Sorting out CoVID-19 truth, lies and omissions
thought processes in the mix so far
Summary
Rt-PCR tests do not provide a reliable measure of “cases”. The number of amplification cycles used is not widely discussed but widely thought to be between 35 and 40 – at which point 97% of tests produce false positive results.
The most vulnerable are just as likely, if not more so, to be negatively impacted by injections. This contention is not yet proven in statistical data, but is evolving.
SARS-COV2 infections last an average of 20 days, with 95% of deaths occurring amongst those with 2-6 co-morbidities and who have lived one to two years longer than life expectancy.
Annualized infection rates are around 2.5%. Ninety-five per cent of cases of these cases recover - a little over 1% of this 2.5% per annum succumb and a little over 3% (per annum?) remain active. The population mortality rate from the disease is 1% of the 2.5% infected annually = 0.03%. The WHO has no stopping criteria for the “pandemic”.
The data is so corrupted that benchmark analysis of impacts from injections, the disease and virus are useless.
There has been no publication of quality control tests in the manufacture, distribution and storage of doses either within borders or across borders. Certain doses have proved to be 16 times more lethal than others. This information is not published, discussed or analysed by regulators or big pharma. Of note, 540 million out of over 2 billion shipped to EU+US are sitting on shelves, either approaching or past their “use by” dates, with extensions being handed out like candy by regulators with zero inspections or quality controls.
Over the 18 months of the injections, the annual rate of SARS-COV2 cases have increased fivefold and deaths with COVID-19 present have doubled – health authorities globally and by country refuse to acknowledge or explain this.
If an under-reporting factor for adverse events reported to EUDRA and VAERS is 40, the 1.5 billion EU+US doses administered of the 12.5 billion doses administered globally (2.3 billion in India and China, have resulted in around 20 million deaths and 1.7 billion injuries (multiple per person). These numbers can be reduced by a fifth to exclude India and China.
Injections force new variants – proving the maxim “DO NOT vaccinate into a pandemic”. The UK has just launched a bivalent injection – trivalent injections are due in the next month or so – without correcting the abundant errors from previous clinical trials.
The best method for capturing the impact of injections is to use medical records from hospitals and clinics plus health insurers to show incidences of deaths and co-morbidities for each (age, gender, race, weight, health) demographic for the three calendar years prior to the pandemic (2017, 2018 and 2019) the year of the pandemic without injections (2020) the first year of steadily increasing roll-out of injections (2021) and stable (high) rate of injections (2022). This could be sampled from 5 or so facilities/insurers per country and stadradized to rates per 100,000 in each demographic sector.
A rambling of thoughts still being gathered!
My previous post floated the idea of adapting investment management performance measurement principle, to the covid world. That is, to apply the techniques used to measure and analyse the excess returns using “performance attribution” and “value at risk” to quantify and qualify excess deaths by metrics such as age, gender. race and cause of death and present the data over time.
To do this, monthly data by age, gender, race and cause of death for the three calendar years prior to the pandemic – 2017, 2018 and 2019 – would need to be compiled and a comparison with the “vaccineless” 2020 calendar year, the largely “vaccinated” 2021 calendar year data plus a run-on for data for 2022 so far.
The data would need to be further categorized by manufacturer and by number of injections to generate “sectors” and “subsectors” for each cause of death for each demographic that summed to first all cause mortality then, in another dimension, repeat the entire exercise for each of the leading causes of co-morbidity.
In this way, variances in mortality and co-morbidities pre- and post pandemic, with and without injections could easily be seen and risk/benefit analyses performed.
It would be a monumental task at the country, region and global levels and that is the barrier that the global health regulators and manufacturers hope is too high for anyone to even attempt, even though this is the minimum proof that should have been required by the WHO, FDA and CDC. In clinical trials.
Having said that incidence of changes in deaths and co-morbidities is a minimum standard that should have been applied by regulators. Data from a sample of large hospitals or medical practices for causes of death (say 5 per country) would be simple and fast to compile from hospital records.
These could easily be converted to rates per 100,000 or million and used as a sampling technique.
Before Injections – Determination of Cases and Death using RT-PCR testing
Note that prior to the launch of injections in mid-December 2020, 70 million “cases” had been identified and 1.7 million deaths with CoVID-19 “present”. After 18 months and 12.5 billion injections, there have been 600 million cases and 6.5 million deaths. An increase of more than 500 million “cases” and 4.8 million deaths with CoVID-19 “present”.
However, even before launching into this data, it is worth qualifying the quality of data. After all GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out) applies.
A review of the evidence compiled from many sources leads to the basic premise of measuring “cases” with the SARS-COV2 virus present and “deaths” with CoVID19 present using the Corman-Drosten RT-PCR test. This validity of this test has been thrown into doubt here:
“External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.”
Here’s some work on RT-PCR testing:
“It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.”
A review of the evidence compiled from many sources leads to the conclusion that the basic premise of measuring “cases” of SARS-COV2 infections is invalid.
This is worth a read also:
Here’s another video that demonstrates that the calibration of the PCR was determined using guess work and computer modelled “best fit” of other viruses to “guess” what the SARS-COV2 resipratory virus that causes COVID19 deaths might look like, (without ever isolating the virus and proving that it causes COVID-19 disease).
Skip to 14:55 for the method used to calibrate the RT-PCR test.
Another “fun fact”: enquiring minds want to know what happened to flu cases over the 2020 and 2021 years here:
The Flu-Cooties Versus The Covid-Cooties | Welcome To Western Globohomo Inc. (wordpress.com)
Q. Were all “old flu” cases classified as “SARS-COV2” because of invalid RT-PCR tests?
This also provokes the question: “Diagnoses of deaths and cases are made using RT-PCR tests for SARS-COV2 virus and COVID19 disease. Would it also be true that using the same logic, since everyone in the world gets severe or mild flu or colds at some point in their lifetimes, all deaths – regardless of cause – could ALL be classified as “old flu” deaths?”
Bottom line: all countries that use 35-40 cycles to determine “cases” using the Drosten RT-PCR test have produced 97% of false positives of “cases”.
Combine that with evidence that infections last around 20 days and that those that succumb are 1-2 years older than life expectancy and have 2-6 co-morbidities AND, globally, there is a 96% recovery rate (570.4m recoveries out of 596.3m “cases” for an annualized global population case rate of 2.9%, and a population mortality rate of 0.03% per annum. What pandemic? What is the WHO sopping condition for a pandemic? Every major cause of disease could easily be defined as a pandemic – and a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC – pronounced FAKE).
Clinical Trials
Now, using that discredited test and without proving the virus caused the disease, big pharma started clinical trials. Animal testing was bypassed, with big pharma moving straight to human trials.
An analysis of the Pfizer clinical trial of around 44,000 people, split equally between injected and placebo groups over a (short) six month period, showed a reduction of around less than 4% in absolute terms for cases in exchange for an increase of 16% in adverse events (24% adverse events amongst the injected v 8% in the placebo) on page 11 here:
The COVID-19 Inoculations - More Harm Than Good FINAL Video & Print - MoreHarm.pdf | DocDroid
The implication is that infections would be reduced by 4%. Remember that since the roll-out of injections 18 months ago, “cases” have increased by almost 530 million and deaths by 4.8 million. What would cases have been without injections? The previous annual “case” rate without injections was around 70 million a year. Since injections, the “case” rate has increased to around 350 million a year and the death rate has increased from 1.7 million a year to 3.6 million a year. There may be some planet orbiting some star in some galaxy in the universe that would view the injections as “safe and effective” but it is not planet Earth. The annual “case” rate has increased by a factor of 5 and the annual death rate with CoVID-19 present has doubled. What is the claim from the health regulators and big pharms? That the absolute “case” reduction rate of 4% from clinical trials means that annual “cases” have been reduced by 14 million per annum out of an increase of 350 million, as indicated by clinical trials? The all-cause mortality rate in the clinical trials actually showed a small INCREASE in deaths amongst the injected group v the placebo group (20 deaths amongst those injected v 14 in the placebo group out of around 22,000 in each group).
Could it be that the injections are FORCING mutations into new “variants”? Indeed, did clinical trials CAUSE the delta variant to emerge in India?
Skip to the 2 minute mark here: Rise of the VARIANTS - YouTube
Will the new bi-valent “vaccine” just approved by the UK’s MHRA from Moderna force even more variants? What about the tri-valent vaccines, targeting the original strain and the BA.4/BA.5 variants that will soon die off of their own accord?
UK Approves Moderna’s Omicron COVID-19 Booster Vaccine (theepochtimes.com)
Other analysis done by Dr, Richard Flemming is well worth a 1h23m watch.
Other clinical trial malpractice exposed by a whistle blower and punished by the FDA and Pfizer that is trudging through the courts that would lead to discovery if the Pfizer “motion to dismiss” is here:
Beyond these clinical trials for Pfizer, Moderna’s clinical trials are as bad if not worse here:
SASHA LATYPOVA CALLS FOR EMA STAFF TO DO THE RIGHT THING (substack.com)
Q. How do the other manufacturers of more traditional vaccines feel about the failures in the clinical trial standards of Pfizer and Moderna? Or did they (Astra Zeneca and JnJ, for example) use the same short cuts? Did Novavax also use the same weak processes to gain authorization?
Q. How many “vaccines” on children’s and adult schedules have been tested against a placebo group for adverse events and “natural” recovery from immune system responses over any length of time (months and years). I cannot find any – ZERO.
Q. Why is Medicare paying $40 instead of $1.50 per Covid-19 Vaccine Dose? - Vaccine Impact
Despite these misgivings, the UK regulator has just authorised yet another experimental injection.
UK Approves Moderna’s Omicron COVID-19 Booster Vaccine (theepochtimes.com)
As with any manufacturing process, there is a need for quality control. From here:
There is a mountain of evidence that the quality of one or more components of manufacture, distribution, storage and administration have wildly varying standards. Why should one state have 16 times more deaths following injection than another. Why should one state or facility aspirate the injection while another thinks its fine to inject directly into the bloodstream? Why do some facilities have back-up generators for refrigeration and not others? What tests were done to ensure the safety of the doses beyond their initial “use-by” date? Of note, there are 540 million unused doses in the EU+US (193 million administered in the US out of 800 million shipped and 347 million in the EU out of 1.26 billion shipped – see the CDC and EUDRA links elsewhere).
Does this mean that ALL vaccines will remain experimental? With no endpoints for success or failure? Does this mean that the entire “vaccine” industry is based on malpractice, bad science and medicine? Benchmarking would address this issue and should be performed for ALL “vaccines” to quantify ALL-CAUSE mortality and co-morbidities, euphemistically called “adverse events “. For example, Hepatitis B injections are monitored for adverse events for just FOUR DAYS. Check out 8m anthrax injections for 2m US military over ten years, begun under the Clinton Administration and ending in 2008 by Emergent BioSolutions Inc.
Post injection
Hundreds of thousands of documents of the (short) three-month post emergency use authorization injection period for 10 December 2020 to 28 February 2021, have been released by Pfizer here:
Pfizer's Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (phmpt.org)
Lots of analysis of the (short) 3 months of the post marketing authorization here and a plethora of other analysis here: Welcome to Daily Clout! What’s our story?
Within the documents, iis an obfuscation that is symptomatic of tactic used by Pfizer; it uses the number of doses SHIPPED instead of the number of doses ADMINISTERED:
From page 6 here: reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf (phmpt.org) the number of doses shipped is shown as 126.2 million – the original documentation was censored to read “It is estimated that approximately (b) (4) doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide” was revised to include the information:
“3. RESULTS 3.1. Safety Database 3.1.1. General Overview It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”
According to ourworldindata, the number of doses administered (rather than “shipped”) in the first three months to 28 February 2021 was 38m for the US and 29m for the EU – a total of 67m.
COVID-19 vaccine doses administered by manufacturer, United States (ourworldindata.org)
COVID-19 vaccine doses administered by manufacturer, European Union (ourworldindata.org)
The implied denominator for adverse event harms of injuries and deaths Is 126m shipped, whereas just 67m – maybe 70m for non-EU and non-US - were administered. – the more relevant denominator. A big difference in a ratio of harms. How many of Pfizers shipped doses were administered outside the EU and US in the (short) 3 months to 28 February 2021? Close to none.
So, what lessons can be learned from the (short) 6 month clinical trial data and the (short) 3 month post-marketing emergency use authorization data, to use for benchmarking? Very few, the data is sloppy, probably fraudulent and mischaracterized.
Adverse events from injections.
Can we rely on VAERS and EUDRA as a proxy for likely adverse events?
The Lazarus Report in the US estimated that less that one in 100 events were reported to VAERS.
Recent estimates point to around one in 40 events are reported to VAERS – an improvement of 250% on Lazarus.
Determining the VAERS Under-Reporting Multiplier (healthimpactnews.com)
Data to 28 August 2021, “Using the VAERS database and independent rates of anaphylaxis events from a Mass General study, we computed a 41X under-reporting factor (URF – ed) for serious adverse events in VAERS, leading to an estimate of over 150,000 excess deaths caused by the vaccine.”
Maybe EUDRA is better at receiving reports than VAERS. I can see no work done on this for Europe.
Making the leap that EUDRA and VAERS have similar issues and applying this URF to VAERS and EUDRA date below, then scaling for the one eighth share that US (600m) and EU doses (900m) administered out of 12.5 billion doses globally, one can posit that EU+US adverse events can be multiplied by 320 (40 URF and one eighth share) to get global adverse events.
VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 8/5/2022 – VAERS Analysis
Skip to the column detailing ONLY US injuries, not those reported from around the world.
Ignore the headline and skip to the first screen image for EU deaths and adverse events.
CDC COVID Data Tracker: Vaccinations in the US
COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (europa.eu)
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations - Our World in Data
Multiplying the combined EU+US adverse events (without adjusting for the different 2.3 billion doses of “vaccines” used in India and China (out of the 12.5 billion doses administered globally), there have been around 20 million people reported as dead following injections and around 1.7 billion injuries (multiple per person).
Excluding the 2.3billion doses deployed in India and China, leaves 10 billion doses elsewhere – so take 80% of these numbers for a first stab.
Why is this being ignored by health regulators and authorities? For the simple reason that all deaths and injuries within 14 days of injection are treated as “unrelated to injections”. When do most deaths and injuries occur? Within14 days of injection. See chart at the bottom of the page here: COVID Vaccine Data - OpenVAERS
And, of course, if these numbers are made public, all those involved will be guilty of a genocide three times larger than the holocaust.
Is this proof of harm by injection? Who knows, autopsies are all but banned globally, the tests used for decades to determine “cause and effect” are not applied. Maybe those that died or were injured actually died from CoVID-19 rather than injections. We will never know, because the data is corrupt.
An example of the possible corruption of data is here:
“Although at first glance the all-cause mortality appeared far lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, on closer inspection they found fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data and that there had been a “systemic miscategorization of deaths between the different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated” among other factors.”
“This is because in Europe the status of “vaccinated” first gets assigned 14 days after getting the final jab. Thus any deaths occurring before this, ends up being counted as an “unvaccinated death”! So if a patient who got a vaccine dies less than 14 days later, he/she gets counted as an unvaccinated death. This is how vaccine deaths are getting hidden. And there many thousands.
As Figures 5-7 above show, thousands of deaths occurred shortly after the vaccines had been administered, and many among them were likely linked to the vaccine itself. If this is the case globally, and not just in Britain, then the number of vaccine deaths may be profound. The nightmare appears to be true, Prof Kuhbandner shows.
Same pattern in Germany
Prof. Kuhbandner then examined the mortality data for Germany and found the very same pattern: large jumps in mortality immediately following the vaccine campaigns. These deaths appear to be directly the result of vaccinations. It’s just too coincidental to be dismissed.”
What does this mean? Is the under-reporting factor of around 40 might actually be an understatement?
It is at this point that I throw my hands up in the air and question the advice of signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration and others that advocate for treating the most vulnerable. It seems to me that the most vulnerable are just as vulnerable, if not more so, than the healthy to the deadly effects of the injections BECAUSE OF THE MISREPRESENTATION OF VACCINE DEATHS AS UNVACCINATED. Injecting the most vulnerable could be the opposite of what should be done, but the data Is corrupted.
Simply adopting an ivermectin protocol with vitamin D supplements seems far more likely to be effective – especially given all the other toxic treatments being given for other co-morbidities.
What are we left with?
A review of the evidence compiled from many sources leads to the conclusion that measuring “cases” with the SARS-COV2 virus using an RT-PCR test is a tenuous practice at best. Rapid Antigen Tests are still being confirmed with the RT-PCR test and the number of cycles used to determine a “case” by governments globally is simply not discussed across borders or within them.
It is not as if ANY of the “vaccinations” currently in use have ever been subject to any kind of clinical trial against a placebo or subject to any analysis of impacts on other adverse events, unrelated to the “immunization” of the condition being targeted.
So that’s the ending of “looking for clues” to compile benchmarking within the testing methodology and clinical trial data – how about the three-month post-marketing emergency use authorization?
The data from national statistical agencies. Medical facilities, health insurers on rates of co-morbidity and death plus any signals from adverse event reporting systems.
Lastly, collateral damage of the imposition of “interventions”. So many questions around economic, physical and mental How many people did not get treatment during the pandemic for preventable and curable physical and mental health conditions? A case could be made that the 100,000 fentanyl deaths in the US last year are related to “mandates”. Of more significance and an even bigger corruption of data needed to accurately benchmark the pandemic and its response is this question “how many people will avoid the medical profession and all it stands for like the plague (sic) because their confidence in it acting for them, rather than the “collective” or for big pharma has been shattered? I count myself in this number. There were plenty of doctors – in amongst the true heroes – that avoided any contact with “suspects”, many more are, to this day, refusing to acknowledge millions upon millions of side effects from injections and refusing to prescribe, or cannot, treatment protocols that have proven efficacy, despite evidence that is multiple times more rigorous than the shoddy clinical trials benchmarked against each other,
(Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 178 studies (c19ivermectin.com))
C’est la guerre.
more batch work here
https://jasonmorphett.substack.com/p/identifying-if-pfizer-had-bad-batches
Wow.! Thank you. Very thorough and great summaries. Great ideas.