What do you know about the China virus, tests, case numbers, treatment, survival rates and so on?

Let's try a little survey:  You're all smart, and well-informed.  So when a huge problem afflicts the entire nation, even if you didn't know anything about the supposed huge problem when it began, if it's really a serious problem then after a month or so our U.S. "news media" should have brought you up to speed on it, right?  At least that's a logical deduction.

So what do you "know" about the Chyna virus--the effectiveness of masks, lockdowns and the vaxxes, how we know if people have it, how many cases, how many people have died from it and so on?

To begin:  The number of "cases" is driven by the results of a test. So what do you know about the test used since February of last year to determine if someone is a "case" (i.e. has the virus)?  What is it called, how often does it give false positives and so on?  Don't read on until you've answered those questions.  (But of course you'll ignore that.)

As everyone should know, it's called the "PCR test"--polymerase chain-reaction.  It was invented in the 1980's so it's obviously NOT specific to the Chyna virus.  Instead it clones tiny bits of genetic material, increasing their presence in a sample from a few molecules (i.e. far too few to detect) to tens of billions (detectable).  That's all it does.  So then you need some other test to see if the molecules cloned by the PCR test match any of the genetic code that's unique to the Chyna virus.

The PCR test works by taking the output from one "cycle" and using that as the input to a second cycle, and so on.  And testers can run as many cycles as they want.  In 2020 most labs used 40 cycles.  Of course if you're not in that field you have no idea whether that's good or bad in terms of detecting the Chyna virus.  So let's fix that:

What it means is, if you had just ONE bit of genetic material, and each cycle doubled that number, after 40 cycles you'd have one TRILLION copies--easily detectable.  The problem is, at 40 cycles the test has given false positives for goat skin, plant material, new motor oil and pure water.  As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable.  The president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the [PCR] tests is only 30-50%”.

U.S. labs were routinely running PCR tests with up to 45 cycles, and almost all were testing at no fewer than 35 cycles.  A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study (way before the Chyna virus) found PCR tests for one virus also gave positive resulte for other viruses.  (You can read details of other failings of PCR tests  here, here and here.)

According to Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, reducing the number of cycles from 40 to 30 would have reduced the number of reported “covid cases” by as much as 90%.  Wow.

So the number of people reported as "covid cases" is likely vastly overstated, likely by a factor of ten or so.  Now let's look at how "cases" translates to the number of people hospitalized or dying.

So what percentage of the "covid cases" (alleged by the flawed test) do you think ended up hospitalized?

Turns out most people who get the virus never went to the hospital.  Indeed, millions who have antibodies to the virus (indicating they've had it) never knew they had it--the symptoms were so mild they never thought to get tested.  But for at least the first six months of last year, Americans who got a positive test result (from the terribly flawed test) were almost always hospitalized.  So lots of people in hospitals almost certainly didn't need to be there.  They were simply monitored, and if they didn't get sick after a week or so, they were sent home.

So what percentage of the "cases" do you think managed to survive the virus?

For people under 60, with no "co-morbidities," the survival rate for this virus is over 99.5%.  For young people it's even higher:  over 99.9%.  The AVERAGE age of Americans who died "with" (not necessarily FROM) the Chyna virus was over 80, which is over the average life expectancy for Americans.  This is not to dismiss the pain of those who lost parents or grandparents to the virus, but instead to show that for younger, healthy people the virus was never more of a threat than the flu.  And we never shut down all businesses because of the flu.

Now let's look at what Fauci and the head of the CDC and Democrat governors ORDERED you to do, supposedly to save your life:  they ordered that you wear a mask, sometimes even in your own home.  And they ordered all "non-essential businesses" closed.  Americans paid millions of dollars in fines for being outside without a mask.  Thug cops in California arrested people for surfing, hundreds of feet offshore, without a mask.  Tens of thousands of businesses closed, many of which will never return.

The truly bizarre Dem dictator of Michigan went so far as to order Home Depot and similar "big-box" stores to rope off aisles selling items the governor considered unnecessary.  If you wanted to buy plants to start a garden at the normal time, Gretch Whitmer wouldn't let ya. 

In states with Republican governors, who didn't order lockdowns, Democrat *mayors* imposed their own dictatorial mask mandates, including high fines for the unmasked.  Dem governors and mayors were both caught violating their own orders, but of course were never fined.   Motto: "Rules for thee but not for me." 

To this day, the mainstream media claims over half of Americans support forced masking.  So do you think either masks or lockdowns are effective in reducing the spread of the virus?

We actually have some ways to know, because some countries that never ordered masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns, like Sweden, have consistenly had a far lower death rate per capita than the U.S.   Wait, wouldn't that suggest that perhaps lockdowns and masking weren't effective after all?  

Why yes, yes it does.  In fact Tony Fauxi himself admitted in an email to a friend that masks were useless.

So finally let's look at treatments for the virus.  The government has claimed there were and are NO effective treatments for the virus.  And most hospitals treated severe cases with antibiotics (mostly useless against viruses), steroids and ventilators.

But turns out two drugs have been known almost from the outset to be effective.  It's just that the government and social media colluded to ban their use, and even their mention.  That information's been known since March of last year.  So do you know the drugs?

Ivermectin and HCQ.  Ah, I see you've heard of 'em.  You'd never heard of either before the virus, but now, thanks to the media, most Americans automatically associate two words with ivermectin.  What are they?

Horse de-wormer.  The media has also taught you to associate two more words with both:  "Unapproved," and "dangerous."  See, that "horse de-wormer" is for...um...horses.  Duh!  And as the clever thugs at the FDA quipped, "You're not a horse!  You're not even a cow!  So stop it, y'all."

So do you believe either drug is safe for humans?  Or to use the far less useful test demanded by the FDA:  Do you know if either drug has been approved by our own FDA for use by humans?

It's a straightforward question.  Yes or no?  You're smart, and well-informed, right?  So what have you heard or read in the media? 

Both drugs are not only FDA-approved for human use, the CDC recommends both, today, for roughly a billion people around the world.

Did the media tell you that?  No.  You think that's because the drugs are unapproved for human use, even dangerous.  That was exactly what they wanted you to think.  And roughly 80% of Americans believe those things.

Three Democrat governors even threatened to revoke the medical license of any doc in their state who dared to prescribe either drug.  

Gonna stop here for now.  More coming.

Source.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/