"Lancet Issues Major Disclaimer On Anti-HCQ Study, As Manufactured Disinformation Foments Hysterics"
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exposing-manufactured-disinformation-enabling-hydroxychloroquine-hysterics
Topic: Coronavirus Outbreak - page 64. (Read 30098 times)
idiot above has no clue
anti bodies and the good gut bacteria help the body. but viruses do not
you can spot a virus because its able to replicate.
you can pick out a particular virus cell and in a culture make it multiply and re examine it to be sure.
you can then inject it into a specimen and see what happens
you can also test many different specimens/people with similar symptoms and not only look under the microscope but also use RNA testing to get the genetic makeup/sequence and you can even do enzyme and protein analysis too
and thats not all... but the idiot above is still stuck at 1800's science of microscopes
and by him now again being a virus denier he has stepped way back from the february progress and has now reverted to 1800 conspiracies
im starting to wonder is he really this stupid or has one of his cults hacked his pc and tweaked his search preferences
anti bodies and the good gut bacteria help the body. but viruses do not
you can spot a virus because its able to replicate.
you can pick out a particular virus cell and in a culture make it multiply and re examine it to be sure.
you can then inject it into a specimen and see what happens
you can also test many different specimens/people with similar symptoms and not only look under the microscope but also use RNA testing to get the genetic makeup/sequence and you can even do enzyme and protein analysis too
and thats not all... but the idiot above is still stuck at 1800's science of microscopes
and by him now again being a virus denier he has stepped way back from the february progress and has now reverted to 1800 conspiracies
im starting to wonder is he really this stupid or has one of his cults hacked his pc and tweaked his search preferences
Where can you spot a virus? Only one place. Electron microscope. There it is dead. So you can't see if it is doing any good or bad. Why not? Because dead things don't do anything in an electron microscope except sit there. Of course, if the electron beam is strong enough, it might chemically react with the material. But the reaction is totally non-normal.
Until you view a virus or anything else in living action clearly, you don't know what is going on. When you view thousands of people using your flawed info, you get thousands flawed ideas of what is going on.
I'm not all that proud. Show us some links to standard medical microscopes that are, say, in the 20,000 to 30,000 power range, where we can actually see a living virus moving.
We long have recognized that you are a destructive troll for the medical and others, supplying good info and bad, just to make yourself look good enough, so that people will accept your bad info as truth. Come on, now. Indemnify yourself with something other than blab... something that shows you even know what you are talking about a little.
but established couples already living together (more likely already have a kid) are more likely to get bored at night as the only thing on TV is the news so they will find other ways to entertain each other
History has proved you wrong.
And parents of teenage girls rejoice!
idiot above has no clue
anti bodies and the good gut bacteria help the body. but viruses do not
you can spot a virus because its able to replicate.
you can pick out a particular virus cell and in a culture make it multiply and re examine it to be sure.
you can then inject it into a specimen and see what happens
you can also test many different specimens/people with similar symptoms and not only look under the microscope but also use RNA testing to get the genetic makeup/sequence and you can even do enzyme and protein analysis too
and thats not all... but the idiot above is still stuck at 1800's science of microscopes
and by him now again being a virus denier he has stepped way back from the february progress and has now reverted to 1800 conspiracies
im starting to wonder is he really this stupid or has one of his cults hacked his pc and tweaked his search preferences
anti bodies and the good gut bacteria help the body. but viruses do not
you can spot a virus because its able to replicate.
you can pick out a particular virus cell and in a culture make it multiply and re examine it to be sure.
you can then inject it into a specimen and see what happens
you can also test many different specimens/people with similar symptoms and not only look under the microscope but also use RNA testing to get the genetic makeup/sequence and you can even do enzyme and protein analysis too
and thats not all... but the idiot above is still stuck at 1800's science of microscopes
and by him now again being a virus denier he has stepped way back from the february progress and has now reverted to 1800 conspiracies
im starting to wonder is he really this stupid or has one of his cults hacked his pc and tweaked his search preferences
Viruses are completely misunderstood by the medical. Viruses are tools of the body to heal it from toxins.
1. The only clear pictures we have of viruses are electron microscope pictures. In these pictures, every living thing is dead, because of the nature of electron microscopes. This means that we can't see viruses in action; we can only surmise what their action might be. Thus we don't know if viruses are enemies or helpers.
2. Standard science seems to reject the Gaston Naessens Somatoscope. This microscope has been refined to see living materials at a magnification of as much as 30,000 times. The Somatoscope:
What is a somatid?:
3. In other words, whatever viruses are, they are something designed to help the body. How do they do this? By replacing damaged parts of DNA and RNA in cells. How do cells get damaged? By pollution and toxins, often toxins from vaccines.
The medical is looking to destroy the things that are making us well. Rather than finding ways to get rid of toxins, the medical is trying to increase the toxins by getting rid of the viruses that are trying to help us. Also, the Somatoscope microscope is not used to view living viruses in action. Because of this, doctors don't have a chance to actually watch what they do in the body. Rather, doctors need to depend on electron microscopes, which only show dead, unmoving viruses.
Most doctors don't understand this, since they are taught a lie by their teachers... who probably don't even realize that they have been teaching lies that were taught to them by others.
Vaccines, pollution, and other factors naturally found in nature are the things that are harming us. Viruses are the things that are trying to repair the damage done by the things that are harming us.
1. The only clear pictures we have of viruses are electron microscope pictures. In these pictures, every living thing is dead, because of the nature of electron microscopes. This means that we can't see viruses in action; we can only surmise what their action might be. Thus we don't know if viruses are enemies or helpers.
2. Standard science seems to reject the Gaston Naessens Somatoscope. This microscope has been refined to see living materials at a magnification of as much as 30,000 times. The Somatoscope:
Quote from: http://www.normanallan.com/Med/714.html
The Somatoscope
Naessens' revolutionary microscope, the somatoscope, weaves two light sources (one visible, one ultraviolet) together to produce a third, functionally higher, frequency with which it is possible to obtain a resolution and magnification thirty times greater then with conventional light microscopy . (In conventional light microscopy resolution, and therefore magnification, is limited by the wavelength of visible light - approximately 4000 Angstroms.) Although with the electron microscope there is almost no limit to the magnification, the electrons must be beamed through a vacuum, so it can not be used to look at living material. Naessens' remarkable somatoscope, however, can view live material with a resolution of 150 Angstroms, a magnification of 30,000 diameters. That magnification reveals a whole new world in a tiny drop of blood. The world that Gaston Naessens sees in that drop with his somatoscope is quite different from what we were taught at school! He sees that our blood is alive with a teaming micro-ecology. This is how Gaston Naessens discovered the somatid.
Naessens' revolutionary microscope, the somatoscope, weaves two light sources (one visible, one ultraviolet) together to produce a third, functionally higher, frequency with which it is possible to obtain a resolution and magnification thirty times greater then with conventional light microscopy . (In conventional light microscopy resolution, and therefore magnification, is limited by the wavelength of visible light - approximately 4000 Angstroms.) Although with the electron microscope there is almost no limit to the magnification, the electrons must be beamed through a vacuum, so it can not be used to look at living material. Naessens' remarkable somatoscope, however, can view live material with a resolution of 150 Angstroms, a magnification of 30,000 diameters. That magnification reveals a whole new world in a tiny drop of blood. The world that Gaston Naessens sees in that drop with his somatoscope is quite different from what we were taught at school! He sees that our blood is alive with a teaming micro-ecology. This is how Gaston Naessens discovered the somatid.
What is a somatid?:
Quote from: http://www.normanallan.com/Med/714.html
In all living plants and animals Naessens observed tiny creatures. He called them somatids - "little bodies". He says that in the healthy organism the somatids have a simple three stage life cycle (a simple viroid form, spores, and double spores). This he named the microcycle. The somatids are symbiotic - they've always been with us, and we need them. However, when the body is under stress the somatids elaborate into a more complicated macrocycle, a sixteen stage cycle. The macrocycle is parasitic and is associated with the development of immune compromised diseases - such as cancer.
...
...
3. In other words, whatever viruses are, they are something designed to help the body. How do they do this? By replacing damaged parts of DNA and RNA in cells. How do cells get damaged? By pollution and toxins, often toxins from vaccines.
The medical is looking to destroy the things that are making us well. Rather than finding ways to get rid of toxins, the medical is trying to increase the toxins by getting rid of the viruses that are trying to help us. Also, the Somatoscope microscope is not used to view living viruses in action. Because of this, doctors don't have a chance to actually watch what they do in the body. Rather, doctors need to depend on electron microscopes, which only show dead, unmoving viruses.
Most doctors don't understand this, since they are taught a lie by their teachers... who probably don't even realize that they have been teaching lies that were taught to them by others.
Vaccines, pollution, and other factors naturally found in nature are the things that are harming us. Viruses are the things that are trying to repair the damage done by the things that are harming us.
My guess is the birth rate for first born children might go up a bit. For families that already have one or more kid, the birth rate will drop significantly.
I also expect divorce rates skyrocket, there's already data showing a big uptick in domestic violence.
I also expect divorce rates skyrocket, there's already data showing a big uptick in domestic violence.
ii expect the complete opposite
new couples are not dating/finding each other. so one night stand mistakes are not happening.
but established couples already living together (more likely already have a kid) are more likely to get bored at night as the only thing on TV is the news so they will find other ways to entertain each other
but remember over all this lockdown is not some massive 5 year thing. its only been a few months. so its not going to be a massive 'baby boom'
You could be right. I'm not sure the rate of conceptions from one night stands are but I feel like it would be pretty low.
I was thinking more along the lines of couples with children will never have the house to themselves and have fewer opportunities to do anything 'romantic'.
I thought the 1965 blackout in NYC led to an increased birth rate 9 months later. I've heard people claim it many times and just assumed it was true. So I googled it to post a link here and found this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/from-here-to-maternity/
Shows what I know.
My guess is the birth rate for first born children might go up a bit. For families that already have one or more kid, the birth rate will drop significantly.
I also expect divorce rates skyrocket, there's already data showing a big uptick in domestic violence.
I also expect divorce rates skyrocket, there's already data showing a big uptick in domestic violence.
ii expect the complete opposite
new couples are not dating/finding each other. so one night stand mistakes are not happening.
but established couples already living together (more likely already have a kid) are more likely to get bored at night as the only thing on TV is the news so they will find other ways to entertain each other
but remember over all this lockdown is not some massive 5 year thing. its only been a few months. so its not going to be a massive 'baby boom'
I wonder if the birth rate will decline in the next few years.
My guess is the birth rate for first born children might go up a bit. For families that already have one or more kid, the birth rate will drop significantly.
I also expect divorce rates skyrocket, there's already data showing a big uptick in domestic violence.
Italian scientists are now claiming the virus has mutated into a less harmful strain.
One thing this virus has done is expedite the move to remote learning/working, etc. I wonder if the birth rate will decline in the next few years.
One thing this virus has done is expedite the move to remote learning/working, etc. I wonder if the birth rate will decline in the next few years.
"Two 'Unusual' COVID-19 Features Convincing Scientists It Was Man-Made"
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/two-unusual-covid-19-features-convincing-scientists-it-was-man-made
"Pew: Democrats Represent 41 Of 44 Districts With Highest COVID-19 Death Tolls"
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/05/pew-democrats-represent-41-of-44-districts-with-highest-covid-19-death-tolls/
"Malaria drug and zinc, the missing link"
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/malaria-drug-and-zinc-the-missing-link/
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/two-unusual-covid-19-features-convincing-scientists-it-was-man-made
"Pew: Democrats Represent 41 Of 44 Districts With Highest COVID-19 Death Tolls"
https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/05/pew-democrats-represent-41-of-44-districts-with-highest-covid-19-death-tolls/
"Malaria drug and zinc, the missing link"
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/malaria-drug-and-zinc-the-missing-link/
In the 2017 Flu (Influenca) season 80000 died in US this year 6k extremly mild season.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/
Chance of dying in US
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/
Chance of dying in US
Double stop worrying. Deaths will increase as the old baby boomers get older. But the population will level off from the new lockdown baby boomers.
In the 2017 Flu (Influenca) season 80000 died in US this year 6k extremly mild season.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/
Chance of dying in US
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/
Chance of dying in US
first of all the CDC data in last few posts is limited scope based on one month of data which has been hindered due to lockdown
remember when people were getting exponentially sick in first week of march they didnt die until april so their numbers didnt count
the death counts of a march were based on february infectees.. and back then it was not even double digit numbers
so ofcourse initial death counts based on those infected in february will be low
remember when people were getting exponentially sick in first week of march they didnt die until april so their numbers didnt count
the death counts of a march were based on february infectees.. and back then it was not even double digit numbers
so ofcourse initial death counts based on those infected in february will be low
For the last 30 or more years.
first of all the CDC data in last few posts is limited scope based on one month of data which has been hindered due to lockdown
remember when people were getting exponentially sick in first week of march they didnt die until april so their numbers didnt count
the death counts of a march were based on february infectees.. and back then it was not even double digit numbers
so ofcourse initial death counts based on those infected in february will be low
remember. there were only 5k deaths reported as of end of march
so the numbers are out by a factor of 20x compared to todays 100k death)
and also the numbers are scewed because the spread had been curbed/hindered by self isolation.
meaning deaths with unhindered 'herd spread' would be much more alarming numbers
remember when people were getting exponentially sick in first week of march they didnt die until april so their numbers didnt count
the death counts of a march were based on february infectees.. and back then it was not even double digit numbers
so ofcourse initial death counts based on those infected in february will be low
remember. there were only 5k deaths reported as of end of march
so the numbers are out by a factor of 20x compared to todays 100k death)
and also the numbers are scewed because the spread had been curbed/hindered by self isolation.
meaning deaths with unhindered 'herd spread' would be much more alarming numbers
Overall fatality rate of 0.4% CDC report
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
| Age | Average Yearly Propability of Death | Increased chance with COVID | ||
| 0-9 | 0.073% | 0.002% | ||
| 10-19 | 0.033% | 0.003% | ||
| 20-29 | 0.107% | 0.01% | ||
| 30-39 | 0.16% | 0.022% | ||
| 40-49 | 0.267% | 0.042% | ||
| 50-59 | 0.614% | 0.137% | ||
| 60-69 | 1.288% | 0.486% | ||
| 70-79 | 3.028% | 1.661% | ||
| 80-89 | 8.582% | 5.789% | ||
| 90+ | 24.9% | 10.337% |
You linked to the cdc pandemic planning scenarios using data from March 1 - March 31.
The cdc doesn't have an overall fatality rate that I can see. Also, they spelled probability wrong - and it's not a typo.
Ok, so you got it from this article:
Horowitz: The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate. Where is the media?
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/
And he used this chart from the cdc report and added the red circle:
https://i.gyazo.com/1dbbabd4946c8e14d1744001b19ef30a.png
Now go look at what it says above the chart in the actual scenario report: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
https://i.gyazo.com/6e41a7005f9e22579d894857352ecdd3.png
The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19.
It says that...right above the chart. And this guy writes an article about it with "The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate." in the headline.
Do you think he's lying or just stupid? You can't just look for a low number and then make up what it means and then run around telling people that's what the CDC meant. Even if all your theories are correct, if you make shit up you are no better than the people you're criticizing.
But what you CAN do is look at everything the CDC says, and then look at what the rest of the medical is saying, and then come to a conclusion as to what the CDC REALLY meant.
In its self-contradictory talk, the CDC shows that it either doesn't know what it is talking about, or that it is being extremely deceptive for some reason. In other words, the CDC is lying. Those aren't theories. The CDC is right out in the open with what it says. The problem is most people can't focus on anything but one tiny little point at a time.
The Coronavirus death count is extremely low. The CDC says to call anything Covid and they will protect you if you are prosecuted. All the stuff that was called flu, pneumonia, the cold, etc., in the past, is now being called Covid. Yet, there are hundreds of thousands of viruses, and at least dozens of viruses in the Coronavirus family that could be doing the dirty work rather than Covid.
Covid-19 identification is difficult enough. But to truthfully say that Covid is the cause of death, requires a whole lot more than simply identifying that Covid-19 is present.
Overall fatality rate of 0.4% CDC report
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
| Age | Average Yearly Propability of Death | Increased chance with COVID | ||
| 0-9 | 0.073% | 0.002% | ||
| 10-19 | 0.033% | 0.003% | ||
| 20-29 | 0.107% | 0.01% | ||
| 30-39 | 0.16% | 0.022% | ||
| 40-49 | 0.267% | 0.042% | ||
| 50-59 | 0.614% | 0.137% | ||
| 60-69 | 1.288% | 0.486% | ||
| 70-79 | 3.028% | 1.661% | ||
| 80-89 | 8.582% | 5.789% | ||
| 90+ | 24.9% | 10.337% |
You linked to the cdc pandemic planning scenarios using data from March 1 - March 31.
The cdc doesn't have an overall fatality rate that I can see. Also, they spelled probability wrong - and it's not a typo.
Ok, so you got it from this article:
Horowitz: The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate. Where is the media?
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/
And he used this chart from the cdc report and added the red circle:
Now go look at what it says above the chart in the actual scenario report: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19.
It says that...right above the chart. And this guy writes an article about it with "The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate." in the headline.
Do you think he's lying or just stupid? You can't just look for a low number and then make up what it means and then run around telling people that's what the CDC meant. Even if all your theories are correct, if you make shit up you are no better than the people you're criticizing.
.....
You linked to the cdc pandemic planning scenarios using data from March 1 - March 31.
The cdc doesn't have an overall fatality rate that I can see. Also, they spelled probability wrong - and it's not a typo.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Shouldn’t we ask questions when more evidence shows this entire strategy was wrong from the start?
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-new-antibody-study-strong-evidence-lockdown-strategy-wrong-course/
Overall fatality rate of 0.4% CDC report
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
| Age | Average Yearly Propability of Death | Increased chance with COVID | ||
| 0-9 | 0.073% | 0.002% | ||
| 10-19 | 0.033% | 0.003% | ||
| 20-29 | 0.107% | 0.01% | ||
| 30-39 | 0.16% | 0.022% | ||
| 40-49 | 0.267% | 0.042% | ||
| 50-59 | 0.614% | 0.137% | ||
| 60-69 | 1.288% | 0.486% | ||
| 70-79 | 3.028% | 1.661% | ||
| 80-89 | 8.582% | 5.789% | ||
| 90+ | 24.9% | 10.337% |
You linked to the cdc pandemic planning scenarios using data from March 1 - March 31.
The cdc doesn't have an overall fatality rate that I can see. Also, they spelled probability wrong - and it's not a typo.
Overall fatality rate of 0.4% CDC report
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
If you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year.
| Age | Average Yearly Propability of Death | Increased chance with COVID | ||
| 0-9 | 0.073% | 0.002% | ||
| 10-19 | 0.033% | 0.003% | ||
| 20-29 | 0.107% | 0.01% | ||
| 30-39 | 0.16% | 0.022% | ||
| 40-49 | 0.267% | 0.042% | ||
| 50-59 | 0.614% | 0.137% | ||
| 60-69 | 1.288% | 0.486% | ||
| 70-79 | 3.028% | 1.661% | ||
| 80-89 | 8.582% | 5.789% | ||
| 90+ | 24.9% | 10.337% |
..
Hi, Tash. It's unlike you to not have a source listed for something this important. Or are you trying to get us to work?
That's a tabloid. The article doesn't even have an author listed or site any source.
First sentence:
Friends, coronavirus is never a virus as WHO has made us to believe; the whole PANDEMIC is because they want to vaccinate every living being, and assassinate the great number of people, control the living, and reduce the world population.
Jump to: