DURING THE COVID-19 ECONOMIC BUST,
BILLIONAIRES MADE OUT LIKE BANDITS
During the 11 weeks from 18 March, when US lockdowns started, the wealth
of America’s richest people surged by over $565bn, the Institute for Policy
Studies has calculated.
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, has benefited the most, as orders at his
online delivery service soared, with his wealth increasing by an
Mark Zuckerberg was the second biggest beneficiary, increasing his net
worth by $30.1bn.
Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk's net worth also rose US$14.1 billion.
The past week also saw the wealth of US billionaires jump by US$79 billion,
according to the report.
Even Bill Gates, who has positioned himself as global health saviour by
backing a number of Covid-19 vaccine projects, has ended up $11.8bn
Jeff Bezos – up $36.2bn
Mark Zuckerberg – up $30.1bn
Elon Musk – up $14.1bn
Sergey Brin – up $13.9bn
Larry Page – up $13.7bn
Steve Ballmer – up $13.3bn
MacKenzie Bezos – up $12.6bn
Michael Bloomberg – up $12.1bn
Bill Gates – up $11.8bn
Phil Knight – up $11.6bn
Larry Ellison – up $8.5bn
Warren Buffett – up $7.7bn
Michael Dell – up $7.6bn
Sheldon Adelson – up $6.1bn
Compare this half a trillion payoff with the elite's
measly few hundred million in charitable donations.
THIS IS ONLY $1 BILLION: (in $100s)
_________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
PROTESTERS ENGAGE IN MASS HUGS
TO COUNTER COVID19 FEAR @ 12 Minutes
RALLY ADDRESS BY RFK JR @ 25 Minutes
School Entry Forced Immunization
This bill strips away parental authority and puts the government’s health department in charge.
Senate Bill 163 will require all parents who seek a non-medical exemption for their child to either submit to an online re-education program from the health department or get their doctor to sign a medical exemption “certificate.” Best of luck to you on finding a doctor willing to sign the certificate.
After signing, the doctor is required to turn that information over to the state’s immunization registry system, meaning your child is now in a government database.
By removing the distinctions of “Religious” and “Philosophical” and placing both into one category of “non-medical exemption,” this bill effectively removes one of our three current exemptions. It also removes all stated reasons for non-medical exemptions stripping Coloradans of both religious freedom and liberty of conscience.
Last year thousands of Colorado citizens showed up multiple times to tell the legislature they don’t want this kind of government control of their families. Let’s hope it’s double that amount this session!
The bill was scheduled to be heard on Sunday, June 7th
at 12 noon in the House Health & Insurance Committee.
He's been rolled out now try to deflect suspicions on lab origin.
His article is printed in the CIA's UK mouthpiece: The Guardian.
The current tactic is to smear China with blame:
See the ex-MI6 chief, Sir Richard Dearlove below.
And at the same time rubbish claims of lab origin.
'Cos you don't want people to look too closely.
Having your cake and eating it - so to speak
Ignore the conspiracies:
scientists know Covid-19 wasn't created in a lab
Instead of following false claims, we should be focusing our efforts
on the regions where the next pandemic is likely to emerge
• Peter Daszak is president of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit dedicated to analysing and preventing pandemics
Tue 9 Jun 2020 09.00 BST
In a recent interview with the Telegraph, the former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove cited an “important” scientific report that suggested that the novel coronavirus had not emerged naturally, but had been created by Chinese scientists.
Dearlove said he believed the pandemic had “started as an accident” after the virus escaped the lab. A month earlier, the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, had said he had “enormous evidence” that Covid-19 had originated in a lab in China, only to backtrack from this claim on live TV in the same sentence.
Suggestions that Covid-19 is a manmade virus are the latest chapter in a tale of blame, misinformation and finger-pointing. Cue the conspiracy theorists, marching out their narrative about the high-security BSL-4 lab in Wuhan, where mysterious experiments to design “frankenviruses” led to the tragic global pandemic.
Cue the genetic analyses pointing to “unexpected” insertions in the code of A, G, T, and C that explain how this virus could not have evolved naturally. Cue political posturing against China, with calls for an inquiry, trade sanctions and even reparations.
Determining the origins and emergence of a pandemic is as messy and complex as studying a plane crash. Just as an air crash investigator pieces together fragments at a crash site, pinpointing the origins of a new virus is painstakingly difficult and time-consuming, and requires logic and reason.
I know, because this is exactly what our organisation, EcoHealth Alliance, does. We work around the world to identify the origins of pandemics, map them and analyse them, and use these results to predict where the next pandemic will likely emerge. We then target these “hotspots” for enhanced surveillance, capacity-building and risk-reduction programmes to prevent diseases emerging.
We have spent the past 15 years working in China to analyse the group of viruses from which Sars and now Covid-19 have emerged. Sampling more than 16,000 bats, we showed that Sars emerged from a cluster of coronaviruses carried by horseshoe bats that are abundant across southern and central China and traded frequently in wet markets.
We found Sars-related viruses that could infect human cells in the lab, cause diseases in lab animals, and evade drugs and vaccines designed to protect us. We worked with the scientists behind the breakthrough drug Remdesivir to show that it was effective against known human coronaviruses and the viruses we suspected might be the next to emerge. We raised the red flag on these viruses and pointed out their potential to cause the next pandemic.
Our 15 years of work in China now puts us in a unique position to identify, with a remarkable degree of confidence, the likely origin of Covid-19. We recently published a peer-reviewed paper reporting 781 genetic sequences of bat-origin coronaviruses previously unknown to scientists. These include the closest known relatives to Sars-CoV, Sars-CoV-2 and Sads-CoV, a virus that killed more than 25,000 pigs in Guangdong in 2016 and 2017. All are carried by horseshoe bats that are found across southern China and neighbouring countries. Our report firmly concludes that Covid-19 originated in bats, in a hotspot of viral evolution along the border of Yunnan province in China, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam.
Most people (including former heads of intelligence agencies) aren’t trained in how to decipher genetic codes, so we have to assess the rigour of competing research to determine the truth of claims that Covid-19 was manmade. Writing in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Medicine, researchers strongly refuted the idea that the code had been purposefully manipulated. Whereas the article in Nature Medicine was written by senior virologists, one author, John Fredrik Moxnes, the chief scientific adviser to the Norwegian military, has already withdrawn his name from the paper cited by Dearlove – while scientists from the Francis Crick institute and Imperial College London also dismissed its conclusions.
And the claim in the earlier version of this paper to have proven “beyond reasonable doubt that the Covid-19 virus is engineered” was removed in the later version. This claim relied on an insertion in the genetic code for the spike protein of the virus, the place where the virus locks into our own cells. But the discovery of another novel bat coronavirus in southern China, very closely related to Sars-CoV-2, that includes a similar insertion shows this can evolve naturally.
Contrary to the idea that Chinese scientists deliberately released the virus, existing patterns of infection suggest that the wide spread of Covid-19 was a question of when, not if. Only a handful of people work on bat coronaviruses in labs in China, and they wear masks and gloves so as not to contaminate their laboratories. In 2018, we conducted a pilot survey of people living in rural Yunnan province and found nearly 3% had antibodies for bat coronaviruses. Expanding this data to cover the densely populated area in southeast Asia where there are bats known to harbour coronaviruses, we can safely estimate that between one and seven million people are infected with bat coronaviruses each year.
Unfortunately, this sort of logic will not deter conspiracy theorists. The dark power of the internet means that anyone, anywhere, can find evidence to echo even the most outlandish of claims. Theories that Sars originated from space or that HIV was manmade are readily available, but it doesn’t make them true.
Such conspiracies play to our most base instincts and paranoias – fears that dissolve logic and reason. The details of how this virus emerged naturally are far less exciting. They’re about how humans and animals have interacted for millennia, now at an unprecedented rate. They’re about how human domination of the world’s ecosystems as we encroach on animal habitats is opening new pathways for viruses, once hidden in the depths of the forest, to be transmitted to humans.
Even as Covid-19 continues to spread across the world, analysing its origin is of critical importance for our species on this planet. If we allow myths and rumours to set our pandemic prevention agenda, we miss, quite literally, the forest for the trees. We estimate that there are 1.7m undiscovered viruses in wildlife in emerging disease hotspots such as rural southeast Asia. Rather than chasing conspiracies, we should be focusing our efforts on these regions and the communities on their frontlines. A pandemic such as this one isn’t a once-in-a-lifetime tragedy. Ignoring the guidance of the global scientific community about how and why they emerge will come at a great cost to us all.
• Peter Daszak is president of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit dedicated to analysing and preventing pandemics
Up to 80% not even Susceptible to Covid-19
Professor Karl Friston is a computer modelling expert, world-renowned for his contributions to neuroscience. He has been applying his "dynamic causal modelling" approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, and has reached some startling results.
- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations
- In each country, there appears to be a portion of the population that is 'not even in the game' - that is, not susceptible to Covid-19. This varies hugely between countries
- In the UK, Professor Friston estimates that portion to be at least 50%, and probably more like 80%
- The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away".
- We don't yet fully understand what is driving it, although there are theories ranging from levels of vitamin D to genetic differences
Dense - but this is the key issue which debunks the "second wave" BS.
I first watched rather casually. Will give it another go much more closely.
In a nutshell, he says that the data shows a big cohort in each country who
are not at risk. Period. How big that group and why are further questions.
Karl Friston: up to 80% not even susceptible to Covid-19
The influential professor's statistical observations
could radically change how we lift lockdown.....
And here's his article - English via auto translation:
- 100 million deaths worldwide , not because of the virus, but because of the lockdowns
- Scientifically proven that a large part of the population has natural defenses against corona
- "Many people hospitalized because of Covid-19, while they do not have it at all
A much watched interview with analytical chemist and nanotechnologist Willem Engel a few days ago has received foreign attention, including from the American top economist Martin Armstrong. Since his previous interview, Engel has gathered a whole team around him who wants to independently investigate the sense and nonsense of the corona policy.
"It is becoming clear that when choosing to arm us with a lockdown, something stinks," the introduction to Café Weltschmerz begins. 'Unfortunately, citizens have to show the guts to investigate themselves. People who are afraid of losing their job may prefer not to, but they will have to. The situation is too shameful, this lockdown will cost a lot of lives and will damage our society. "
Engel feels that the team, which consists of about 20 to 30 scientists, with a few joining every day, is starting to become 'the alternative RIVM'. He is not surprised that it has now been shown that the models and data used by Western governments by British scientist Neil Ferguson, who predicted millions of deaths worldwide, were far from correct. "But so much damage has been done based on this wrong model." In fact, researcher Michaéla Schippers estimates that the number of deaths from the lockdowns will be about 100 million , about 24 times the current number of presumed deaths from corona.
RIVM is summoned
However, the models and assumptions used in the Netherlands have not been made clear, nor are the data on which these models are based. It is therefore not possible to check whether these models are peer-reviewed and can withstand the scientific test. "If it turns out that it isn't, it would be a gross scandal." That is why the measure is full for a number of Dutch scientists, and it has been decided to subpoena RIVM, to try to get ALL data above water.
Moreover, the scientists do not trust RIVM's PIENTER report. It was 'highly suspicious' that this report was not published when it was submitted to the House of Representatives on April 22.
Anti-hydroxychloroquine research completely negated
"But many things are wrong. Why was that PCR test used? Where are the models for this? There are so many hooks and eyes - this stinks! " Also consider the anti-hydroxychloroquine report in 'The Lancet', which has now been completely debunked. Even worse, the data for this article comes from a seedy Chicago company, and has proven to be highly unreliable. "The Lancet was used as a propaganda channel. So there is something "doctored" to stop hydroxychloroquine. So now we can start looking at criminal cases. Now they are no longer stupid mistakes, this is willful. "
After that false article in The Lancet, international investigations into hydroxychloroquine have stopped again, also in the Netherlands. While internationally, in more than 30 countries, it has been shown to save countless lives if properly applied in primary care (in combination with zinc). 'The person who wrote that article has blood on his hands if it turns out that this protocol does work. This is a very gross scandal, this is intent. "
In Italy, many people appear to have died from incorrect treatment protocols, not from the coronavirus. "If I were a doctor, I would go all out."
"How stupid can you be by using a new method?"
RIVM's PIENTER research is about the presence of only one type of antibody (ie only one part of the immune system), 'but that does not say whether you are immune or not. There are many more factors involved. So the reported 2.8% to 3.6% (Dutch people who became immune in early April) say nothing. They want to go to 60%, but then I want to know how they normally approach this with influenza. If we use this method for influenza, do we also measure 60%? Or even 10%? And if that is NOT done, are we now using a new method for a new virus? How stupid can you be!'
'The House of Representatives has been misinformed… The latest Blood Bank study again says that we are still a long way from group immunity. According to them, 5.5% of people would have antibodies (to corona), which is "proof" of immunity for them. I strongly dispute that, because it is based on more or less the same test. "
'Large part of the population has natural defenses against corona'
Engel doesn't believe that people who don't have antibodies to corona wouldn't automatically be immune. "It is time and again that framing : focusing very much on one subject each time, so that the overview is lost." If it turns out that they did not do a virus neutralization test (which shows that those antibodies do indeed work against the coronavirus), then the RIVM and the associated scientists have a huge credibility problem, because then the results almost certainly seem to have been tampered with.
Some immunologists told Engel that only viruses are important for viruses, 'but the latest studies show a completely different picture. In fact, those studies show that people who have never been exposed to this virus already show 40% to 60% expression of this specific immune globin, which are active in the defense of this virus. This has been proven, this is hard science . So we already have natural defenses in the population , perhaps through exposure to other coronaviruses. ' '
Why only measured blood when the virus is somewhere else?
'And why (only) measured in the blood (on which it is based on 5.5%), while the virus goes in and out of your body via mucus and eye fluid, and has a high concentration there and can therefore be measured? Another oil-stupid mistake! We are going to measure in the blood, while that could be much better elsewhere. Almost the same as with that PCR test: we are going to measure in the nose, while we can do it better in the lungs ... All that research has to be repeated. '
Moreover, the question is whether that PCR test (40% -70% reliable) makes sense, because it cannot demonstrate whether the virus is active. You can measure up to 3 months after infection whether someone has been infected with the virus, which does not need to be active at the time of testing. "What is measured now is only the remains of the virus in the part of the population that has ever been infected. So you don't know whether that 3% is a measurement error or whether it really is a residue of the virus. ' "And have they already proven that if you don't have antibodies, you're not immune?"
Many people not dead from corona, but from 'parent suffering'
Then there are those who point to the ICU departments in hospitals, where so many patients have died, and so it would be clear that this is due to the coronavirus. "Then I come up to what I call 'parent suffering'. There were people with health complaints who were infected. They survived the virus, but got complications with something else (the conditions they already had), and still die. "
"OR it is people who still have these viruses in them, and have to go to the hospital for something else. They all receive a PCR test, and if it is positive, Covid-19 is always attached to it. These people are all so as Covid inpatients, while they do not have the disease because the virus is not viable is present. So they are being treated for Covid when they don't have it at all . ”
'Why did we suddenly change our measurement methods during this epidemic? I don't have a good word for that, because this should have been seen by many people beforehand. "
Idea that can become 100% infected 'is not right'
The SIR model used (Suspectible (susceptible); Infectuous (infectious); Recovered) is also a huge mistake, because it is believed that 100% of the population can be infected. "That doesn't happen in our world," and that's because we all have specific layers in our immune system, so many people are already immune beforehand. 'You can assume that a very large part of the Netherlands will hardly get sick from this. Yet the 3% still pretends that we are very far away from the 60%. That representation is not correct at all. "
The problem with the models used by the government is that they are based on mere assumptions (not established facts), which are cast as constants in the model. The R0 represents the rate at which the virus spreads across the population. The big problem is that one only focuses on the Rt, the moment of intervention (the lockdowns), but does not take into account that nature itself also 'intervenes'. 'Here is the core why Maurice (the Dog) was right, and these models are not. So it has an influence again; the weather itself can be an imaginary lockdown, or just the opposite. '
Matters such as humidity and amount of sun play a very important role, but are not included at all in the models used. In any case, these processes are very difficult to model, because they are step-by-step and unpredictable processes.
Models not public, seem to be 'used to make crisis worse'
The models on which the Rutte government and RIVM base their policy are not public. Nobody knows what the assumptions are, the results, the predictions, which form the basis of social distancing and the one and a half meter society. "We have now reached the point where we must a priori distrust RIVM data ." There will now be summary proceedings to make the data used public.
In many people who have not been exposed to Covid-19, you do see antibodies against the virus, sometimes as much as 50% to 60% (of these substances). "And if they can be the first line of defense, and those people only get slightly infected, that may be enough ... More research needs to be done, but it is already clear that those assumptions that 100% can be contaminated and that the virus can be spread in these ways is beyond belief. "
Interviewer Ramon Bril: 'I think it is suspiciously similar to how many other models are used, especially models with exponential J curves, to make crises much bigger than they are, or in many cases even think of them. (This certainly also applies, for example, to the CO2 / nitrogen / climate hoax, with which the Dutch government justifies its devastating agricultural and economic policies - X.) .
Engel: "Yes, I completely agree."
Evil role of the media, scared scientists
His last comment is that he finds it "very serious" that the media has dismissed the opposition from more and more scientists and experts. Some people are even made "media dead" and threatened so they don't tell their story. “And many scientists and doctors fear for their careers. They say they want to give all the data I want, but don't want it in the news. "
Bril: 'So you are now in contact with a lot of scientists who say that nobody wanted to listen to them, while they have been doing this all along. I think that's the longest thing. "
"That's right," Engel replies. 'And this is just the tip of the iceberg ... In the Netherlands we now only hear 3 or 4 people who are directors of institutes, but who no longer conduct research themselves, and have become some kind of political figures. They come to explain their staff's investigations politically. And that would be 'science' ?? No, the scientists are all those people who are in the lab, have very different ideas and want to start the discussion, and probably don't feel represented at all by the representatives of those institutes… So sign up at firstname.lastname@example.org , and help us. "
_________________ Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Last edited by Fintan on Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:48 pm; edited 2 times in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum