Sunday, March 22, 2020

The
Corona Hoax

Public Health Advisor (Quarantine Program)

Job ID HHS-CDC-D3-20-10640010Date posted 11/15/2019Location Dallas, Texas, El Paso, Texas, Houston, Texas, Seattle, Washington, Anchorage, Alaska, Los Angeles, California, San Diego, California, San Francisco, California, Miami, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Honolulu, Hawaii, Chicago, Illinois, Boston, Massachusetts, Detroit, Michigan, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Newark, New Jersey, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, San Juan
Department: Department of Health And Human Services
Agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Job Announcement Number: HHS-CDC-D3-20-10640010
SALARY RANGE: $51440.0 to $93077.0/Per Year
OPEN PERIOD: 2019-11-15 to 2020-05-15
SERIES & GRADE: GS--9/11

Event 201

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.

CDC Members Own More Than 50 Patents Connected to Vaccinations

The CDC Immunization Safety Office is  responsible for investigating  the safety and effectiveness of all new vaccinations; once an investigation is considered complete, a recommendation is then made to the  CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) who then  determines whether the new vaccine will be added to the current  vaccination schedule. Members of the  ACIP  committee include physicians such as Dr. Paul  Offit, who also serves as the  chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.  Offit  and other  CDC members  own  numerous patents associated with vaccinations and regularly receive funding for their research work  from the very same  pharmaceutical companies who  manufacturer  vaccinations which are ultimately sold to the public. This situation creates an obvious conflict of interest, as  members of the  ACIP  committee  benefit financially every time a new vaccination is released to  the market.

Members of the  ACIP  Committee  Directly Influence Public Health

Each of the 12  members of the CDC's  ACIP  Committee has a significant influence on the health of nearly every member of the American population. Because they are responsible for adding to  and/or altering the national vaccine schedule, it is of critical importance that they remain objective and unbiased before determining whether a new vaccination is appropriate for use, particularly in the bodies of vulnerable young children. Unfortunately, a significant number of  ACIP  committee members  receive direct financial returns when more vaccinations are added to the current schedule.
 Many own  vaccination related patent(s) and/or stock shares of the pharmaceutical companies  responsible for supplying  new vaccines  to the public. Others receive research grant money, funding for their academic departments, or payments for the oversight of vaccine safety trials.
Maria writing in from the web site Cutting Through the Fog.
As expected!
Is anyone working on a paper on the Corona scam? I saw these photos that allegedly are of intensive care unit Corona patients in a hospital in Cremona, Italy:
and
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11131963/coronavirus-life-support-italy-photos/
Some of the patients are lying face down, which I find strange given they are supposed to have airway problems and may need assistance to breathe. I also wonder why they are mostly naked and why they have bandages around their heads. One of them also have bandages around his feet.

How the CDC Uses Fear Marketing to Increase Demand for Flu Vaccines

The CDC’s questionable estimates of annual flu hospitalizations and deaths align with its fear marketing strategy to increase demand for flu vaccines.

T
he US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims that its recommendation that everyone aged six months and up should get an annual flu shot is firmly grounded in science. The mainstream media reinforce this characterization by misinforming the public about what the science says.

New York Times article from earlier this year, for example, in order to persuade readers to follow the CDC’s recommendation, cited literature reviews of the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration to support its characterization of the influenza vaccine as both effective and safe. The Times said the science showed that the vaccine represented “a big payoff in public health” and that harms from the vaccine were “almost nonexistent”.
What the Cochrane researchers actually concluded, however, was that their findings “seem to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure” (emphasis added). Furthermore, given the known serious harms associated with specific flu vaccines and the CDC’s recommendation that infants as young as six months get a flu shot despite an alarming lack of safety studies for children under two, “large-scale studies assessing important outcomes, and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.” The CDC also recommends the vaccine for pregnant women despite the total absence of randomized controlled trials assessing the safety of this practice for both expectant mother and unborn child. (This is all the more concerning given that multi-dose vials of the inactivated influenza vaccine contain contain the preservative Thimerosal, which is half ethylmercury by weight. Ethylmercury is a known neurotoxin that can cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain. It can also cross the placental barrier and enter the brain of the developing fetus.)
The Cochrane researchers also found “no evidence” to support the CDC’s assumptions that the vaccine reduces transmission of the virus or the risk of potentially deadly complications—the two primary justifications claimed by the CDC to support its recommendation.
It is clear that the CDC does not see its mission as being to educate the public in order to be able to make an informed choice about vaccination. After all, that would be incompatible with its view that growing health literacy is a threat to its mission and an obstacle to be overcome
On the other hand, a misinformed populace aligns perfectly with the CDC’s stated goal of using fear marketing to generate more demand for the pharmaceutical industry’s influenza vaccine products.
DYI:  The article above is lengthy but if there ever was a time for the long version it is now.  Well worth the effort!

A statistical analysis of China’s coronavirus casualty data shows a near-perfect prediction model that data analysts say isn’t likely to naturally occur, casting doubt over the reliability of the numbers being reported to the World Health Organization. That’s aside from news on Thursday that health officials in the epicenter of the outbreak reported a surge in new infections after changing how they diagnose the illness.

In terms of the virus data, the number of cumulative deaths reported is described by a simple mathematical formula to a very high accuracy, according to a quantitative-finance specialist who ran a regression of the data for Barron’s. A near-perfect 99.99% of variance is explained by the equation, this person said.
Put in an investing context, that variance, or so-called r-squared value, would mean that an investor could predict tomorrow’s stock price with almost perfect accuracy. In this case, the high r-squared means there is essentially zero unexpected variability in reported cases day after day.
Real human data are never perfectly predictive when it comes to something like an epidemic, Goodman says, since there are countless ways that a person could come into contact with the virus.
For context, Goodman says a “really good” r-squared, in terms of public health data, would be a 0.7. “Anything like 0.99,” she said, “would make me think that someone is simulating data. It would mean you already know what is going to happen.”
Guest Writer takes on the Corona Hoax
DYI

No comments:

Post a Comment