Coronavirus, Part 2: Sick Until Proven Healthy

Kobus du Plessis
May 20, 2020
35 min read

Updated: 7 days ago

Sometimes the problem is created for a desired solution...

More than a year has passed since the WHO declared the 'Coronavirus' a pandemic in February 2020, and 12 months since I published Part 1 of this writing. The reasons for the delay in completing Part 2 is a combination of part-time studies (during 2020) and building up a new practice in a new city. My last excuse is the fact that there is just SO much covert information to share about this unprecedented event in human history. With various layers of deception to this 'pandemic', in order to disentangle the false reality that has been created, each of these layers require careful evaluation under the light of truth. In this and future writings, I will demonstrate the deception around Covid19 on 3 distinct levels:

the Statistical level,
the Operational level,
the Foundational/ Biological level.

Statistical risk of dying from Covid

In Part 1 we looked at how to correctly analyse and interpret the statistical data around Covid19, and in the process debunked the deceptive numbers which have been, and still are used by mainstream media and politicians to drive this 'pandemic'. Based on accurate interpretation of available data, we also looked at the risk of dying from Covid19, and found that the virus does not alter the normal curve of mortality risk. One good thing about the delay in completing Part 2 of this writing, is that the unfolding of the Corona story-line over the past 12 months has confirmed what I postulated in my article of April 2020.

Many respected professionals (epidemiologists, doctors, scientist, lawyers, statisticians, etc.) have made their voices heard about the lack of 'science' and inaccurate interpretation of data around Covid19, and the subsequent lockdown regulations by governments around the world. Of course this information is not made available through the common platforms like Google, Facebook, or YouTube... (more about the reasons for this later).

More research from credible sources has been published which all confirm a low Covid19 Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of between 0.1% to 0.35% globally, for the general population (including >70 year olds with comorbidities). This is very similar to what the German, Iceland, South Korean and Danish studies found in early 2020. The infection fatality rate of Covid19 can vary substantially across different locations, due to differences in population age structure, case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The most significant demographic factor to recognize about these Covid19 stats is that in most Western countries, the median age of Covid deaths is 80+ years, and around 50% of deaths occurred in old-age/nursing homes. A global study of October 2020 by John P. A. Ioannidis from Stanford University, published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation, inferred the IFR from seroprevalence studies in the non-nursing home population of 51 locations. He found the IFR for the overall population to be 0.23%, and for those below 70 years, a mere 0.05%! Since these 82 studies were predominantly from hard-hit epicentres, the “IFR on a global level may be modestly lower [and] 0.03% - 0.04% for people <70 years old […] are plausible”, Ioannidis stated. No one has been able to dispute Ioannis' findings. (1)

Although the IFR is commonly used, it's worth noting that its statistical value is less stable that what is portrayed publicly, since it is a product of a number of assumed variables. Firstly, the amount of accurate tests that has been conducted in a specific area/country (which we'll get to in a bit), will affect the IFR. Secondly, the fact that by far the majority of people on this planet have already been in contact with Covid19, show no severe symptoms, and are therefore not tested, means the pool of 'cases' from which the fatality percentage is calculated, is much smaller than it actually is. This means the true IFR is most likely even lower than the range given above.

As explained in post 1, the Crude Mortality Rate (CMR) is the only completely reliable statistical rate of Covid19 deaths, as it is not influenced by any variables that needs estimation (or wrong interpretation). By the end of March 2021, there were close to 3 million deaths in the almost 8 billion population of the world, which means the global CMR of Covid19 is around 0.035% (the total number of Covid19 deaths divided by the total population). This means that more than 99.96% of the world's population has survived this “killer virus”, for which economies has been crippled, millions have suffered financial, psychological and emotional trauma, hundreds of thousands had to die in isolation as family were not allowed to visit them in hospitals, and you have been forced to wear a face mask in public as part of a “new normal”...

(The phenomenon of excess deaths will probably be the most significant statistical number at the end of this 'pandemic', as it will shed light on the mortality caused by the unprecedented unscientific regulations enforced by governments around the world.)

Fabricating a 'Casedemic'

While Covid19 deaths all over the world has come down drastically, and there is no substantial evidence of a pandemic, the mainstream Covid narrative has not changed a bit. The media and government-funded organisation stubbornly continue to mislead the masses with a propaganda machine that makes Nazi Germany look like amateurs. Through inaccurate data representations focused on the number of 'cases', they've managed to turn this into a 'Casedemic'. This way the spread of fear can continue, allowing for the manipulation and control of human beings worldwide. We now know that this false narrative has been protected by a global censorship network called the Trusted News Initiative (TNI).

In 2019 the BBC Director-General Tony Hall, convened a Trusted News Summit, with initial partners consisting of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, and The Wall Street Journal. “The goal was to arrive at a practical set of actions we can take together, right now, to tackle the rise of misinformation and bias […] to create a global alliance for integrity in news,” announced Mr Hall. A June 2019 BBC blog entitled “Tackling Misinformation” referred to a pre-pandemic BBC news report that anti-vaxxers were gaining traction on social media as part of a “fake news” movement spreading “misleading and dangerous information”. It also claimed a “mammoth” scale of online deceitful business practices and hate speech as problems needing “algorithmic interventions”. (2, 3)

Two weeks after WHO announced the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, Canada’s CBC reported that the Trusted News Initiative had announced plans “to tackle harmful coronavirus disinformation.” “Starting today, partners in the Trusted News Initiative will alert each other to disinformation about coronavirus, including ‘imposter content’ purporting to come from trusted sources. Such content will be reviewed promptly to ensure that disinformation is not republished.”By now the media partners expanded to include Twitter, Microsoft, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters (the world’s largest multimedia news provider), and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. (4)

As result of the organized effort of TNI partners (which effectively include all mainstream media) to "protect" us from "harmful" scientific information about Covid, they've managed to turn this into a 'Casedemic' with inaccurate data representations focused on the number of 'cases'. However, the statistical and logical insignificance of the emphasis on the numbers of infected 'cases' are five-fold:

The first and foremost problem here is the fact that the PCR test was never designed to diagnose any disease, and has a very low positive predictive value (PPV). From early in the 'pandemic' (February and March of 2020) several Medical Science departments and researchers found the PCR test to produce between 70% to 80% false positives in asymptomatic people (Update: this percentage is now estimated at 80% to 90%). This means that by far the majority of people who test positive but show no symptoms, should not actually be regarded as Covid19 'cases'. Not surprising when you learn that the designer of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, never intended it to be used for diagnosing any viral infection. (5) In this video clip you'll hear Dr Mullis explain the PCR test, and how its results were also misinterpreted in the HIV and AIDS scandal by Tony Fauci and his gang at that time... More about the lack of scientific validity of PCR testing later.
The number of people testing positive for COVID19 is a direct product of the number of tests being done, of which the capacity has speedily increased all over the world, due to the huge financial gains for the companies producing the testing kits, and for the clinics and medical centres selling the tests. The more tests done, the more 'positive' results. However, at the same time, the more 'positive' tests, the lower the IFR of Covid19 actually becomes, as explained above.
While the general estimated Infection Fertility Rate is 0.1% - 0.35%, the IFR for the average sub-70 age group is between 0.04% to 0.05%, and extremely low for the average sub-44 age group. For the sub-70 year group therefore, testing 'positive' has less significance of harm than being 'infected' by the seasonal flu (which has an average IFR of 0.1%). (1)
The only way for human beings to develop natural immunity to the Coronavirus, is to 'contract' the virus. Being labelled as a 'positive case' is therefore an absolute necessity for living on a planet filled with viruses, and the way nature maintains homeostasis. This is the only way of achieving the infamous “herd immunity”... The propaganda statement that “we'll achieve herd immunity with vaccinations”, is completely unscientific according to Vaccinologist Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D. Robust, naturally acquired immunity is only achieved when people who became infected, recover from the disease, he says. Dr Vanden Bossche has actually been warning of the catastrophic dangers of a mass vaccination campaign during a pandemic. The fear that the media and politicians have attached to the number of 'cases' is therefore ludicrous! (7)
Since more than 99.65% of people who contract the virus will not succumb to it, but will completely overcome it, they should also be removed from the list of 'cases' after a specific period of not showing any signs of disease. There is no clarity over when this is happening.

Please note that all statistics I share are based on the official recorded data of Covid19 deaths, which in itself is questionable, as I will show a bit later. However, we can only do data analysis on official numbers.

PCR testing scandal

The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test is the foundation of the Covid19 'casedemic'. PCR is a way of amplifying a single molecule of DNA into millions of copies of that DNA in a few hours. It requires no more than a testtube, a minute part of DNA from anything, ranging “from a single human hair, from a drop of dried blood..., [or] from the tissues of a mummified brain”, and a source of heat, explains Karry Mullis. When PCR is used to look for SARS-CoV-2, since the genetic material of the virus does not consist of DNA, but of RNA, the viral RNA must first be 'transcribed' (RT) or converted into DNA. Then, through various cycles of alternate heating (over 90℃) and cooling (to below 60℃), polymerase duplicates the DNA, continuously amplifying the starting material. The more cycles used, the higher the likelihood of finding evidence of viral fragments, but the lower the chance of this genetic material being representative of live virus (that which can be cultured). (90) 

Important to understand is that PCR does not deliver a YES or NO result, but rather through the intensity of a fluorescent dye which serves as a measure of the amount of DNA being produced. The number of cycles needed to produce the critical level of fluorescence is called the cycle threshold (Ct). If the process starts with a huge number of RNA-fragments, the threshold fluorescence intensity is reached early and the Ct is low (20 to 25 cycles). This would represent a more reliable result. If the initial load consists of only a few RNA molecules, or maybe even a single piece, it may require many cycles to get the critical fluorescence signal. At high Ct values (30 and above) you end up amplifying “the background molecular noise” of benign genetic fragments, which leads to false-positive results. This implies that the 'evidence' of viral RNA at a cycle threshold of 40 for example, could very well be of inactive (non-infectious) or dead virus, as when a person has previously been infected and fully recovered. (91) While the infectious phase may last a week to 10 days, because inactivated RNA degrades slowly with time, it may still be detected many weeks after infectiousness has dissipated. (92)

One of the big problems with using the RT-PCR test for Covid was the lack of a specified Ct in the Standard Operational Procedure. The FDA initially recommended the PCR test to be run between 35 and 40 cycles. However, a number of studies found that a Ct above 25 shouldn't be taken as indicative of the presence of live virus. One of these papers published on Pubmed in December 2020, reports finding no live virus in any samples from cycle thresholds greater than 24. (93) A peer-reviewed study published in Oxford Academic Clinical Infectious Diseases states: ”It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.” It is important to note that most laboratories in the USA and Europe used a Ct of 35, which means that approximately 97% of their so-called 'Covid cases', were false positives. (94, 95, 96)

Apart from the PCR test's inappropriate use to diagnose infection with Covid19, there were also reports of both test design problems with primers/probes, and contamination with the test kits produced by the CDC. The CDC began manufacturing these kits in January 2020 and shipped it to state labs and to 30 other countries, which includes 191 international labs. As early as 12 February problems with the test were reported, and on 28 February an open letter from more than 100 virologists and other specialists, was presented to Congress with questions about these tests. In April 2020, test kits in the UK were also found to be “contaminated with COVID-19”. (97, 98, 99)

The RT-PCR test was hastily accepted by the WHO as the standard assessment for Covid19 based on the Corman-Drosten paper, which was published a mere 24 hours after it was submitted, suggesting it never even underwent peer review. An external peer review by 22 international scientists of the RT-PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 was published on 30 November 2020. This review reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level with the Corman-Drosten paper. One of the "fatal errors” these scientists found is the fact that the Corman-Drosten paper was written (and the test developed) before any viral isolate was available. All they used was the genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020, compared to actually working with an isolated and purified whole virus (to fulfill Koch’s postulates). The review report concluded: “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.” (100)

Update:

Without any media attention, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that after the 31st of December 2021, they will withdrawn the request to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the RT-PCR Diagnostic test kit. They provided official notice to clinical laboratories to select and implement one of the alternative FDA-authorized tests. The reasons provided were the high risk of false positives and false negatives, which essentially means they admitted that PCR was not a reliable test for detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 from influenza viruses. (104, 105)

The Father of all lockdown lies

The other big fallacy on which the Covid 'casedemic' (and government restrictions) was built, is the myth of asymptomatic spread. For the first time in around 7,000 years of recorded human history, it was postulated that people who didn't show any symptoms of a disease, could infect other people with that same disease. It is partly due to this myth that healthy people have been forced to wear face masks in public... Like so many other Covid lies birthed in 2020, these claims have unanimously been disproved by best evidence scientific research. The largest of these studies by Cao et al. involved a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening program of almost 10 million people between 14 May and 1 June 2020 in Wuhan, China. The study concluded that “the detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases in the post-lockdown Wuhan was very low (0.303/10,000), and there was no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious”. (101)(114)

Another study, A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers, published in August 2020, followed 455 contacts who were exposed to an 'asymptomatic Covid19 virus carrier' in a hospital setting. These were divided into three groups: 35 patients, 196 family members and 224 hospital staff. The median contact time for patients was four days, and for family members, five days. The study found that “all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection”. In closing on this issue, I'd like to quote Niels Harrit (PhD), a retired Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen: “It used to be common sense that you are healthy unless you are not. Sense is not common anymore during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic. Now you are sick until proven healthy – and contagious by default. The vehicle for this scam is the RT-PCR test run at >35 cycles and beyond.” (102, 103)

Inflating the numbers

For now I believe it important that we catch up on what actually happened on the operational level since March 2020, when the pandemic was running on full cylinders. In part 1 we looked at the specific reasons for the explosive spread of the 'Corona' virus in Northern Italy during February and March, which then served as a vehicle for much of the dramatic international response. With regards to New York (the other outlier in the Corona statistical equation), we discussed the changes to the regulations on death certificates to play a big part in the much higher number of Covid19 deaths recorded there. Subsequently more research has come to light questioning the irregularities around the recording of Covid fatalities by the CDC.

Dr. Henry Ealy and his team started to monitor CDC statistics around Covid cases and fatalities in March 2020, and noticed the agency was vastly exaggerating fatalities. Due to the March 2020 changes in how cause of death (COD) were to be reported on death certificates (as discussed in part 1), instead of listing Covid19 as a contributing cause in cases where people actually died from underlying conditions, Covid was listed as the primary cause of death. Dr Ealy & Co published a paper in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, "COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective". By 23 August 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities was caused by COVID-19. Dr Ealy found that if the long-standing, original guidelines on COD reporting had been used, “...we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. […] That's a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation." (8)

The CDC actually admitted in a report published late August 2020 that only 6% of deaths have Covid19 as the only cause mentioned, revealing that 94% of patients who died from coronavirus had other underlying “health conditions and contributing causes.” On average, they reported 2.6 additional conditions or causes per 'Covid' death. (9) The USA is of course not the only place in the world where questionable recording of Covid related deaths has caused a distortion of data. Many UK health spokespersons have been careful to repeatedly say that the numbers quoted in the UK indicate death with the virus, not death due to the virus. When giving evidence in parliament toward the end of 2020, Prof. Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London (the same who insanely predicted between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths in the UK from Covid19!), said that he now expects fewer Covid19 deaths in the UK. But, of more importance, he said two-thirds of these people would have died anyway. In other words, he suggests that the crude figure for ‘Covid deaths’ is three times higher than the number who have actually been killed by Covid19. (10) (Even the two-thirds figure is an estimate – it would not surprise me if the real proportion is higher.)

Consider the following examples: an 87-year-old woman with dementia in a nursing home; a 79-year-old man with metastatic bladder cancer; a 29-year-old man with leukaemia treated with chemotherapy; a 46-year-old woman with motor neuron disease for 2 years. All develop chest infections and die. All test positive for Covid19. Yet all were vulnerable to death by chest infection from any infective cause (including the flu). Covid19 might have been the final straw, but it has not caused their deaths. They died with Covid, but not from Covid. There is a huge difference.

Likewise, the director of the German National Health Institute (RKI) admitted that they count all test-positive deaths, irrespective of the actual cause of death, as “coronavirus deaths”. The average age of the deceased was 82 years, most with serious preconditions. As in most other countries, excess mortality in 2020 due to Covid19 is likely to be near zero in Germany. (11)

Although there is no international standard for recording the cause of death, it has been general medical practice in most countries to not record a specific infective cause of respiratory deaths. That was until Covid19. Due to unprecedented changes made during 2020 to the regulations on how deaths are to be recorded, in most countries the above examples of mortality are added to the official Covid19 tallies. This is the skewed Covid data that has been blasted the world over by the media as absolutes, and which politicians used to justify their Covid policy and regulatory decisions.

Identifying a number of other motivators to the inflated death rate stats in New York, will help us clear up more of the deception on the Statistical level. The first important factor involves the CARES Act which authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare to hospitals for Covid19 patients. The United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) also announced on 10 April that $10 billion would be set aside for high-impact areas significantly impacted by the coronavirus. On 14 April New York's overall Covid death toll was revised, with a whopping 3,700 fatalities added to their original data, now including "people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it". (12) I added an expansion on this to Part 1 as an update (you can view this update here).

Confirming sentiments to inaccurate Covid19 numbers in New York came from numerous funeral home directors who spoke out about Covid19 being written on all the death certificates, whether the deceased were tested for it or not. Michael Lanza, Funeral Director of Colonial Funeral Home in Queens, suspects the motive behind this is to allow local authorities to qualify for federal funding, which ties in with the HHS funding discussed above.

https://youtu.be/g5f_6ltv7oI

An article by MedPage Today of 9 June made known that data on Covid deaths in USA Nursing Homes has been reported “insanely wrong” on the website of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Saugus Rehab and Nursing Center in Saugus, Massachusetts, was reported as having 794 confirmed cases of Covid19 in residents, and 281 cases in staff. The facility however, only has room for 80 patients. Of which 45 residents tested positive, along with 19 staff members. According to the CMS data, Dellridge Health and Rehabilitation Center in Paramus, New Jersey, had the most Covid19 deaths of any nursing home in the country, namely 753. That number is "insanely wrong", said Jonathan Mechaly, Dellridge's marketing director. "We are a 90-bed center and have had less than 20 deaths!!” (14)

Although the above mentioned incidents of inaccurate data on their website was corrected after some nursing home owners complained, it does raise a few questions about the reliability of these CDC/CMS data claims and reports:

Although there has been fingers pointed in all directions about who's to blame for these mistakes, if it's purely a case of 'human errors', why were all of the reported numbers over-estimates?
How many of the roughly 15,000 nursing homes on their data base have incorrect numbers listed, but don't know of the mistakes?
Are these false numbers still cited in official counts for Covid19 cases/deaths?

Given that Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities account for up to 80% of all Covid19 deaths in some US states and Canada, these statistics have far reaching implications. (15)

It has also now become a well known fact that doctors in the US (not only in New York as proven in Part 1) where instructed to fill out death certificates in a new way on March 4th, by a directive of the National Center of Health Statistics. The document reads: “It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.” The implication is that a conclusive positive tests for Covid19 is no longer a requirement for a death to be attributed to Covid. This has led to dubious Covid stats in most countries around the world, where people who die with Covid, are being recorded to have died from Covid.

Maltreatment of hospitalised Covid patients

Even more disturbing information regarding the inflated number of Covid19 deaths in New York, came from a few brave ICU nurses and doctors speaking out over the horrific maltreatment of patients in some public hospitals in New York. One of these nurses, Erin Olszewski, a retired Army Sergeant who served in operation Iraqi Freedom and became a civilian nurse in 2012, cared for Covid19 patients in Florida and New York for a few months during the first half of 2020.

She accepted a temporary transfer to spent 4 weeks at Elmhurst Hospital Center, the public hospital in Queens, New York, regarded as “the epicenter of the epicenter” of the Covid19 pandemic in the U.S. In a 70 minute video interview she shares the shocking experiences she had in Elmhurst, compared to how Covid19 patients were treated in her home town Florida.

https://youtu.be/UIDsKdeFOmQ

Sister Erin Olszewski's interview.

Sister Olszewski says that in Elmhurst Hospital, patients who repeatedly tested negative for Covid19 were still listed as confirmed positive. These patients are then placed in the same rooms as those who have actually tested positive for Covid19, even though the hospital now has enough rooms available to separate these patients. Olszewski talks about how a stroke patient ended up contracting the disease due to being placed in the same room as a Covid-positive patient. He ended up on mechanical ventilation, drastically increasing his chances of dying due to lung damage (I will explain this shortly). "They're banking on the fact that they'll get it," she says, "because they're already immuno-compromised."

All patients who showed any signs of difficulty with breathing, often as a result of anxiety says Olszewski, were convinced by staff they needed mechanical ventilation, even if they are talking in full sentences and are alert and orientated. This was confirmed by Lori Jean, one of three nurses who spoke out in a Youtube video on April 26 (which has been removed by Youtube subsequently)

about what they saw in New York hospitals. If these patients are not able to hold saturation levels of oxygen of 90 or 92%, they are ventilating them, says Lori. “90 or 92% is not our typical ventilation stage. It is rare that we would ever intubate a patient that is holding 90% sats”, she confirms. Changes in legislation during the Coronavirus 'pandemic' no longer requires hospitals to obtain consent from a patient's family for mechanical ventilation. And since Covid regulations do not allow family members to stay or visit the patient, the patient is automatically prevented from having an advocate.

According to Olszewski, the hospital receives $29,000 extra for a Covid-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatment reimbursement. Problem with this early intubation protocol is that according to a number of international studies (some already available since February 2020), between 66% and 86% of patients being put onto mechanical ventilation dies from lung injury. At Elmhurst this ratio was 100%, as “not a single patient has been successfully extubated and released since the pandemic began”, declares a physician in Ms Olszewski's undercover video recording.

Part of why mechanical ventilation is so dangerous is because patients are given heavy doses of sedatives and paralytics, says Ms Olszewski. Although patients are essentially asleep during the intubation, their bodies still go through the trauma of “ventilators blowing their lungs out”. Making matters worse, many of the doctors treating these patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center, are not trained in critical care, according to Ms Olszewski. One of the "doctors" on the Covid floor was actually a dentist, and the other Residents (recently qualified medical graduates doing compulsory hospital work under supervision) have “zero experience” and “unfamiliar with the drugs being used and therefore making mistakes”, she says.

One of the most disturbing details shared in Ms Olszewski's interview is a voice recording of arguments between her and other nurses with a cardiac Fellow (a medical graduate working under supervision for training in an area of specialty), who told them not to resuscitate a 37 year old patient in respiratory distress (who did not have Covid19, yet was treated for it). The patient did not have a DNR ('do not resuscitate') order in place, and when they questioned the Fellow, the only answer given was that these orders were coming "from the top". "It's murder," Olszewski says. "It's setting these people up for failure — based on money." She's convinced the 37-year-old man died as a direct result of being “vented”, and denied CPR.

A similar message about the dangers of the ventilation protocol came from Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell, an ICU doctor from Maimonides in New York. He published a video on Youtube during March 2020, in which he challenged the protocol of early intubation of Covid19 patients. He said Covid19 is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one. What he's seen appears more like high altitude sickness. “Covid-positive patients need oxygen, [but] they do not need pressure. The high pressures we’re using are damaging the lungs of the patients we are putting the breathing tubes in", said Dr Kyle-Sidell. At the time Dr Kyle-Sidell stepped down from his position in the ICU, as he “could not morally, in a patient-doctor relationship”, continue the current protocols of treatment that came from 'the top'.

“88% of COVID patients on ventilators die”, says Dr Zack Bush, a physician specializing in internal medicine, endocrinology and hospice care, as well as an international educator on the microbiome. He continues to explain that 18 years of science since SARS 1 (which had similar symptoms) shows this to be an hypoxic injury to the whole system. If not fixed, this eventually leads to the lungs being filled with fluid. “Putting this patient on a ventilator makes the situation worse, as high pressure oxygen is very noxious to the tissue of the lungs. If you push oxygen into the lungs and the bloodstream still cannot bind it, you haven't fixed the hypoxic event”, says Dr Bush. (19)

Another element of the standard protocol prescribed by the CDC, the FDA, and the doctor who's never treated a Covid patient, namely Dr Antony Fauchi, was remdesivir. In February 2020 the Wohan Institute of Virology quoted a study which reported “a coronavirus patient in the United Sates was found to show improvements after taking Remdesivir, which is also used to treat infectious diseases like Ebola”. Please note the number of participants in this study was “a patient”. Yes, one person! Dr Fauchi then announced in May 2020 that they will be using this drug called remdesivir (not FDA approved at the time) to treat Covid, because it has shown to be “save and efficacious” in a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, in December 2019. (87)

This study, A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics, was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an Ebola outbreak began in 2018. It was a four-group trial, and patients were assigned to receive either ZMapp (a triple monoclonal antibody agent), remdesivir (a nucleotide analogue RNA polymerase inhibitor), MAb114 (a single human monoclonal antibody derived from an Ebola survivor), or REGN-EB3 (a co-formulated mixture of three human IgG1 monoclonal antibodies). Dr Bryan Ardis, who lost his Father-in-law because of ill-advised hospital protocols, points out that no one seemed to take the time to look at this study which Dr Fauchi uses as support for the prescription of remdesivir to Covid patients across the USA. What the study actually found, was that the remdesivir and ZMapp groups showed the highest mortality rates, and in August 2019 the monitoring board recommended terminating random assignment to ZMapp and remdesivir. Remdesivir performed the worst of the 4 treatments, with mortality in excess of 53%! (88)

Dr Fauchi then quoted another study done by Gilead Sciences, who makes remdesivir. They analyzed the data of 53 Covid19 patients who were put on remdesivir for 10 days, between 25 January and 7 March 2020. They found “a total of 32 patients (60%) reported adverse events”, and “a total of 12 patients (23%) had serious adverse events”. The most common of these, “multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, septic shock, acute kidney injury, and hypotension [...] were reported in patients who were receiving invasive ventilation at baseline”. Four patients (8%) discontinued remdesivir treatment prematurely, one due to worsening of underlying renal failure, and one due to multiple organ failure. Seven of the 53 patients (13%) died after the completion of remdesivir treatment. This then, is the 'safety data' on which health authorities base their standard treatment protocol for Covid19... (89)

More dispute the treatment of Covid as respiratory disease

A cohort study published in May 2020, revealed the findings of doctors in Italy, Germany and India who performed autopsies on deceased Covid19 patients, pointing to thrombosis (blood clots) as the cause of death in many. This implies that Covid19 actually causes a bacterial, rather than a viral overload. “Autopsy studies on 38 subjects from two hospitals in Italy who died of COVID-19 were systematically analyzed. A relevant finding of the presence of platelet-fibrin-thrombosis in small pulmonary arteries, which fits into the clinical context of a ‘Coagulopathy’ was present in the majority of these patients” (33 out of 38). Hereafter the Italian Ministry of Health broke with the World Health Organization's (WHO) Coronavirus treatment protocols, and Italian doctors effectively treated Covid19 with “antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants”, administering 100mg Aspirin and Apronax. It was reported that the Ministry of Health sent home more than 14,000 patients in a single day. According to Italian pathologists, “The ventilators and the intensive care unit were never needed.”  (20)

Doctors in India affirmed that Covid19 is more likely a bacterial, rather than a viral disease. In a The Tribune India article of 23 May 2020, Dr Jaideep Dogra, MD in charge of CGHS in Jaipur, and Dr Luvdeep Dogra, DMF Nephrology at Osmania University, say they are having most success when treating the disease as a normal bacterial pneumonia infection. Dr Jaideep, who also published a paper in the International Journal of General Medicine, has been doing research on 'Chlamydia pneumonia' on heart patients in Rajasthan for over two years. He believes 'Chlamydia pneumonia' is present in several heart disease patients, and dormant in around 10% of the general population. He says in the 10-15 per cent of Covid19 patients who develop sudden breathlessness and land in the emergency room, “the C. pneumonia probably gets activated when COVID-19 breaks down the patient's immunity. This bacterial pathogen has a tendency […] to cause arterial thrombosis (coagulation) […] in pulmonary arteries leading to a cardiac arrest or Hypoxia in which the patient succumbs to the dual diseases.” (21)

As affirmation of the above hypothesis, the anti-bacterial drug Azithromycin has shown positive results in the treatment of Covid19 patients, and are part of various successful treatment protocols (which we'll get to). While some might assume it is controlling the virus, Dr Dogra notes that Azithromycin has long been used for ‘Chlamydia pneumonia.’

Mechanism of death in Covid19

Not all patients who succumbed to Covid19 however, showed the same clinical signs of death due to thrombosis, and it would be ignorant to assume the mechanism of death of thousands of people were the same. Underlying such ignorance is the fallacy that Covid19 (or more precisely SARS-CoV-2) is a killer virus, with the potential to kill the host that “contracts” it. The truth is however that SARS-CoV-2 has not killed a single human being. Instead, a vast majority of people who died with Covid, did so as result of blood clotting (as explained above), mostly preempted with an overreaction of their immune systems called a Cytokine storm, which then leads to organ failure.

The severity of Covid19 is associated with an increased level of inflammatory mediators, like Cytokines and C-reactive protein. Cytokines (such as chemokines, interferons, or interleukins) are a group of proteins made by the immune system that act as chemical messengers to communicate to other cells when a pathogen is present, or to elicit an inflammatory response when tissues have been damaged. In a Cytokine storm an excessive amount of cytokines are released, leading to tons of collateral damage in the body. Patients with sepsis or uncontrolled bacterial infections typically experience a cytokine storm. (22)

Since nearly every organ has cytokine receptors, almost every part of the body is susceptible to the negative effects of a Cytokine storm. A normal release of cytokines causes blood vessel walls to become leakier in order to promote healing of damaged tissue via inflammation, but too many cytokines may cause blood vessels to become overly porous and result in low blood pressure. That, in turn, depletes organs of oxygen and could eventually cause death, says Mandy Ford, an immunologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. In Covid19, the Cytokine storm leads to reduced oxygen in the blood, fluid build-up in the lungs, difficulty breathing, and many of the other symptoms observed in Covid19 illnesses, Ford said. (23, 24)

Towards the latter end of 2020, a number of pioneer doctors who made use of their clinical experience and educated deductive reasoning, instead of sheepishly following the WHO, CDC, and their local health authority guidelines, identified three major phases in the illness process of Covid19. It starts with virus replication, which then triggers inflammation (or a Cytokine storm), which in turn, leads to blood clotting. It's a complex process and no single drug is going to cover all the bases along all stages. This is why doctors Vladimir Zelenko, Peter McCullough, Pierre Kory, and the French doctor Didier Raoult (to name a few), learned to use a combination of drugs to treat Covid19 successfully. Their protocols include viral treatment, appropriate anti-inflammatory treatment (for the Cytokine storm phenomenon), immune-supportive treatment (zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D, quercetin), as well as antibiotic, anti-parasite and anticoagulant agents ("blood-thinners”). (25, 26, 27)

Reasons/motives for the initial high number of Covid deaths

Therefore, according to these medical practitioners (and numerous others not quoted here), the high rates of death in New York, the rest of the USA, and most of the world, was largely the result of:

The standard protocol of treating Covid19 as a respiratory failure - prescribed by those in positions of power far removed from the battlefield, even when this protocol clearly proofed itself to be extremely unsuccessful.
The malpractice in certain hospitals where patients were not treated in a case-by-case manner based on clinical assessment, but were submitted (in some cases forcefully) to this standard protocol of treatment, in obedience to orders from 'the top'.
The denial of early treatment to patients who showed signs of flu-like symptoms.
The suppression of available and effective treatment options for Covid19.

We will zero in on the last two points shortly. (25)

Surely the above was going against the essence of evidenced based medical care. What could be the motive/s for this? Probably the most obvious one is that of money: In the USA the CARES act has (by end of June 2020) channeled $175 billion dollars to hospitals and healthcare providers for the “fight” against Coronavirus. These funds have been made available in 3 phases, and application criteria for funding includes treating Covid patients without insurance, as well as additional funding to hospitals in “high impact” Covid19 areas. Qualifications for funding as a “high impact” hospital were based on the number of Covid positive patients admitted, and calculated on this formula as explained on the HHS official website:

“Payment Allocation per Hospital = Number of COVID-19 Admissions* x $76,975.

*Hospitals must have 100 or more COVID-19 admissions.”

The HHS made a second round of “COVID-19 High-Impact Area Targeted Distribution payments” based on a formula for hospitals with a COVID-19 admissions over 160 between 1 January and 10 June 2020. These hospitals were paid $50,000 per eligible admission for this period. (28)

Conveniently for the discrepancies on the Operational level at hospitals in New York, the governor of the state of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has exempted top officials at hospital and nursing home companies from lawsuits for “any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing healthcare services” regarding Covid19. (29)

  Safe and effective treatment for Covid19: Hydroxychloroquine

A much saver and more effective way to provide Covid patients with sufficient oxygen that intubation on ventilators, is the use of High-flow Nasal Cannulas, or HFNCs. These non-invasive nasal prongs that sit below the nostrils and blow large volumes of warm, humidified oxygen into the nose and lungs, has shown to be effective in treating Covid19 in numerous studies, some published in April 2020 already. (30, 31, 32)

In contrast to the horrors of maltreatment and inflated death rates in New York due to early intubation, in Ms Olszewski's home town hospital in Florida, not a single individual died with Covid19 (at the time of her interview). Here all Covid19 positive patients were treated with the Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc protocol at the earliest stage possible. Success with this protocol has been proven in a multitude of international studies [p], but since it threatens the covert Covid pandemic narrative that there will only be one savior, namely a vaccine, the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) protocol was shot down by a number of role players who have vested interest in the vaccines.

The main opposition to the widespread use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which lead to the World Health Organization (WHO) pausing the Solidarity trial of HCQ as treatment for Coronavuirus, based their objections on a fraudulent research paper published by the Lancet in May. This paper claimed that HCQ increases mortality in patients, but was however retracted by the Lancet after inconsistencies with data for the study from the research company Surgisphere, became apparent. It also came to light that its CEO, Sapan Desai, made false claims about having two PhD's and a Masters qualifications, and associations with major universities. (33)

Other trials where completely misleading as a result of either using hydroxychloroquine in the late stage on patients who were already on ventilators, or they used toxic doses of HCQ. While doctors around the world who had success with HCQ were using around 200 mg to 400 mg per day, for a few days to a couple of weeks, the Bill & Melinda Gates-funded Recovery Trial used 2,400 mg of hydroxychloroquine during the first 24 hours, followed by 400 mg every 12 hours for nine more days, for a cumulative dose of 9,200 mg over 10 days! The Solidarity Trial led by the WHO, used 2,000 mg on the first day, and a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. These doses, three to six times higher than the daily recommended dosage for this drug, was simply too high. As noted by Dr Vladimir Zelenko, who had great success with the HCQ protocol, “all those studies did was prove that if you poison someone with lethal doses of a drug, they're going to die”.(34)

The treatment protocol with which Dr Zelenko and others had great success, generally consists of Hydroxychloroquine plus Zinc. The effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against SARS coronaviruses has already been established in 2005. (35) In 2010 Ralph Baric, one of the world’s leading SARS virologists, found that Zinc inhibits RNA polymerase activity and blocks replication of Coronaviruses. (36) Zinc is the primary component, Hydroxychloroquine supports the cellular absorption of Zinc (an ionophore of Zinc), which was discovered in 2014 in the context of cancer research. (37) Variations of the protocol includes Azithromycin (an antibiotic) to prevent a secondary bacterial superinfection, and the flavonoid Quercetin, which is also an ionophore of Zinc. (38)  Some also include Heparin in severe Covid19 cases.

Some studies show a 50% decrease in mortality rates among already hospitalized patients treated with the HCQ protocol in the early stage of Covid, and doctors often observe an improvement in the condition of patients within hours. (39, 40) Dr. Zelenko, who is a family doctor of a community of 35,000 Hasidic Jews in Monroe, New York, had a near 100% success rate in treating more than 3,000 people with symptoms of Covid19 since March 2020 with the Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc sulfate, and Azithromycin (an antibiotic) protocol (Update: As of August 2021 Dr. Zelenko and his team successfully treated over 6,000 Covid patients). In a letter to President Trump he shared of his success, which is why the president publicly called for the use of hydroxychloroquine. This sadly was turned into a political play ball by the anti-Trump Democrats...

Dr Vladimir Zelenko "Zinc is the bullet, hydroxychloroquine is the gun, and azithromycin is the protective vest.” — Dr Vladimir Zelenko "***Zinc is the bullet, hydroxychloroquine is the gun, and azithromycin is the protective vest.”***

Zelenko Protocol Zelenko Protocol. In June 2020, Dr Zelenko and two co-authors from Germany published a study showing that treating Covid19 patients within 5 days of symptom onset with his three tier protocol, reduced the odds of hospitalization by 84%, and all-cause death by 500% compared to no treatment. Somehow, “no treatment” within the first 5 days became the recommendation during the early stages of the 'pandemic'. While many hospitals where running at full capacity and outpatient services closed, authorities ordered most private clinics to be closed and focused on procuring more ventilators and increasing hospital capacity. Patients were told to go home and see how their symptoms develop, while often waiting at least a week for PCR test results. The fact that most people with Covid19 symptoms did not have access to early (pre-hospitalized) treatment, is completely contrary to traditional pathophysiological rationale, says Dr Zelenko.

“The CDC [...] recommend starting the treatment of influenza with antiviral drugs within the first 48 hours, [...] except when it came to COVID-19. We were told to send patients home, and when they get sicker, send them to the hospital, where there was a good chance they were going to get intubated, especially in March and April”, says Dr Zelenko in an interview of February 2021. As already stated, research established that ventilator treatment of Covid19 showed mortality rates above 80%. Which is why Dr Zelenko states that, “at that point … [being hospitalized, sedated and intubated] was a death sentence. None of that made sense to me at all.” A number of international studies found that early outpatient treatment of Covid19 may reduce hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%. (43)

Given the financial incentives for higher numbers of Covid admissions to hospitals (as discussed earlier), it is understandable why some role players might have been in favor of suppressing the scientific data and common logic of early treatment of Covid. There may however also be a more sinister motive, which we'll get to...

Dr. Harvey A. Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health who has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications, and currently holds senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals, expressed his dismay and frustration about the false narrative on HCQ in a Newsweek article: “I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily … I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.” (44)

At this time in France HCQ was re-designated from an over-the-counter drug to prescription-only, making it much more difficult for people to get. In Australia, doctors who used their best judgment and prescribed HCQ to treat Covid patients, were threatened with jail time. During the same time, one of the world’s largest HCQ manufacturing facilities “mysteriously burnt down” outside Taipei, Taiwan. (45)

Dr. Meryl Nass writes in her blog on the “false hydroxychloroquine narrative” that this drug has been safely used for 65 years by millions of patients. “So the message [...] crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for COVID-19 [...] doesn’t make sense”, she states. She points to the CDC's official guidance document on prevention of malaria with hydroxychloroquine, which states it "can be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers...". Why would it now suddenly be regarded as 'unsafe'?

In her blog post of 27 June 2020, Dr Nass provides a number of factual events related to the suppression of HCQ, and poses a number of questions for the reader to answer for themselves:

“Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going?
To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population?
Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich?”  (46)

Other treatment protocols which has proven very effective for the treatment and prevention of Covid19, and has been backed by a multitude of credible research trials over the last couple of months, include:

Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide,
Ivermectin,
and a herbal blend used for parasite cleanse which includes Artemisinin.

Safe and effective treatment for Covid19: Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide

Dr. David Brownstein has successfully treated hundred of patients in his clinic outside Detroit with an intervention called Nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide. Since he began practicing holistic medicine 28 years ago, he started using vitamin A, C and D, as well as iodine to help patients immune systems. In the mid-90's Dr Brownstein and his staff started adding nebulized hydrogen peroxide and intravenous (IV) hydrogen peroxide to their treatment protocol for influenza and influenza-like illnesses. “When COVID-19 came around [...] I said: “We've treated coronavirus in past years' [it's] known to be part of the influenza-like illnesses, […] I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work for this illness as it has worked for the other viral/coronavirus illnesses that we've been treating." (47)

It was the middle of a Detroit winter when Dr Brownstein and colleagues first started treating Covid patients under full social distancing and lockdown restrictions. As a result, they had to treat patients who were ill in a drive-through manner in his clinic's parking lot. Patients would stick their arm out the car window, and Brownstein and colleagues would do an IV (intravenous) of hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C. After the IV they would stick their rear end out the car door and receive an intramuscular shots of ozone in each butt cheek. “We got them hooked up on a nebulizer too, nebulizing hydrogen peroxide and iodine. […] Usually after the first nebulized treatment, their airways would open up, and they could breathe again.”

He published the results of his work in a study which was published in Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law in July 2020. Dr Brownstein also posted video interviews with his patients on his website in which they tell of their victory over Covid19. He had to remove all of these however after receiving a warning letter from the Federal Trade Commission, because there was no human clinical studies documenting the treatment he used as effective in preventing or curing Covid19. His lawyer wife then send the FTC the published and peer-reviewed study paper, documenting the treatment of 107 patients, with one hospitalization, no ventilators, and no deaths. The FTC replied saying “No, we want a randomized controlled study.” The simple reason why Dr Brownstein didn't do a randomized study was that it would be unethical for him to withhold treatment from people when he's as certain as can be that the therapy was going to work. “There's no way I could sleep at night if I was randomizing people to get the therapy, and others to not get the therapy”, says the good doctor.

Safe and effective treatment for Covid19: Ivermectin

Ivermectin has also received lots of publicity in the last 6 months as a successful means to overcome Covid19. This drug has historically been used to treat parasitic infections in humans and in animals, and was actually awarded with a Nobel Prize in medicine. It is very safe, widely available, and cheap. A meta-analyses based on 60 randomized studies of ivermectin in Covid19 found that an 81% (early treatment) and 96% (prophylaxis) lower mortality was observed. (49) These studies also saw statistically significant improvements for ventilation, hospitalization, cases, and viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting Covid19 with the regular use of ivermectin.

Dr Pierre Kory, Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist and President of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance), testified on the benefits of ivermectin before a number of Covid19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021. The FLCCC Alliance, which was founded by five very experienced intensive care specialists, states on their website: “We regard ivermectin as a core medication in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19”. They developed the I-MASK+ Prevention & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, and MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, and ivermectin plays a key role in both. These protocols come with guidance on the timing and doses of each component medication, for the specific phase the patient is in. (50)

A great example of the effectiveness of ivermectin (IVM) on a bigger scale, can be seen in data from the southern Mexico state of Chiapas, the only state where IVM was incorporated into treatment guidelines. This treatment was adopted on August 1st, 2020. In the maps shown below, you can see that the number of Covid deaths in Chiapas was 28 per 100,000 people before August 1st, and has now decreased to 4 deaths per 100,000 (at the time of the study), the fewest deaths of any state in Mexico. Note below that no other state has recorded decreases of this magnitude, with many states instead showing a large increase in death counts since August 1. (51)

On May 8, 2020, Peru’s Ministry of Health approved IVM for the treatment of Covid19, and mass distributions of IVM for inpatient and outpatient treatments were conducted in different time frames with local autonomy, in the 25 states of Peru. Case fatalities dropped sharply in all states but Lima, where treatment was delayed four months. For nine states which had mass distributions of IVM in a short time frame through a national program, excess deaths at +30 days dropped by a population-weighted mean of 74%! (32)

Despite the scientific evidence, the drug has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends not to use IVM in patients with Covid19. Apart from the fact that these organizations lack clinical experts with bedside patient care experience, in charge of their policy making (a general 'problem' in medicine which was purposefully created to suit the requirements of Big Pharma), the fact that healthcare authorities are not supporting the use of IVM and the other protocols which has proven to be highly effective in the treatment and prevention of Covid19, begs the question of a hidden agenda.

The rest of this post follows in Coronavirus, Part 3: Dark agenda behind the Covid narrative.

References

Coronavirus, Part 2: Sick Until Proven Healthy

Recent Posts

Comments

MISSION STATEMENT