COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Sid Belzberg]

North Dakota has passed 10% of population infected.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

[Kerry Liles]

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126...ue-to-covid-19

Interesting that you needed to use the internet archive to find that article...
it seems it is no longer on the website of www.jhunewsletter,com (the johns hopkins News-Letter (Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins since 1896)

Perhaps it was an op-ed that was later severely criticized and then removed?
I wonder...
Do you (Sid) have any information about why that article no longer exists?

In any case, the basic premise seems to be that older people die anyway so what does it matter if they die from Covid-19?
And it seems to repeat the (where have I heard this before) refrain that many deaths were reclassified as Covid (heart attacks, hit by a bus etc)

On Yanni Gu's linkedIn page she thanks someone for posting about her article but then simply mentions (without stating a reason) that the article is being
'taken down' and provides the same link to the web archive.

This smells a lot to me: if you are going to splash links to articles at least point to real articles. This "article" seems to be more or less the same
rhetoric you were peddling earlier from the Doctor's association that several people wondered about...

MAD magazine is no more - but perhaps they published something on Covid?

[Aris Marghetis]

...

MAD magazine is no more - but perhaps they published something on Covid?

God Kerry, I laughed so hard I almost choked on my morning yogurt, THANKS!

[Sid Belzberg]

Interesting that you needed to use the internet archive to find that article...
it seems it is no longer on the website of www.jhunewsletter,com (the johns hopkins News-Letter (Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins since 1896)

Perhaps it was an op-ed that was later severely criticized and then removed?
I wonder...
Do you (Sid) have any information about why that article no longer exists?

In any case, the basic premise seems to be that older people die anyway so what does it matter if they die from Covid-19?
And it seems to repeat the (where have I heard this before) refrain that many deaths were reclassified as Covid (heart attacks, hit by a bus etc)

On Yanni Gu's linkedIn page she thanks someone for posting about her article but then simply mentions (without stating a reason) that the article is being
'taken down' and provides the same link to the web archive.

This smells a lot to me: if you are going to splash links to articles at least point to real articles. This "article" seems to be more or less the same
rhetoric you were peddling earlier from the Doctor's association that several people wondered about...

MAD magazine is no more - but perhaps they published something on Covid?

Dear Kerry,


Here is a formal presentation of Dr. Briand's paper on John Hopkins YouTube Channel, hardly, "Mad magazine". The data from Dr Briands paper is on the CDC website and clearly demonstrates that virtually all deaths have been reclassified as COVID19. If you have a constructive counter argument to refute this I would like to hear it.

[Kerry Liles]

Thanks Sid. I will check it out as soon as I can.

[Kerry Liles]

God Kerry, I laughed so hard I almost choked on my morning yogurt, THANKS!

You are welcome... mind the chunks in the yogourt...

I may have been wrong about the demise of MAD magazine - I'm pretty sure I heard that the printed magazine is no longer available,

but there is this: https://www.madmagazine.com

[Peter McKillop]

Dear Kerry,


Here is a formal presentation of Dr. Briand's paper on John Hopkins YouTube Channel, hardly, "Mad magazine". The data from Dr Briands paper is on the CDC website and clearly demonstrates that virtually all deaths have been reclassified as COVID19. If you have a constructive counter argument to refute this I would like to hear it.

Here is further explanatory material, dtd. Nov. 27, regarding why 'the jhu news-letter' withdrew the original article, dtd. Nov. 22, concerning Genevieve Briand's work on covid death stastics:

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/articl...ue-to-covid-19

It appears that jhun-l had lost confidence in Briand's efforts.

[Hans Jung]

Germany now over 1 million cases.

[Sid Belzberg]

Here is further explanatory material, dtd. Nov. 27, regarding why 'the jhu news-letter' withdrew the original article, dtd. Nov. 22, concerning Genevieve Briand's work on covid death stastics:

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/articl...ue-to-covid-19

It appears that jhun-l had lost confidence in Briand's efforts.

It appears that jhun-l had lost confidence in Briand's efforts.

This is the JHU' student paper that did not want Dr Briand's findings taken out of context. JHU itself certainly has not "lost confidence" in her work and have not had her presentation of her findings taken down from the JHU you tube channel. By the way, no where in Dr Brian's video presentation did she claim that the total number of deaths in the US declined from 2018. This is a statement that the author of the article (a student) in the student paper stated. I suspect that is why the student paper retracted the article.

Death stats usually are not finalized until tate the following year so the final total deaths in the US will not be known until late 2021. On the CDC website they show 2,579,000 deaths as of Nov 20 but they do not include the first three weeks of January or of course the 5.5 remaining weeks in 2020. As per Dr Brian's video presentation the average number of deaths in the US per week is 55000.
That would leave the total number of deaths in the US for 2020 at 3,046,500 using the 55,000 average deaths per week figure. The US populatoin has increased by about 6,000,000 people since 2018 or around 2% therefore taking that into account and comparing "apples to apples" from 2018 it is more like 2,985,000 total deaths factoring in population inflation.
As per the CDC here are the total deaths
2013: 2,596,993
2014: 2,626,418
2015: 2,712,630
2016: 2,744,248
2017: 2,813,503
2018: 2,839,205
2019: 2,855,000

So the increase in total deaths from 2019 to 2020 based on weekly average death rates for remaining weeks of 2020 is 55000 per week looks more like 135000. This does not appear to be an unusual or unprecedented fluctuation, for example between 2013-2014 we saw an increase of 132000 deaths. The other thing to bear in mind is that between 2010 and 2019 the number of people
that are 65 or older went from 40,000,000 in 2010 to 54,000,00 by 2019.
Hence , without fail the total number of deaths has climbed every year and 2020 is not an exception.

The paper complained that Dr Briands presentation used percentages in stead of raw numbers that according to them led to bad optics in trivializing deaths. However, it is undeniable that deaths by all causes in 2020 were lumped in as COVID19.

i dare say that the policy of sending infected patients to nursing homes in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California and Michigan would account for 50000 preventable deaths. During Flu seasons in the past no way was this ever a policy.

[Sid Belzberg]

Did you know that 2300 years ago Arabs discovered that forcing people to cover their nose and mouths broke their will and individuality and depersonalized them?



It made them submissive.

That’s why they imposed on every woman the MANDATORY use of fabric over her face.



Modern psychology explains it: without face we don’t exist as independent beings. The mask is the beginning of deleting individuality. He who doesn’t know his history is condemned to repeat it..





Here are some Medical Articles proving that masks are not only useless, but also dangerous.



1) Straight from the CDC: “Available evidence shows that (cloth masks)… may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high… Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.”



2) “...laboratory-confirmed viral infections were significantly higher in the cloth masks group. Virus particle penetration was almost 97%. ...the results caution against the use of cloth masks.. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks, and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”




3) “...surgical and handmade masks, and face shields, generate significant leakage jets that have the potential to disperse virus-laden fluid particles by several meters. ....They all showed an intense backward jet for heavy breathing and coughing conditions. It is important to be aware of this jet, to avoid a false sense of security that may arise when standing to the side of, or behind, a person wearing a surgical, or handmade mask, or shield.”
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf

4) JAMA: “Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2764955


5) “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/



6) From one meta analysis of masks to prevent infection, N95 masks and respirators no less: “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/




7) Just a note, respiratory acidosis is bad and leads to also polyuria, urinary acidosis, kidney damage, and hypercapnia. The stress response from lowered oxygen causes cortisol to rise, potently so, which lowers immune vigilance increasing infection risk.


“Respiratory acidosis develops when air into and exhaled from the lungs does not get adequately exchanged between the carbon dioxide from the body and oxygen from the air.” https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/313110...



The BMJ

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435

Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis

Trisha Greenhalgh and colleagues argue that it is time to apply the precautionary principle

[Lucas Davies]

In other words, here's something the CDC said several months ago that I like because it supports my view. They've since changed their recommendation based on new evidence, but I don't like that because it doesn't support my view. Here's their current recommendation as of November 20th:

Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic¹⁴, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html

[Sid Belzberg]

In other words, here's something the CDC said several months ago that I like because it supports my view. They've since changed their recommendation based on new evidence, but I don't like that because it doesn't support my view. Here's their current recommendation as of November 20th:



https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html

There is no "new evidence". The CDC is the same organization that lumps all causes of deaths as COVID19 and discourages Dr's from treating patients early when
it is an easily treatable virus early on. The PCR tests are a total joke beyond 35 cycles 97% of cases are false positives.
FDA standard for testing 47(!) cycles.

Have you any ability at all to critically think?

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...aa1491/5912603

https://c19study.com

[Lucas Davies]

There is no "new evidence". The CDC is the same organization that lumps all causes of deaths as COVID19 and discourages Dr's from treating patients early when
it is an easily treatable virus early on. The PCR tests are a total joke beyond 35 cycles 97% of cases are false positives.
FDA standard for testing 47(!) cycles.

Have you any ability at all to critically think?

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...aa1491/5912603

https://c19study.com

So far you've cited Fauci, Redford, the WHO, and now the CDC to support your claims, but after it's been pointed out that they actually don't agree with you, you attack their credibility. Do you not see how bizarre this is?

[Sid Belzberg]

So far you've cited Fauci, Redford, the WHO, and now the CDC to support your claims, but after it's been pointed out that they actually don't agree with you, you attack their credibility. Do you not see how bizarre this is?

You are so predictable with your arguments, the whole point is that they change their minds when the politics suit them, nothing to do with science, Do you not see how brainwashed you are?

[Ed Seedhouse]

You are so predictable with your arguments, the whole point is that they change their minds when the politics suit them, nothing to do with science, Do you not see how brainwashed you are?

Oh, we can easily see who is and who is not "brainwashed" here alright. We just disagree about who it is. Science is not infallible, and good scientists adjust their beliefs according the the evidence as it presents itself. Calling people who understand the science and follow it "brainwashed" isn't going to convince anyone, especially when you are so upset by a little name calling when it is applied to you. What's next? Is the germ theory of disease all wrong? Because if it isn't then masks and distancing are rational responses to a virus for which there is yet no widely available vaccine.