Fauci follows Wiki co-founder, ‘death panels’ inventor, warmonger Blair & WEF creator as winner of Israeli prize
By Helen Buyniski | RT | February 18, 2021
US corona czar Dr. Anthony Fauci has been awarded the Dan David Prize for “defending science in the face of uninformed opposition,” joining a rogues gallery of former winners including Jimmy Wales and Tony Blair.
The Dan David Foundation, which is based out of Tel Aviv University and counts such dubious luminaries as war criminal Henry Kissinger on its board of directors, has gifted $1 million to Fauci for “courageously defending science in the face of uninformed opposition during the challenging Covid crisis.”
It’s not clear from whence this “uninformed opposition” emerged – indeed, one of Fauci’s most vocal opponents has been Dr. Anthony Fauci, who spoke up against the wearing of face masks and other mandates just weeks before he came out swinging in support of such rules.
Presumably, though, the Dan David Foundation was referring to popular opposition to that version of science that more closely resembles religious dogma. Fauci’s smug, self-satisfied and above all brittle variant of “science” cannot be questioned, lest it shatter into a million pieces, and the man’s stubborn use of thought-terminating clichés makes him resemble more of a cult leader than a public health official.
The Dan David Foundation has quite a history of honoring dodgy figures, and it’s no surprise to find them promoting dogmatic Fauci-flavored science over the true scientific method. Wikipedia co-founder and famed fabulist Jimmy Wales was among its prize-winners in 2015, gifted the $1 million treasure for his work in the field of “the Information Revolution.”
While Wales generally defends his truth-averse creation by waxing poetic about a world “in which every person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge,” Wikipedia has instead mounted a full frontal assault on human knowledge, seeking to destroy all that which does not conform to its founder’s preferred version of reality. Despite presenting itself as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia even admits it does not traffic in “truth,” but merely “verifiability,” and the site’s disclaimer notes “that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”
Fauci is in good company at the Dan David Foundation. Just as the good doctor has done for Big Pharma fraudsters like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, Wales has taken great care to treat Israel and the many “alternative facts” with which it shrouds its own crimes with kid gloves, ensuring the average Wikipedia user doesn’t learn the truth about the horrific oppression Tel Aviv deals out to occupied Palestine on a daily basis.
The Israeli government and its private-sector collaborators have long operated ideologically-driven editing cells, a massive violation of Wikipedia’s rules but one whose owners straight-facedly describe as merely an effort to make Wikipedia “balanced and Zionist in nature.” Many of the Israelis who operate these editing initiatives receive valuable rewards from their government, and some even rise to plum positions therein – Ayelet Shaked became the Israeli Minister of Justice after putting together the pro-(illegal)-settlement Yesha Council’s editing initiative, and Naftali Bennett rose to Education Minister not long after serving in that same organization.
As a Dan David Foundation winner, Fauci will also be mingling with Ezekiel Emanuel, the oncologist who infamously devised the notion of rationing healthcare – “death panels” – and suggested humans should aspire to live to no more than 75 years of age. He won the prize in 2018 for his work as “pioneer in the field of end-of-life care.” You can’t make this stuff up.
Speaking of “end-of-life care,” the Foundation also counted Tony Blair, the former UK PM who joined US President George W. Bush in his illegal and monstrous assault on Iraq, among its winners in 2009. Blair’s bio deems him “one of the most outstanding statesmen of our era,” presumably with a straight face. In his post-PM career, Blair has traveled around giving expensive speeches to repressive dictators and counseling them on how best to extract themselves from pesky human rights charges (see: Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UAE and Israel itself), while Wales follows him around like a lovesick puppy, setting up Wikipedia projects for aforementioned dictators. After all, nothing says “democratic” like a “people’s encyclopedia” run like a Ministry of Truth!
And what gathering of ruling class ghouls would be complete without the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab? The real-life Bond villain won the Dan David Prize in 2004 for “his significant contribution in fostering international dialogue and activism to resolve some of the world’s greatest issues.” So what if the corporations that comprise his little organization caused a whole bunch more “issues” in the mean time? Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs!
As a central figure in the US medical establishment for four decades who’s personally presided over the declining life expectancy of its people, Fauci fits perfectly into the malevolent ruling class soup cooked up by the Dan David Foundation. Wikipedia made a formal alliance with the World Health Organization last year, supposedly part of an effort to fight “disinformation” related to the novel coronavirus epidemic, and Wales has long considered his website a prize weapon in the armory of modern medicine against what he calls “lunatic charlatans” – those medical practitioners who dare to dream that cures may exist outside the money-paved halls of Big Pharma.
And Fauci himself is a true believer in the wide world of orthodox pharmaceutical treatments, unwilling to concede any validity on the part of natural medicine and determined to come out of the Covid-19 pandemic looking good – no matter how many people have to die for his public relations campaign.
In reality, Fauci has done a substandard job throughout his tenure, whether it was denying access to a potentially lifesaving antibacterial drug that could have saved the lives of AIDS patients infected with a killer variant of pneumonia or pushing a dangerous swine flu vaccine for an epidemic that turned out to be largely imaginary. Unfortunately for all of humanity subject to his policymaking decisions, he’ll fit right in with Kissinger and his sorry array of pals.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram
Yes, the NY Times exposed the PCR test
By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | February 18, 2021
As I’ve been telling readers for many months, even if you assume SARS-CoV-2 is real, the test is useful, and the case and death numbers are meaningful, there are vast and crippling internal contradictions within the official portrait of COVID-19.
Currently, I’m focusing on the PCR test and its fatal flaws.
The test is a MAJOR weak point in the enemy’s attack on humanity. If the test falls, the case and death numbers are shown to be wildly false, and the whole pandemic narrative collapses.
I urge readers to spread this information far and wide.
On August 29, 2020, the New York Times published a long article headlined, “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [1] [2]
Its main message? “The standard [COVID PCR] tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus…Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”
“In three sets of testing data… compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”
“On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.”
TAKEAWAY from The Times : Up to 90% of ALL people who have been labeled “COVID cases” are not COVID cases. This fact would downgrade the pandemic to “just another flu season.” And there would be no reason for lockdowns.
Of course, the Times goes on to say the solution to this problem is MORE TESTING. Only a moron would accept that notion.
The enduring message of their article still stands: the PCR test apparatus is a fraud, through and through. It enables the recording of monumentally false case numbers, which are used to declare unnecessary lockdowns and wall-to-wall economic destruction.
Make the truth known.
SOURCES:
[1] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
Midwest Have No Surplus Power For Texas
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | February 18, 2021
Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)
It is claimed that Texas would be better off as part of a wider grid. The obvious one would be MISO, to which there is already a small interconnector.
However MISO has been having severe difficulties due to the cold spell:
https://www.misoenergy.org/mcsnotification/?id=1131
As with Texas, MISO is currently relying almost entirely on coal, gas and nuclear power. If they had been operating with a quarter of the power from wind, as Texas was last week, I suspect that they would have been experiencing the same blackouts as Texas has had.
https://www.misoenergy.org/#
It is also not much bigger capacity wise than Texas, which has been running at around 60 GW this week. I suspect that any extra demand from Texas would quickly destabilise the MISO grid.
There is an interesting backstory to this.
The Natural Resources Defense Council says the Midwest energy grid operator known as MISO hasn’t planned enough interstate transmission lines.
MISO manages the system of utilities and transmission lines that operate in a wide region, from Manitoba, Canada to Louisiana.
John Moore is a senior attorney with the Council. He says MISO for too long has approved numerous local transmission projects, but only a tiny number of interstate transmission lines – which operate much like interstate highways, moving energy, rather than vehicles, from state to state.
He says MISO needs to plan more aggressively to meet the economic and environmental needs of the region.
“If we let business as usual take its course, then MISO may not be as bold as it needs to be,” he says.
Moore says the lack of interstate transmission capacity is leaving clean energy projects on the table.
That includes 42 clean energy proposals in Michigan since 2016 that were unable to proceed, because the existing transmission system couldn’t handle them.
https://www.michiganradio.org/post/nrdc-midwest-grid-operator-plan-blocking-clean-energy
Installing more wind power inevitably means more long distance transmission capacity is needed. The unpredictability of wind power results in huge surpluses at times, which require transmitting to areas short of power. This could often be over distances of hundreds of miles.
Since that is the case, surely it is a cost that wind farms should be paying, something that would probably make them totally unviable economically.
Climate Facts or Leaps of Faith? Governments Can’t Tell the Difference
We have no hard evidence of a crisis. Only expert opinion and best estimates.
By Donna Laframboise | Big Picture News | February 17, 2021
Governments are currently fighting climate change to the tune of billions. For this to make sense, each idea in the following chain of reasoning needs to be bulletproof:
#1 – scientists know there’s a climate crisis
#2 – scientists know it’s humanity’s fault
#3 – scientists know we can alleviate the crisis by changing our behaviour
But each of these amounts to a leap of faith. Let’s start with the conviction that something unusual is going on. This planet is more than 4 billion years old. The climate was marching to its own drummer long before humans appeared. It has changed numerous times – sometimes gradually, sometimes violently. Twenty thousand years ago, much of North America was covered by ice.
Because humans weren’t recording and analyzing those billions of years of climatic history, today’s scientists have no way of knowing if anything unusual is going on now.
They can surmise. They can speculate. They can extrapolate. But they have no smoking gun. I’ve written two books about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That organization says it’s “extremely likely that more than half” of the global warming between 1951 and 2010 was caused by human activity. It talks about its “best estimate.”
click to enlarge; source here
Please note the startling imprecision here: Extremely likely. More than half. Best estimate. These aren’t facts. They’re educated guesses. They’re opinion. It’s absolutely crucial that we grasp this point: the IPCC has no hard evidence of a crisis. It has no math that can be examined and verified. It has only expert opinion. Estimates.
If you choose to take this leap of faith, you’re immediately invited to take another – to embrace the notion that the alleged climate crisis was triggered by human activity. As I’ve just outlined, the IPCC can’t prove this. It merely believes humans caused more than half of the warming over a 60-year period. That’s a long way from demonstrating clear human responsibility for imminent catastrophe.
On these two decisive questions – is there really a climate problem, and are humans really to blame – the IPCC has nothing definitive to contribute. Governments have, nevertheless, taken these leaps of faith.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that scientists are fallible. Like the rest of us, they know a great deal about their own field, but can be surprisingly misinformed about broader trends. Like the rest of us, they are susceptible to groupthink. Many IPCC personnel subscribe to a belief system that regards human activities as unnatural and therefore automatically threatening to the natural world. But belief systems are not proof.
Leap of faith #3 – the idea that humanity can fix whatever is currently going on with the climate – is equally dubious. Even if something alarming is happening, even if it is our fault, that doesn’t mean it lies within our power to influence, interrupt, or steer the powerful natural forces that have already been set in motion. It certainly doesn’t mean there’s only one sure-fire, anointed fix – slashing greenhouse gas emissions.
Governments are obsessed with greenhouse gases because they signed a UN treaty back in 1992. Long before the IPCC had produced its multi-thousand-page reports the cart was put before the horse. The UN – a political body – decreed that human-generated emissions were a problem that governments should do something about. The IPCC has struggled ever since to build a scientific case in support of that position.
No one actually knows whether reducing emissions will work. No one knows how long it might take to ‘stabilize’ the climate via this means. Yet governments are piling on the carbon taxes. Year after year, they divert billions away from healthcare and education to fight climate change with ever-expanding emissions reduction policies.
In 1992, the UK was led by John Major, Germany was led by Helmut Kohl, America was led by George H.W. Bush, and France was led by Francois Mitterrand. The Internet barely existed in 1992, the founding of Google was still years away.
That treaty belongs to a different era. There is no shame in walking away from outdated, 30-year-old thinking.
Truth Slips Out in Coronavirus Vaccine Deaths ‘Fact Check’?
By Adam Dick | February 17, 2021
The big money media that have been working for a year to stir up maximum fear of coronavirus have been taking the opposite tack regarding coronavirus vaccines. These experimental vaccines, which are not even vaccines under the normal understanding of what qualifies as a vaccine, rushed to the public without the regular testing, the big money media insists, are safe and should be taken by everyone.
Yet, even in this Pollyanna coverage of the experimental vaccines, occasionally the truth slips out.
On February 3, ABC News ran an article by Stephanie Widmer titled “Fact-check: No link between COVID-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.” The main thrust of the article is that all the people who die after taking the experimental coronavirus vaccines would have died anyway: The vaccine never caused the death no matter how soon the death occurred after a person received a shot or how out of the blue and strange the circumstances of the death. The deaths are all just a coincidence, the article suggests. Plenty of people — around 8,000 people according to the article — die each day in America, you know.
This seems like some fanciful thinking. And the thinking is the opposite of the thinking employed in attributing deaths to coronavirus. With coronavirus, the presumption generally employed by government and big money media in America is that coronavirus is the killer if a person who tested positive for coronavirus dies, no matter what other health problems he had and irrespective of coronavirus tests producing many false positive results.
Still, there is some value in this ABC News article for people not interested in reading yet another big money media article promoting everyone having an experimental vaccine injected into his arm. Around halfway through the article is a sentence that suggests something much less fanciful to explain the conclusion that the experimental coronavirus vaccines kill nobody. The article states. “Every time someone gets sick or dies shortly after getting a vaccine, government agencies investigate to ensure there’s no link.” Is this the truth slipping out?
Copyright © 2021 Ron Paul Institute
A Doctor’s View About the New mRNA Vaccines
By Thomas Siler | American Thinker | February 15, 2021
It’s important to know both what we know about the new vaccines and what we don’t know.
I’ve practiced for 35 years. I am always honest with my patients, even if conversations are difficult or confrontational. I will also be honest about saying “I don’t know.” This happens when a diagnosis is not readily apparent or when there are limits to the help I can give. With the passage of time, I’ve learned that what we don’t know about medicine outweighs what we do know.
I’ve always been a proponent of older, more established vaccines. However, they are imperfect and, like all medical treatments, can have side effects. Unfortunately, in the conversation about the new COVID-19 vaccines, the tenets of honesty and a willingness to admit ignorance are being compromised.
Operation Warp Speed was remarkable, but it leaves an uncomfortable question: Is it a good thing to rush a vaccine (or medicine) to the public without the usual safeguards? Operation Warp Speed might be a great business objective or military goal, but is it great for a medical treatment?
The pharmaceutical industry, government health authorities, and the media insist the new vaccines are safe and effective. While the initial results are promising, this is not the whole truth. Both honesty and acknowledging ignorance require answering a few questions.
What do we know about the new TYPE of vaccine being given?
Pfizer and Moderna were the first COVID-19 vaccines to be approved. Both use a new technology called mRNA vaccine, which has never been broadly given to a human population to prevent any disease.
Let that sink in for a moment.
All previous vaccines take a weakened virus or a piece of the virus and inject it into humans to induce an immune response sufficient to prevent a disease. Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines inject mRNA, which is a protein code that instructs the body to make a part of COVID-19’s spike protein that will then induce an immune response.
Our bodies daily use our own mRNA to carry instructions from DNA to make various proteins the body uses. While this new vaccine science sounds intriguing, it has never been tried in humans in this scope. It may be a breathtaking scientific advancement heralding a new path for all vaccines. It may also be less effective or have currently unknown side effects.
Is the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 safe?
So far, the limited study of the vaccines approved for emergency use (one major study for each vaccine approved) has shown some short-term side effects. The vaccine is a two-shot series and side effects were prominent after the second shot. Side effects were more common if the recipient was younger than 65 years old.
Side effects
Pain at the injection site has usually gone away in 4-5 days. The other side effects resolve, on average, in 2-3 days.
Early reports after giving the vaccine have also included allergic reactions ranging from mild to a few cases of anaphylaxis (serious allergic reaction). Allergy may be to mRNA itself or the lipid nanoparticles/PEG vehicle it is housed in. The long-term side effects are not currently known, as the main study length and follow up have only been four months.
Is the mRNA vaccine effective?
In the main study from Pfizer’s vaccine, 8/17,000 patients got symptomatic COVID-19 in the treatment group during the short follow up. In the placebo group, 162/17,000 patients got symptomatic COVID-19 during the study time. There was also a trend towards those getting the vaccine having a less severe disease and needing less hospitalization.
The Moderna study had 30,000 patients split into treatment and placebo arms. In the vaccine group, 11/15,000 patients came down with COVID-19. In the placebo group, 185/15,000 patients came down with COVID-19.
It was hard to ascertain death avoidance in these small studies. However, the two initial studies are favorable and show a 95% efficacy. Now that more information about the studies is known, Peter Doshi, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, wrote an editorial that the true efficacy may be much lower because the study excluded people with COVID-19 symptoms but a negative test and other factors.
How long does immunity last?
This is unknown. Injected mRNA goes away in days, but it is thought that the immune response will be long lasting. Whether patients will need boosters at some point is not known.
What about mutations in the COVID-19 virus? Will the vaccine still work?
Viruses always mutate and scientists following COVID-19 estimate it mutates, on average, twice a month. Most of these mutations are minor and will likely not change the vaccine effectiveness. These mutations also usually do not make the virus more deadly.
What is antibody dependent enhancement?
COVID-19 is in the family of Coronavirus that causes the common cold. The pharmaceutical industry has been trying without success for the last two decades to make a vaccine against the common cold. A safe vaccine against the common cold would make some company a lot of money!
One problem in the animal studies on coronavirus family vaccines was “antibody dependent enhancement.” When animals were inoculated, they developed a robust immune response, which is a good result.
However, when the animals were later exposed to the coronavirus against which they were vaccinated, their immune system went into overdrive, and they developed an overwhelming, fatal immune response called a “cytokine storm.” Fatal cytokine storms also happened to some COVID-19 patients when their infection was severe.
Human responses do not always correlate to animal responses. So far, there have been no signs that humans have a cytokine storm when exposed to COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine. Obviously, this would be catastrophic for any vaccine.
Should we be concerned about other long term side effects from mRNA vaccines?
A concern that deserves mention is the possibility that a cross-reaction and immunity to other parts of the spike protein could cause auto-immune disease or other problems.
A former Pfizer VP, Dr. Michael Yeadon, who has over 30 years of experience in immunology and drug research, filed a Stay of Action petition with the European Medicine Agency (like our FDA) to halt the trials of mRNA vaccines over concerns it might affect sterility in women.
Yeadon is worried that the mRNA vaccine was coded for a region of the spike protein that was similar to Syncytin-1, which is a protein that is essential for the development of the placenta. If a woman’s body makes antibodies to this protein, she could become sterile when vaccinated for COVID-19. This is a theory, not a proven fact, and no one has studied it. Yeadon’s insistence on more studies to make sure this will not happen seems reasonable.
What to make of all these concerns?
Medicine is always about a risk/benefit analysis, subject to the first maxim of “do no harm.” Usually, new medicines or new vaccines are used only after multiple studies show over long periods of time (for vaccines, at least five years) prove they’re safe and better than the older treatments.
While the new mRNA vaccines have good initial results and may be a breakthrough, they should be viewed as experimental and would best be used in high-risk patients (older patients or those with health conditions raising COVID-19 mortality) until we know more. Patients should receive extensive informed consent to understand the risks and benefits. Patients also need to know that if they have a serious complication, Congress already protected the pharmaceutical companies from litigation around emergency vaccines.
The mantra of “safe and effective” is not only incomplete, but it also ignores other pathways out of the pandemic. For healthy people, early outpatient treatments are being developed to treat COVID-19. These would be a safer option than taking an experimental vaccine. Young people (<60 years old) who have very low mortality from COVID-19 should approach getting the new vaccine as if they were consenting to be in an experimental trial of a new vaccine.
Our history shows there are good reasons why new medicines and vaccines are not rushed into widespread use until we have multiple studies and time to assess the safety and efficacy of the new treatments. If the death rate from COVID-19 were much higher, it might make the risks acceptable to try an experimental vaccine. Given that the COVID-19 death rate is a little higher than a bad flu, my opinion is that younger and healthier people need a more rigorous risk/benefit analysis before taking the mRNA vaccines.
Leaked Tape: Zuckerberg Told Facebook Employees ‘Vaccines Modify DNA and RNA’
Rules for thee, but not for me?
21rst CENTURY WIRE | FEBRUARY 17, 2021
This latest reveal leaves many asking the question: while his social media platform aggressively censors anyone asking legitimate questions regarding the safety and efficacy of corporate pharmaceutical products, will Mark Zuckerberg and his family will be taking the new experimental mRNA vaccine?
In new leaked tape from Project Veritas reveals how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg promoted his own ‘anti-vax’ position to his companies staff, which according to his own draconian rules, would be in violation of his own platform’s latest censorship policy update.
How deadly is COVID19?
By Dr Malclm Kendrick | February 17, 2021
I have spent large chunks of my life trying to untangle medial data and research. COVID19 has long since defeated me. I have been unable to make any sense of the information we are bombarded with daily. So, I decided to go back to basics.
At the start of the COVID19 saga, I was interested to know what the infection fatality rate (IFR) was likely to be. I felt I could then have a go at comparing it to other diseases, primarily influenza.
The infection fatality is the number of people infected with the virus who then die. This is very different to the case fatality rate (CFR), which is the number of people infected with the disease who become unwell enough (sometimes, but not always) to be admitted to hospital – the ‘cases’. Who then die.
Before COVID19 appeared, there used to be a reasonably clear distinction between the infection fatality rate (IFR), and the case fatality fate (CFR) and it is important that they should not get mixed up. Because the case fatality rate is almost always far higher than the infection fatality rate – as you would expect. People who are ill enough to go into hospital are far more likely to die than people who do not suffer any symptoms. Bear this in mind.
Another thing to bear in mind is that, at the start of any epidemic it is simpler to establish the case fatality rate, because most people who are seriously ill end up in hospital and/or will have tests to see if they have the disease in question. Those with no symptoms may never cross the path of a medical professional and are very unlikely to be tested.
What is the ratio between the two? It depends on the virus. With Ebola the infection fatality rate and case fatality rate are closely matched – more than fifty per cent of people who are infected, die. With the common ‘coronavirus’ cold, the spread is far wider, maybe a hundred to one, or a thousand to one – perhaps more.
The fact that most infections are never noted, is one of the reasons why the infection fatality rate for previous flu epidemics can vary so wildly from paper to paper. However, with influenza the CFR/IFR ratio has generally been estimated to be about ten to one. By which I mean that, for each ten infections, one will be severe, and it is amongst the severe infections that you get the deaths.
Armed with such knowledge, and assuming COVID19 had a similar case: infection ratio to influenza you could have a go at working out the infection fatality rate. Always bearing in mind that people with no symptoms, who are not tested, are very unlikely to appear in any figures.
You are always guessing – to some degree or another.
However, you always know three things:
1: The infection fatality rate must always be lower than the case fatality rate.
2: The case fatality rate will appear to fall as less severely infected people are tested.
3: The infection fatality rate will also appear to fall as more people with no symptoms are found to have had the infection.
For example, in China, at the start of the COVID19 pandemic, the infection fatality rate was reported to be three to four per-cent. This rapidly fell. Then it went up a bit, then it fell, then it went up. Then, everyone started giving different figures. The highly influential Imperial College group, led by Professor Neil Ferguson, decided to use an infection fatality rate of 0.9% for their modelling.
Somewhat later on, John Ioannidis, an influential figure in the world of medical research, estimated the infection fatality rate to be 0.27%. This was a couple of months after the Imperial College figure was published 1.
Peter Gotzsche, who established the highly regarded Nordic Cochrane collaboration, put the figure even lower than this. He looked at a study in Denmark, where blood donors were tested for antibodies. Using these data, the researchers established an infection fatality rate of 0.16% 2. Other figures came in higher, some lower.
The most tested population in the World – per head of population – is Iceland. Last time I looked, Iceland had 6,033 ‘cases,’ and twenty-nine deaths. This represents a case fatality rate of 0.5%, which suggests an infection fatality rate of 0.05% 3.
However, these figures I am quoting from Iceland come from a time after everything changed. At some point, difficult to put an exact date on this, it was decreed that if you had a positive PCR COVID19 test, with or without symptoms, you were to be defined as a case. No matter if you had symptoms, or not. This had the result of making the infection fatality rate, and case fatality rate, the same thing. Suddenly, all cases are infections, and all infections are cases.
Which means that any comparisons of the infection fatality rate with COVID19, and other diseases became virtually meaningless. The infection fatality rate suddenly shot up to match the case fatality rate, which point I gave up trying to work out the infection fatality rate. I doubly gave up when I tried to find out the accuracy of the PCR tests. Were these tests over-diagnosing, or under-diagnosing?
So, I thought I would turn my attention to the population fatality rate instead. That is, how many people has COVID19 killed in a population, or country. This figure is the bald, unvarnished, death rate. It does not, necessarily, tell you how many people have been infected. It does not tell you the percentage of cases, that die. It simply tells you how many people have died… with COVID19 written somewhere on their death certificate. [Or even not written on their death certificate]
At present, in the UK, the total number who have died is one hundred and seventeen thousand. This represents a population death rate of 0.17%. if you knew how many people had been infected, in total, you could work out the infection fatality rate from this. But we don’t know how many people were infected, and now we never will. Because so many people are now being vaccinated. They will show antibodies, and it will not be known if that is because of an infection, or due to vaccination.
So, where to turn to next. If you look at the entire world, the current figure of COVID19 deaths, on the fourteenth of February, stood at 2,406,689 3. Which is a little over one in three thousand, or 0.033%. How many people in the world have been infected? Nobody knows that answer to this question. There are some countries that have done very little testing, others far more.
On the basis that there are so many questions, with very few clear-cut answers, I thought I would try to compare the two point four million figure with previous influenza epidemics.
A study was done in 2016, looking at the influenza epidemic of 1957 – one of the worst in recent history. They extrapolated the mortality figures from 1957 to 2005, because the World’s population doubled during that time period (I am not entirely sure why they chose 2005). Their conclusion was that a flu epidemic of similar magnitude to that of 1957 could kill two point seven million people.
‘In conclusion, our study fills a gap in the availability of global mortality estimates for historical influenza pandemics, which can help guide pandemic planning. Our model extrapolates 2.7 million influenza-related deaths (95% CI, 1.6 million–3.4 million deaths) should a virus of similar severity to the 1957 pandemic influenza A(H2N2) virus return in the 2005 population, which is intermediate between global estimates for the 2009 pandemic (0.3 million–0.4 million deaths and a devastating 1918-like pandemic (62 million deaths; range, 51 million–81 million deaths)’ 4.
Extrapolating onwards to 2020, where the population is significantly greater than in 2005, then the figure from the 1957 epidemic would now be just over three million deaths. Which means that, up to this point COVID19 has been thirty per-cent less deadly than the influenza epidemic of 1957 – per head of population.
If the Imperial College infection fatality rate of 0.9% is accurate, once around eighty per cent of the world’s population has been infected [at which point population wide immunity would be reached] we should see fifty-four million deaths. We are currently nowhere near that figure, and at the current rate of deaths, per year, it will take twenty-two and a half years to reach the fifty-four million figure.
Of course, people will argue that this outbreak is far from over, and millions more will certainly die. Yes, more people will die, but the current number of new cases and deaths is falling pretty rapidly worldwide, rather than rising. We may reach three million, we may not. It is exceedingly hard to believe we would ever have reached fifty-four million even without any vaccines.
So, how deadly is COVID19? It seems, so far, to be equivalent to a bad flu pandemic. Worse than most in recent times. However, it seems to have had an extremely variable impact.
In Singapore, there have been nearly sixty thousand ‘cases’ and twenty-nine deaths. A case fatality rate of around one in two thousand, or 0.02%. The UK has had four million cases and one hundred and seven thousand deaths. A case fatality rate of 3%. Therefore, if you get COVID19 you are one hundred and fifty times more likely to die of it in the UK, than in Singapore 3.
Yes, I went back to basics and the figures still didn’t make any sense.
1: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
2: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4509/rr
America’s future is in the hands of inept cretins while creativity and innovation are needed more than ever
By Helen Buyniski | RT | February 16, 2021
The US’ future looks grim indeed in the face of a ‘Great Reset’ proposed by the same powers that steered it into a deadly economic quagmire. Why are Americans allowing those who broke their world the privilege of ‘fixing’ it?
Americans with more power and connections than sense have rushed forward over the last year, attempting to seize the right to ‘fix’ a society broken by shockingly stupid responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Entire generations are being rendered suicidally depressed, unemployable, hopelessly alienated, and worse, while the likelihood that the current generation of children will mature into functional adults is rapidly shrinking. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for such a heterogenous population, and this moment calls for an unprecedented degree of creativity and imagination if we are to survive as a society.
So why are those most victimized by this system running into the arms of the same crew of unimaginative, solipsistic sociopaths who have repeatedly wrecked society in the first place? Whether it’s the ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks who asset-stripped the American middle class in 2008, overloading the country’s already fragile social safety net and driving a stake through the heart of the once-achievable American Dream, or the World Economic Forum, a breeding ground for selfish and self-interested corporate hacks who just want to fly their private jets in peace with the option to lecture the ground-bound hoi polloi on their carbon usage, those who’ve put themselves in charge are precisely the wrong ones for the job.
Indeed, the WEF – whose conveniently-timed book Covid 19: The Great Reset surfaced just in time to be seized upon by world governments as a supposedly better-than-nothing playbook for lifting humanity out of a mess even its writers admitted wasn’t nearly as disastrous as it seemed – was the first to claim experimental sovereignty over the poor unfortunates its leaders consigned to misery. Acknowledging they were putting humanity through the largest psychological experiment in history, one which technically violates the Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Code given that informed consent from its experimental test subjects was never obtained, is perhaps the worst possible messiah substitute to lead humanity into a brighter future.
Certainly, no one elected the WEF to guide Americans through the troubled times its members have largely created. The US is trapped in an identity crisis, crushed between the media establishment’s portrait of Our Democracy™ having narrowly escaped orange-tinted fascism and a newly-inaugurated administration that literally admitted to stealing the election on the front cover of Time Magazine. Joe Biden’s administration has claimed for itself the right to ‘Build Back Better’, its plagiarism-prone president once again ripping off his battle cry, this time from the World Economic Forum itself. A scriptwriter who submitted such an on-the-nose screenplay to their producer would be fired on the spot, yet Americans are expected to live with it.
Far from ushering in a golden age of democracy, Biden and his henchmen have held the reins of power in Washington for decades, bringing nothing but suffering to the American people. Despite his cabinet’s swaddling the iron fist of neoliberalism in warm fuzzy buzzwords like “inclusion” and “sustainability,” Biden himself is in large part responsible for the Patriot Act, which stripped American citizens of their most important constitutional rights. He also authored the 1994 crime bill that set up mandatory minimum sentencing for minor drug infractions, funneling tens of thousands of mostly black men into lifetime prison sentences. While he’s finally admitted the latter was a “mistake,” he nevertheless tried to dodge responsibility for having written the disastrous legislation by blaming individual states for how they implemented it. Expecting him to lead Americans into a bright new future is like expecting immaculate table manners from a starving grizzly bear.
Barely unable to keep from gibbering and squealing about a proposed new plan to tackle “domestic extremism,” Biden and his diversity all-stars – whose diversity stops at skin level as they march in ideological lockstep – are as much a menace to American society as the WEF member corporations pulling their strings behind the scenes. Americans seem helplessly caught in the vicious cycle of an abusive relationship, unable to flee the “devils they know” despite full awareness they will come away from their next encounter with a black eye (or an empty bank account, or utter social collapse). Embracing the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ – a future of “fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity,” according to the organization’s founder Klaus Schwab, who further clarified this involves technology that can “intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior” – is perhaps the worst possible future humanity could enter. Yet we are sleepwalking into precisely this outcome, unaware that we have any other options.
Even as Americans emerge from the fear-based fog that has consumed them for the better part of a year, they’re still – whether they know it or not – following the directions of the same class of authority figures that led them into this mess in the first place. But these figures have no idea what they’re doing any more than those who are merely following their “leaders” out of habit. Why, having suffered so under the leadership of these utterly worthless figures, would they continue to follow? There is no precedent among the current generation for the economic collapse that has seized the US and no evidence that the WEF, or a wildly incompetent presidential administration, or corona czar and resounding failure Dr. Anthony Fauci, have any idea what to do about it.
At this point, diverging from the dysfunctional and downright deadly paths forged by these repulsive figures is not even a matter of making the right choice – it is a matter of survival.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram.
NY Times’s Klein Ponders Having to ‘Dim the Sun’ to Fight Climate Change
By Joseph Vazquez | NewsBusters | February 10th, 2021
The New York Times has taken eco-nuttiness to a new level by publishing a podcast speculating whether the solution to fighting climate change will include — wait for it — dimming the sun.
Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein took his new interview podcast of global warming fearmonger Elizabeth Kolbert and turned it into an op-ed. Klein began his piece with a creepy quote from environmentalist Stewart Brand, “‘We are as gods and might as well get good at it.’” He later spewed that one solution he was obsessed with for fighting climate change was “solar geoengineering … Are we really going to dim the sun?” [Emphasis added.]
Klein’s predominant disagreement with Brand was that he was “overly optimistic. We did not get good at [being gods]. We are terrible at it, and the consequences surround us.” In effect, according to Klein, we should consider that we may end up having no other choice than to be “gods” and “dim the sun.”
“Dim[ming] the sun” sounds about as realistic as when climate change extremists were advocating for “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot” to stave off global cooling in the 1970s. The idea is also just as crazy as when George Soros-funded economist Mariana Mazzucato raised the possibility of a global “climate lockdown” if the world didn’t undergo a “green economic transformation.”
Klein had to quickly defend his position on the possibility of dimming out the thing that makes life possible on Earth by scolding people who only want comfortable solutions:
[A]ny reasonable analysis of the mismatch between our glacial politics and our rapidly warming planet demands that we deny ourselves the luxury of only contemplating the solutions we would prefer. With every subsequent day that our politics fails, the choices that we will need to make in the future become worse.
The transcript of Klein’s interview with Kolbert was just downright scary:
Ezra Klein: You have a wonderful quote in the geoengineering chapter of your book from Andy Parker, who is a project director for the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative. He says, ‘We live in a world where deliberately dimming the [expletive] sun might be less risky than not doing it.’ That feels like quite an indictment of the human race and where we’ve gotten ourselves to with all our knowledge and all our power.
Elizabeth Kolbert: I think that does sort of sum things up. We are in this very deep — there are only wrong answers, only hard choices at this point. Nothing easy from here on in.
Ezra Klein: What do you think of geoengineering?
Elizabeth Kolbert: I very consciously avoided coming down very clearly on that. But some very, very smart people are thinking about it and are very worried that it may be our best option at a certain point. And I think they may, unfortunately, be right — but wow, it’s dimming the [expletive] sun, you know?
Featured Video
Iran War Reality BITES – Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Tragic Consequences of believing Anti-Science
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | January 17, 2023
I try not to write about anyone who has died because if it was my family member I would not want to read any speculations about their death. However, in this case I feel that justice has not been given a chance and therefore it needs highlighting. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US Superpower Myth Shattered w/ Trita Parsi
- Iran War Reality BITES – SPIN HARDER /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Mario Nawfal
- German arson case: Antisemitism commissioner’s inner circle now top suspects after police raids
- The FCC Wants Your ID Before You Get a Phone Number
- Texas has an Israel Investment Problem
- British journalist faces ‘anti-terror probe’ after Iran visit, reporting on US-Israeli crimes
- Trump’s ’Project Freedom’ just got blown out of the water. What now?
- Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico – Pentagon Reportedly Eyeing Targets in Latin America
- Rubio ‘lying’: Cuba slams denial of US blockade; claims debunked
- US, Iran inching closer toward one-page MoU to end war: Axios
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli Paper Admits That The Mossad Astroturfed The January Riots In Iran.
- Prominent Christian Zionist Group Is Lobbying U.S. Lawmakers on Israel—Without Revealing It’s Funded by Israel
- Ex-US spy for Israel runs for office on platform of ethnic cleansing in Gaza – Daily Update
- An All-American Retort to Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon
- How Dr. Adam Hamawy’s experience as a surgeon in Gaza inspired him to run for Congress
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- With World Distracted by War, Extremist Settlers Intensify Attacks in West Bank
- Israel’s brutality toward Gaza flotilla activists – 3 articles
- “Spitting and humiliation are daily. People are afraid to walk in Jerusalem with Christian symbols.”
- How the US-Israel Relationship Weakens America and Harms the World
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
Aletho News 
