to COVID-19 became widespread. According to Kendrick:3
“First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.”
5.The Swedish COVID-19 Response Was a Disaster — Sweden handled the pandemic differently than most of the globe, and has been chided for its looser restrictions and lack of severe lockdowns. In October 2020, TIME called the Swedish COVID-19 response a “disaster,”14 but Kendrick cites data showing that the death rate in Sweden in 2020 was right in line with other years — nothing out of the ordinary.15
When Kendrick compared the number of deaths in Sweden in 2012 — one of their highest death statistics — to 2020, the difference between absolute death rate in 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%.
“That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in a population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.”16
7.Asymptomatic Spreaders Are Driving the Pandemic — The reasoning given for lockdowns, masks and social distancing is to stop the spread of disease among people who are asymptomatic. It’s common sense to stay home if you’re sick and exhibiting symptoms, but for people who feel healthy, the institution of lockdowns to prevent asymptomatic spread is unprecedented.
Yet, during a June 8, 2020, press briefing, Maria Van Kerkhove, the World Health Organization’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, made it very clear that asymptomatic transmission is very rare, meaning an individual who tests positive but does not exhibit symptoms is highly unlikely to transmit live virus to others.
A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”20 When they further tested asymptomatic patients for antibodies, they discovered that 190 of the 300, or 63.3%, had actually had a “hot” or productive infection resulting in the production of antibodies. Still, none of their contacts had been infected.21
About Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
I am a GP living in Macclesfield, having graduated from Aberdeen medical school many moons ago.
This blog is my best effort at providing some balance to the increasingly strident healthcare lobby that seems intent on scaring everyone about almost everything. Is there a foodstuff that is safe to eat anymore? Is there any activity that does not cause cancer or heart disease?
OCTOBER 29, 2019
Universal Flu Vaccine
Health experts discussed the scientific and technological prospects of an effective universal influenza vaccine. Speakers included Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Margaret Hamburg, former FDA commissioner. Panelists discussed the need for more funding for research, better collaboration between the private and government sectors, advances in technology in flu research and the goal of a universal flu vaccine.
Por ejemplo, a finales de noviembre de 2020, las comunidades de personas jubiladas instalaron “muros de abrazos” donde los visitantes podían abrazar a sus seres queridos a través de láminas gruesas de plástico. La AARP reportó21 esto como un ingenioso invento para ayudar a los seres queridos a conectarse, pero, en realidad, están a un paso de la locura. ¿Nadie pensó que un virus en el aire podría viajar por encima o por debajo de la cortina de plástico?
Retirement Community’s ‘Hugging Wall’ Allows for Touch During Pandemic
A little inspiration — and plastic — helps loved ones connect during the holidays by Christina Ianzito, AARP, November 30, 2020
Pasó más de un año y medio antes de que los medios comenzaran a cuestionar la utilidad de estas barreras. En un artículo del New York Times del 19 de agosto de 2021,22 Tara Parker-Pope destacó la investigación que sugiere que las barreras “pueden interferir con la ventilación normal” y el flujo de aire,23 lo que puede hacer que la propagación viral sea más probable. Un estudio, realizado por los CDC descubrió que las barreras no tenían ningún impacto en el riesgo de infección,24 y poco tiempo después otro descubrió que lo empeoraron.25
Those Anti-Covid Plastic Barriers Probably Don’t Help and May Make Things Worse
Clear barriers have sprung up at restaurants, nail salons and school classrooms, but most of the time, they do little to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Shields at a restaurant in Placerville, Calif., in May 2020. Research suggests that transparent barriers can interfere with normal ventilation.Credit…Rich Pedroncelli/File, via Associated Press By Tara Parker-PopeAug. 19, 2021
Weekly SARS-CoV-2 screening of asymptomatic students and staff to guide and evaluate strategies for safer in-person learning
Shira Doron, MD*
Robin R. Ingalls, MD*
Anne Beauchamp, PhD
Jesse Boehm, PhD
Helen W. Boucher, MD
Linda H. Chow, MBA
Linda Corridan, M.Ed, BSN, RN
Katey Goehringer, MBA
Doug Golenbock, MD
Liz Larsen, MBA
David Lussier, Ed.D.
Marcia Testa, MPH, MPhil, PhD
Andrea Ciaranello, MD, MPH
*These authors contributed equally to this work.
Mask Use and Ventilation Improvements to Reduce COVID-19 Incidence in Elementary Schools — Georgia, November 16–December 11, 2020
Weekly / May 28, 2021 / 70(21);779–784On May 21, 2021, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release.Jenna Gettings, DVM1,2,3; Michaila Czarnik, MPH1,4; Elana Morris, MPH1; Elizabeth Haller, MEd1; Angela M. Thompson-Paul, PhD1; Catherine Rasberry, PhD1; Tatiana M. Lanzieri, MD1; Jennifer Smith-Grant, MSPH1; Tiffiany Michelle Aholou, PhD1; Ebony Thomas, MPH2; Cherie Drenzek, DVM2; Duncan MacKellar, DrPH1 (View author affiliations)
Household COVID-19 risk and in-person schooling
- View ORCID ProfileJustin Lessler1,*,
- View ORCID ProfileM. Kate Grabowski1,2,
- View ORCID ProfileKyra H. Grantz1,
- View ORCID ProfileElena Badillo-Goicoechea3,
- View ORCID ProfileC. Jessica E. Metcalf4,
- View ORCID ProfileCarly Lupton-Smith5,
- View ORCID ProfileAndrew S. Azman1,6,
- View ORCID ProfileElizabeth A. Stuart3,5,7
+ See all authors and affiliationsScience 04 Jun 2021:
Vol. 372, Issue 6546, pp. 1092-1097
DOI: 10.1126/science.abh2939 In-person schooling has proved contentious and difficult to study throughout the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Data from a massive online survey in the United States indicate an increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes among respondents living with a child attending school in person. School-based mitigation measures are associated with significant reductions in risk, particularly daily symptoms screens, teacher masking, and closure of extracurricular activities. A positive association between in-person schooling and COVID-19 outcomes persists at low levels of mitigation, but when seven or more mitigation measures are reported, a significant relationship is no longer observed. Among teachers, working outside the home was associated with an increase in COVID-19–related outcomes, but this association is similar to that observed in other occupations (e.g., health care or office work). Although in-person schooling is associated with household COVID-19 risk, this risk can likely be controlled with properly implemented school-based mitigation measures.
Además de todos los estudios que en años pasados demostraron que los cubrebocas no funcionan contra los virus, ahora podemos señalar un informe del Departamento de Educación del Reino Unido,26,27 que no encontró evidencia de que el uso de cubrebocas en las escuelas redujera las ausencias por enfermedad. Sarah Lewis, profesora de epidemiología molecular en la Universidad de Bristol, dijo para Bloomberg:28
“Los mandatos del uso de cubrebocas pueden restar valor a la calidad de la educación y excluir a los alumnos con dificultades auditivas de las discusiones. Cuando no hay suficiente evidencia de un beneficio de una política y evidencia de daños, el valor predeterminado no debe intervenir”.
U.K. Study Fails to Prove Masks Work in Schools
By Irina Anghel +FollowJanuary 7, 2022, 9:50 AM UTC
Aun así, los investigadores que quieren que los cubrebocas sean la regla y no la excepción continúan realizando “estudios” que según prueban que todas las personas están mejor con la cara cubierta. Por ejemplo, un estudio que respalda el uso de cubrebocas29 salió a la luz en enero de 2022 como parte de una iniciativa de la Fundación Nacional de Ciencias para estudiar la transmisión de enfermedades en las aulas. El estudio consistió en solo 14 personas.
Face masks cut distance airborne pathogens could travel in half, new study finds
Date:January 12, 2022Source:University of Central FloridaSummary:The effectiveness of face masks has been a hotly debated topic since the emergence of COVID-19. However, a new study offers more evidence that they work. Researchers found that face masks reduce the distance airborne pathogens could travel, when speaking or coughing, by more than half compared to not wearing a mask.
Lo único bueno de esta triste historia es que la venta de estos bloqueadores ineficaces de rasgos faciales, que implantaron las universidades y escuelas de Estados Unidos, recaudaron $ 12,000 para el fondo de becas de música de la Universidad Estatal de Nuevo México a fines de agosto de 2020.30
NMSU marching band creates masks with opening for instruments
by: KRQE Staff Posted: Aug 6, 2020 / 10:24 PM MDT Updated: Aug 7, 2020 / 05:35 AM MDT
– Fuentes y Referencias
- 1 Rights and Freedoms October 7, 2021
- 2 Steve Kirsch Substack January 6, 2022
- 3, 7, 19 The Japan Times January 14, 2022
- 4, 6 Fox News March 18, 2020
- 5 South China Morning Post March 13, 2020
- 8 The Lancet February 19, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9
- 9, 10 Daily Mail June 26, 2021, Updated June 27, 2021
- 11 MSNBC March 19, 2021
- 12 Web Archive WIV Will SARS Come Back? December 4, 2015
- 13 Newsweek April 27, 2020
- 14 Politico March 8, 2021
- 15 New York Times March 4, 2021 (Archived)
- 16 The Washington Post February 9, 2021
- 17 The Washington Post February 9, 2021 (Archived)
- 18 WSJ Open Letter, Call for Full and Unrestricted International Forensic Investigation Into the Origins of COVID-19, March 4, 2021 (PDF)
- 20 Covid-unmasked.net March 22, 2021
- 21 AARP November 30, 2020
- 22 New York Times August 19, 2021
- 23 MedRxiv March 20, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.20.21253976
- 24 CDC MMWR May 28, 2021; 70(21): 779-784
- 25 Science June 4, 2021; 372(6546): 1092-1097
- 26 Department of Education UK Evidence Summary January 2022
- 27, 28 Bloomberg January 7, 2022
- 29 Science Daily January 12, 2022
- 30 KRQE August 6, 2020
READ History has been rewritten and buildings destroyed
READ
Sharing is caring
Share
+1
Tweet
Share
Share