Categories
CDC control Coronavirus COVID-19 Dr. anthony fauci enslavement face masks Headline News illness ineffective Intelwars liars in suits mask wearing masks don't work Occult outbreak Politicians power Religious Rituals Study symbolism symptomatic Transmission tyranny viral wake up

CDC Study: Most COVID-19 Cases Were Admitted Mask Wearers

A new study released by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released the findings of a new study, in which the overwhelming number of new coronavirus cases came from people who religiously wear masks. The study, which was released in September and ignored by mainstream media and politicians found that masks are ineffective at the prevention of viral infections.

Read the entire study here.

The study, which was conducted in the United States in July found that when the CDC compared 154 “case-patients,” who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from the same health care facility who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite “always” wearing a mask.

In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public,” the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they “often” wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they “never” wore a mask or face covering.

Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants’ efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at “gatherings with ?10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation,” they still contracted the virus. –The Federalist

This more than proves that face masks are ineffective at stopping COVID-19, so why does the CDC still recommend them? Is there something more sinister going on? That’s up to you to decide, but I would personally say it is more than a possibility.

Are Face Masks & COVID Rituals Occultist Symbols For Submission?

The Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many political parasites authorities are still encouraging people to wear masks as well. Several states, cities, and other municipalities have even mandated face masks, citing them as one of the main tools to “slow the spread” of coronavirus and keep case numbers in their area down.

The mainstream media is deliberately ignoring this information, to obviously lay cover for tyrannical politicians seeking more power and control.

The post CDC Study: Most COVID-19 Cases Were Admitted Mask Wearers first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus GLobal Intelwars Reopening schools Study

No link between schools reopening and COVID-19 spread, global study finds

There is no clear link between the reopening of schools and a country’s coronavirus infection rates according to a recent global analysis, which suggests that children are not the conduits for spreading the virus as some researchers first thought.

What are the details?

Insights for Education, an independent foundation based in Switzerland, studied 191 countries over a six month period and reported that “while opinion remains divided on when it is safe to reopen schools,” their “analysis shows no correlation between school reopening and a rise in COVID-19 infection rates.”

“It’s been assumed that reopening schools will drive infections, and that closing schools will reduce transmission,” IfE CEO Dr. Randa Gro-Zakhary said in a statement. “But the reality is much more complex.”

Reuters reported:

IfE found that 52 countries that sent students back to school in August and September – including France and Spain – saw infection rates rise during the vacation compared to when they were closed.
In Britain and Hungary, however, infection levels dropped after initial school closures, remained low during the holidays, and began rising after reopening.
Full analysis of these 52 countries found no firm correlation between school status and infections – pointing to a need to consider other factors

“The analysis back up what scientists increasingly believe,” according to The Telegraph, “that children, initially thought to be major potential spreaders of coronavirus infection, do not appear to be playing that role. However, at the same time, there is a growing body of work showing the detrimental effects of keeping kids out of school across the globe.”

IfE warned that it is “vital to address ‘pandemic learning debt'” for some 711 million kids worldwide who remain out of the classroom, along with the children who have already returned to school but could face “further potential closures.”

Grob-Zakhary added, “It is fair to ask at this point, are the risks of staying out of education exceeding those of going back in?”

Share
Categories
Brown University Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars National covid-19 school response data dashboard Research Study

New study reports a very low risk of coronavirus transmission inside K-12 schools

A new study from Brown University researchers finds that there is minimal evidence to support the idea that the coronavirus is easily transferred inside K-12 school buildings.

What are the details?

As highlighted by The Hill, researchers — who collaborated with school administrators across the nation on a new National COVID-19 School Response Data Dashboard — released the data from the study on Wednesday.

The study finds that there is a “relatively small degree of spread among staff and students.”

Researchers drew their conclusions based on data received from more than 550 schools in 46 states across the country over a two-week period beginning Aug. 31.

The study found that just 0.23% of students had confirmed or suspected cases of coronavirus. The study also found that the confirmed or suspected rate among school staff was 0.51%. Solely confirmed cases were even lower at 0.076% for students and 0.15% for teachers.

According to a Wednesday report from the Washington Post, researchers at the university said such reports could suggest a possible return to classes may not be as risky as previously assumed.

Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told the outlet, “Everyone had a fear there would be explosive outbreaks of transmission in the schools. In colleges, there have been. We have to say that, to date, we have not seen those in the younger kids, and that is a really important observation.”

Emily Oster, a professor at Brown University who assisted in creating the dashboard, told the Post that the findings should quell concerns surrounding a possible return to school amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oster said that while the research indicates that rates of spread in K-12 schools are certainly “much lower” when compared to other areas, it doesn’t mean schools should become complacent in implementing safety strategies.

“I don’t think that these numbers say all places should open schools with no restrictions or anything that comes close to that,” she warned. “Ultimately, school districts are going to have different attitudes toward risk.”

Sara Johnson, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine associate professor of pediatrics, told the outlet that schools should stagger the return of children and teachers back “slowly and carefully” amid the pandemic.

“These data are promising, but COVID is still a very big threat to people,” she told the outlet in a statement.

What else?

New research from Science Magazine found that children and adolescents are at a significantly lower risk of contracting coronavirus when compared to other age groups.

The research, released on Monday, also warned that school closures could negatively impact children’s health and well-being.

“In the event of seemingly inevitable future waves of COVID-19, there is likely to be further pressures to close schools,” a portion of the report read. “There is now an evidence based on which to make decisions, and school closure should be undertaken with trepidation given the indirect harms that they incur. Pandemic mitigation measures that affect children’s wellbeing should only happen if evidence exists that they help, because there is plenty of evidence that they do harm.”

Share
Categories
black bar California Censorship Conspiracy Fact and Theory DEW Dutchsinse Earthquakes energy beam Headline News Intelwars live live feed oregon Prepare proof Study Videos Youtube

Are Directed Energy Weapons Starting Fires In California and Oregon!?

A Directed Energy Weapon was caught on a live stream going right into a fire in California. Then there was another shown igniting a fire in Oregon. Now, there’s a black censorship line through the beam.  What is going on?!

YouTuber Dutchsinse has discovered something unbelievable while looking at the fires in the Western United States and studying the earthquakes occurring around the world. When it’s first noticed, Dutchsinse called it “some kind of ray or beam of some kind.”

If you have trouble seeing, it at first, adjust the brightness on your device. But it is an incredible find.

The video below is a shorter version and has been brightened so the DEW can be seen better.

After this, Dutchsinse discovered another DEW last night.  That’s at least two nights in a row. This one appears to come from the ocean and into a fire that has just started in Oregon.

After this was discovered, Dutchsinse noticed that someone decided to “censor” the beam by literally putting a black censorship bar right over the heat signature.

The energy beam which was beaming down has been BLACKED OUT ON PURPOSE— LOOK CLOSE wth????? To try to hide it… they tried to match the black of the background but.. because its a live feed grey black its impossible to perfectly match.. so now we have a black line hiding the original beam HAHAHAHAHAAH ? Look close you’ll see it! the black censorship line over it ! hahahahah epic fail. –Dutchsinse, YouTube Community post

Source: Dutchsinse, YouTube

The website used to discover this can be found here.

Is this just a coincidence this happened two nights in a row? Is this just a coincidence these beams go into the fires? Is it just a coincidence that there’s now a censor bar over the beams?

How many coincidences do we need?

If this is not a DEW, what the hell is it?

The post Are Directed Energy Weapons Starting Fires In California and Oregon!? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
face masks Facial Recognition Facial Recognition Technology Intelwars Masks Study

Masks thwart facial recognition systems up to 50% of the time, US agency says

As millions of Americans wear face coverings to protect themselves and others from the spread of COVID-19, law enforcement agencies have been confronted with the additional challenge of identifying masked individuals during investigations.

“There’s a reason criminals wear masks,” Tim Miller, a former Secret Service agent who now works in security consulting, told WPEC-TV in May. “[An] investigation is hindered right away because the face is something witnesses will identify quickly.”

The outlet was reporting on the trend of police agencies taking to social media to seek help from the public in identifying masked thieves and assailants. That same concern exists for law enforcement seeking to identify the criminal rioters taking advantage of protests across the country in recent weeks.

It’s a legitimate concern

In a recent preliminary study, the National Institutes of Science and Technology found that existing facial recognition systems are thwarted by pandemic masks as frequently as 50% of the time.

NIST has reportedly been working alongside the U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security’s science division to study the problem.

In this most recent study, NIST tested existing software by digitally drawing masks onto faces in a database of border crossing photos before comparing those photos against another database of unmasked people seeking visas.

They tested 89 algorithms supplied by tech firms and academic labs by scanning 6.2 million images of about 1 million people.

As a point of comparison, the agency said that competent systems under ideal conditions turn out failure rates of only 0.3%. But when confronted with masks, “many otherwise competent algorithms failed between 20% to 50% of the time.”

The preliminary study only tested facial recognition systems that were created prior to the pandemic, so the hope is that further study into newly developed technologies will produce better results.

One company that has improved such a technology since the start of the pandemic is Apple, which updated its Face ID technology to allow users to more easily unlock their phone’s home screen with a mask on.

There’s another side to things

Wearing a face mask to frustrate facial recognition systems is not necessarily something only beneficial to criminals, however. Individuals seeking privacy from surveillance state tactics may find news that masks protect one’s identity a positive development.

For example, the Associated Press notes that even before the pandemic mask-wearing had “become a hallmark of protesters in Hong Kong, even at peaceful marches, to protect against tear gas and amid fears of retribution if they were publicly identified.”

As a part of the communist government’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests in the city, a ban on masks was implemented.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars intensive care unit Research Study

COVID-19 patients’ ICU death rates are quickly dropping: Study

ICU patients who are being treated for coronavirus are dying less often than they were when compared to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What are the details?

New research published in medical journal Anaesthesia reports that a significant decrease in COVID-19 mortality has occurred since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Researchers add that the decrease is at least partially due to better hospital care.

The study is based on analysis of 24 studies that involved more than 10,000 patients across Asia, Europe, and North America.

The research, led by Professor Tim Cook of England’s Royal United Hospitals Bath, revealed that the overall mortality rate of coronavirus ICU patients fell from approximately 60 percent since the end of March to 42 percent by the end of May.

Cook is also a consultant in anesthesia and intensive care medicine at Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust.

Cook and other study authors said that “rapid learning that has taken place on a global scale due to the prompt publication of clinical reports early in the pandemic” has impacted the disease’s mortality rate for the better.

“It may also be that ICU admission criteria have changed over time, for example, with greater pressure on ICUs early in the pandemic surge,” authors wrote.

The study added, “There were no significant effects of geographical location, but reported ICU mortality fell over time. Optimistically, as the pandemic progresses, we may be coping better with COVID-19.”

The study also notes that its key findings regarding COVID-19 and ICU stints are likely to indicate that lengthy ICU stays take time to be reflected in the data. The research points out that 20 percent of U.K. ICU admissions have lasted more than 28 days, while 9 percent have gone beyond 42 days.

“The important message, however, is that as the pandemic has progressed and all these factors combine, survival of patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19 has significantly improved,” the study added.

Cook, in a statement of his own, said, “The important message is that as the pandemic has progressed and various factors combine, survival of patients admitted to ICU has significantly improved.” He also cautioned, however, that while mortality rates in ICU patients seem to be decreasing, the disease is still more dangerous and damaging when compared to other viruses that cause pneumonias.

“The in-ICU mortality from COVID-19, at around 40 per cent, remains almost twice that seen in ICU admissions with other viral pneumonias, at 22%,” the report added.

Anything else?

Dr. Eric Cioe Pena, director of global health at Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, New York, issued a statement on the research, warning people against complacency.

In a statement to Health Day, Pena said, “Any successful treatment, when not coupled with good public health measures to keep the new case rate below the limit of existing health care resources, will erase any gains made over the last few months by simply overwhelming the ICUs that have just become better at treating COVID-19.”

Pena added that the study, on the whole, “rightly concludes something that we expect: As we learned more about this virus and its effect on the critically ill, we became better at treating it and its complications.”

(H/T: Reuters)

Share
Categories
Coronavirus COVID-19 herd immunity Intelwars Research Study

New study on COVID-19 antibodies suggests that immunity fades within weeks, authors say it puts a ‘nail in the coffin’ of herd immunity

A new study from the U.K. finds that immunity against COVID-19 fades within weeks, putting a “nail in the coffin” of the idea of herd immunity, according to the study’s authors.

What are the details?

The research, carried out by scientists at King’s College London, determined that a COVID-19 patient’s level of antibodies peaked three weeks after symptoms appeared and then in some cases faded away altogether.

Research notes that in some cases, a patient’s level of antibodies was entirely “undetectable” after three months.

The study, conducted on antibody response of 90 patients and health care workers at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, found that 60 percent of those tested had “potent” levels of antibodies during their COVID-19 battles, but just 17 percent had the same level of antibodies three months later.

The study also noted that it appears COVID-19 can reinfect people even if those infected developed antibodies in their initial infection.

According to Business Insider, “The potency of the antibodies fell by as much as 23 times over the three months … and in some cases were undetectable at the end of that period of time.”

One of the study’s authors said that the findings put “another nail in the coffin of the dangerous concept of herd immunity.”

The study has not been peer-reviewed at the time of this writing.

What else?

In a statement, Professor Jonathan Heeney, a virologist at the University of Cambridge, said that the idea of herd immunity is dangerous — especially when it comes to COVID-19.

“I cannot underscore how important it is that the public understands that getting infected by this virus is not a good thing,” he said. “Some of the public, especially the youth, have become somewhat cavalier about getting infected, thinking that they would contribute to herd immunity.”

“Not only will they place themselves at risk, and others, by getting infected, and losing immunity, they may even put themselves at greater risk of more severe lung disease if they get infected again in the years to come,” he insisted.

Anything else to know?

This study has come out on the heels of a Spanish study, which claimed the same result: Antibody protection against COVID-19 reinfection significantly declines in a good many patients.

The study found that just five percent of people tested maintained antibodies several weeks following infection.

In a statement, the study’s authors said, “In light of these findings, any proposed approach to herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable.”

Share
Categories
a pill advancements aliments Alternative Medicine Big Pharma choices conditions demand harming Headline News illness implications Intelwars Magic Mushrooms Marijuana mental conditions natural Psychedelics Research Schedule 1 drugs shroom boom Study therapies treat symptoms

Demand For Alternative Medicine Could END Big Pharma

When it comes to the number of Americans on medications offered by Big Pharma, it’s staggering. People are beginning to demand alternative options and more choices when it comes to their own health, and that could lead to incredible innovative solutions to the problem of Big Pharma.

Many people used to tell those who looked for more natural and holistic remedies for their conditions that they were crazy and should just trust Big Pharma.  Yet the tides are turning, as most know the pharmaceutical companies are interested in doping people up and controlling symptoms instead of curing ailments. They are also borderline cruel with the prices they charge.

Big Pharma: Hooking People On Drugs And Hiking Prices 667%

Not-So-Shocking Poll: Americans Hate The Government Almost As Much As They Hate Big Pharma

According to Healthline, the term “alternative medicine” is out, and “integrative medicine” is in.

Patients are simply demanding more options. People want to choose how they take care of their health and increasing numbers are viewing prescription drugs for every minor thing as more harmful than good.

The Most Medicated Country In The World: 46% Of Americans Have Taken A Pharmaceutical Drug Within The Last 30 Days

In the past few years, many doctors and conventional healthcare institutions in the United States have shown a new acceptance of treatments and philosophies that historically have not been part of mainstream medicine.

Proponents explain that integrative medicine addresses the full range of a patient’s physical, emotional, spiritual, and environmental influences. It also deploys therapies that extend beyond the surgeries and drugs that have historically defined the American medical establishment.

In 1994, Dr. Andrew Weil, the Harvard-educated physician, author, lecturer, and internationally recognized pioneer of integrative and holistic health, founded the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona.

This was years before most people had even heard of integrative medicine.

“Patients are dissatisfied with the small amount of time they get with their doctors and with doctors who prescribe a pill for every ill,” Weil said. “The integrative medicine movement is not a rejection of conventional methods. But patients are saying that the conventional model is not working, that it’s broken. And they are right.” –Healthline

As people continue to turn their backs on the medical establishment that is keeping them sick and dependent on their drugs, more and more are willing to look into alternatives, such as the decriminalization of marijuana and psychedelics. Actually, there’s a “shroom boom” going on right now, and it could lead to immense progress when it comes to the treatment of alcohol and tobacco additions and depression. More research is needed, of course, but as regulations on some previously banned substances are loosened, more studies on the efficacy of those substances can be completed.

If things continue the way they have been, and more turn from the addictive and harmful substances often pushed by Big Pharma, we may actually see a rebound in our overall health.

Share
Categories
COVID-19 Intelwars Men coronavirus Study

Study may help explain why men are more susceptible to COVID-19 than women

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, researchers and public health officials have been puzzled by a simple fact: Men appear to be more likely to catch COVID-19 than women, and when they do catch it, they are more likely to suffer severe complications.

In every country that demographic data is available, men represent a majority of coronavirus cases and deaths. The discrepancy was perhaps first noticed in Italy where almost 70% of coronavirus deaths were male patients.

A number of theories have been floated as possible reasons for this, including overall poor health habits among men. However, researchers in Europe believe they may have found the actual cause.

According to a study released on Monday in the European Heart Journal, men have higher concentrations in their blood of a key enzyme, called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is believed to play a key role in how COVID-19 attacks a patient’s lungs.

Researchers cautioned that their study was conducted before the coronavirus pandemic, so they were not able to evaluate whether coronavirus patients generally or coronavirus patients with significant complications had higher levels of ACE2 in their bloodstream.

However, according to Reuters, one of the study’s co-authors stated, “When we found that one of the strongest biomarkers, ACE2, was much higher in men than in women, I realised that this had the potential to explain why men were more likely to die from COVID-19 than women.”

Of particular importance, doctors have at times been wary of prescribing or continuing administration of a class of drugs called CE inhibitors, which are widely prescribed to patients with a variety of medical conditions. However, the study concluded that ACE inhibitors do not lead to higher ACE2 concentrations in the blood and therefore, the study concluded, “our findings do not support the discontinuation of these drugs in COVID-19 patients.”

This finding means that patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure and kidney disease — who are already at higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 — can continue their regular ACE inhibitor regimen, which may help to reduce mortality in those patients from their underlying conditions.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars Research Science Study

Scientists say they’ve identified mutated COVID-19 strain — and issue a dire warning about new contagion

Scientists say they have discovered what they believe is a mutated strain of COVID-19 — and are now warning that this new strain could be way more contagious than plain old coronavirus.

What are the details?

According to a Tuesday report in the Los Angeles Times, researchers say that a new “mutant” strain of coronavirus has emerged.

The study, led by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, reveals that the new strain is more contagious than versions that spread in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to being more contagious, the new strain could reportedly make people more vulnerable to a second infection after a “first bout with the disease.”

The study was published on Thursday in BioRxiv and has yet to be peer-reviewed, but researchers said they felt an “urgent need for an early warning” to advise people of the potential danger of the new strain.

The outlet reported, “Wherever the new strain appeared, it quickly infected far more people than the earlier strains that came out of Wuhan, China, and within weeks, it was the only strain that was more prevalent in some nations. … The new strain’s dominance over its predecessors demonstrates that it is more infectious.”

“The report was based on a computational analysis of more than 6,000 coronavirus sequences from around the world, collected by the Global Initiative for Sharing All Influenza Data,” the Times added. “Time and time again, the analysis found the new version was transitioning to become dominant.”

At the time of this writing, researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate at least 3,606,038 COVID-19 cases have been confirmed around the world, with at least 252,151 deaths because of the virus.

What else?

Study leader Bette Korber — who is a computational biologist — addressed the study on her Facebook page, the outlet reported.

“The story is worrying, as we see a mutated form of the virus very rapidly emerging, and over the month of March becoming the dominant pandemic form,” Korber wrote. “When viruses with this mutation enter a population, they rapidly begin to take over the local epidemic, thus they are more transmissible.”

She also pointed out that she is very concerned over the study’s results.

“This is hard news,” she continued, “but please don’t only be disheartened by it. Our team at LANL was able to document this mutation and its impact on transmission only because of a massive global effort of clinical people and experimental groups, who make new sequences of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) in their local communities available as quickly as they possibly can.”

Korber said that it is of utmost importance to remain aware and with a fluid, working knowledge of the disease and its metamorphosis.

“We cannot afford to be blindsided as we move vaccines and antibodies into clinical testing,” Korber insisted. “Please be encouraged by knowing the global scientific community is on this, and we are cooperating with each other in ways I have never seen … in my 30 years as a scientist.”

Share
Categories
control COVID-19 Data Draconian elitists enslavement facts feelings Headline News human rights Intelwars John Ioannidis LIES lockdowns population propaganda Reality shutdowns social distancing Standford Study tyranny

There is NO Empirical Evidence for These Lockdowns

This article was originally published by Wilfred Reilly at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. 

Several weeks ago, one of the USA’s better quantitative scientists, John Ioannidis of Stanford, made a critically important point. During the coronavirus pandemic, ‘we are making decisions without reliable data’, he said.

As Ioannidis and others have pointed out, we do not even know the actual death rate for COVID-19. Terrifying and widely cited case-fatality rates like ‘three percent’ come from comparing known fatalities to the small pool of people who have officially been tested. Those test cases are mostly made up of sick and symptomatic people or those who had direct contact with someone known to have had Covid-19 – rather than to the far larger pool of people who may have had a mild version of the disease. Because of the same denominator problem, we also don’t know the true infection rate. A recent German study indicates this could be as high as 15 percent.

Finally, we do not seem to know the effectiveness of the various strategies adopted by national and regional governments to respond to the disease – ranging from the advocacy of social distancing to full-on lockdowns.

This piece tackles that question. As a professional political scientist, I have analyzed data from the Worldometers Coronavirus project, along with information about the population, population density, median income, median age and diversity of each US state, to determine whether states that have adopted lockdowns or ‘shelter in place’ orders experience fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than those which pursue a social-distancing strategy without a formal lockdown. I then briefly extend this analysis to compare countries. In short, I do not find that lockdowns are a more effective way of handling coronavirus than well-done social-distancing measures.

The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in-place orders, instead imposing social-distancing restrictions such as banning large gatherings and mandating six-foot spacing gaps and maximum customer limits inside all retail stores. Those seven states are Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. These states reported 1,620, 2,141, 952, 343, 1,311, 2,542 and 288 cases of COVID-19 respectively as of 3:40pm EST on 16 April – for an average of 1,321 cases. The states reported 37, 60, 21, 9, 7, 20, and 2 deaths respectively, for an average of 22.3 deaths. Throwing in South Carolina, which did not adopt a shelter-in-place order until 6 April, and still allows most religious services, does not dramatically alter these figures – these states averaged 1,613 cases and 33 deaths.

How do these states measure up to the rest of the US? Rather well. According to Worldometers, by the same time the number of officially tested COVID-19 cases across the US states – including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC – ranged from 226,343 in New York to 135 in Guam. The average number of COVID cases in a US state was 12,520. The state-by-state number of deaths varied from 16,251 (New York) to two (Wyoming), with the average figure for deaths being 642. Removing the outlier case of New York state, where roughly half of all US COVID-19 deaths have taken place, shifted these figures downward somewhat – to 8,408 cases and 342 deaths in the average state. However, the social-distancing states experienced substantially fewer cases and deaths than the lockdown states, even with New York out of the mix.

An advocate of lockdowns could object that the social-distancing states are little places, located in America’s ‘flyover land’. While this charge might be based as much on the bias as reality – Utah, Nebraska and South Carolina are sizable places – the next step of my analysis was to adjust for population, using a standard deaths-per-million metric. In alphabetical order, the seven social-distancing states experienced 12, 19, 11, 12, 8, 7, and three deaths per million – for an average of 10 deaths per million when you exclude South Carolina and 12 with South Carolina included.

Again, these numbers compare very favorably to the US as a whole, despite adjusting for population. Across all US states, the number of deaths per million varied from 828 (New York) to three (Wyoming), for an average of 69. With New York removed from the mix, the hardest-hit remaining state was New Jersey, with 8,480 cases and 396 deaths. The average number of cases-per-million across the states minus New York was 1,392 and the average number of deaths-per-million was 54. Comparing the social-distancing states plus South Carolina to US states minus New York, the social-distancing states experienced 663 fewer cases per million and 42 fewer deaths per million on average than the lockdown states.

Next, I ran a regression model. For those unfamiliar with academic statistical methods, regression – in this case, linear regression – is a computerized mathematical technique that allows researchers to measure the influence of one variable on another with all of the other factors that might be relevant held constant. In this case, the variables for each state included in my model were: population, population density, median income, median age, diversity (measured as the percentage of minorities in a population), and the state’s COVID-19 response strategy (0 = lockdown, 1 = social distancing). The data set used to construct this model is available for anyone to request it.

The question the model set out to ask was whether lockdown states experience fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than social-distancing states, adjusted for all of the above variables. The answer? No. The impact of state-response strategy on both my cases and death measures was utterly insignificant. The ‘p-value’ for the variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric, which means there is a 94 percent chance that any relationship between the different measures and COVID-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance.

Fair Use Excerpt. Read the whole article here.

Share
Categories
already widespread antibody tests confirmed cases control Coronavirus COVID-19 Data disobey don't ask permission Dr. Barbara Ferrer fatality rate Fear freedom Government Headline News Health Intelwars LIES manipualtion Neeraj Sood panic reopen the economy Research Santa clara county scaring the public Study

Anit-Body Study Shows COVID-19 Is Already “Widespread” & Death Toll Much Lower Than We Were Told

We are being lied to all day every day by the mainstream media and government officials. We are supposed to be in a state of panic and fear, yet the numbers (even the manipulated numbers) don’t warrant such a reaction.

A coronavirus antibody study released Monday found that the novel coronavirus infection rate in Los Angeles County “far exceeds” the number of confirmed cases, meaning that the fatality rate is also “much lower” than previously thought, just like every human with the capacity to think on their own has already determined.  We destroyed the economy and people’s lives for something that is turning out to be no worse than the common cold.

The preliminary results of research conducted by USC and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that about 4.1% of the county’s adult population carries the COVID-19 antibody, about 28 to 55 times higher than the 7,994 confirmed cases reported in early April.

A similar study released last week by Stanford University showed a similar phenomenon in Santa Clara County, finding that 2.8% to 4.2% of residents tested carrying antibody resistance to the virus, a percentage that far exceeded the number of recorded cases.

Adjusted for the margin of error, the percentage of adults with the antibody ranges from 2.8% and 5.6%, which translates to between 221,000 and 442,000 adults. The county had recorded 617 deaths from the virus as of Monday, according to The Washington Times. Keep in mind how they are counting the deaths too:

BOMBSHELL: MN Senator Reveals HHS “Coaching Document” On How To OVERCOUNT Coronavirus Cases

Another COVID-19 Whistleblower: A Montana Dr. Says Government Is Drastically Overstating Deaths

However, instead of admitting to being wrong and the failure of the lockdowns, government health officials are doubling down on the fear. “These results indicate that many persons may have been unknowingly infected and at risk of transmitting the virus to others,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, director of the public health department, in a press release.

They want us living in fear of each other and needing enslavement to continue on. But it’s time to move on without the government’s permission. Free men don’t ask permission anyway.

“We haven’t known the true extent of COVID-19 infections in our community because we have only tested people with symptoms, and the availability of tests has been limited,” said USC professor and lead investigator Neeraj Sood. “The estimates also suggest that we might have to recalibrate disease prediction models and rethink public health strategies.”

You think? You mean killing people’s livelihoods was a bad idea? You don’t say. These people have been proven to be lying fear mongers and we shouldn’t be obeying their commands at all anymore. Civil disobedience has already begun and it’s going to get worse and wider spread as these lies continue to come out.  This was never about health, it’s always been about control.  They don’t have control if no one obeys their commands.

The mainstream media and government continue to spin this as some sort of excuse to exercise control over our lives.  Even with the numbers not on their side, they are moving the goalposts of control and if we don’t start moving on without them, we’ll be fastening the shackles around our own ankles.

The SHTF, not because of a pandemic, but because of the government’s ability to panic the public while we complied with their draconian and tyrannical orders that have destroyed what took a lifetime to build.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus COVID-19 Covid-19 in wastewater Covid-19 titers Intelwars pandemic Research Study Wastewater

Massachusetts finds ‘significantly higher than expected’ levels of coronavirus in wastewater; actual number of cases could be much larger: report

New research has exposed the existence of “significantly higher than expected” levels of the coronavirus in Massachusetts wastewater.

Such research has prompted some scientists to speculate that many more people have the coronavirus than previously believed.

According to Newsweek, such research is not uncommon.

“Wastewater analysis of this kind has previously been used by scientists to track other infectious diseases, as well as substance abuse in a given population,” the outlet reported. “Now, several research groups around the world have started using this method to look for the novel coronavirus in a bid to estimate how many people are infected in a community.”

So what does this mean?

The study, published on medRxiv, was conducted by Biobot Analytics, but it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

The biotech company carried out the research between March 18 and March 25 at a “major urban treatment facility” in Massachusetts.

Researchers revealed that “[v]iral titers observed were significantly higher than expected based on clinically confirmed cases in Massachusetts as of March 25.”

Mariana Matus, CEO of Biobot as well as one of the study’s authors, told Stat News that the company shared the information with the Boston Public Health Commission as well as the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

“They could believe that [our] numbers could be correct and not out of the realm of possibility,” Matus said. “It was interesting that our estimation was definitely higher than the number of confirmed cases in the area.”

Eric Alm, another study author, said that the public is not necessarily at a heightened risk because of the virus titer level in the wastewater.

“Even if those viral particles are no longer active or capable of infecting humans, they may still carry genetic material that can be detected using an approach called PCR (polymerase chain reaction), which amplifies the genetic signal many orders of magnitude, creating billions of copies of the genome for each starting virus,” Alm said.

He continued, “We use a technique called qPCR or quantitative PCR to estimate how many copies of SARS-COV-2 specific genomes are present in a given sample.”

At the time of this writing, at least 18,941 cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in Massachusetts, and at least 503 have died because of the virus.

(H/T: Fox News)

Share
Categories
Americans Coronavirus COVID-19 Fear Intelwars Pew Research Prayer Religion Study

Study: Droves of Americans are turning to prayer in the face of COVID-19 fear and uncertainty

A new
report says that more than half of Americans are praying that COVID-19 will quickly come to an end.

What are the details?

The new poll from the Pew Research Center reports that more Americans are turning to prayer to fight the coronavirus outbreak.

“The virus also has impacted Americans’ religious behaviors,” the poll notes. “More than half of all U.S. adults (55%) say they have prayed for an end to the spread of coronavirus. Large majorities of Americans who pray daily (86%) and of U.S. Christians (73%) have taken to prayer during the outbreak — but so have some who say they seldom or never pray, and people who say they do not belong to any religion (15% and 24%, respectively).”

The poll reports that 82% of evangelicals have prayed for an end to the COVID-19 outbreak — which is unsurprising, but 26% of religious “nones” — or “nothing in particular” — self-report that they, too, have been turning to prayer as a means to end COVID-19. The poll also reports that at least 15% of people who say they seldom to never pray are also praying for an end to the deadly pandemic.

At least 40% of Americans who say they attend church on a monthly basis now say that they have been virtually attending worship services online or via television on a regular basis.

To note, the poll finds that “Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their personal life has changed in a major way as a result of the coronavirus outbreak: About half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) say this, compared with 38% of Republicans and those who lean to the GOP.”

The survey, taken by 11,537 Americans, was conducted between March 19-24.

You can read the poll’s full findings
here.

What else?

As pointed out by the
Washington Examiner, nearly half of the United States believes that the COVID-19 outbreak is a “wake-up call” from God.

A new national survey for The Joshua Fund — which was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates — says that 44% of people polled believe that the virus should encourage people to “turn back to faith in God.”

Further, 29% of people surveyed said they believe that the coronavirus pandemic indicates that humans are living in “the ‘last days.'”

The poll notes that of all people surveyed, 30% of Jewish Americans, 30% of Democrats, 39% of Republicans, 40% of African Americans, and 50% of Hispanics believe that the COVID-19 outbreak is indicative of the end of days.

In a statement, Joshua Fund founder Joel C. Rosenberg says, “Americans in near full lockdown are anxious, and understandably so. Yet millions are turning to God, the Bible, and Christian sermons for answers, some of them for the first time. That may be the most important silver lining in this crisis so far.”

McLaughlin & Associates conducted the survey from March 23-26 on 1,000 likely American voters.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus crash economic collapse Economy epidemiologist experts fall fear mongering Forecasting Government government power grab Headline News Imperial College of London Intelwars lockdowns Mainstream media newer model Oxford University Shut-down Study Sunetra Gupta totalitarian TOTALITARIANISM UNITED KINGDOM Western world

New Oxford Study Hidden By Mainstream Media: Millions Already Infected, Recovered, & Immune

A new Oxford study said that millions of people in the United Kingdom (and therefore, in other countries) have likely already gotten the coronavirus, recovered from it, and are immune. But the mainstream media doesn’t want this information to get out, and some went to work quickly telling people “not to believe it.”

A newer model, which predicts the progression of the novel coronavirus, set off governments’ reactions around the globe and has systematically ruined lives across the Western world (not because of the virus, but the reaction to it).  pandemic produced by researchers at Imperial College London set off alarms across the world and was a major factor in several governments’ decisions to lock things down. But a new model from Oxford University is challenging its accuracy, the Financial Times reports.

The head of the study, professor Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford theoretical epidemiologist, said she still supports the U.K.’s decision to shut down the country to suppress the virus even if her research winds up being proven correct. But she also doesn’t appear to be a big fan of the work done by the Imperial College team. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” she said.

The acceptance of the original model was to ensure people would be quickly living a life in fear and one without a source of income to combat the totalitarian measures that have already been implemented and are still coming our way. Some media outlets say this newer model relies on assumptions so we should disregard it, yet the original model that has forced lockdown and an economic crash is relying on the same thing. Assuming no one has had the infection, and forcing everyone into a frenzied panic to prevent it.

If Gupta’s work is accurate, that would likely mean a large swath of the population has already built up immunity to the virus and locking them down is pointless. Theoretically, then, social restrictions could ease sooner than anticipated. What needs to be done now, Gupta said according to the Financial Times, is a whole lot of antibody testing to figure out who may have contracted the virus. Her research team is working with groups from the University of Cambridge and the University of Kent to start those tests for the general population as quickly as possible.

The worst part about this model is not the study itself, but the desperate attempts to hide it, or render it invalid to ensure the public remains in a state of fear.

Share
Categories
Best prepared Coronavirus Coronavirus america Coronavirus outbreak Coronavirus us COVID-19 global health Global health security index Intelwars Johns Hopkins pandemic Study survey trump Trump coronavirus

US was ranked the best-prepared country for a pandemic in late 2019 by a Johns Hopkins study

The United States was ranked the best-prepared country in the world to face a global pandemic in a study released by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Johns Hopkins Center for Health and Security in late 2019.

The findings, detailed in the 2019 Global Health Security Index, appear to challenge the claims made by Democrats in recent weeks that the Trump administration left the country ill-prepared and dangerously vulnerable to the spread of the novel coronavirus.

The president even touted the study during a White House press briefing last month.

What are the details?

To produce the findings, researchers analyzed 195 countries around the world, working with “an international advisory panel of 21 experts from 13 countries to create a detailed and comprehensive framework of 140 questions, organized across 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 subindicators to assess a country’s capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.”

The six categories were prevent, detect, respond, health, norms, and risk.

The U.S. scored highly and ranked near the top in all six categories, and scored extraordinarily well in indicators such as risk communication, data integration, biosafety, biosecurity, and emergency preparedness and response planning.

Critics were quick to point out the single area in which the study found the U.S. lagging behind the rest of the world: “health care access.” According to the GHS Index, the U.S. ranks 175th out of the 195 countries surveyed in this area.

“And I think we all kind of know why,” Priya Bapat, an Economist Intelligence Unit consultant, told Business Insider last month in reference to the country’s rejection of socialized health care for all.

At the same time, the U.S. ranked at the top in the health category as a whole due to high scores in health capacity, medical countermeasures, communication, infection control, availability of equipment, and the capacity to test.

Anything else?

Trump has been taking significant heat over the country’s supposed lack of preparedness to combat the virus of late, as media outlets and Democratic lawmakers pile on, raising the alarm over equipment shortages and a lack of testing.

But in response, the president has argued that misinformation coming from critics is what’s leading to public distrust, not an actual lack in preparedness.

The Trump team published a document over the weekend rebutting several claims made by Democratic front-runner and former Vice President Joe Biden. The document included false claims that the president called the coronavirus a “hoax,” that he rejected World Health Organization testing kits, and that he cut Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding.

(H/T: Fox News)

Share
Categories
Children Climate Change Intelwars Nightmares Parenting Research Study

New study says children are suffering scary nightmares and losing sleep over climate change

Children are losing sleep and having nightmares over climate change, according to a new study cited by the Independent.

What are the details?

BBC Newsround conducted a survey on 2,000 children ages 8 to 16 to determine their thoughts around “eco-anxiety.”

The survey found that 80% of children surveyed said the issue of climate change was important to them. Additionally, 73% of children surveyed added that they experience worry over climate change — 22% of those revealed that they are “very worried.”

The outlet reported that 58% of children surveyed are concerned that climate change will impact them personally, and 19% of children admitted that they had nightmares over the climate crisis. And 17% of the children surveyed added that they have been so bothered by climate change that the very idea has disrupted their regular patterns of eating and sleeping

A whopping 41% of children surveyed also said they don’t believe adults in roles of responsibility are doing what they should to quash climate change and its effects on the planet.

What else?

The outlet cited Emma Citron, who is a consultant clinical child psychologist, who said that eco-activist teen Greta Thunberg has served as a positive role model for such afflicted children.

“Public figures like David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg have helped young people to voice their worries and we have to make sure that we as adults listen to them and empower them by giving talks at school and in their communities to help them become involved in positive change,” Citron told the outlet.

She added, “We all need to support them not to feel hopeless but rather to present to them hopeful and balanced messages about their futures and ensure that they get the right professional help if their anxiety is unduly high.”

Share
Categories
Deportation Illegal Immigration immigration Intelwars mexico Study

Study claims self-deportation of 1.1 million illegals to Mexico shrank America’s illegal immigrant population over past decade

A new study finds that America’s illegal immigrant population has actually decreased during the past decade as the result of more than 1 million people voluntarily self-deporting back to Mexico.

“The total undocumented population in the United States continued to decline in 2018, primarily because large numbers of undocumented residents returned to Mexico,” the executive summary of a study announced by the Center for Migration Studies of New York on Wednesday states. “From 2010 to 2018, a total of 2.6 million Mexican nationals left the US undocumented population; about 1.1 million, or 45 percent of them, returned to Mexico voluntarily.”

The study also found that, during the eight-year window, “The undocumented population from Mexico fell from 6.6 million in 2010 to 5.1 million in 2018, a decline of 1.5 million, or 23 percent.”

As a result of the decreased overall illegal immigration population, the study claims, the state of California saw its own illegal population decline by 600,000 from 2010 to 2018, and New York state saw a decrease of 230,000. However, Texas actually saw an increase of 77,000 in its illegal immigrant population over the same time frame, the report adds.

“There’s a widespread assumption that everyone wants to come to the United States and no one ever leaves, but that’s never been true,” Robert Warren, who conducted the study, said in a story at the Washington Times. “There has always been a return flow, but until recently we weren’t able to measure it well in the undocumented population.”

In order to estimate the United States’ illegal immigrant population during the described years, the study employed a series of five steps to derive estimates based on census and survey numbers.

Given the clandestine nature of illegal immigration, it’s impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrants are in the United States at any given time and estimates have varied. As a recent Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report pointed out, DHS estimated a total 12 million in 2015 but a 2018 academic study placed the estimation at 22.1 million.

Furthermore, it’s also important to keep in mind that the CMS study analyzes only up until 2018, and therefore doesn’t account for immigration flows that happened afterward. For example, 2019 saw overwhelmingly high numbers of apprehensions at the southwest border which peaked in May and eventually leveled off to Obama-era levels towards the end of the calendar year.

Share
Categories
Bernie Bernie Sanders Bernie sanders campaign Food Hunger Intelwars Maduro Nicolas Maduro Study survey trump UN United Nations Venezuela

In socialist Venezuela, 1 in 3 are going dangerously hungry. But Bernie won’t denounce the regime.

Roughly one-third of Venezuela’s population is unable to reach minimum nutrition requirements, a recent study by the United Nations World Food Program has found.

What are the details?

Researchers concluded that the nationwide concern is due to economic crisis and political upheaval in the country, which has led to “hyperinflation [that] renders many salaries worthless,” according to the Associated Press.

A total of 9.3 million people are moderately or severely food insecure, according to the study, which found that a startling number of Venezuelans are surviving off a diet of mostly potatoes and beans. The World Food Program defines food insecurity as an individual being unable to meet basic dietary needs.

The problem is evidently not one of food availability, but of food affordability, with 7 in 10 reporting that while food could always be found, it is difficult to purchase due to high prices. And 37% also reported that they had lost their job as a result of the economic crisis in the country.

The survey also discovered that over 60% of households have adopted “food-related coping strategies,” which include rationing and limiting the variety of foods to be able to afford it. One-third admitted to accepting food as payment, and one-fifth said they have sold family assets to cover basic needs.

“The reality of this report shows the gravity of the social, economic, and political crisis in our country,” Miguel Pizarro, a Venezuelan opposition leader, told the Associated Press.

The study, which sent out 8,375 questionnaires and then analyzed responses, was surprisingly welcomed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been previously been reluctant to allow researchers in the country.

A warning for Americans

With the rise of avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the top of the Democratic presidential field, the study may serve as a warning of what socialistic policies could look like in practice.

Only days ago, a Venezuelan entrepreneur warned Americans in an interview with Fox News that socialism, quite literally, kills people. And earlier this month, Venezuelan Americans communicated a similar message, hoping to persuade voters in the U.S. to not let socialism happen here.

Sanders has heaped praise on communist and socialist regimes in the past and has refused to denounce Maduro’s reign in Venezuela.

President Trump, on the other hand, has taken a hardline stance on Maduro by placing a total economic embargo on his socialist regime and supporting the leader of his opposition in the country, Juan Guaidó.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Left-wing media liberal bias Media Bias Study

Study finds journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing — 66% are more left than Obama — yet claims they aren’t biased against conservatives, GOP

A recent study by a trio of college professors insists that while political reporters lean much farther left than we likely have believed in the past — turns out a full two-thirds are more left-wing that former President Barack Obama — these same journalists aren’t biased against conservatives and the Republican Party in terms of the political news they cover.

The study is aptly titled, “There Is No Liberal Media Bias in the News Political Journalists Choose to Cover.”

Pulling no punches

The researchers don’t try to claim that journalists aren’t left-wing or lean Democratic. In fact, they embrace the opposite.

More from the study:

As can be seen, journalists are dominantly liberal and often fall far to the left of Americans. A full 78.1% of journalists are more liberal than the average Twitter user. Moreover, 66% are even more liberal than former President Obama, 62.3% are to the left of the median Senate Democrat (in the 114th Congress), and a full 14.5% are more liberal than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (one of the most liberal members of the House). In short, journalists are overwhelmingly liberal/Democrats and many journalists appear to be far to the left of the average American.

But wait…

“However, being liberal and expressing liberal gatekeeping bias in the choice of news to cover are clearly two different things,” the study says. “After all, journalists state that they strongly value objectivity in reporting the news. Does the strong ideological skew we observe actually influence the potential news that journalists choose to cover?”

According to the researchers, not at all. In fact, they say that “contrary to popular narratives and despite the fact that journalists skew to the left — there is little to no liberal bias in what reporters choose to cover. Our well-powered correspondence experiment allows us to confidently rule out even very slight biases against conservatives. This implies that journalists do not exhibit ideological gatekeeping bias: that liberal media bias does not manifest itself in the vital early stage of news generation, despite strong reasons to think it might.”

How did they figure out there was no bias?

The researchers arrived at their conclusion regarding coverage bias by conducting a correspondence survey. They sent emails to journalists covering political campaigns — and these emails concerned a made-up politician announcing his run for state legislature and asked if the reporters are interested in covering the candidate. The researchers randomly altered the ideological description of the candidate (i.e., “conservative Republican,” “moderate Republican,” “moderate Democrat,” and “Progressive Democrat).

Their findings indicated there’s “no statistical or substantive difference in the probability of a journalist responding to the email based solely on the treatment conditions … strong conservative candidates are, on average, a mere 0.4 percentage points less likely to get a response than strong progressive candidates.”

“Regardless of the exact reasons for a lack of ideological bias, our results provide concrete evidence that counters popular narratives by political pundits, academics, and even President Trump himself,” they conclude. “Despite repeatedly claiming that the media chooses to cover only topics that are detrimental to his campaign, presidency, and followers, we find little evidence to comport with the idea that journalists across the U.S. are ideologically biased in the political news they choose to cover.”

Pushback

The findings may be quite limited given the control points — namely a state legislature candidate and simply asking if there’s interest in covering the candidate. A left-wing journalist might be more inclined to cover a conservative candidate because there’s interest in poking holes in that candidate’s platforms, first off.

John Sexton of Hot Air wondered “what would happen if the email had offered to provide specific proof of illegal behavior about a) President Trump or b) Bernie Sanders. Would journalists be equally interested? Maybe but I suspect as the stakes grow higher you might see more tendency for bias to creep in.”

Share