|
Post by Davef on Jul 4, 2020 18:39:17 GMT
Sorry chaps, I see nothing to celebrate. It's the lowest figures we've seen on a standard day since the beginning of lock down by a huge margin. This following the protests and the packed beaches. If this trend continues it can only be a good thing. Obviously we've got people now congregating inside as well as outside, this will be the real test and we've got to hope that this relaxing of the rules won't reverse the current trend. I'm not convinced that it won't but I'll be delighted if it doesn't. Italy opened up bars and restaurants in the middle of May and their infection rate continues to fall. Let's hope and pray we follow them.
|
|
|
Post by richie22 on Jul 4, 2020 19:08:04 GMT
All week we’ve had our gutter press building up ‘super-Saturday’ ... now we have the same press shouting about people not behaving and doing the distancing thing . A historian in part they helped to whip up
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 4, 2020 19:15:23 GMT
All week we’ve had our gutter press building up ‘super-Saturday’ ... now we have the same press shouting about people not behaving and doing the distancing thing . A historian in part they helped to whip up I called it last week. They are a disgrace, utterly shameless.
|
|
|
Post by richie22 on Jul 4, 2020 19:17:24 GMT
All week we’ve had our gutter press building up ‘super-Saturday’ ... now we have the same press shouting about people not behaving and doing the distancing thing . A historian in part they helped to whip up I called it last week. They are a disgrace, utterly shameless. Anyone else having problems imputing words , historians !!! Apologies
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 4, 2020 19:19:48 GMT
I called it last week. They are a disgrace, utterly shameless. Anyone else having problems imputing words , historians !!! Apologies I know what you meant mate.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 4, 2020 19:39:32 GMT
All week we’ve had our gutter press building up ‘super-Saturday’ ... now we have the same press shouting about people not behaving and doing the distancing thing . A historian in part they helped to whip up The govt gave them their 'in' by relaxing it starting on a Saturday - which just hapened to be 4/7. So 'Super Saturday' and 'Independence Day' was just a gift. The consequences were as inevitable as a Berahino penalty. If they were going to do it then sensibly they should have started it on a Monday or a midweek day so there would be a low key intro. But that wouldn't suit the Blond Fuckwit so prone to grandstanding, rhetoric and alliteration. As long as it's all about him we're fucked. Twat.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 4, 2020 19:56:41 GMT
All week we’ve had our gutter press building up ‘super-Saturday’ ... now we have the same press shouting about people not behaving and doing the distancing thing . A historian in part they helped to whip up The govt gave them their 'in' by relaxing it starting on a Saturday - which just hapened to be 4/7. So 'Super Saturday' and 'Independence Day' was just a gift. The consequences were as inevitable as a Berahino penalty. If they were going to do it then sensibly they should have started it on a Monday or a midweek day so there would be a low key intro. But that wouldn't suit the Blond Fuckwit so prone to grandstanding, rhetoric and alliteration. As long as it's all about him we're fucked. Twat. Exactly. If Chelsea hadn't beaten Citeh, then Liverpool would be going into tomorrow's game against Villa tomorrow afternoon, knowing that a win would give them the title and all the while, the pubs would have reopened, it would have been total carnage. The pubs absolutely should have been opened on the Monday if anybody had shown any nous about it.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jul 4, 2020 20:06:29 GMT
I was on a run the other week down South and saw loads of them, amid all the take away litter, scummy bastards everywhere
|
|
|
Post by richie22 on Jul 4, 2020 20:50:23 GMT
Seriously tho, the images in some of the media ( if genuinely taken today) are a worry, add this to the beach’s/protests /celebrations and raves ... the second wave has just dropped a grab bag of skittles and a red bull and will be here much sooner. Boris dropped the ball by green lighting the Saturday opening but again the people were given an inch and took a mile
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 4, 2020 21:25:21 GMT
Jesus wept. This is a cult.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 4, 2020 21:26:18 GMT
Does the amplification show someone to actually have the virus itself, in the way that people are normally ascribed to have a virus? And couldn't this be used to show that someone has something they haven't really got in the way that is commonly understood? That is, in extreme layman terms, people carry numerous 'germs' all of the time without any virus. And this could be shown for many viruses. And you wouldn't diagnose them as being 'sick' from a standard blood test. What about what this Dr says from around ten minutes? He states they are testing for a sequence of RNA and are not testing for a virus itself. www.bitchute.com/video/U2xM8ZJ0Xmdx/By the way, I discuss in sincerity, not to be an arse. Covid is an RNA virus. It releases its RNA payload into a cell and tricks the host machinery into making copies of itself. Protein from genes are synthesised in humans cells when RNA is derived from a complementary DNA strand but when we probe for protein expression using PCR we take isolate RNA from a sample. As only if the gene is active will that RNA be present. If we took genomic DNA, we’d always come back with a positive as all cells have a full genome with all genes. All RNA strands will have a complementary second strand that can be used to form complementary DNA (cDNA). This is a fundamental concept of biology, the letters you see in a nucleic acid are called nucleotides, there are 4 in DNA and RNA. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. A binds to T and C binds to G. In RNA T is replaced by Uracil but U binds to A, its just substituted. If you had an RNA strand of AUCG, the complementary strand would be TAGC. You can make this for any RNA strand to make it double stranded cDNA. It’s standard practice when checking for human gene expression (non diagnostic). RT-qPCR does exactly this process, it takes the RNA from a sample, turns it into a complementary DNA strand. It does this using something called reverse transcription (some viruses such as HIV do this). The complementary strand is determined by the RNA sequence and is therefore specific to whatever that sequence is, based on nucleotide based binding (A binds to U/T, C binds to G). The PCR the uses something called semi conservative replication to amplify the starting material up. The single double strand is broken by heat into 2 single stranded molecules. Then as the reaction is cooled, the reverse transcription enzymes, primers and free nucleotides in a pcr mixture will bind to these strands and create 2 double stranded molecules. This is then repeated as 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 8 etc. The RNA sequence and cDNA sequence created in the PCR is specific to Covid RNA strand. There are overlaps with similar coronaviruses in parts but crucially not with the areas of the genome used in the diagnostic test. Incidentally this is the problem with cross reactive antibody tests. The protein used was often too similar. But at the RNA/DNA level, this is avoided. Like increasing the resolution on a tv. If no virus is present, you will not get amplification as no cDNA was made because of the absence of Covid RNA in the first place. The reason they use PCR is because its faster than taking the virus sample and culturing it. Which would take days/weeks to give a positive or negative result. Which in a fast moving scenario would be useless as a screening tool. Most nasophrangeal positive swabs have a CT value (when the test becomes positive) of 20-25. This is totally within acceptable range. If you don’t have any virions in your body, you simply won’t see amplification because of the specificity of the sequence. They may stretch the reaction out to 45 but if any amplification is seen above 35 cycles every protocol I have seen says repeat testing because it could be noise or contaminants. The negative control with no nucleic material in will also tell you about this. The virus has been cultured all over the world now for in vitro and in vivo experiments for treatment development. The viruses used in these cultures come from people who were PCR positive and have been repeatedly demonstrated to infect cells/animals in these experiments. It has also been visualised and as I say has been sequenced 10s of thousands of times in this country alone. His hat analogy is flawed the area of the sequence used in the pcr test is totally specific to covid, there is nothing else with this “hat” (the specific genetic sequence) in the human genome or otherwise. If it was another virus, just floating around we would have found it in the covid genome sequencing studies which measures variation in the strains. Another virus would have emerged, it hasn’t. People are The 80% false positive statement is completely without reference too. That’s a massive claim to not provide a reference for. Yet it's still no proof of an infection, as has been pointed out. And therefore this test is considered by some as fundamentally flawed as a way of proving infection. This article summarises some of the controversy. Many of the issues are further explored in the comments beneath the article. off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/I have many other concerns about the narrative of this virus. One particular one is the falsifying of death certificates. I know of three people personally who totally disagree with covid 19 as a cause of death on a relative's death certificate. Every single one died of other causes. One is fighting this deceit. A real pandemic would not require this inflation of data for the sake of presenting a narrative. Truth does not require ANY manipulation. I'm calling it as bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 4, 2020 21:33:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jul 4, 2020 21:50:03 GMT
I'm not really sure what the issue is here. The DHSC's tweet will direct you to their website which gives all the figures formerly on their daily tweet with more information and explanation. They're not hiding anything. As for the people tested data being discontinued, that was never disclosed anyway, was it?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jul 4, 2020 22:01:44 GMT
Covid is an RNA virus. It releases its RNA payload into a cell and tricks the host machinery into making copies of itself. Protein from genes are synthesised in humans cells when RNA is derived from a complementary DNA strand but when we probe for protein expression using PCR we take isolate RNA from a sample. As only if the gene is active will that RNA be present. If we took genomic DNA, we’d always come back with a positive as all cells have a full genome with all genes. All RNA strands will have a complementary second strand that can be used to form complementary DNA (cDNA). This is a fundamental concept of biology, the letters you see in a nucleic acid are called nucleotides, there are 4 in DNA and RNA. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. A binds to T and C binds to G. In RNA T is replaced by Uracil but U binds to A, its just substituted. If you had an RNA strand of AUCG, the complementary strand would be TAGC. You can make this for any RNA strand to make it double stranded cDNA. It’s standard practice when checking for human gene expression (non diagnostic). RT-qPCR does exactly this process, it takes the RNA from a sample, turns it into a complementary DNA strand. It does this using something called reverse transcription (some viruses such as HIV do this). The complementary strand is determined by the RNA sequence and is therefore specific to whatever that sequence is, based on nucleotide based binding (A binds to U/T, C binds to G). The PCR the uses something called semi conservative replication to amplify the starting material up. The single double strand is broken by heat into 2 single stranded molecules. Then as the reaction is cooled, the reverse transcription enzymes, primers and free nucleotides in a pcr mixture will bind to these strands and create 2 double stranded molecules. This is then repeated as 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 8 etc. The RNA sequence and cDNA sequence created in the PCR is specific to Covid RNA strand. There are overlaps with similar coronaviruses in parts but crucially not with the areas of the genome used in the diagnostic test. Incidentally this is the problem with cross reactive antibody tests. The protein used was often too similar. But at the RNA/DNA level, this is avoided. Like increasing the resolution on a tv. If no virus is present, you will not get amplification as no cDNA was made because of the absence of Covid RNA in the first place. The reason they use PCR is because its faster than taking the virus sample and culturing it. Which would take days/weeks to give a positive or negative result. Which in a fast moving scenario would be useless as a screening tool. Most nasophrangeal positive swabs have a CT value (when the test becomes positive) of 20-25. This is totally within acceptable range. If you don’t have any virions in your body, you simply won’t see amplification because of the specificity of the sequence. They may stretch the reaction out to 45 but if any amplification is seen above 35 cycles every protocol I have seen says repeat testing because it could be noise or contaminants. The negative control with no nucleic material in will also tell you about this. The virus has been cultured all over the world now for in vitro and in vivo experiments for treatment development. The viruses used in these cultures come from people who were PCR positive and have been repeatedly demonstrated to infect cells/animals in these experiments. It has also been visualised and as I say has been sequenced 10s of thousands of times in this country alone. His hat analogy is flawed the area of the sequence used in the pcr test is totally specific to covid, there is nothing else with this “hat” (the specific genetic sequence) in the human genome or otherwise. If it was another virus, just floating around we would have found it in the covid genome sequencing studies which measures variation in the strains. Another virus would have emerged, it hasn’t. People are The 80% false positive statement is completely without reference too. That’s a massive claim to not provide a reference for. Yet it's still no proof of an infection, as has been pointed out. And therefore this test is considered by some as fundamentally flawed as a way of proving infection. This article summarises some of the controversy. off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/No test is 100% accurate but in terms of high throughput testing, the alternatives are not an option on the wider scale. The South Korea infection reinfection (actually false positive pcr post resolution) gave us some concept of the limitations of PCR in the acute phase following illness. But crucially no patients tested positive a long time after symptom cessation suggesting the previous “second positives” were virus fragments that was then cleared out after time. Only one patient I know of has tested positive after more than 60 days, I’ll see if I can find the case study. That’s not to say more in depth work on culturing and isolation hasn’t been done: The absence of Viral RNA in patients post recovery, that is to say negative on PCR in addition to difficulties in culturing virus 8 days post symptom onset (with high CT value on a positive PCR) would suggest there is clearance going on. Which is strongly suggestive this is not a virus that is commensal and not part of the human virome of a germ that we carry around with us. There was a paper (incidentally investigating hydroxychloroquinine) that showed a clear correlation with a low CT value (lots of RNA) and the ability to culture the virus from matched sample and then get it to infect cells. The ability to culture and isolate the virus drops to 0 around a CT value of 35 which is exactly the point at which a retest is considered on the PCR because it could be a contamination. The latter described active viral replication in upper respiratory tracts which falls off a cliff in concordance with decreasing viral loads and also tested samples for the presence of a whole host of common respiratory viruses that came back negative. Suggestive of illness driven by Covid as a causative agent. Third paper is isolation of sample from patients, viable infection of vero cells (a cell line commonly used for viral research) and the using a technique called Western Blotting to probe for the spike protein among others. That is to say, what the RNA codes for and what it hijacks our machinery to make. Again, if there was no invasion and infection of cells, there is no way this protein would appear. You need a shit tonne of protein for a positive western blot sample which could only occurs when the virus infects large numbers of cells. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185831/www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x.pdfwwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_articleKoch’s postulates, as mentioned in that off guardian article are useful, but immensely limited. They were made before the discovery of viruses for a kick off. Even when Koch made them, there were known bacteria that could cause disease like cholera, that were found in people without cholera. Koch actually abandoned the first postulate on that very premise when he worked on Cholera. That’s not to say they don’t apply or shouldn’t be looked for, just that it’s caveated in the extreme. Lots of people carry MRSA and TB around and are totally healthy for instance, I don’t think anyone would say they are not nasty diseases because they don’t meet 150 year old postulates. bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/10%3A_Epidemiology/10.1%3A_Principles_of_Epidemiology/10.1E%3A_Exceptions_to_Koch’s_PostulatesMuch of the uncertainty of PCR for diagnostics has been surpassed by whole genome sequencing as I said before which the off guardian article steers well clear from but for single mention. Whole genome sequencing doesn’t just look at RNA fragments amplified by PCR it looks at the entire virus/genome. This has been done in humans, bacteria, viruses archaea rodents etc. Sequencing then cross references the genome with known genome for nearly every organism you can imagine. If there is a hit, with any organism or microorganism or massive overlap it would be cited. If the isolation and purification was truly as bad as the article suggests then you would see massive, disparities in the genomes being fully sequenced. As each viral isolation and sample sequenced would be taken from a different person and have different “contamination” from isolation attached to the sequence. Yet this is not being found at all, the genome is changing very slowly indeed. If the the virus was just contamination of from whatever the sample was attached to before it was separated (or. not if it wasn’t fully purified) you wouldn’t see this, it would be all over the place because it would be so variable. This is before we even talk about serology too. The rapid diagnostic antibody tests themselves have been garbage (for various reasons) but slower, gold standard ELISAs on very specific antibodies (ELISA quantifies antibodies) from patient blood and subsequent neutralisation of live virus replication in assays using antibodies purified from patient samples has been shown the world over as have increases in these antibodies following symptom onset which is canonical with a viral infection. T-Cell mediated immunity shows a similar story too.
|
|
|
Post by garyevans on Jul 4, 2020 22:15:03 GMT
Trump is saying it's 'totally under control'
|
|
|
Post by garyevans on Jul 4, 2020 22:15:15 GMT
Trump is saying it's 'totally under control'
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 4, 2020 22:55:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 4, 2020 23:29:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 5, 2020 6:30:06 GMT
Jesus wept. This is a cult. Almost right
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 5, 2020 8:15:38 GMT
No test is 100% accurate but in terms of high throughput testing, the alternatives are not an option on the wider scale. The South Korea infection reinfection (actually false positive pcr post resolution) gave us some concept of the limitations of PCR in the acute phase following illness. But crucially no patients tested positive a long time after symptom cessation suggesting the previous “second positives” were virus fragments that was then cleared out after time. Only one patient I know of has tested positive after more than 60 days, I’ll see if I can find the case study. That’s not to say more in depth work on culturing and isolation hasn’t been done: The absence of Viral RNA in patients post recovery, that is to say negative on PCR in addition to difficulties in culturing virus 8 days post symptom onset (with high CT value on a positive PCR) would suggest there is clearance going on. Which is strongly suggestive this is not a virus that is commensal and not part of the human virome of a germ that we carry around with us. There was a paper (incidentally investigating hydroxychloroquinine) that showed a clear correlation with a low CT value (lots of RNA) and the ability to culture the virus from matched sample and then get it to infect cells. The ability to culture and isolate the virus drops to 0 around a CT value of 35 which is exactly the point at which a retest is considered on the PCR because it could be a contamination. The latter described active viral replication in upper respiratory tracts which falls off a cliff in concordance with decreasing viral loads and also tested samples for the presence of a whole host of common respiratory viruses that came back negative. Suggestive of illness driven by Covid as a causative agent. Third paper is isolation of sample from patients, viable infection of vero cells (a cell line commonly used for viral research) and the using a technique called Western Blotting to probe for the spike protein among others. That is to say, what the RNA codes for and what it hijacks our machinery to make. Again, if there was no invasion and infection of cells, there is no way this protein would appear. You need a shit tonne of protein for a positive western blot sample which could only occurs when the virus infects large numbers of cells. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185831/www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x.pdfwwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_articleKoch’s postulates, as mentioned in that off guardian article are useful, but immensely limited. They were made before the discovery of viruses for a kick off. Even when Koch made them, there were known bacteria that could cause disease like cholera, that were found in people without cholera. Koch actually abandoned the first postulate on that very premise when he worked on Cholera. That’s not to say they don’t apply or shouldn’t be looked for, just that it’s caveated in the extreme. Lots of people carry MRSA and TB around and are totally healthy for instance, I don’t think anyone would say they are not nasty diseases because they don’t meet 150 year old postulates. bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/10%3A_Epidemiology/10.1%3A_Principles_of_Epidemiology/10.1E%3A_Exceptions_to_Koch’s_PostulatesMuch of the uncertainty of PCR for diagnostics has been surpassed by whole genome sequencing as I said before which the off guardian article steers well clear from but for single mention. Whole genome sequencing doesn’t just look at RNA fragments amplified by PCR it looks at the entire virus/genome. This has been done in humans, bacteria, viruses archaea rodents etc. Sequencing then cross references the genome with known genome for nearly every organism you can imagine. If there is a hit, with any organism or microorganism or massive overlap it would be cited. If the isolation and purification was truly as bad as the article suggests then you would see massive, disparities in the genomes being fully sequenced. As each viral isolation and sample sequenced would be taken from a different person and have different “contamination” from isolation attached to the sequence. Yet this is not being found at all, the genome is changing very slowly indeed. If the the virus was just contamination of from whatever the sample was attached to before it was separated (or. not if it wasn’t fully purified) you wouldn’t see this, it would be all over the place because it would be so variable. This is before we even talk about serology too. The rapid diagnostic antibody tests themselves have been garbage (for various reasons) but slower, gold standard ELISAs on very specific antibodies (ELISA quantifies antibodies) from patient blood and subsequent neutralisation of live virus replication in assays using antibodies purified from patient samples has been shown the world over as have increases in these antibodies following symptom onset which is canonical with a viral infection. T-Cell mediated immunity shows a similar story too. I'll take science over bonkers conspiracy theorising every day of the week.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 5, 2020 10:12:52 GMT
Covid is an RNA virus. It releases its RNA payload into a cell and tricks the host machinery into making copies of itself. Protein from genes are synthesised in humans cells when RNA is derived from a complementary DNA strand but when we probe for protein expression using PCR we take isolate RNA from a sample. As only if the gene is active will that RNA be present. If we took genomic DNA, we’d always come back with a positive as all cells have a full genome with all genes. All RNA strands will have a complementary second strand that can be used to form complementary DNA (cDNA). This is a fundamental concept of biology, the letters you see in a nucleic acid are called nucleotides, there are 4 in DNA and RNA. Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. A binds to T and C binds to G. In RNA T is replaced by Uracil but U binds to A, its just substituted. If you had an RNA strand of AUCG, the complementary strand would be TAGC. You can make this for any RNA strand to make it double stranded cDNA. It’s standard practice when checking for human gene expression (non diagnostic). RT-qPCR does exactly this process, it takes the RNA from a sample, turns it into a complementary DNA strand. It does this using something called reverse transcription (some viruses such as HIV do this). The complementary strand is determined by the RNA sequence and is therefore specific to whatever that sequence is, based on nucleotide based binding (A binds to U/T, C binds to G). The PCR the uses something called semi conservative replication to amplify the starting material up. The single double strand is broken by heat into 2 single stranded molecules. Then as the reaction is cooled, the reverse transcription enzymes, primers and free nucleotides in a pcr mixture will bind to these strands and create 2 double stranded molecules. This is then repeated as 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 8 etc. The RNA sequence and cDNA sequence created in the PCR is specific to Covid RNA strand. There are overlaps with similar coronaviruses in parts but crucially not with the areas of the genome used in the diagnostic test. Incidentally this is the problem with cross reactive antibody tests. The protein used was often too similar. But at the RNA/DNA level, this is avoided. Like increasing the resolution on a tv. If no virus is present, you will not get amplification as no cDNA was made because of the absence of Covid RNA in the first place. The reason they use PCR is because its faster than taking the virus sample and culturing it. Which would take days/weeks to give a positive or negative result. Which in a fast moving scenario would be useless as a screening tool. Most nasophrangeal positive swabs have a CT value (when the test becomes positive) of 20-25. This is totally within acceptable range. If you don’t have any virions in your body, you simply won’t see amplification because of the specificity of the sequence. They may stretch the reaction out to 45 but if any amplification is seen above 35 cycles every protocol I have seen says repeat testing because it could be noise or contaminants. The negative control with no nucleic material in will also tell you about this. The virus has been cultured all over the world now for in vitro and in vivo experiments for treatment development. The viruses used in these cultures come from people who were PCR positive and have been repeatedly demonstrated to infect cells/animals in these experiments. It has also been visualised and as I say has been sequenced 10s of thousands of times in this country alone. His hat analogy is flawed the area of the sequence used in the pcr test is totally specific to covid, there is nothing else with this “hat” (the specific genetic sequence) in the human genome or otherwise. If it was another virus, just floating around we would have found it in the covid genome sequencing studies which measures variation in the strains. Another virus would have emerged, it hasn’t. People are The 80% false positive statement is completely without reference too. That’s a massive claim to not provide a reference for. Yet it's still no proof of an infection, as has been pointed out. And therefore this test is considered by some as fundamentally flawed as a way of proving infection. This article summarises some of the controversy. Many of the issues are further explored in the comments beneath the article. off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/I have many other concerns about the narrative of this virus. One particular one is the falsifying of death certificates. I know of three people personally who totally disagree with covid 19 as a cause of death on a relative's death certificate. Every single one died of other causes. One is fighting this deceit. A real pandemic would not require this inflation of data for the sake of presenting a narrative. Truth does not require ANY manipulation. I'm calling it as bullshit. Reading a number of your posts it would seem that you believe that the extent of the threat of the virus (if it exists at all) is wildly exaggerated on a global scale and that economies and societies around the world are being brought to a halt unecessarily. If that is the case:- 1. Who is orchestrating it and for what reason? 2. How are they managing to influence/intimidate hundreds of independent organisations to over-record infections/fatalities on a global scale? 3. How are they managing to influence/intimidate large numbers of the medical profession to overstate the threat to public health? 4. Why are hundreds of governments worldwide voluntarily closing down/restricting their own economies to deal with a threat that barely exists? 5. How will we know when whoever is behind it has achieved their endgame?
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 5, 2020 11:07:35 GMT
Yet it's still no proof of an infection, as has been pointed out. And therefore this test is considered by some as fundamentally flawed as a way of proving infection. This article summarises some of the controversy. Many of the issues are further explored in the comments beneath the article. off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/I have many other concerns about the narrative of this virus. One particular one is the falsifying of death certificates. I know of three people personally who totally disagree with covid 19 as a cause of death on a relative's death certificate. Every single one died of other causes. One is fighting this deceit. A real pandemic would not require this inflation of data for the sake of presenting a narrative. Truth does not require ANY manipulation. I'm calling it as bullshit. Reading a number of your posts it would seem that you believe that the extent of the threat of the virus (if it exists at all) is wildly exaggerated on a global scale and that economies and societies around the world are being brought to a halt unecessarily. If that is the case:- 1. Who is orchestrating it and for what reason? 2. How are they managing to influence/intimidate hundreds of independent organisations to over-record infections/fatalities on a global scale? 3. How are they managing to influence/intimidate large numbers of the medical profession to overstate the threat to public health? 4. Why are hundreds of governments worldwide voluntarily closing down/restricting their own economies to deal with a threat that barely exists? 5. How will we know when whoever is behind it has achieved their endgame? Why does a motive need to be established? That is for conjecture. It's not wrong to point out that there is disagreement over whether the test can establish the actual existence of a virus. It's not wrong to suggest there is evidence of tendency/pressure to record deaths as Covid19, even when that is not the cause of death, and these deaths would not have been recorded as such before. I know directly of three such people, and one family is fighting hard to contest this. And you will find more and more people starting to say. Amplify it across a country. And also deaths classified on symptoms alone. It is not wrong to say that 'having tested positive for covid 19' has been blurred to mean died of Covid19. Why do this, if accuracy a concern? It's not wrong to point out that death figures presented as a 24 hour period, do not not represent a day, and can come from many weeks previous. So why is it presented as a daily count? It is not wrong to point out that if even you take every stat as legit, this lockdown is unprecedented, even when we regularly face worse death figures from flu. So why a lockdown? It is not wrong to point out that Bill Gates has provided funding for the BBC and stands to gain financially from a vaccine patent. An exercise was run for this scenario in October on exactly the same date as the world military games in China. It looked to me like China was running a theatre show in January. But that's opinion, and my own. It's not wrong to point out that respiratory illness fatalities increase by 80% during the winter period, and how many of these have been categorised Covid19. Also it's need pointing out that more and more vague symptoms are being added to the covid list to make categorising it as covid on a death certificate even more easy. It's not wrong to point out that it is likely that lockdown deaths will exceed 'covid deaths' due to lack of medical care and poverty. Currently, 5 million are awaiting medical care. It's also not wrong to point out that medical professionals who are questioning the narrative are largely being scrubbed from YouTube and Google. Why should they be silenced? The rest is conjecture. But to address some of what you said. I would argue very few need to be involved or in full knowledge, particularly when world bodies can dictate through various national bodies the narrative and the procedures. And I would also consider the economic aims. I could go on and on about silly arbitrary rules and contradictions that seem more like control than health. I watched a hairdresser on the TV cutting someone's hair whilst peering beneath the bottom of a visor. What the hell is the point of that ? They are enforced to perpetuate the myth in my opinion. I could stop questioning and go along with what the BBC are telling me. And I would be more inclined to if they actually reported on some of this stuff. So blame them, not me. I certainly don't expect any support on here. And neither do I care.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jul 5, 2020 11:38:04 GMT
Reading a number of your posts it would seem that you believe that the extent of the threat of the virus (if it exists at all) is wildly exaggerated on a global scale and that economies and societies around the world are being brought to a halt unecessarily. If that is the case:- 1. Who is orchestrating it and for what reason? 2. How are they managing to influence/intimidate hundreds of independent organisations to over-record infections/fatalities on a global scale? 3. How are they managing to influence/intimidate large numbers of the medical profession to overstate the threat to public health? 4. Why are hundreds of governments worldwide voluntarily closing down/restricting their own economies to deal with a threat that barely exists? 5. How will we know when whoever is behind it has achieved their endgame? Why does a motive need to be established? That is for conjecture. It's not wrong to point out that there is disagreement over whether the test can establish the actual existence of a virus. It's not wrong to suggest there is evidence of tendency/pressure to record deaths as Covid19, even when that is not the cause of death, and these deaths would not have been recorded as such before. I know directly of three such people, and one family is fighting hard to contest this. And you will find more and more people starting to say. Amplify it across a country. And also deaths classified on symptoms alone. It is not wrong to say that 'having tested positive for covid 19' has been blurred to mean died of Covid19. Why do this, if accuracy a concern? It's not wrong to point out that death figures presented as a 24 hour period, do not not represent a day, and can come from many weeks previous. So why is it presented as a daily count? It is not wrong to point out that if even you take every stat as legit, this lockdown is unprecedented, even when we regularly face worse death figures from flu. So why a lockdown? It is not wrong to point out that Bill Gates has provided funding for the BBC and stands to gain financially from a vaccine patent. An exercise was run for this scenario in October on exactly the same date as the world military games in China. It looked to me like China was running a theatre show in January. But that's opinion, and my own. It's not wrong to point out that respiratory illness fatalities increase by 80% during the winter period, and how many of these have been categorised Covid19. Also it's need pointing out that more and more vague symptoms are being added to the covid list to make categorising it as covid on a death certificate even more easy. It's not wrong to point out that it is likely that lockdown deaths will exceed 'covid deaths' due to lack of medical care and poverty. Currently, 5 million are awaiting medical care. It's also not wrong to point out that medical professionals who are questioning the narrative are largely being scrubbed from YouTube and Google. Why should they be silenced? The rest is conjecture. But to address some of what you said. I would argue very few need to be involved or in full knowledge, particularly when world bodies can dictate through various national bodies the narrative and the procedures. And I would also consider the economic aims. I could stop questioning and go along with what the BBC are telling me. And I would be more inclined to if they actually reported on some of this stuff. So blame them, not me. I certainly don't expect any support on here. And neither do I care. So do you think the excess deaths data being reported all around the world are being manipulated by the world leaders? Because that ignores all timing issues and causes of death.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jul 5, 2020 11:54:07 GMT
Why does a motive need to be established? That is for conjecture. It's not wrong to point out that there is disagreement over whether the test can establish the actual existence of a virus. It's not wrong to suggest there is evidence of tendency/pressure to record deaths as Covid19, even when that is not the cause of death, and these deaths would not have been recorded as such before. I know directly of three such people, and one family is fighting hard to contest this. And you will find more and more people starting to say. Amplify it across a country. And also deaths classified on symptoms alone. It is not wrong to say that 'having tested positive for covid 19' has been blurred to mean died of Covid19. Why do this, if accuracy a concern? It's not wrong to point out that death figures presented as a 24 hour period, do not not represent a day, and can come from many weeks previous. So why is it presented as a daily count? It is not wrong to point out that if even you take every stat as legit, this lockdown is unprecedented, even when we regularly face worse death figures from flu. So why a lockdown? It is not wrong to point out that Bill Gates has provided funding for the BBC and stands to gain financially from a vaccine patent. An exercise was run for this scenario in October on exactly the same date as the world military games in China. It looked to me like China was running a theatre show in January. But that's opinion, and my own. It's not wrong to point out that respiratory illness fatalities increase by 80% during the winter period, and how many of these have been categorised Covid19. Also it's need pointing out that more and more vague symptoms are being added to the covid list to make categorising it as covid on a death certificate even more easy. It's not wrong to point out that it is likely that lockdown deaths will exceed 'covid deaths' due to lack of medical care and poverty. Currently, 5 million are awaiting medical care. It's also not wrong to point out that medical professionals who are questioning the narrative are largely being scrubbed from YouTube and Google. Why should they be silenced? The rest is conjecture. But to address some of what you said. I would argue very few need to be involved or in full knowledge, particularly when world bodies can dictate through various national bodies the narrative and the procedures. And I would also consider the economic aims. I could stop questioning and go along with what the BBC are telling me. And I would be more inclined to if they actually reported on some of this stuff. So blame them, not me. I certainly don't expect any support on here. And neither do I care. So do you think the excess deaths data being reported all around the world are being manipulated by the world leaders? Because that ignores all timing issues and causes of death. In most cases I think world leaders are equally oblivious and technocrats have been running the show. Hence the involvement of world bodies, and the 'following the science' mantra. 'Excess' deaths all occurred after lockdown in the UK, and rose considerably. Disturbingly, I'm pretty certain the care home system has been used to increase this death count. And also how many have died as a result of the lockdown won't be made clear. The jury is still out on what actual level of excess death we will have.
|
|
|
Post by harryh157 on Jul 5, 2020 12:18:37 GMT
When does next season start? Anybody know?
|
|
|
Post by loosestools on Jul 5, 2020 15:14:36 GMT
When does next season start? Anybody know? The flu season?
|
|
|
Post by richie22 on Jul 5, 2020 15:34:10 GMT
Corona ‘arrived’ here and took hold feb/March right at the end of winter, indeed lockdown was largely heaven what with the fantastic spring we got. The second-wave will link up with winter flu season this year, I’m still distanced from my lady who is still plugging away in various north wales hospitals, both my mum and step dad are struggling with cancer, anyone else starting to worry with one eye on late autumn , corona will be back with a vengeance.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 5, 2020 15:40:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 5, 2020 15:53:51 GMT
So do you think the excess deaths data being reported all around the world are being manipulated by the world leaders? Because that ignores all timing issues and causes of death. In most cases I think world leaders are equally oblivious and technocrats have been running the show. Hence the involvement of world bodies, and the 'following the science' mantra. 'Excess' deaths all occurred after lockdown in the UK, and rose considerably. Disturbingly, I'm pretty certain the care home system has been used to increase this death count. And also how many have died as a result of the lockdown won't be made clear. The jury is still out on what actual level of excess death we will have. So just to be clear you are suggesting that care homes were deliberately seeded with Covid in order to kill off residents with the express purpose of inflating the mortality from the virus? If that is the case who is it that you are accusing of genocide?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 5, 2020 16:22:38 GMT
|
|