Mortality Rate Of COVID-19 Is 0.5%, Much Lower Than CDC / WHO Claims

[SOMO]

Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards
Bernard La Scola, Marion Le Bideau, Julien Andreani, Van Thuan Hoang, Clio Grimaldier, Philippe Colson, Philippe Gautret, Didier Raoult
Lire l’article

1. PCR is NOT the same as culturing.

2. Also PCR is not a quantitative tool.

3. Kary Mullis who actually invented and was awarded the Nobel Prize for PCR has stated this.

 

[Giraffe]

1. PCR is NOT the same as culturing.

2. Also PCR is not a quantitative tool.

3. Kary Mullis who actually invented and was awarded the Nobel Prize for PCR has stated this.

Back in 2003 the WHO wrote about SARS laboratory diagnostic tests:

"Positive PCR results, with the necessary quality control procedures in place.
Recommendations for laboratories testing for SARS-coronavirus, are very specific and mean that there is genetic material (RNA) of the SARS-CoV in the sample. This does not mean that there is live virus present, or that it is present in a quantity large enough to infect another person."

WHO | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS): Laboratory diagnostic tests

 

[YourUniverse]

Correct me if I'm wrong: People are dying of both the flu, and of covid, simultaneously right now.

So if covid is "just a flu", and its killing roughly the same amount as the normal flu does, doesnt that mean we have double the flu deaths this year? Which would make this situation a big deal, as far as our medical infrastructure is concerned

 

[InChristAlone]

Viral RNA load as determined by cell culture as a management tool for discharge of SARS-CoV-2 patients from infectious disease wards
Bernard La Scola, Marion Le Bideau, Julien Andreani, Van Thuan Hoang, Clio Grimaldier, Philippe Colson, Philippe Gautret, Didier Raoult
Lire l’article

Are you Dr Stephanie Seneff?? I've seen you posting here last week or so. That article refutes a lot of what has been going around about the testing being not accurate enough to prove infection. Could you talk more about that? How is the PCR test accurate enough when the guy who developed it Kary Mullis said it could not be used to diagnose or prove infectious disease. Why would he say that if the cell cultures are able to distinguish between an active infection and someone who isn't contagious anymore? You can culture someone's snot but you still need the assay to find out what and how much is growing in the culture.

 

[Remedy]

Is it bad/wrong of me to say that I've lost a lot of confidence in people who are gobbeling up the MSM nonsense around here? I'm no expert and admit to knowing nothing but I know something stinks.........That's for sure.

I feel the same way. I don't post really at all, but still, whatever you can say about this, it is proving to be a decisive real world test, sorting the fundamentally gullible and unworthy from the fundamentally sagacious and worthy.

 

[Remedy]

Correct me if I'm wrong: People are dying of both the flu, and of covid, simultaneously right now.

So if covid is "just a flu", and its killing roughly the same amount as the normal flu does, doesnt that mean we have double the flu deaths this year? Which would make this situation a big deal, as far as our medical infrastructure is concerned

Recently, I read something that addressed this:

Coronavirus is Literally Just the Flu

I guess you could be a weenie and dismiss it because of the source, though.

 

[YourUniverse]

Recently, I read something that addressed this:

Coronavirus is Literally Just the Flu

I guess you could be a weenie and dismiss it because of the source, though.

Whats a weenie? Why are you defensive?

"You’d think that someone would run it through their brain when it’s announced that flu cases are dropping at the same time Coronavirus cases are rising."

Thats food for thought - thanks for the article

 

[InChristAlone]

Recently, I read something that addressed this:

Coronavirus is Literally Just the Flu

I guess you could be a weenie and dismiss it because of the source, though.

There was a guy who went to a testing tent in NY to see if the media hype was real he asked the army guards and they basically just said "it's the flu!", and things like "we are just taking precautions".

 

[InChristAlone]

All from a thread by David Gleason

Numerous independent scientists agree that the whole CV19 scare is nothing more than a giant scam and globalist power grab. The tests used are in no way accurate and do not have the ability to differentiate CV19 RNA from any other common cold CV strain. Viruses are typically 10-100 nm in size which is so small that not even the most powerful optical microscope can resolve them. To see such a virus you'd need a very expensive electron microscope. The PCR test only looks for specific RNA sequences common to any CV and even then the results are very inaccurate because a $50 test kit is just not going to have the ability to reliably amplify a tiny (one millionth of a cm) piece of RNA and provide an exact match among 100's of different CV strains (aka common cold viruses). This fact is the fundamental failure of the logic media and governments have used to sell this BS "pandemic"

References:
12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic...
10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic...
Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests « Jon Rappoport's Blog...
Dr. Fauci: Coronavirus death rate like very bad flu - WND...
https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/does-the-coronavirus...
https://www.zerohedge.com/.../covid-19-derangement...


There are dozens of similar articles from reputable sources coming out every day. I think it's important to get this info out there, as this power grab is only going to go away once people wake up to what it really is. All it takes is to turn off the TV for bit and a little common sense. There are 7.7B people on Earth, 100K die every day, 200K are born every day, and there is simply no rational reason to shut down half the planet because something like 0.1% of those death numbers are now (very questionably) attributed to a new strain of the common cold.

Yeah this test (PCR) is no more than 50% accurate even according to the person who invented it. Never before in history have people been quarantined when they have no symptoms whatsoever. The real giveaway is that the CDC, WHO etc. can provide no evidence on how accurate the test is. They have apparently never done any controlled tests of the test itself, and are perfectly happy "assuming" the test is somehow reliable. This of course is no surprise because these organizations are revolving door lapdogs for big pharma and the globalists. Just come up with some unreliable test that detects any common cold virus, start testing people in the hospital who already in ICU with pneumonia or anything else, and then -- voila! there's a new bubonic plague and chance to make $trillions off a new vaccine and government bailouts all while moving forward a global police state.

There are 2 main tests being used, the PCR I believe is the more common and theoretically detects small fragments of the CV RNA. The antibody test is a totally different test that also from what I've seen not able to differentiate between antibodies to different variants of CV. I'm no expert on what exactly the reliability and resolution of these really is, but the red flag to me is that none of the so called experts on the tests are able to provide that either! So there are plenty of people saying the tests are inaccurate, and though many of them do not fully substantiate why exactly that is and to what extent, which in and of itself might lend question to the credibility of such claims, so far I've seen zero evidence anywhere that any of these tests specifically for CV19 have ever been independently verified under controlled conditions. If the pandemic "experts" are so sure that CV19 is such a threat that justifies locking down half the planet for months, they should first be able to prove their claims and methodology in a proper scientific manner! If the police show up at your house one day and say there is a Martian attack and you need to hide in your basement for 6 months are you just going to believe them on faith, or ask for some evidence? And if they say oh look here's a story from Fox news showing someone's house got blown up by the Martians would you take that as full complete proof that there really must be a Martian invasion in progress? No of course not.

Yet somehow half the planet is under some form of lockdown and yet there has been nothing other than anecdotal stories on media channels who are known for many years to be fake-news, pushing a BS corporate globalist agenda, with "journalists" who are completely science-illiterate and completely incapable of independent thought or critical thinking, and no one can provide any scientific evidence whatsoever that the tests are actually even reliable or that the statistics have been properly collected.

 

[Remedy]

Whats a weenie? Why are you defensive?

"You’d think that someone would run it through their brain when it’s announced that flu cases are dropping at the same time Coronavirus cases are rising."

Thats food for thought - thanks for the article

Weenie:

• noun Informal A wiener.
• noun Slang A person, especially a man, who is regarded as being weak and ineffectual.

The defensiveness is because the source is an EVIL NAZI site, and nowadays I just automatically assume people can't handle that. Which is probably not a good point to start from, you're right. Sorry!

 

[YourUniverse]

Weenie:

• noun Informal A wiener.
• noun Slang A person, especially a man, who is regarded as being weak and ineffectual.

The defensiveness is because the source is an EVIL NAZI site, and nowadays I just automatically assume people can't handle that. Which is probably not a good point to start from, you're right. Sorry!

Ok. I think there can be strong and effective people that disagree with you, though. No worries.

 

[S.Seneff]

Are you Dr Stephanie Seneff?? I've seen you posting here last week or so. That article refutes a lot of what has been going around about the testing being not accurate enough to prove infection. Could you talk more about that? How is the PCR test accurate enough when the guy who developed it Kary Mullis said it could not be used to diagnose or prove infectious disease. Why would he say that if the cell cultures are able to distinguish between an active infection and someone who isn't contagious anymore? You can culture someone's snot but you still need the assay to find out what and how much is growing in the culture.

I am not specialize in PCR test. But the following wikipedia quote could explains why there is a lot of confusion around that stuff.

Publication guidelines
Quantitative RT-PCR assay is considered to be the gold standard for measuring the number of copies of specific cDNA targets in a sample but it is poorly standardized.[49] As a result, while there are numerous publications utilizing the technique, many provide inadequate experimental detail and use unsuitable data analysis to draw inappropriate conclusions. Due to the inherent variability in the quality of any quantitative PCR data, not only do reviewers have a difficult time evaluating these manuscripts, but the studies also become impossible to replicate.[50] Recognizing the need for the standardization of the reporting of experimental conditions, the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE, pronounced mykee) guidelines have been published by the international consortium of academic scientists. The MIQE guidelines describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating quantitative PCR experiments that should be required for publication for encouraging better experimental practice and ensuring the relevance, accuracy, correct interpretation, and repeatability of quantitative PCR data.[51]

Besides reporting guidelines, the MIQE stresses the need to standardize the nomenclature associated with quantitative PCR to avoid confusion; for example, the abbreviation qPCR should be used for quantitative real-time PCR and RT-qPCR should be used for reverse transcription-qPCR, and genes used for normalisation should be referred to as reference genes instead of housekeeping genes. It is also proposes that commercially derived terms like TaqMan probes should not be used but instead referred to as hydrolysis probes. Additionally, it is proposed that quantification cycle (Cq) be used to describe the PCR cycle used for quantification instead of threshold cycle (Ct), crossing point (Cp), and takeoff point (TOP), which refer to the same value but were coined by different manufacturers of real-time instruments.[49]

The guideline consists of the following elements: 1) experimental design, 2) sample, 3) nucleic acid extraction, 4) reverse transcription, 5) qPCR target information, 6) oligonucleotides, 7) protocol, 8) validation, and 9) data analysis. Specific items within each element carry a label of either E (essential) or D (desirable). Those labelled E are considered critical and indispensable while those labelled D are considered peripheral yet important for best-practices

Challenges
Despite its major advantages, RT-PCR is not without drawbacks. The exponential growth of the reverse transcribed complementary DNA (cDNA) during the multiple cycles of PCR produces inaccurate end point quantification due to the difficulty in maintaining linearity.[43] In order to provide accurate detection and quantification of RNA content in a sample, qRT-PCR was developed using fluorescence-based modification to monitor the amplification products during each cycle of PCR. The extreme sensitivity of the technique can be a double edged sword since even the slightest DNA contamination can lead to undesirable results.[44] A simple method for elimination of false positive results is to include anchors, or tags, to the 5' region of a gene specific primer.[45] Additionally, planning and design of quantification studies can be technically challenging due to the existence of numerous sources of variation including template concentration and amplification efficiency

 

[tankasnowgod]

Correct me if I'm wrong: People are dying of both the flu, and of covid, simultaneously right now.

So if covid is "just a flu", and its killing roughly the same amount as the normal flu does, doesnt that mean we have double the flu deaths this year? Which would make this situation a big deal, as far as our medical infrastructure is concerned

Uh, no.

Connsidering 40,000 is just a fraction of estimates of worldwide seasonal flu deaths like 300,000 to 500,000 (roughly 10%), I don't see how it can double either of those numbers.

Of course, that's assuming that COVID 19 deaths are happening on top of other seasonal flu deaths. This hasn't been demonstrated by anyone. 40,000 can easily be a component of those 300,000 to 500,000 estimates, no problem. Even double or triple the amount can happen, no problem.

About 56 Million people die on the planet from all causes every year. Even if we did have a particularly bad seasonal flu (like in 2017-18), and flu deaths did double to 1 Million, that wouldn't be a huge deal, even for medical infrastructure, though some hospitals would have overflow (just like in 2017-18)

That means, on average, about 4.6 Million people die every month. 40,000 COVID deaths, even if they all took place in one month (not four) and were on top of all other causes of death (not likely), that would still only be a 1% difference from average. Not even noticeable in overall mortality.

 

[S.Seneff]

Back in 2003 the WHO wrote about SARS laboratory diagnostic tests:

"Positive PCR results, with the necessary quality control procedures in place.
Recommendations for laboratories testing for SARS-coronavirus, are very specific and mean that there is genetic material (RNA) of the SARS-CoV in the sample. This does not mean that there is live virus present, or that it is present in a quantity large enough to infect another person."

WHO | Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS): Laboratory diagnostic tests

The virus could be in a non fonctional state due to the action of the immune system I guess.

I think you will like those stats :
HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia
Average per act risk of getting HIV
by exposure route to an infected source

Exposure route Chance of infection
Blood transfusion 90%[41][failed verification]
Childbirth (to child) 25%[42][clarification needed]
Needle-sharing injection drug use 0.67%[41]
Percutaneous needle stick 0.30%[43]
Receptive anal intercourse* 0.04–3.0%[44]
Insertive anal intercourse* 0.03%[45]
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse* 0.05–0.30%[44][46]
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse* 0.01–0.38%[44][46]
Receptive oral intercourse*§ 0–0.04%[44]
Insertive oral intercourse*§ 0–0.005%[47]
* assuming no condom use
§ source refers to oral intercourse
performed on a man

 

[YourUniverse]

Of course, that's assuming that COVID 19 deaths are happening on top of other seasonal flu deaths. This hasn't been demonstrated by anyone. 40,000 can easily be a component of those 300,000 to 500,000 estimates, no problem. Even double or triple the amount can happen, no problem.

This was the contention of my question. This has also been answered by a member's link, above you, stating flu cases were decreasing as corona cases were increasing.

 

[S.Seneff]

All from a thread by David Gleason

Numerous independent scientists agree that the whole CV19 scare is nothing more than a giant scam and globalist power grab. The tests used are in no way accurate and do not have the ability to differentiate CV19 RNA from any other common cold CV strain. Viruses are typically 10-100 nm in size which is so small that not even the most powerful optical microscope can resolve them. To see such a virus you'd need a very expensive electron microscope. The PCR test only looks for specific RNA sequences common to any CV and even then the results are very inaccurate because a $50 test kit is just not going to have the ability to reliably amplify a tiny (one millionth of a cm) piece of RNA and provide an exact match among 100's of different CV strains (aka common cold viruses). This fact is the fundamental failure of the logic media and governments have used to sell this BS "pandemic"

References:
12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic...
10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic...
Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests « Jon Rappoport's Blog...
Dr. Fauci: Coronavirus death rate like very bad flu - WND...
Does the Coronavirus Pandemic Serve a Global Agenda? | The Liberty Beacon...
https://www.zerohedge.com/.../covid-19-derangement...


There are dozens of similar articles from reputable sources coming out every day. I think it's important to get this info out there, as this power grab is only going to go away once people wake up to what it really is. All it takes is to turn off the TV for bit and a little common sense. There are 7.7B people on Earth, 100K die every day, 200K are born every day, and there is simply no rational reason to shut down half the planet because something like 0.1% of those death numbers are now (very questionably) attributed to a new strain of the common cold.

Yeah this test (PCR) is no more than 50% accurate even according to the person who invented it. Never before in history have people been quarantined when they have no symptoms whatsoever. The real giveaway is that the CDC, WHO etc. can provide no evidence on how accurate the test is. They have apparently never done any controlled tests of the test itself, and are perfectly happy "assuming" the test is somehow reliable. This of course is no surprise because these organizations are revolving door lapdogs for big pharma and the globalists. Just come up with some unreliable test that detects any common cold virus, start testing people in the hospital who already in ICU with pneumonia or anything else, and then -- voila! there's a new bubonic plague and chance to make $trillions off a new vaccine and government bailouts all while moving forward a global police state.

There are 2 main tests being used, the PCR I believe is the more common and theoretically detects small fragments of the CV RNA. The antibody test is a totally different test that also from what I've seen not able to differentiate between antibodies to different variants of CV. I'm no expert on what exactly the reliability and resolution of these really is, but the red flag to me is that none of the so called experts on the tests are able to provide that either! So there are plenty of people saying the tests are inaccurate, and though many of them do not fully substantiate why exactly that is and to what extent, which in and of itself might lend question to the credibility of such claims, so far I've seen zero evidence anywhere that any of these tests specifically for CV19 have ever been independently verified under controlled conditions. If the pandemic "experts" are so sure that CV19 is such a threat that justifies locking down half the planet for months, they should first be able to prove their claims and methodology in a proper scientific manner! If the police show up at your house one day and say there is a Martian attack and you need to hide in your basement for 6 months are you just going to believe them on faith, or ask for some evidence? And if they say oh look here's a story from Fox news showing someone's house got blown up by the Martians would you take that as full complete proof that there really must be a Martian invasion in progress? No of course not.

Yet somehow half the planet is under some form of lockdown and yet there has been nothing other than anecdotal stories on media channels who are known for many years to be fake-news, pushing a BS corporate globalist agenda, with "journalists" who are completely science-illiterate and completely incapable of independent thought or critical thinking, and no one can provide any scientific evidence whatsoever that the tests are actually even reliable or that the statistics have been properly collected.

Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays
View ORCID ProfileChantal B.F. Vogels, Anderson F. Brito, View ORCID ProfileAnne Louise Wyllie, Joseph R Fauver, Isabel M. Ott, Chaney C. Kalinich, Mary E. Petrone, Marie-Louise Landry, Ellen F. Foxman, Nathan D. Grubaugh
doi: Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR assays
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

 

[theLaw]

Questions remain about the death of a Hartford infant, despite governor’s claim death was linked to coronavirus

All patients who die in Connecticut hospitals during the pandemic are being tested for the virus, regardless of their manner of death, so the infant was tested post-mortem and the results came back positive.

Public health officials report daily the total number of people who have died and have tested positive for the virus, either before or after their deaths, Cartter said.

But only the medical examiner determines whether the virus or complications it caused actually led to each of those peoples deaths.

So the total death count we see reported includes anyone who dies and tests positive without any confirmation of cause?

 

[tara]

Small in the US as 12 deaths per million, or small as in Italy as in 206 deaths per million?

Small compared with eg 1/4 of the whole population or more being exposed.

 

[Whichway?]

Uh, no.

Connsidering 40,000 is just a fraction of estimates of worldwide seasonal flu deaths like 300,000 to 500,000 (roughly 10%), I don't see how it can double either of those numbers.

Of course, that's assuming that COVID 19 deaths are happening on top of other seasonal flu deaths. This hasn't been demonstrated by anyone. 40,000 can easily be a component of those 300,000 to 500,000 estimates, no problem. Even double or triple the amount can happen, no problem.

About 56 Million people die on the planet from all causes every year. Even if we did have a particularly bad seasonal flu (like in 2017-18), and flu deaths did double to 1 Million, that wouldn't be a huge deal, even for medical infrastructure, though some hospitals would have overflow (just like in 2017-18)

That means, on average, about 4.6 Million people die every month. 40,000 COVID deaths, even if they all took place in one month (not four) and were on top of all other causes of death (not likely), that would still only be a 1% difference from average. Not even noticeable in overall mortality.

This was the contention of my question. This has also been answered by a member's link, above you, stating flu cases were decreasing as corona cases were increasing.

I would agree with this assessment that Covid deaths won't be a completely separate amount on top of seasonal flu. It will only be partially additive. I think this is for two reasons. First Covid is more infectious than flu and kills more people than flu, so we would expect more people to catch it, and more fatalities from those that do. Second they are both competing for the same territory in which to incubate and reproduce, that is the respiratory system of people. So the deaths from flu will be reduced somewhat because that person may have already been infected by Covid.

Also both flu and Covid required transmission via aerosolised droplets, so social distancing and lockdown will effect the transmission of both.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I would agree with this assessment that Covid deaths won't be a completely separate amount on top of seasonal flu. It will only be partially additive. I think this is for two reasons. First Covid is more infectious than flu and kills more people than flu, so we would expect more people to catch it, and more fatalities from those that do. Second they are both competing for the same territory in which to incubate and reproduce, that is the respiratory system of people. So the deaths from flu will be reduced somewhat because that person may have already been infected by Covid.

Also both flu and Covid required transmission via aerosolised droplets, so social distancing and lockdown will effect the transmission of both.

Well, if COVID 19 already spread through the majority of the population, neither intervention will have any affect. And there's a very good chance that is did, over the winter-

Could CDC Data Prove COVID-19 Infections in November 2019? - UncoverDC

Seriously, if you really believe that COVID 19 is **more** infectious than the flu, why would you believe it's juuuuust now showing up in places like the United States, which is at the end of the flu season? How can it simultaneously be more infectious, and incredibly slow to spread?