Please log-in to see subscriber only content.

Not a subscriber yet? You are invited to join here!

Similar Posts

8 Comments

  3. I would not be surprised if those tests are laced with the virus.

    This people are evil.

  4. I might add that Connecticut (Fairfield,CT) police department has begun using/testing ‘pandemic’ drone that monitors the health (detecting people with elevated temperatures using heat sensors) and social distancing practices aerially. These drones have special sensors enabling the police to monitor activities of its citizens (without their permission of course). I have not seen any more press coverage on their ‘social acceptability’ or effectiveness to prevent spread nor what they are actually doing with their data. https://nypost.com/2020/04/22/connecticut-cops-use-pandemic-drone-to-fight-coronavirus/

    1. Wish I had time to dive in. I just don’t right now. Have a Wrap Up write up to finish!

      That said, I don’t trust Chris on this one.

      1. The John Ioannidis Stanford preprint study is found at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054361v1 and continues to be ‘peer-reviewed’ by scientists throughout the world. It represents one of the earliest efforts by scientists in the US and will continue to serve as a baseline from which additional research will follow. The study addressed some critical early observations globally at a population level and opinions based on these early observations. The author is quite clear about his study limitations and states that, “Information from large scale testing and seroprevalence studies should soon give us a more clear picture about the true frequency of infections and thus more accurate assessments of the overall infection fatality rate.” What I am most concerned about is the subsequent research. Whether transparency in data, methods, and findings will be revealed to the public audience so that WE the people can judge for ourselves findings. OR will we see more junk science as ironically, Dr. Ioniddis himself warned about in 2005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ I applaud this researcher in his complete transparency, both strengths and limitations, and discussion of his findings both in print and publicly. This is what science should be all about. Lets hope subsequent research that address these key questions follows this standard. I for one, continue to wait in my fair state of Washington which continues to be grossly inadequate in their transparency of data even basic data on how many people were tested, what tests were used, sampling methods, percent of false negatives/false positives, etc. I find this ironic since we live in the orb of the University of Washington and the Gates Foundation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ there is significant media bias on this topic as we know. I suspect it will be difficult to ‘find’ data that supporting the notion that humans are developing antibodies to this type of coronavirus given that justification for a vaccine depends on it. It is important that we look to alternative yet credible sources for these types of studies, observations and analyses. One source is a Swiss researcher who has been tracking COVID-19 early on. I am sure there are others which we can, as a “Solari Working group” continue to identify. Finally I would point out that Chris Martenson has been a good source for information, however, he too has his biases which should be kept in mind. https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

Comments are closed.