Events
Publications
Latest imagesStanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4 
Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by T. Fri 1 May - 11:31
Global Research
Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped. “Death Rate Is Likely Under 0.2%” Tony Cartalucci 2 weeks ago Categories:English Tags:coronavirus, COVID-19, MIT, pandemic
MIT Tech Review’s hyped coverage of the Covid-19 outbreak is led by the tag-line, “Navigating a world reshaped by Covid-19.”
Their articles reflect an eager embracement of the public hysteria prompted by Covid-19’s spread, the socioeconomic paralysis it has created, and the many profitable solutions – particularly those involving technology – proposed to “shape” the world post-Covid-19.
It should come as no surprise that a corporate-influenced outlet hiding behind academia and technology would take issue with anyone casting doubt on just how warranted all of this hysteria really is or isn’t – going as far as labeling them “pandemic skeptics.”
This is particularly the case when MIT Tech Review covered the work of researchers at Stanford University who found a much larger number of people are infected with Covid-19 than reported – meaning that the death rate is much, much lower than we’ve been told.
In fact, MIT Tech Review had to admit that the actual death rate is likely under 0.2%, which means its is about as “dangerous” as the common flu. If the common flu isn’t “reshaping the world,” Covid-19 certainly isn’t – at least not the pathogen itself.
An Oblique Smear
Instead of acknowledging the work of Stanford University as an important advancement in our understanding of Covid-19 and a check against public hysteria – MIT Tech Review peppered their article with oblique smears against the team who carried out the study.
The headline includes the subtitle (emphasis added), “A study from a noted pandemic skepticsuggests the virus is more widespread but less deadly than people think.”
We know that the suffix “-skeptic” is added to undermine the credibility of people who call into question widely promoted narratives. The article also uses the term “data skeptic” to describe John Ioannidis who helped carry out the study.
MIT Tech Review continued by adding:
Ioannidis, a Stanford medical statistician and a coauthor of the new report, made waves in March by suggesting the virus could be less deadly than people think, and that destroying the economy in the effort to fight it could be a “fiasco.”
Ioannidis’ statement regarding Covid-19 – even without the results of this study – is already self-evident even if looking only at available and limited statistics regarding Covid-19 infections versus deaths and the demographics hit hardest.
But Stanford’s findings not only bolster Ioannidis’ statement – the findings were predictable.
An RT article titled, “How likely are you (yes, you) to die from the Covid-19 virus?,” published over a month ago predicted (emphasis added):
When the worst of the crisis is over, the real overall death rate will potentially be significantly lower than the reported one — since many people will contract the virus but remain asymptomatic or display only mild symptoms and will never get tested at all.
Indeed, Jeremy Samuel Faust, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital wrote in Slate that the frightening death rates are “unlikely to hold” as time goes on and that the true fatality rate is “likely to be far lower than current reports suggest.”
Stanford’s study confirms this. And it makes sense. Infection and death rates can only be determined by actually testing people – and the narrative the world has been presented is that not enough testing can be done because of a lack of testing kits, and those being tested are people who are already ill and showing symptoms.
Obviously if many more people have little to no symptoms and aren’t being tested – they also aren’t making it into Covid-19 infection statistics and thus “death rates” are artificially high because of this. If many more people are getting the virus and not dying, the death rate obviously goes down – in this case – drastically so.
The Guardian in an article titled, “Antibody study suggests coronavirus is far more widespread than previously thought,” would report:
The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.
The article would also reluctantly note that (emphasis added):
That also means coronavirus is potentially much less deadly to the overall population than initially thought. As of Tuesday, the US’s coronavirus death rate was 4.1% and Stanford researchers said their findings show a death rate of just 0.12% to 0.2%.
MIT Tech Review is based out of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology – the university the magazine is named after. Why – instead of an oblique smear against the Stanford team who carried out the study – didn’t MIT go out into their local community and carry out a similar study to compare results?
Isn’t that what real scientists are supposed to do?
MIT Tech Review closes its article on the study by reasserting a narrative meant to stoke panic and allow the publication to continue on with its “a world reshaped” theme, claiming:
Overall, there are more than 30,000 covid-19 deaths in the US, more than in any other country, so it’s hard to find good news in the blood surveys even if you are looking for it. If the Santa Clara study is accurate and the death rate is lower than many think, covid-19 is still going to lead to a shocking accumulation of bodies if it moves through the rest of the population, which explains the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March.
If 30,000 have died in the US because of Covid-19 since the virus appeared in December, that means another 30,000 would need to die this month and next in order for it to even match a moderate to severe annual flu season which runs from December to May.
So – no – there is not going to be a “shocking accumulation of bodies” unless Covid-19 deaths are presented to the public by the media out of context deliberately to shock uninformed audiences. And thus – obviously – it does not “explain the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March” or the hysteria promoted by MIT Tech Review in its other Covid-19 articles.
Studies will continue to emerge proving what many have already known – that Covid-19 the pathogen is nowhere near the threat we were told and nowhere near justifying “Covid-19 the hysteria.” Society is in the crosshairs for transformative policies enacted by the very interests who hyped the outbreak in contradiction to scientific fact, not because of it.
It is important to expose this and more importantly to resist it. It is also important to ensure that the governments, politicians, “experts,” institutions, and corporations that were involved in hyping Covid-19 and all the socioeconomic damage it has done never be allowed to do so again.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Land Destroyer Report.
Tony Cartalucci is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped. “Death Rate Is Likely Under 0.2%” Tony Cartalucci 2 weeks ago Categories:English Tags:coronavirus, COVID-19, MIT, pandemic
MIT Tech Review’s hyped coverage of the Covid-19 outbreak is led by the tag-line, “Navigating a world reshaped by Covid-19.”
Their articles reflect an eager embracement of the public hysteria prompted by Covid-19’s spread, the socioeconomic paralysis it has created, and the many profitable solutions – particularly those involving technology – proposed to “shape” the world post-Covid-19.
It should come as no surprise that a corporate-influenced outlet hiding behind academia and technology would take issue with anyone casting doubt on just how warranted all of this hysteria really is or isn’t – going as far as labeling them “pandemic skeptics.”
This is particularly the case when MIT Tech Review covered the work of researchers at Stanford University who found a much larger number of people are infected with Covid-19 than reported – meaning that the death rate is much, much lower than we’ve been told.
In fact, MIT Tech Review had to admit that the actual death rate is likely under 0.2%, which means its is about as “dangerous” as the common flu. If the common flu isn’t “reshaping the world,” Covid-19 certainly isn’t – at least not the pathogen itself.
An Oblique Smear
Instead of acknowledging the work of Stanford University as an important advancement in our understanding of Covid-19 and a check against public hysteria – MIT Tech Review peppered their article with oblique smears against the team who carried out the study.
The headline includes the subtitle (emphasis added), “A study from a noted pandemic skepticsuggests the virus is more widespread but less deadly than people think.”
We know that the suffix “-skeptic” is added to undermine the credibility of people who call into question widely promoted narratives. The article also uses the term “data skeptic” to describe John Ioannidis who helped carry out the study.
MIT Tech Review continued by adding:
Ioannidis, a Stanford medical statistician and a coauthor of the new report, made waves in March by suggesting the virus could be less deadly than people think, and that destroying the economy in the effort to fight it could be a “fiasco.”
Ioannidis’ statement regarding Covid-19 – even without the results of this study – is already self-evident even if looking only at available and limited statistics regarding Covid-19 infections versus deaths and the demographics hit hardest.
But Stanford’s findings not only bolster Ioannidis’ statement – the findings were predictable.
An RT article titled, “How likely are you (yes, you) to die from the Covid-19 virus?,” published over a month ago predicted (emphasis added):
When the worst of the crisis is over, the real overall death rate will potentially be significantly lower than the reported one — since many people will contract the virus but remain asymptomatic or display only mild symptoms and will never get tested at all.
Indeed, Jeremy Samuel Faust, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital wrote in Slate that the frightening death rates are “unlikely to hold” as time goes on and that the true fatality rate is “likely to be far lower than current reports suggest.”
Stanford’s study confirms this. And it makes sense. Infection and death rates can only be determined by actually testing people – and the narrative the world has been presented is that not enough testing can be done because of a lack of testing kits, and those being tested are people who are already ill and showing symptoms.
Obviously if many more people have little to no symptoms and aren’t being tested – they also aren’t making it into Covid-19 infection statistics and thus “death rates” are artificially high because of this. If many more people are getting the virus and not dying, the death rate obviously goes down – in this case – drastically so.
The Guardian in an article titled, “Antibody study suggests coronavirus is far more widespread than previously thought,” would report:
The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.
The article would also reluctantly note that (emphasis added):
That also means coronavirus is potentially much less deadly to the overall population than initially thought. As of Tuesday, the US’s coronavirus death rate was 4.1% and Stanford researchers said their findings show a death rate of just 0.12% to 0.2%.
MIT Tech Review is based out of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology – the university the magazine is named after. Why – instead of an oblique smear against the Stanford team who carried out the study – didn’t MIT go out into their local community and carry out a similar study to compare results?
Isn’t that what real scientists are supposed to do?
MIT Tech Review closes its article on the study by reasserting a narrative meant to stoke panic and allow the publication to continue on with its “a world reshaped” theme, claiming:
Overall, there are more than 30,000 covid-19 deaths in the US, more than in any other country, so it’s hard to find good news in the blood surveys even if you are looking for it. If the Santa Clara study is accurate and the death rate is lower than many think, covid-19 is still going to lead to a shocking accumulation of bodies if it moves through the rest of the population, which explains the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March.
If 30,000 have died in the US because of Covid-19 since the virus appeared in December, that means another 30,000 would need to die this month and next in order for it to even match a moderate to severe annual flu season which runs from December to May.
So – no – there is not going to be a “shocking accumulation of bodies” unless Covid-19 deaths are presented to the public by the media out of context deliberately to shock uninformed audiences. And thus – obviously – it does not “explain the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March” or the hysteria promoted by MIT Tech Review in its other Covid-19 articles.
Studies will continue to emerge proving what many have already known – that Covid-19 the pathogen is nowhere near the threat we were told and nowhere near justifying “Covid-19 the hysteria.” Society is in the crosshairs for transformative policies enacted by the very interests who hyped the outbreak in contradiction to scientific fact, not because of it.
It is important to expose this and more importantly to resist it. It is also important to ensure that the governments, politicians, “experts,” institutions, and corporations that were involved in hyping Covid-19 and all the socioeconomic damage it has done never be allowed to do so again.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Land Destroyer Report.
Tony Cartalucci is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
T.- Posts : 17110
2014-04-14
Age : 83
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 11:36
dobro jutro ja zato cijelo vrijeme zastupan ne švedski nego bjeloruski model
_________________
May Allah destroy Australia
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 11:36
Nenad Bakic
2 hrs ·
-- Zaista odlične vijesti, jučer možda jedan od najznačajnijih dana u borbi protiv COVID
+ + +
Neću reći 'nevjerojatno' jer se korpus znanja skupljao sve više u tom smjeru, ali su mnogi fearmongeri tvrdili da 'to NIŠTA ne dokazuje, jer nema sigurnog dokaza'. Objavio sam sve tri jučer, ali evo ih na istom mjestu.
Napomena: nisu sve vijesti tehnički od jučer, ali jučer su ugalvnom vidjele svjetlo dana.
1. Novo istraživanje je pokazalo da je cijeli uzorak od 285 oboljelih na COVID razvio antitijela (link na članak iz Nautre Medicine u komentaru).
2. Rezultati iz Koreje prema kojima su navodno ponovno oboljeli zapravo bile greške testiranja - nisu našli nikoga tko je ponovo obolio nakon što je prebolio.
3. Novo dansko istraživanje na skoro 10.000 davatelja krvi procjenjuje da je (asimptomatska) zaraženost jako velika i da je smrtnost NEKOLIKO PUTA manja nego se uglavnom smatra ('uglavnom' jer su mnogi i vjerovali prijašnim danskim, švedskim, američkim i ostalim podacima). Konkretno za populaciju 17-69 našli su da je 0,082%. Da, dobro ste vidjeli, ne ispod 1%, nego ispod 0,1%.
Ovo Dansko istraživanje je jako važno jer naknadno meta-validira mnoga anibody istraživanja koja su imala značajne metodološke probleme pa su mogla pojedinačno biti napadana, a i zaista biti nepouzdana: St. Clara, Chelsea, NY, švedsko, dansko, francusko istraživanje ...čim ih je više koja ukazuju u istom smjeru, šum se otklanja i ostaje signal.
(Napomena: glupe komentare 'želiš li da stari ljudi umiru, zašto nisu njih brojali?' brišemo - da istraživanje je na ovoj populaciji i da, smrtnost starijih je značajno veća, ali isto tako je smrtnost mlađih daleko manja).
ZAŠTO JE OVO JAKO VAŽNO (ako su podaci točni, a sve ide u tom smjeru):
A. Izgleda da se stječe 'imunitet krda'. On ne mora biti apsolutan, tipa da ako dođe drugi val da R odmah bude manji od 1 (to znači da se stekao imunitet krda). Ali ako je recimo 30% ljudi apsolutno ili relativno nezaražljivo (relativno: dobije premali viral load, sluznica radi dobro, proljeće pa UV zrake ...) i od ostalih 70% samo 35% može dobiti bolest, R pada za pola! Kako se radi o eksponencijalnom faktoru, razlike su goleme. Recimo u 10 koraka na na R=3 imamo od jednog oko 60.000 zaraženih, a na R = 1,5 imamo oko 60, dakle 1000 puta više! Koncept 'relativno nezaražljv' je samo ilustracija (nije znanstveni), možete ga shvatiti i kao da je R manji (zbog gornjih faktora se u startu smanji).
To znači da zemlje koje su pustile da im virus više 'prohuji' kroz populaciju mogu računati na manje žrtve u budućnosti i lakši prolazak kroz iduće faze epidemije.
Problem bi mogle imati zemlje koje su premalo 'prokužene', pirmjerice one koje su predoslovno shvatile strategiju nestručnjaka Pueyoa 'The Hammer and the Dance', o tome piše Ivica Brkljača, isto link u komentaru.
B. Cjepiva imaju veću šansu. Iako cjepivo može i jače aktivirati imuni sustav nego izloženost pravom virusu, svakako je bolje ako se jako dobro razvijaju antitijela.
C. Smrtnost je značajno manja (iako piše gore, treba ponoviti).
D. Epidemija se širi u biti na dva načina: asimptomatski ju šire s manjim R, potiho, ali brzo (jer ih je puno), ti asiptomatski koji nisu ulovljeni su tzv. 'dark number', a ima ih 10-80 PUTA više nego je dokazano zaraženih. MOGUĆE je da isporučuju manji viral load i u prosjeku manje zaraze (manja je šansa da se jako razboliš od takve male isporuke, nego veće), osim kad dođu do lako zaražljjivih osoba (recimo starački domovi). Stoga se virus ne može iskorijeniti (sada i sve manje 'jastrebova' zagovara dugotrajne karante i borbu 'do zadnjeg virusa'), a staračke domove i slično treba jako šititi i paranoično reagirati na proboje.
2 hrs ·
-- Zaista odlične vijesti, jučer možda jedan od najznačajnijih dana u borbi protiv COVID
+ + +
Neću reći 'nevjerojatno' jer se korpus znanja skupljao sve više u tom smjeru, ali su mnogi fearmongeri tvrdili da 'to NIŠTA ne dokazuje, jer nema sigurnog dokaza'. Objavio sam sve tri jučer, ali evo ih na istom mjestu.
Napomena: nisu sve vijesti tehnički od jučer, ali jučer su ugalvnom vidjele svjetlo dana.
1. Novo istraživanje je pokazalo da je cijeli uzorak od 285 oboljelih na COVID razvio antitijela (link na članak iz Nautre Medicine u komentaru).
2. Rezultati iz Koreje prema kojima su navodno ponovno oboljeli zapravo bile greške testiranja - nisu našli nikoga tko je ponovo obolio nakon što je prebolio.
3. Novo dansko istraživanje na skoro 10.000 davatelja krvi procjenjuje da je (asimptomatska) zaraženost jako velika i da je smrtnost NEKOLIKO PUTA manja nego se uglavnom smatra ('uglavnom' jer su mnogi i vjerovali prijašnim danskim, švedskim, američkim i ostalim podacima). Konkretno za populaciju 17-69 našli su da je 0,082%. Da, dobro ste vidjeli, ne ispod 1%, nego ispod 0,1%.
Ovo Dansko istraživanje je jako važno jer naknadno meta-validira mnoga anibody istraživanja koja su imala značajne metodološke probleme pa su mogla pojedinačno biti napadana, a i zaista biti nepouzdana: St. Clara, Chelsea, NY, švedsko, dansko, francusko istraživanje ...čim ih je više koja ukazuju u istom smjeru, šum se otklanja i ostaje signal.
(Napomena: glupe komentare 'želiš li da stari ljudi umiru, zašto nisu njih brojali?' brišemo - da istraživanje je na ovoj populaciji i da, smrtnost starijih je značajno veća, ali isto tako je smrtnost mlađih daleko manja).
ZAŠTO JE OVO JAKO VAŽNO (ako su podaci točni, a sve ide u tom smjeru):
A. Izgleda da se stječe 'imunitet krda'. On ne mora biti apsolutan, tipa da ako dođe drugi val da R odmah bude manji od 1 (to znači da se stekao imunitet krda). Ali ako je recimo 30% ljudi apsolutno ili relativno nezaražljivo (relativno: dobije premali viral load, sluznica radi dobro, proljeće pa UV zrake ...) i od ostalih 70% samo 35% može dobiti bolest, R pada za pola! Kako se radi o eksponencijalnom faktoru, razlike su goleme. Recimo u 10 koraka na na R=3 imamo od jednog oko 60.000 zaraženih, a na R = 1,5 imamo oko 60, dakle 1000 puta više! Koncept 'relativno nezaražljv' je samo ilustracija (nije znanstveni), možete ga shvatiti i kao da je R manji (zbog gornjih faktora se u startu smanji).
To znači da zemlje koje su pustile da im virus više 'prohuji' kroz populaciju mogu računati na manje žrtve u budućnosti i lakši prolazak kroz iduće faze epidemije.
Problem bi mogle imati zemlje koje su premalo 'prokužene', pirmjerice one koje su predoslovno shvatile strategiju nestručnjaka Pueyoa 'The Hammer and the Dance', o tome piše Ivica Brkljača, isto link u komentaru.
B. Cjepiva imaju veću šansu. Iako cjepivo može i jače aktivirati imuni sustav nego izloženost pravom virusu, svakako je bolje ako se jako dobro razvijaju antitijela.
C. Smrtnost je značajno manja (iako piše gore, treba ponoviti).
D. Epidemija se širi u biti na dva načina: asimptomatski ju šire s manjim R, potiho, ali brzo (jer ih je puno), ti asiptomatski koji nisu ulovljeni su tzv. 'dark number', a ima ih 10-80 PUTA više nego je dokazano zaraženih. MOGUĆE je da isporučuju manji viral load i u prosjeku manje zaraze (manja je šansa da se jako razboliš od takve male isporuke, nego veće), osim kad dođu do lako zaražljjivih osoba (recimo starački domovi). Stoga se virus ne može iskorijeniti (sada i sve manje 'jastrebova' zagovara dugotrajne karante i borbu 'do zadnjeg virusa'), a staračke domove i slično treba jako šititi i paranoično reagirati na proboje.
_________________
May Allah destroy Australia
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 11:45
ajd ti yoda po tim vasim optimisticnim predvidjanjima,reci,hocul ja moci doli do kraja godine?..samo me to zanima..
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by T. Fri 1 May - 11:47
Yoda nije to bit...
Nego da se unatoč tome radi sve ovo što se radi...
Corona nije opasnost, nego ono što dolazi pod parolom 'zaštite ljudi' od corone...
To sada već samo slijepima i gluhima (istovremeno) nije jasno..
Pa pogledaj naš stožer i usporedi ga s drugima, to su iste rečenice...
Socijalna distanca, novo normalno, moramo naučit živit s virusom, virus neće nestati, na jesen nas očekuje drugi val, nećemo biti sigurni sve dok se ne pronađe cjepivo itd. ...
Nego da se unatoč tome radi sve ovo što se radi...
Corona nije opasnost, nego ono što dolazi pod parolom 'zaštite ljudi' od corone...
To sada već samo slijepima i gluhima (istovremeno) nije jasno..
Pa pogledaj naš stožer i usporedi ga s drugima, to su iste rečenice...
Socijalna distanca, novo normalno, moramo naučit živit s virusom, virus neće nestati, na jesen nas očekuje drugi val, nećemo biti sigurni sve dok se ne pronađe cjepivo itd. ...
_________________
T.- Posts : 17110
2014-04-14
Age : 83
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 11:48
da se mene pita da.Legendovich wrote:ajd ti yoda po tim vasim optimisticnim predvidjanjima,reci,hocul ja moci doli do kraja godine?..samo me to zanima..
ali pita se angelu merkel u njemačkoj i HDZ u hrvatskoj
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 11:52
T. wrote:Yoda nije to bit...
Nego da se unatoč tome radi sve ovo što se radi...
Corona nije opasnost, nego ono što dolazi pod parolom 'zaštite ljudi' od corone...
To sada već samo slijepima i gluhima (istovremeno) nije jasno..
Pa pogledaj naš stožer i usporedi ga s drugima, to su iste rečenice...
Socijalna distanca, novo normalno, moramo naučit živit s virusom, virus neće nestati, na jesen nas očekuje drugi val, nećemo biti sigurni sve dok se ne pronađe cjepivo itd. ...
izgleda da se zemlje koje je više pokosio drugi val, italija ili španjolska bi čak i mogle imati bolju turističku sezonu.
usput ovaj virus neće tek tako nestati, izgleda da će se vraćati u valovima, ali švedski pristup u tome je najbolji. što prije dođeš do imuniteta krda, to bolje , jer ovaj glupi virus neće nestati, uvik će umirati od njega.. barem do cijepiva ili dok više manje 60-70% populacije se ne zarazi..
ili možemo biti zaključani idućih godinu dana i čekati da ameri ili britanci ili švabe, ili skandinavci(naravno nitko ne spominje kineze) razviju cijepivo, ili živjeti sa tim virusom. ništa od zaključavanja.
inače kod nas bi taj virus ubijao manje nego u švedskoj, više kao u bjelorusiji, jer zbog yugoslavenskog cijepljena protiv turbekuloze izgleda da imamo jači imunitet na koronavirus.
sada znamo pun kurac više nego prije mjesec ipo dana.
šveđani i bjelorusi su izgleda bili u pravu, svi ostali smo se zajebali.
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 11:52
lijepo..dont get mi vrrrrrong,osobno radi preferiram mracniji scenarij,pa..ako se dogodi spreman sam,a ako bude bolje,hvala Bogu,nije da senecu radovati..AssadNaPodmornici wrote:da se mene pita da.Legendovich wrote:ajd ti yoda po tim vasim optimisticnim predvidjanjima,reci,hocul ja moci doli do kraja godine?..samo me to zanima..
ali pita se angelu merkel u njemačkoj i HDZ u hrvatskoj
Politikai zatvorene granice..dobro radi kozojeba,lose iz drugih razloga..mislim da treba poceti obracati paznju na ekonomske posljedice..virus se polako siri,kako vjetar piri..rekoh u pocetku,to je laka konjica..teske stvari dolaze malo kasnije..
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 11:54
nije ga josh bilo..to su prve mutacije i sojevi..drugi val se smatra jesen-zima 2020AssadNaPodmornici wrote:T. wrote:Yoda nije to bit...
Nego da se unatoč tome radi sve ovo što se radi...
Corona nije opasnost, nego ono što dolazi pod parolom 'zaštite ljudi' od corone...
To sada već samo slijepima i gluhima (istovremeno) nije jasno..
Pa pogledaj naš stožer i usporedi ga s drugima, to su iste rečenice...
Socijalna distanca, novo normalno, moramo naučit živit s virusom, virus neće nestati, na jesen nas očekuje drugi val, nećemo biti sigurni sve dok se ne pronađe cjepivo itd. ...
izgleda da se zemlje koje je više pokosio drugi val, italija ili španjolska bi čak i mogle imati bolju turističku sezonu.
usput ovaj virus neće tek tako nestati, izgleda da će se vraćati u valovima, ali švedski pristup u tome je najbolji. što prije dođeš do imuniteta krda, to bolje , jer ovaj glupi virus neće nestati, uvik će umirati od njega.. barem do cijepiva ili dok više manje 60-70% populacije se ne zarazi..
ili možemo biti zaključani idućih godinu dana i čekati da ameri ili britanci ili švabe, ili skandinavci(naravno nitko ne spominje kineze) razviju cijepivo, ili živjeti sa tim virusom. ništa od zaključavanja.
inače kod nas bi taj virus ubijao manje nego u švedskoj, više kao u bjelorusiji, jer zbog yugoslavenskog cijepljena protiv turbekuloze izgleda da imamo jači imunitet na koronavirus.
sada znamo pun kurac više nego prije mjesec ipo dana.
šveđani i bjelorusi su izgleda bili u pravu, svi ostali smo se zajebali.
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 11:55
e to moli Boga da najesen se opet ne pojavi,jer ce to biti nesto posve drugo..mozda samo isti naziv..dotada bude prejebeno mutirao
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 11:59
gle imamo odlične experimente, švedsku i bjelorusiju.
da u tim zemljama se umire malo više od prosjeka.
ali sa druge strane, te zemlje bi trebale imati 150 000 - 200 000 mrtvih , i trebali ljudi umirati na veliko, trebale su im bolnice biti krcate, ljude pokapati u masovnim grobnicama, vojska im je izgradila šatore , dvorane pripremila za bolnice..
i gle čuda, nema masovnih grobnica, vojnički kreveti zjape prazni, kapaciteti bolnica izgleda da nisu preopterećeni, u švedskoj istina umire se nešto više nego u susjednim skandinavskim zemljama, ali to je sve zanemarivo, u norveškoj šta ja znam umre 4ljudi na milijun ljudi, u švedskoj umjesto 20 umre, wow
sa naglaskom da jedan i norveški epidemiolog, ali i sve više njih govori, da su šveđani doslovno dva tri tjedna do kolektivnog imuniteta. i tada virus neće nestati, i tada će ubijati u švedskoj ali dosta manje.
a nama će non stop virus biti kod nas. i malo ćemo se otvoriti i dolazit će u valovima..
e usput, mi imamo yugoslovensko cijepivo protiv turbekuloze kao i ostatak istočne europe, i u bjelorusiji ima mrtvih i zaraženih kao u srbiji -- gdje ovi ludi srbi kopiraju kineze i kundacima mlate srbe koje uhvate na ulici.
dakle da smo mi krenuli putem švedske, vjerojatno bi imali još manje mrtvih nego švedska radi toga cijepiva.
ukratko zajebali smo se, naši "stručnjaci" iz HDZa su falili, ali nemogu ih kriviti, oni su išli na sigurno. i ja bi išao tada.
međutim posao tih stručnjaka je da čitaju informacije i znanstvene radove koji se objavljuju i sukladno tome donose nove odluke. oni izvode gluposti sada - naglašavam sada, kod njih proradio tipični I2b HDZovski gen, tipa "morat ćete se testirati prije nego odete na plažu, ili prijaviti prije nego odete u frizera" ili ostaviti ime i prezime kada uđete u restoran. debili neposobni
da u tim zemljama se umire malo više od prosjeka.
ali sa druge strane, te zemlje bi trebale imati 150 000 - 200 000 mrtvih , i trebali ljudi umirati na veliko, trebale su im bolnice biti krcate, ljude pokapati u masovnim grobnicama, vojska im je izgradila šatore , dvorane pripremila za bolnice..
i gle čuda, nema masovnih grobnica, vojnički kreveti zjape prazni, kapaciteti bolnica izgleda da nisu preopterećeni, u švedskoj istina umire se nešto više nego u susjednim skandinavskim zemljama, ali to je sve zanemarivo, u norveškoj šta ja znam umre 4ljudi na milijun ljudi, u švedskoj umjesto 20 umre, wow
sa naglaskom da jedan i norveški epidemiolog, ali i sve više njih govori, da su šveđani doslovno dva tri tjedna do kolektivnog imuniteta. i tada virus neće nestati, i tada će ubijati u švedskoj ali dosta manje.
a nama će non stop virus biti kod nas. i malo ćemo se otvoriti i dolazit će u valovima..
e usput, mi imamo yugoslovensko cijepivo protiv turbekuloze kao i ostatak istočne europe, i u bjelorusiji ima mrtvih i zaraženih kao u srbiji -- gdje ovi ludi srbi kopiraju kineze i kundacima mlate srbe koje uhvate na ulici.
dakle da smo mi krenuli putem švedske, vjerojatno bi imali još manje mrtvih nego švedska radi toga cijepiva.
ukratko zajebali smo se, naši "stručnjaci" iz HDZa su falili, ali nemogu ih kriviti, oni su išli na sigurno. i ja bi išao tada.
međutim posao tih stručnjaka je da čitaju informacije i znanstvene radove koji se objavljuju i sukladno tome donose nove odluke. oni izvode gluposti sada - naglašavam sada, kod njih proradio tipični I2b HDZovski gen, tipa "morat ćete se testirati prije nego odete na plažu, ili prijaviti prije nego odete u frizera" ili ostaviti ime i prezime kada uđete u restoran. debili neposobni
Last edited by AssadNaPodmornici on Fri 1 May - 12:03; edited 1 time in total
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 11:59
Legendovich wrote:nije ga josh bilo..to su prve mutacije i sojevi..drugi val se smatra jesen-zima 2020AssadNaPodmornici wrote:T. wrote:Yoda nije to bit...
Nego da se unatoč tome radi sve ovo što se radi...
Corona nije opasnost, nego ono što dolazi pod parolom 'zaštite ljudi' od corone...
To sada već samo slijepima i gluhima (istovremeno) nije jasno..
Pa pogledaj naš stožer i usporedi ga s drugima, to su iste rečenice...
Socijalna distanca, novo normalno, moramo naučit živit s virusom, virus neće nestati, na jesen nas očekuje drugi val, nećemo biti sigurni sve dok se ne pronađe cjepivo itd. ...
izgleda da se zemlje koje je više pokosio drugi val, italija ili španjolska bi čak i mogle imati bolju turističku sezonu.
usput ovaj virus neće tek tako nestati, izgleda da će se vraćati u valovima, ali švedski pristup u tome je najbolji. što prije dođeš do imuniteta krda, to bolje , jer ovaj glupi virus neće nestati, uvik će umirati od njega.. barem do cijepiva ili dok više manje 60-70% populacije se ne zarazi..
ili možemo biti zaključani idućih godinu dana i čekati da ameri ili britanci ili švabe, ili skandinavci(naravno nitko ne spominje kineze) razviju cijepivo, ili živjeti sa tim virusom. ništa od zaključavanja.
inače kod nas bi taj virus ubijao manje nego u švedskoj, više kao u bjelorusiji, jer zbog yugoslavenskog cijepljena protiv turbekuloze izgleda da imamo jači imunitet na koronavirus.
sada znamo pun kurac više nego prije mjesec ipo dana.
šveđani i bjelorusi su izgleda bili u pravu, svi ostali smo se zajebali.
pardon prvi val zajeba sam se krivo izrazio
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by AssadNaPodmornici Fri 1 May - 12:01
možda i ne mutira toliko puno da bude pre-opasan.Legendovich wrote:e to moli Boga da najesen se opet ne pojavi,jer ce to biti nesto posve drugo..mozda samo isti naziv..dotada bude prejebeno mutirao
svake godine mi se surećemo sa virusom gripe i on ubija.. međutim naši organizmi su već navikli na virus gripe, i tako da se bez problema svake godine nosimo sa novim mutacijama.. velika većina nas
tako da opet da i virus mutira, bolje će proći šveđani u drugom valu nego norvežani npr
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 20918
2018-06-14
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 12:14
bojim se da se nemozemo tome radovati..Gnjeco je stavio grafikon koji pokazuje mutiranje COvID-19-ke...to je vec problematicno i graficki pratiti,jerbo,ono sto meni upada u oko,jest cinjenica,da se u svojim aktivnostima Virus doslovno ne moze pratiti postojecim strucnim metodana..sVI su vrlo zbunjeni i pazljivi sa izjavama..Konkretno josh uvijek je defens pasivne prirode..karantene,zatvaranje granica,imunitet-pa-sto-bude..kujish..??nema aktivne obrane..AssadNaPodmornici wrote:možda i ne mutira toliko puno da bude pre-opasan.Legendovich wrote:e to moli Boga da najesen se opet ne pojavi,jer ce to biti nesto posve drugo..mozda samo isti naziv..dotada bude prejebeno mutirao
svake godine mi se surećemo sa virusom gripe i on ubija.. međutim naši organizmi su već navikli na virus gripe, i tako da se bez problema svake godine nosimo sa novim mutacijama.. velika većina nas
tako da opet da i virus mutira, bolje će proći šveđani u drugom valu nego norvežani npr
na nivou pecinskog covjeka smo,koji se skrio u pecinu..
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 12:18
evo jedna spocetka,mart...
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 12:19
dakle prije 50 dana ovaj grafikon bio validan..
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Guest Fri 1 May - 12:32
Dr. Đikić: Korona je prirodna! Dobra vijest: malo mutira, četiri puta manje od gripe!
https://www.face.ba/vijesti/kina-virus/svjetski-ekskluzivdrdikickorona-je-prirodnadobra-vijestmalo-mutiracetiri-puta-manje-od-gripe/49761
https://www.ex-iskon-pleme.com/t40169p40-sto-ako-su-sveani-jedini-pametni#1616692
https://www.face.ba/vijesti/kina-virus/svjetski-ekskluzivdrdikickorona-je-prirodnadobra-vijestmalo-mutiracetiri-puta-manje-od-gripe/49761
https://www.ex-iskon-pleme.com/t40169p40-sto-ako-su-sveani-jedini-pametni#1616692
Guest- Guest
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by kaya Fri 1 May - 12:42
Pa ti zapravo cijelo vrijeme možeš doli, nije mi poznato da je zabranjeno vratiti se u državu. Očito ne ideš iz drugog razlogaLegendovich wrote:ajd ti yoda po tim vasim optimisticnim predvidjanjima,reci,hocul ja moci doli do kraja godine?..samo me to zanima..
kaya- Posts : 31419
2015-08-15
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by T. Fri 1 May - 12:45
To je stara đikićeva izjava...
U meduvremenu se priklonio katastrofičarima i počeo zagovarati globalno cijepljenje...
'Sve je na prodaju i svatko ima svoju cijenu'...
U meduvremenu se priklonio katastrofičarima i počeo zagovarati globalno cijepljenje...
'Sve je na prodaju i svatko ima svoju cijenu'...
_________________
T.- Posts : 17110
2014-04-14
Age : 83
Re: Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped...
by Noor Fri 1 May - 12:45
a čemu ovaj sitan font?T. wrote:Global Research
Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped. “Death Rate Is Likely Under 0.2%” Tony Cartalucci 2 weeks ago Categories:English Tags:coronavirus, COVID-19, MIT, pandemic
MIT Tech Review’s hyped coverage of the Covid-19 outbreak is led by the tag-line, “Navigating a world reshaped by Covid-19.”
Their articles reflect an eager embracement of the public hysteria prompted by Covid-19’s spread, the socioeconomic paralysis it has created, and the many profitable solutions – particularly those involving technology – proposed to “shape” the world post-Covid-19.
It should come as no surprise that a corporate-influenced outlet hiding behind academia and technology would take issue with anyone casting doubt on just how warranted all of this hysteria really is or isn’t – going as far as labeling them “pandemic skeptics.”
This is particularly the case when MIT Tech Review covered the work of researchers at Stanford University who found a much larger number of people are infected with Covid-19 than reported – meaning that the death rate is much, much lower than we’ve been told.
In fact, MIT Tech Review had to admit that the actual death rate is likely under 0.2%, which means its is about as “dangerous” as the common flu. If the common flu isn’t “reshaping the world,” Covid-19 certainly isn’t – at least not the pathogen itself.
An Oblique Smear
Instead of acknowledging the work of Stanford University as an important advancement in our understanding of Covid-19 and a check against public hysteria – MIT Tech Review peppered their article with oblique smears against the team who carried out the study.
The headline includes the subtitle (emphasis added), “A study from a noted pandemic skepticsuggests the virus is more widespread but less deadly than people think.”
We know that the suffix “-skeptic” is added to undermine the credibility of people who call into question widely promoted narratives. The article also uses the term “data skeptic” to describe John Ioannidis who helped carry out the study.
MIT Tech Review continued by adding:
Ioannidis, a Stanford medical statistician and a coauthor of the new report, made waves in March by suggesting the virus could be less deadly than people think, and that destroying the economy in the effort to fight it could be a “fiasco.”
Ioannidis’ statement regarding Covid-19 – even without the results of this study – is already self-evident even if looking only at available and limited statistics regarding Covid-19 infections versus deaths and the demographics hit hardest.
But Stanford’s findings not only bolster Ioannidis’ statement – the findings were predictable.
An RT article titled, “How likely are you (yes, you) to die from the Covid-19 virus?,” published over a month ago predicted (emphasis added):
When the worst of the crisis is over, the real overall death rate will potentially be significantly lower than the reported one — since many people will contract the virus but remain asymptomatic or display only mild symptoms and will never get tested at all.
Indeed, Jeremy Samuel Faust, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital wrote in Slate that the frightening death rates are “unlikely to hold” as time goes on and that the true fatality rate is “likely to be far lower than current reports suggest.”
Stanford’s study confirms this. And it makes sense. Infection and death rates can only be determined by actually testing people – and the narrative the world has been presented is that not enough testing can be done because of a lack of testing kits, and those being tested are people who are already ill and showing symptoms.
Obviously if many more people have little to no symptoms and aren’t being tested – they also aren’t making it into Covid-19 infection statistics and thus “death rates” are artificially high because of this. If many more people are getting the virus and not dying, the death rate obviously goes down – in this case – drastically so.
The Guardian in an article titled, “Antibody study suggests coronavirus is far more widespread than previously thought,” would report:
The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.
The article would also reluctantly note that (emphasis added):
That also means coronavirus is potentially much less deadly to the overall population than initially thought. As of Tuesday, the US’s coronavirus death rate was 4.1% and Stanford researchers said their findings show a death rate of just 0.12% to 0.2%.
MIT Tech Review is based out of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology – the university the magazine is named after. Why – instead of an oblique smear against the Stanford team who carried out the study – didn’t MIT go out into their local community and carry out a similar study to compare results?
Isn’t that what real scientists are supposed to do?
MIT Tech Review closes its article on the study by reasserting a narrative meant to stoke panic and allow the publication to continue on with its “a world reshaped” theme, claiming:
Overall, there are more than 30,000 covid-19 deaths in the US, more than in any other country, so it’s hard to find good news in the blood surveys even if you are looking for it. If the Santa Clara study is accurate and the death rate is lower than many think, covid-19 is still going to lead to a shocking accumulation of bodies if it moves through the rest of the population, which explains the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March.
If 30,000 have died in the US because of Covid-19 since the virus appeared in December, that means another 30,000 would need to die this month and next in order for it to even match a moderate to severe annual flu season which runs from December to May.
So – no – there is not going to be a “shocking accumulation of bodies” unless Covid-19 deaths are presented to the public by the media out of context deliberately to shock uninformed audiences. And thus – obviously – it does not “explain the extraordinary stay-at-home measures in place in most of the country since March” or the hysteria promoted by MIT Tech Review in its other Covid-19 articles.
Studies will continue to emerge proving what many have already known – that Covid-19 the pathogen is nowhere near the threat we were told and nowhere near justifying “Covid-19 the hysteria.” Society is in the crosshairs for transformative policies enacted by the very interests who hyped the outbreak in contradiction to scientific fact, not because of it.
It is important to expose this and more importantly to resist it. It is also important to ensure that the governments, politicians, “experts,” institutions, and corporations that were involved in hyping Covid-19 and all the socioeconomic damage it has done never be allowed to do so again.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Land Destroyer Report.
Tony Cartalucci is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
_________________
It's So Good To Be Bad
Noor- Posts : 25907
2017-10-06
Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Similar topics» Harvard Study Finds No Racial Bias In Police Shootings
» COVID JE LAŽ
» THIS IS WHAT YOUR LUNGS LOOK LIKE WITH COVID-19
» COVID se vratio...
» War with China over Covid 19?!
» COVID JE LAŽ
» THIS IS WHAT YOUR LUNGS LOOK LIKE WITH COVID-19
» COVID se vratio...
» War with China over Covid 19?!
Page 1 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum