consciouslifenews--2020-12-09--Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects

The estimated number needed to vaccinate ( NNTV ) for Moderna ’ s vaccine is 167 , meaning 167 people must receive the vaccine in order to prevent one case of COVID-19 None of the COVID-19 trials for which we have data are designed to find out whether the vaccine reduces hospitalization rates or deaths .
They only look at whether it reduces symptoms if you do get infected Clinical trial data leave out crucial information , such as the cycle threshold used for the PCR testing , whether “ cases ” had symptoms or not , and how long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , Pfizer announced its vaccine is more than 90 % effective .
One week later , Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days — boasted a 94.5 % effectiveness rating With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution , news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed .
The one thing they aren ’ t discussing , however , is the definition of “ effective ” when it comes to these vaccines .
Early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90 % effective.2 One week later , Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5 % effectiveness rating.4 However , if you read Pfizer ’ s and Moderna ’ s press releases and other clinical trial information , you ’ ll see that they have left out some really crucial information .
For example:5 • They don ’ t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those tests • They don ’ t say whether the “ cases ” had symptoms or not • They don ’ t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths , meaning there is no indication it prevents either • There is no indication of how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective .
Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective In an article published by the Mises Institute , Dr. Gilbert Berdine , associate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Sciences Center , writes:6 In a letter to the editor , Dr. Allan Cunningham , a retired pediatrician in New York , also points out that Pfizer ’ s 90 % effectiveness rating fails to tell the story in a way that people can understand , and goes on to estimate the number needed to vaccinate for Pfizer ’ s vaccine .
He writes:7 Indeed , when it comes to safety , it ’ s important to realize that since only a few thousand verified healthy volunteers have been exposed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be the masses of people who line up first to take the vaccines when they come to market .
In his article , Berdine stresses he has yet to find a medical colleague who is willing to be among the first to take the experimental vaccine .
Most say they want to review the safety data after a year or so of use before they ’ ll consider getting it .
“ These colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination , ” Berdine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that none of the trials currently underway include immunocompromised volunteers , so the effects of these vaccines on people with suppressed immune function are wholly unknown .
This is a significant problem , seeing how an estimated 14.7 million to 23.5 million Americans suffer from some form of autoimmune disease,8 and these people are also at increased risk for COVID-19 complications and death .
If the vaccine exacerbates autoimmune problems , the outcome could be devastating for an extraordinary number of people .
The volunteers currently enrolled in trials are all healthier than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear commonplace even among this “ elite ” group .
What You Can Expect From the COVID-19 Vaccine An October 20 , 2020 , article9 in the Observer lists the known side effects that have emerged in the various trials .
Chills , fever , body aches , and headache are the most commonplace , but at least two cases of transverse myelitis — inflammation of the spinal cord — have also occurred .
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine ’ s side effects are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 and Saad Omer , director of the Yale Institute for Global Health , has stressed the need for a broad-based outreach campaign to discuss the reality of side effects , as patients might not come back for the required second dose if the side effects take them by surprise.11 Dr. Eli Perencevich , a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care , has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they ’ re vaccinated , as many will feel too sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CNBC article,13 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions , noted that 10 % to 15 % of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “ significantly noticeable ” side effects .
Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member , who proposes the nomenclature of “ serious adverse reaction ” be changed to “ immune response , ” so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects , even if they end up having to stay home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article also admits they have no idea what , if any , long-term reactions there might be , which means ( as we already knew ) that this is a great big public health experiment and , of course , anything that happens post-marketing will be labeled a “ coincidence.
” In related news , a participant in India ’ s AstraZeneca trial is now suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “ serious neurological damage , ” 14 and a group of researchers warn the COVID-19 vaccines could potentially increase your risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine permanently altering your DNA , effectively turning you into a transhuman.16 As you can see , there ’ s a lot to consider before taking this vaccine .
Do We Really Need a COVID-19 Vaccine ?
Berdine also points out that most of his colleagues believe “ the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit.
” 17 Indeed , at this point , a range of data suggests the COVID-19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary .
For example : •COVID-19 mortality is extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of people recover from COVID-19.18 If you ’ re under 60 years of age , your chance of dying from seasonal influenza is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.19 •Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality , meaning the same number of people who die in any given year , on average , have died in this year of the pandemic.20,21 This is true even among the elderly , as evidenced in a Johns Hopkins University article published just before Thanksgiving .
According to the article:22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same before and after COVID-19 .
Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly , experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups .
However , this increase is not seen from the CDC data .
In fact , the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
” As soon as the article started trending on Twitter , Johns Hopkins deleted it saying it “ was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.
” 23 •Studies24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 suggest immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspected , thanks to cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold .
•Asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to spread SARS-CoV-2 — A study32 looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ( someone who tested positive but had no symptoms ) had been infected with the virus .
In all instances , virus cultures from people who tested positive but had no symptoms also came up negative for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an associate editor of The BMJ , also questions the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines , pointing out that current trials are not designed to tell us whether the vaccines will actually save lives .
And , if they don ’ t , are they really worth the risks involved ?
Doshi writes:33 Doshi points out that when Dr. Paul Offit was asked in an interview whether a recorded “ event ” in these trials meant moderate to severe illness , he replied yes , “ that ’ s right.
” But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct .
All Phase 3 trials count mild symptoms , such as a cough , as a “ COVID-19 event , ” and all will finalize their analyses after a mere 150 or 160 of the volunteers develop symptomatic COVID-19 — regardless of severity .
These trials also do not tell us anything about the vaccine ’ s ability to prevent transmission , as this would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy that is “ operationally untenable , ” according to Tal Zaks , chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been raised about the potential for the COVID-19 vaccines to “ go bad ” due to improper storage .
Pfizer ’ s COVID-19 vaccine has to be stored at an unheard-of cold temperature even for Antarctica — minus 70 degrees Celsius , or 94 degrees below zero , Fahrenheit .
Moderna ’ s can be kept a bit warmer , at “ just ” minus 20 degrees C , or 4 below zero F. Both pose a problem for providers who will be administering the shots .
To get an idea of why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NPR compares them to chocolates that melt easily.36 The reason the vaccines are so fragile is that they ’ re made with messenger RNA ( mRNA ) , which turns your own cells into little factories that produce SARS-CoV-2 protein that in turn trigger antibody production .
The problem is that mRNA is easily broken down , so it needs freezing temperatures to keep stable .
Pfizer said its special packaging keeps the vaccines frozen with the help of dry ice .
Even so , providers will still have to abide by strict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freezer compartment storing the vaccines can not be opened more than twice a day , and when opened , must be closed within one minute .
Once thawed , the vaccine can be kept refrigerated for five days .
The whole situation makes distribution a challenge , too since the smallest amount you can order is 975 doses .
That means the vaccines most likely will have to go to places capable of administering large numbers of vaccines in a short period of time to avoid spoilage .
What happens if the vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows .
At best , it may be ineffective .
At worst , it may cause completely unexpected side effects .
The Gold Rush of Vaccines and Indemnity The risk of side effects is particularly troubling in light of the fact that vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against any harm that occurs from the use of their vaccines .
In the video above , Children ’ s Health Defense ( CHD ) , founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , highlights the gold rush that occurred for pharmaceutical companies when the World Health Organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Several experimental vaccines were hastily rushed to market following the WHO ’ s pandemic declaration , one of which resulted in thousands of European children and teens developing chronic narcolepsy and cataplexy ( the sudden collapse due to loss of voluntary muscle control triggered by strong emotions or laughter ) .
In 2011 , the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix ( used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010 ) was causally linked37 to childhood narcolepsy , which had abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.38,39 Children and teens in Finland,40 the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit .
Further analyses also discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine , although the link wasn ’ t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.43 A 2019 study44 reported finding a “ novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1 ” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF , a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival .
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype , suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.
” Now , in the midst of another controversial pandemic , we ’ re facing an eerily similar playbook — with pharmaceutical companies eager to cash in on the first COVID-19 vaccine , which begs the question , “ Are we are being played — again ?
” Not the First Hoax — Practice Makes Perfect Pandemics have come and gone around the globe for centuries , but in recent history , they ’ ve been used as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly pharmaceutical companies .
The 2005 bird flu epidemic , for example , was predicted to kill from 2 million to 150 million people .
It killed just 98 people , globally , in 2005 , 115 in 2006 , and 86 in 2007.45 No one in the U.S. died from this infection .
The brazenness of the hoax prompted me to write my New York Times bestseller book “ The Great Bird Flu Hoax.
” In 2006 , 2007 , and again in 2008 , hyped warnings over the bird flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cruel hoax , designed to instill fear and line the pocketbooks of industry and various vested individuals .
In 2009 , there was the swine flu hoax , the vaccination campaign for which , as mentioned , turned into a disaster .
The summer of 2012 was again filled with dire predictions of bird flu sufficiently mutating to cause a human pandemic , immediately followed by urgent calls for fast-tracked vaccines .
None of these pandemics ever turned into global killers , and COVID-19 is no different .
As mentioned earlier , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths due to this novel virus .
The COVID-19 pandemic differs from previous ones , however , in that it ’ s being used not just to enrich drug companies and justify the existence of gain-of-function research , but also to usher in a “ reset ” of the entire global economy by the technocrats .
While failing economies around the world are blamed on the pandemic , the central bank system has been faltering for some time and is now on its last leg .
The global debt load is now so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the interest , and thus the system no longer works .
It needs to be “ reset , ” but rather than ditching the central bank system and resetting it to something stable ( such as returning to a gold-backed system ) , the technocrats in charge are ushering in an all-digital centralized currency that will give them total control over the finances of every human on earth .
What ’ s more , the economic reset is only one part of this all-encompassing totalitarian takeover .
The COVID-19 vaccine fits into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track and trace everyone ’ s whereabouts and connect this medical surveillance together with the digital economy .
You can learn more about this in “ What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.
” As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher , co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center ( NVIC ) , based on the historical failures of past coronavirus vaccines , a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine could become one of the biggest public health disasters in history .
And , no one involved will be held accountable or face any repercussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable for the narcolepsy cases caused by Pandemrix .
Instead , they will all continue to profit while an unsuspecting public will beta test yet another potentially dangerous vaccine .
Even if severe side effects are rare , when you ’ re talking about vaccinating some 7 billion people , even a tiny percentage will translate into millions of people affected .
One of the Most Powerful Videos I 've Ever Seen The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence .
There are a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that result in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues .
If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve .
Please take a few minutes to watch this video .
Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know If you or a family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , injury , or death , please talk about it .
If we do n't share information and experiences with one another , everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up .
Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper .
Make a call into a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story .
I must be frank with you : You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side ” of the vaccine story .
Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down .
Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it .
We can not allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination .
The vaccine injured can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing more than “ statistically acceptable collateral damage ” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death .
We should n't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings .
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity , the National Vaccine Information Center ( NVIC ) , at www.NVIC.org : • Vaccine Requirements and Exemptions by State — Vaccine laws vary from one U.S. state to another .
By knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ll learn how you can get exemptions and better protect your right to make informed vaccine choices .
• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims — View descriptions and photos of children and adults who have suffered vaccine reactions , injuries , and deaths .
If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event , please consider posting and sharing your story here .
• If You Vaccinate , Ask 8 Questions — Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries .
• Vaccine Freedom Wall — View @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by doctors , employers , and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices .
• Vaccine Failure Wall — View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease .

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com
The estimated number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) for Moderna’s vaccine is 167, meaning 167 people must receive the vaccine in order to prevent one case of COVID-19
None of the COVID-19 trials for which we have data are designed to find out whether the vaccine reduces hospitalization rates or deaths. They only look at whether it reduces symptoms if you do get infected
Clinical trial data leave out crucial information, such as the cycle threshold used for the PCR testing, whether “cases” had symptoms or not, and how long the vaccine lasts if protective
Early November 2020, Pfizer announced its vaccine is more than 90% effective. One week later, Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days — boasted a 94.5% effectiveness rating
With COVID-19 vaccines on the precipice of mass distribution, news media are on fire as they talk about who will get the vaccine first and how it will be distributed. The one thing they aren’t discussing, however, is the definition of “effective” when it comes to these vaccines.
Early November 2020, Pfizer sent the stock market soaring1 when it announced its vaccine is more than 90% effective.2 One week later, Moderna — which designed its vaccine candidate in just two days3 — boasted a 94.5% effectiveness rating.4
However, if you read Pfizer’s and Moderna’s press releases and other clinical trial information, you’ll see that they have left out some really crucial information. For example:5
They don’t say how many cycles they used for the PCR tests they gave to count COVID-19 cases, which is crucial for determining the accuracy of those tests
They don’t say whether the “cases” had symptoms or not
They don’t mention anything about hospitalizations or deaths, meaning there is no indication it prevents either
There is no indication of how long the vaccine lasts if it truly is effective and protective. Some indications suggest you might need to take this vaccine every three to six months in order for it to be effective
Odds Ratios Can Be Misleading
In an article published by the Mises Institute, Dr. Gilbert Berdine, associate professor of medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, writes:6
“The Pfizer study had 43,538 participants and was analyzed after 164 cases. So, roughly 150 out 21,750 participants (less than 0.7%) became PCR positive in the control group and about one-tenth that number in the vaccine group became PCR positive.
The Moderna trial had 30,000 participants. There were 95 ‘cases’ in the 15,000 control participants (about 0.6%) and five ‘cases’ in the 15,000 vaccine participants (about one-twentieth of 0.6%). The ‘efficacy’ figures quoted in these announcements are odds ratios …
When the risks of an event are small, odds ratios can be misleading about absolute risk. A more meaningful measure of efficacy would be the number [needed] to vaccinate to prevent one hospitalization or one death. Those numbers are not available.
An estimate of the number [needed] to treat from the Moderna trial to prevent a single ‘case’ would be 15,000 vaccinations to prevent 90 ‘cases’ or 167 vaccinations per ‘case’ prevented, which does not sound nearly as good as 94.5% effective.”
Pfizer’s Number Needed to Vaccinate = 256
In a letter to the editor, Dr. Allan Cunningham, a retired pediatrician in New York, also points out that Pfizer’s 90% effectiveness rating fails to tell the story in a way that people can understand, and goes on to estimate the number needed to vaccinate for Pfizer’s vaccine. He writes:7
“Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000.
This yields a COVID-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a ‘vaccine effectiveness’ of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039).
The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just one COVID-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them.”
Major Safety Questions Still Remain
Indeed, when it comes to safety, it’s important to realize that since only a few thousand verified healthy volunteers have been exposed to the actual vaccine, the real beta testers will be the masses of people who line up first to take the vaccines when they come to market.
In his article, Berdine stresses he has yet to find a medical colleague who is willing to be among the first to take the experimental vaccine. Most say they want to review the safety data after a year or so of use before they’ll consider getting it.
“These colleagues are concerned about possible autoimmune side effects that may not appear for months after vaccination,” Berdine writes. It’s worth noting that none of the trials currently underway include immunocompromised volunteers, so the effects of these vaccines on people with suppressed immune function are wholly unknown.
This is a significant problem, seeing how an estimated 14.7 million to 23.5 million Americans suffer from some form of autoimmune disease,8 and these people are also at increased risk for COVID-19 complications and death.
If the vaccine exacerbates autoimmune problems, the outcome could be devastating for an extraordinary number of people. The volunteers currently enrolled in trials are all healthier than the average American, yet side effects appear commonplace even among this “elite” group.
What You Can Expect From the COVID-19 Vaccine
An October 20, 2020, article9 in the Observer lists the known side effects that have emerged in the various trials. Chills, fever, body aches, and headache are the most commonplace, but at least two cases of transverse myelitis — inflammation of the spinal cord — have also occurred.
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that the vaccine’s side effects are “no walk in the park,”10 and Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, has stressed the need for a broad-based outreach campaign to discuss the reality of side effects, as patients might not come back for the required second dose if the side effects take them by surprise.11
Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of internal medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa Health Care, has suggested essential workers should be granted three days of paid leave after they’re vaccinated, as many will feel too sick to work.12
A December 1, 2020, CNBC article,13 which looked at the frequency of adverse reactions, noted that 10% to 15% of participants in the Pfizer and Moderna trials reported “significantly noticeable” side effects.
Buried way down at the bottom of the article is a suggestion from a past advisory committee member, who proposes the nomenclature of “serious adverse reaction” be changed to “immune response,” so they can reprogram how people think about these side effects, even if they end up having to stay home from work because of them.
The article also admits they have no idea what, if any, long-term reactions there might be, which means (as we already knew) that this is a great big public health experiment and, of course, anything that happens post-marketing will be labeled a “coincidence.”
In related news, a participant in India’s AstraZeneca trial is now suing the company claiming the vaccine caused “serious neurological damage,”14 and a group of researchers warn the COVID-19 vaccines could potentially increase your risk of HIV infection.15 Then there are the concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine permanently altering your DNA, effectively turning you into a transhuman.16 As you can see, there’s a lot to consider before taking this vaccine.
Do We Really Need a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Berdine also points out that most of his colleagues believe “the uncertainties about safety exceed what they perceive to be a small benefit.”17 Indeed, at this point, a range of data suggests the COVID-19 vaccine may be completely unnecessary. For example:
•COVID-19 mortality is extremely low outside of nursing homes — 99.7% of people recover from COVID-19.18 If you’re under 60 years of age, your chance of dying from seasonal influenza is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.19 •Data clearly show that COVID-19 has not resulted in excess mortality, meaning the same number of people who die in any given year, on average, have died in this year of the pandemic.20,21 This is true even among the elderly, as evidenced in a Johns Hopkins University article published just before Thanksgiving. According to the article:22 “The deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.” As soon as the article started trending on Twitter, Johns Hopkins deleted it saying it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”23 •Studies24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is more widespread than suspected, thanks to cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses that cause the common cold. •Asymptomatic people are highly unlikely to spread SARS-CoV-2 — A study32 looking at PCR test data from nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan city found that not a single one of those who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual (someone who tested positive but had no symptoms) had been infected with the virus. In all instances, virus cultures from people who tested positive but had no symptoms also came up negative for the live virus.
Will COVID-19 Vaccine Save Lives?
Peter Doshi, an associate editor of The BMJ, also questions the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines, pointing out that current trials are not designed to tell us whether the vaccines will actually save lives. And, if they don’t, are they really worth the risks involved? Doshi writes:33
“What will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared ‘effective’? To the public this seems fairly obvious. ‘The primary goal of a COVID-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,’ a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly …
Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
Doshi points out that when Dr. Paul Offit was asked in an interview whether a recorded “event” in these trials meant moderate to severe illness, he replied yes, “that’s right.” But that’s not, in fact, correct. All Phase 3 trials count mild symptoms, such as a cough, as a “COVID-19 event,” and all will finalize their analyses after a mere 150 or 160 of the volunteers develop symptomatic COVID-19 — regardless of severity.
“Part of the reason may be numbers. Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic COVID-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials.
Data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalization ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over.
Because most people with symptomatic COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms even trials involving 30,000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease,” Doshi writes.34
“Hospital admissions and deaths from COVID-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30,000 people.”
These trials also do not tell us anything about the vaccine’s ability to prevent transmission, as this would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy that is “operationally untenable,” according to Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna.35
COVID-19 Vaccine Poses Rare Distribution Challenges
Questions have also been raised about the potential for the COVID-19 vaccines to “go bad” due to improper storage. Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has to be stored at an unheard-of cold temperature even for Antarctica — minus 70 degrees Celsius, or 94 degrees below zero, Fahrenheit. Moderna’s can be kept a bit warmer, at “just” minus 20 degrees C, or 4 below zero F. Both pose a problem for providers who will be administering the shots.
To get an idea of why the vaccines have to be frozen, NPR compares them to chocolates that melt easily.36 The reason the vaccines are so fragile is that they’re made with messenger RNA (mRNA), which turns your own cells into little factories that produce SARS-CoV-2 protein that in turn trigger antibody production.
The problem is that mRNA is easily broken down, so it needs freezing temperatures to keep stable. Pfizer said its special packaging keeps the vaccines frozen with the help of dry ice. Even so, providers will still have to abide by strict guidelines, one of which says the freezer compartment storing the vaccines cannot be opened more than twice a day, and when opened, must be closed within one minute. Once thawed, the vaccine can be kept refrigerated for five days.
The whole situation makes distribution a challenge, too since the smallest amount you can order is 975 doses. That means the vaccines most likely will have to go to places capable of administering large numbers of vaccines in a short period of time to avoid spoilage. What happens if the vaccine is mishandled and spoils? No one knows. At best, it may be ineffective. At worst, it may cause completely unexpected side effects.
The Gold Rush of Vaccines and Indemnity
The risk of side effects is particularly troubling in light of the fact that vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against any harm that occurs from the use of their vaccines. In the video above, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., highlights the gold rush that occurred for pharmaceutical companies when the World Health Organization declared swine flu a pandemic in 2009.
In 2011, the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked to childhood narcolepsy.
Several experimental vaccines were hastily rushed to market following the WHO’s pandemic declaration, one of which resulted in thousands of European children and teens developing chronic narcolepsy and cataplexy (the sudden collapse due to loss of voluntary muscle control triggered by strong emotions or laughter).
In 2011, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked37 to childhood narcolepsy, which had abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.38,39 Children and teens in Finland,40 the U.K.41 and Sweden42 were among the hardest hit.
Further analyses also discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.43
A 2019 study44 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.
They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”
Now, in the midst of another controversial pandemic, we’re facing an eerily similar playbook — with pharmaceutical companies eager to cash in on the first COVID-19 vaccine, which begs the question, “Are we are being played — again?”
Not the First Hoax — Practice Makes Perfect
Pandemics have come and gone around the globe for centuries, but in recent history, they’ve been used as points of manipulation that have profited corporations, particularly pharmaceutical companies.
The 2005 bird flu epidemic, for example, was predicted to kill from 2 million to 150 million people. It killed just 98 people, globally, in 2005, 115 in 2006, and 86 in 2007.45 No one in the U.S. died from this infection. The brazenness of the hoax prompted me to write my New York Times bestseller book “The Great Bird Flu Hoax.”
In 2006, 2007, and again in 2008, hyped warnings over the bird flu were repeatedly exposed as little more than a cruel hoax, designed to instill fear and line the pocketbooks of industry and various vested individuals. In 2009, there was the swine flu hoax, the vaccination campaign for which, as mentioned, turned into a disaster.
The summer of 2012 was again filled with dire predictions of bird flu sufficiently mutating to cause a human pandemic, immediately followed by urgent calls for fast-tracked vaccines. None of these pandemics ever turned into global killers, and COVID-19 is no different. As mentioned earlier, there’s no evidence of excess deaths due to this novel virus.
The COVID-19 pandemic differs from previous ones, however, in that it’s being used not just to enrich drug companies and justify the existence of gain-of-function research, but also to usher in a “reset” of the entire global economy by the technocrats. While failing economies around the world are blamed on the pandemic, the central bank system has been faltering for some time and is now on its last leg.
The global debt load is now so high, countries cannot even pay off the interest, and thus the system no longer works. It needs to be “reset,” but rather than ditching the central bank system and resetting it to something stable (such as returning to a gold-backed system), the technocrats in charge are ushering in an all-digital centralized currency that will give them total control over the finances of every human on earth.
What’s more, the economic reset is only one part of this all-encompassing totalitarian takeover. The COVID-19 vaccine fits into the scheme by providing an excuse to track and trace everyone’s whereabouts and connect this medical surveillance together with the digital economy. You can learn more about this in “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”
No Accountability for Vaccine Harms
As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), based on the historical failures of past coronavirus vaccines, a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine could become one of the biggest public health disasters in history.
And, no one involved will be held accountable or face any repercussions, just as GlaxoSmithKline was not held accountable for the narcolepsy cases caused by Pandemrix. Instead, they will all continue to profit while an unsuspecting public will beta test yet another potentially dangerous vaccine.
Even if severe side effects are rare, when you’re talking about vaccinating some 7 billion people, even a tiny percentage will translate into millions of people affected.
One of the Most Powerful Videos I've Ever Seen
The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.
There are a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that result in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.
Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call into a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.
The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:


consciouslifenews--2020-12-09--Join ‘Peace Through Music’ December 10th | 200+ Musicians | Streaming on YouTube

In honor of the United Nations ’ 75th Anniversary and # HumanRightsDay , Playing For Change and the United Nations Population Fund ( UNFPA ) are proud to announce an encore presentation of ‘ Peace Through Music : A Global Event for Social Justice , ' presented by Corning® Gorilla® Glass in partnership with Gibson and produced by Playing For Change and Blackbird Presents .
The event will be released December 10th at 12pm PST/3pm EST/8pm GMT on the Playing For Change YouTube channel and be available until December 31st .
# UN75 # LeavingNoOneBehind # PeaceThroughMusic Featuring performances from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blacc , Angélique Kidjo , Becky G , Brandi Carlile with Mike McCready of Pearl Jam , Carlos Santana and Cindy Blackman Santana , Gabi Melim , Gary Clark Jr. , Jack Johnson , Keith Richards , Mavis Staples , Nathaniel Rateliff , Peter Gabriel , Rhiannon Giddens , Ringo Starr , Robbie Robertson , Run The Jewels with Josh Homme , Sheila E. , Skip Marley and Cedella Marley , The War and Treaty , Yo-Yo Ma and many more .
Special Appearances include Billie Eilish , Danny Glover , Jamal Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sue Bird , Norman Lear , Prince Ea and Sara Bareilles .
Contributions from partners and all donations will support the Playing For Change Foundation , the United Nations Population Fund , the United Nations Remember Slavery Programme , Sankofa , The Bob Marley Foundation , Silkroad , and The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation – organizations that strive to eradicate poverty , inequality , and systemic racial and gender discrimination around the world .
Learn more at https : //peacethroughmusic.live

Source: Playing For Change
In honor of the United Nations’ 75th Anniversary and #HumanRightsDay, Playing For Change and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) are proud to announce an encore presentation of ‘Peace Through Music: A Global Event for Social Justice,' presented by Corning® Gorilla® Glass in partnership with Gibson and produced by Playing For Change and Blackbird Presents. The event will be released December 10th at 12pm PST/3pm EST/8pm GMT on the Playing For Change YouTube channel and be available until December 31st. #UN75 #LeavingNoOneBehind #PeaceThroughMusic
Featuring performances from more than 200 musicians including: Aloe Blacc, Angélique Kidjo, Becky G, Brandi Carlile with Mike McCready of Pearl Jam, Carlos Santana and Cindy Blackman Santana, Gabi Melim, Gary Clark Jr., Jack Johnson, Keith Richards, Mavis Staples, Nathaniel Rateliff, Peter Gabriel, Rhiannon Giddens, Ringo Starr, Robbie Robertson, Run The Jewels with Josh Homme, Sheila E., Skip Marley and Cedella Marley, The War and Treaty, Yo-Yo Ma and many more. Special Appearances include Billie Eilish, Danny Glover, Jamal Murray, Killer Mike, Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird, Norman Lear, Prince Ea and Sara Bareilles.
Contributions from partners and all donations will support the Playing For Change Foundation, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Remember Slavery Programme, Sankofa, The Bob Marley Foundation, Silkroad, and The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Foundation – organizations that strive to eradicate poverty, inequality, and systemic racial and gender discrimination around the world. Learn more at https://peacethroughmusic.live


consciouslifenews--2020-12-09--22 Scientists Publish Paper Claiming The PCR Test Is “Useless” For Detecting COVID-19 Cases

• The Facts:22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why , according to them , it 's quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases .
As a result , we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives .
• Reflect On : Why are we being discouraged to ask certain questions and share certain information that calls into question the official mainstream narrative about this pandemic ?
What Happened : A recent publication titled “ Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) by real-time RT-PCR ” recently published in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 scientists/independent researchers .
The publication claims that the RT-qPCR tests used for detecting COVID-19 is quite robust and a useful tool , but the independent publication presents a number of scientific and methodological “ blemishes ” that has them confident “ that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.
” According to the researchers , In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper , we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies that render the SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance .
A decision to recognize the errors that appear in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimize human cost and suffering going forward .
They are not specific when they refer to “ human cost and suffering , but I believe they are referring to the implications of lockdown measures as a result of COVID cases .
50,000 doctors and scientists have signed a declaration strongly opposing lockdown measures for a number of reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be pushed to starvation as a result of global lockdowns , and lockdowns in the UK , for example , may have already killed more seniors than COVID itself .
Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper ?
Our conclusion is clear .
In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here , we concluded : There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility .
You can read the entire paper and the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site where the paper is found was put up by Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer , a specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology , University Hospital Würzburg , Germany , Dr. Pieter Borger ( MSc , Ph.D. ) , Molecular Genetics , W+W Research Associate , Lörrach , Germany and Rajesh Kumar Malhotra ( Artist Alias : Bobby Rajesh Malhotra ) , Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences ( 2019-2020 ) , University for Applied Arts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Austria .
To view the credentials and affiliations of the other 19 authors , you can refer to the bottom of the paper .
Other Doubts That ’ ve Been Expressed About PCR Testing The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario , Canada , Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives .
This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it .
In July , professor Carl Heneghan , director for the center of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the pandemic , wrote a piece titled “ How many Covid diagnoses are false positives ?
” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50 % .
Former scientific advisor at Pfizer , Dr. Mike Yeadon , also one of the authors of the paper discussed at the beginning of this article , argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90 % .
As far back as 2007 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster .
The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn ’ t .
The Bulgarian Pathology Association claims that PCR tests are “ scientific meaningless ” to detect COVID-19 .
They cite an article published in “ Off Guardian ” that goes into more detail and explanation as to why .
The idea that many COVID-19 cases around the world could be false positives is quite a common theme .
British Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false-positive rate is very high , so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the virus .
A Portuguese court recently determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt .
You can read more about that story here .
A number of everyday citizens have also come forward expressing their doubts , including some high-profile people like Elon Musk for example .
He recently revealed he had four tests completed in one day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurse , he received two positive results and two negative results , causing him to state his belief that “ something bogus ” is going on here .
He then asked his Twitter following “ In your opinion , at what Ct number for the cov2 N1 gene should a PCR test probably be regarded as positive ?
If I ’ m asking the wrong question , what is a better question ?
” In the Portuguese appeal hearing , Jaafar et al .
( 2020 ) was cited , stating that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used ( as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US ) , the probability that said person is infected is < 3 % , and the probability that said the result is a false positive is 97 % .
” The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown .
I just wanted to provide a brief background as to why there is so much controversy out there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other side of the coin , According to Dr. Matthew Oughton , an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal : ” The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low .
In other words , if the test comes back saying positive , then believe it , it ’ s a real positive.
” According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling , Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing .
False negatives – that is , a test that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur .
The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2 % and as high as 37 % .
The false-positive rate – that is , how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero .
Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test , not limitations of the test itself All of this being said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that infection cases are much higher and comparable to other respiratory viruses for example that already infect hundreds of millions a year , and that the survival rate for people under 70 is 99.95 percent .
But there is a lot of controversy surrounding this as well .
It ’ s easy to see why so many people are confused and polarized when it comes to this topic .
So many doctors , scientists , researchers , and even politicians are providing evidence and claiming that these tests are going to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are just as “ renowned ” with similar credentials are claiming that these tests are extremely accurate .
There are so many odd ‘ things ’ happening with this pandemic in terms of information that completely contradicts other information , not only with regards to the testing to detect the virus but with regards to the severity of the virus as well .
Never before have we seen people so polarized in their views , and this in itself is creating a big problem because it creates tension between us .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to try and understand someone who does not share the same perspective as we do , and they should do the same without getting worked up .
Our state of being when communicating is of utmost importance .
With so much confusion and lack of appropriate data to justify a lockdown , and with tens and thousands of doctors and scientists explaining how detrimental these measures are , I believe governments and health organizations should simply be presenting data and making recommendations based on science .
Those who want to stay inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their businesses , for example , should have the option of doing that , and those that don ’ t should have the option of doing that as well .
Respiratory viruses kill tens of millions and infect hundreds of millions every single year , it ’ s not out of the box to treat this virus as we do all others , but that ’ s just my opinion , what ’ s yours ?
Never before have so many people opposed and not trusted their government , yet we give these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce them .
Is this right ?
Especially when such a large majority , or minority , do not agree ?
Do governments actually execute the will of the people ?
Why do we continue to allow them to make such big decisions for us ?
Should it not be put to a vote ?
Should governments have the authority to shut things down whenever they please ?
Are they really executing the will of the people ?
Why do we simply rely on entities that may not have the best interests of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID , the fears we have around it , and how to come together as a community to ‘ draw a line ’ as to when we may be taking things too far .

By
In Brief
The Facts:22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it's quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result, we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives.
Reflect On:Why are we being discouraged to ask certain questions and share certain information that calls into question the official mainstream narrative about this pandemic?
What Happened: A recent publication titled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” recently published in the Journal Eurosurveillance has come under fire by 22 scientists/independent researchers. The publication claims that the RT-qPCR tests used for detecting COVID-19 is quite robust and a useful tool, but the independent publication presents a number of scientific and methodological “blemishes” that has them confident “that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”
According to the researchers,
In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper, we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies that render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.
They conclude by stating,
The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognize the errors that appear in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimize human cost and suffering going forward.
They are not specific when they refer to “human cost and suffering, but I believe they are referring to the implications of lockdown measures as a result of COVID cases. 50,000 doctors and scientists have signed a declaration strongly opposing lockdown measures for a number of reasons, more than 100 million people will be pushed to starvation as a result of global lockdowns, and lockdowns in the UK, for example, may have already killed more seniors than COVID itself.
Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we concluded: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.
You can read the entire paper and the evidence behind their reasoning, here. The site where the paper is found was put up by Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, a specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, Ph.D.), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany and Rajesh Kumar Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts – Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria.
To view the credentials and affiliations of the other 19 authors, you can refer to the bottom of the paper.
Other Doubts That’ve Been Expressed About PCR Testing
The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.
In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the center of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.
Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, also one of the authors of the paper discussed at the beginning of this article, argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90%.
As far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
The Bulgarian Pathology Association claims that PCR tests are “scientific meaningless” to detect COVID-19. They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that goes into more detail and explanation as to why.
The idea that many COVID-19 cases around the world could be false positives is quite a common theme. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stated that,
The false-positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the virus.
Is Raab implying a 93 percent false-positive rate?
A Portuguese court recently determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt. You can read more about that story here.
A number of everyday citizens have also come forward expressing their doubts, including some high-profile people like Elon Musk for example. He recently revealed he had four tests completed in one day. Using the same test and the same nurse, he received two positive results and two negative results, causing him to state his belief that “something bogus” is going on here. He then asked his Twitter following
“In your opinion, at what Ct number for the cov2 N1 gene should a PCR test probably be regarded as positive? If I’m asking the wrong question, what is a better question?”
In the Portuguese appeal hearing, Jaafar et al. (2020) was cited, stating that “if someone is testing by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is <3%, and the probability that said the result is a false positive is 97%.” The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
I just wanted to provide a brief background as to why there is so much controversy out there regarding COVID-19 testing and false positives.
On the other side of the coin,
According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:
”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”
According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.
False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false-positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself
All of this being said, there is also a scientific consensus that infection cases are much higher and comparable to other respiratory viruses for example that already infect hundreds of millions a year, and that the survival rate for people under 70 is 99.95 percent. But there is a lot of controversy surrounding this as well.
The Takeaway
It’s easy to see why so many people are confused and polarized when it comes to this topic. So many doctors, scientists, researchers, and even politicians are providing evidence and claiming that these tests are going to have a very high false-positive rate. Others, who are just as “renowned” with similar credentials are claiming that these tests are extremely accurate.
There are so many odd ‘things’ happening with this pandemic in terms of information that completely contradicts other information, not only with regards to the testing to detect the virus but with regards to the severity of the virus as well. Never before have we seen people so polarized in their views, and this in itself is creating a big problem because it creates tension between us.
At the end of the day, we need to try and understand someone who does not share the same perspective as we do, and they should do the same without getting worked up. Our state of being when communicating is of utmost importance.
With so much confusion and lack of appropriate data to justify a lockdown, and with tens and thousands of doctors and scientists explaining how detrimental these measures are, I believe governments and health organizations should simply be presenting data and making recommendations based on science. Those who want to stay inside, wear masks, and shut down their businesses, for example, should have the option of doing that, and those that don’t should have the option of doing that as well. Respiratory viruses kill tens of millions and infect hundreds of millions every single year, it’s not out of the box to treat this virus as we do all others, but that’s just my opinion, what’s yours?
Never before have so many people opposed and not trusted their government, yet we give these entities the power to make decisions and enforce them. Is this right? Especially when such a large majority, or minority, do not agree? Do governments actually execute the will of the people? Why do we continue to allow them to make such big decisions for us? Should it not be put to a vote? Should governments have the authority to shut things down whenever they please? Are they really executing the will of the people? Why do we simply rely on entities that may not have the best interests of humanity at heart?
The trouble we seem to be having is determining how to communicate about COVID, the fears we have around it, and how to come together as a community to ‘draw a line’ as to when we may be taking things too far.


consciouslifenews--2020-12-09--Do You Tip Junk Removers

Do You Tip Junk Removers

Tipping is a practice cut across most , if not all , of the service sector industries .
It ’ s not always mandatory to tip service providers , but it can be a great way to show appreciation .
It can also be an effective way to compensate for a well done junk removal service .
Knowing when to tip junk removers , and how to do it , can be challenging for many .
Again , figuring out what ’ s enough as a tip isn ’ t easy .
You may be stuck between a high or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t worry you , as we have the right guide to help you decide if you need to tip .
When it comes to services such as junk removal , tips are important and appreciated .
To Tip or Not to Tip Junk Removal Experts It ’ s not mandatory for you to tip junk removers – just the same way it ’ s not for any other service .
So , the answer here is yes and no – you be the judge .
Depending on the level of professionalism portrayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may opt to give a standard tip .
Tipping is a decision you make on your own at the end of the service .
Weigh the amount of work involved and use your discretion to decide whether they deserve a tip .
Remember that those coming to offer you the junk removal service undergo a fair level of risk .
Arguably , they go through more risk than other service providers like hoteliers and hairdressers .
How Much to Tip Junk Removal Experts So , now that you ’ ve made the decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should you give ?
The amount to give solely depends on you .
It ’ s not like you ’ re paying for the service , as that ’ s already catered for in the bill .
It ’ s more like a courteous way to show appreciation to the guys who did the dirty job .
There ’ s a thin line between what a fair tip is and what ’ s mediocre .
The basic rule of thumb in this case is to tip everyone separately .
The amount should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did the job .
You may also consider the difficulty involved for all the individuals .
Factors to Consider When Tipping You ’ ll need to consider a few factors in addition to the job difficulty and the time taken by the removers .
You can ask the following questions : • Do the haulers have to remove stuff to get to the junk items ?
• Are they going to dismantle any item before removing it from your house ?
• Which special tools will they need to dismantle items for disposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the junk items ?
• If the items are heavy , how many of them are getting disposed of ?
• What ’ s the extent of the damage done to the junk items ?
Are they soiled , infested , or dirty ?
• Time constraints – do you have any ?
• Difficulty accessing the items – on a scale of 1-10 , how difficult are they to access ?
• Weather conditions – is it raining , snowing or stormy ?
How challenging is the weather pattern for junk removers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough parking room for them to park the truck and load up junk ?
• Are your stairs steep or too many ?
What floor do you reside on ?
Once you ask yourself these questions , you ’ ll easily figure out the level of difficulty the job takes .
And using your analysis , you ’ ll easily determine how much everyone ’ s getting .
The price is relative , and differs from one person to the other .
Aside from looking at the work they did , other attributes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For instance , check their communication techniques and overall work ethic .
If you notice that they have good traits within them , then they probably deserve a tip from you .
Generally , if the junk removal service goes beyond your expectations , it ’ s only fair to have the decency to say thanks .
Sometimes you may even become more excited and tip a little extra than you had planned .
What to Give as a Tip A tip for a junk removal service doesn ’ t have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would definitely appreciate cash , but they would also appreciate other items .
A good example of an alternative to give is food and drinks ( non-alcoholic ) .
This should especially be the case if they ’ ve worked for a while with nothing to eat .
Giving them food and drinks motivates them to carry on with the job effectively .
Their energy and spirits will be high , as their stomachs are full .
Why You Should Reward a Good Junk Removal Service The primary reason why you need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is because of time .
The saying time is money applies in the junk removal service a lot .
For instance , if they ’ ve spent a significant amount of time at your place , it probably means that they won ’ t go elsewhere that day .
That ’ s another client missed and a chance to earn more money .
And also let ’ s be honest – junk removal isn ’ t easy .
Consider all the factors and put yourself in their shoes .
You ’ ll immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wrapping up , tipping junk removers is more about an individual ’ s decision and perception .
Still , it would be great if you decided to tip the haulers .
Ensure you have spare cash if you intend to tip them , so that sorting them out individually isn ’ t an issue .

Tipping is a practice cut across most, if not all, of the service sector industries. It’s not always mandatory to tip service providers, but it can be a great way to show appreciation. It can also be an effective way to compensate for a well done junk removal service.
Knowing when to tip junk removers, and how to do it, can be challenging for many. Again, figuring out what’s enough as a tip isn’t easy. You may be stuck between a high or meager figure.
Nonetheless, this shouldn’t worry you, as we have the right guide to help you decide if you need to tip. When it comes to services such as junk removal, tips are important and appreciated.
To Tip or Not to Tip Junk Removal Experts
It’s not mandatory for you to tip junk removers – just the same way it’s not for any other service. So, the answer here is yes and no – you be the judge. Depending on the level of professionalism portrayed during the junk removal service, you may opt to give a standard tip.
Tipping is a decision you make on your own at the end of the service. Weigh the amount of work involved and use your discretion to decide whether they deserve a tip. Remember that those coming to offer you the junk removal service undergo a fair level of risk. Arguably, they go through more risk than other service providers like hoteliers and hairdressers.
How Much to Tip Junk Removal Experts
So, now that you’ve made the decision to tip the removers, how much should you give? The amount to give solely depends on you. It’s not like you’re paying for the service, as that’s already catered for in the bill. It’s more like a courteous way to show appreciation to the guys who did the dirty job.
There’s a thin line between what a fair tip is and what’s mediocre. The basic rule of thumb in this case is to tip everyone separately. The amount should be based on the extent to which they did the job. You may also consider the difficulty involved for all the individuals.
Factors to Consider When Tipping
You’ll need to consider a few factors in addition to the job difficulty and the time taken by the removers. You can ask the following questions:
Do the haulers have to remove stuff to get to the junk items?
Are they going to dismantle any item before removing it from your house?
Which special tools will they need to dismantle items for disposal?
How heavy or big are the junk items?
If the items are heavy, how many of them are getting disposed of?
What’s the extent of the damage done to the junk items? Are they soiled, infested, or dirty?
Time constraints – do you have any?
Difficulty accessing the items – on a scale of 1-10, how difficult are they to access?
Weather conditions – is it raining, snowing or stormy? How challenging is the weather pattern for junk removers?
Parking – do you have enough parking room for them to park the truck and load up junk?
Are your stairs steep or too many? What floor do you reside on?
Once you ask yourself these questions, you’ll easily figure out the level of difficulty the job takes. And using your analysis, you’ll easily determine how much everyone’s getting. The price is relative, and differs from one person to the other.
Aside from looking at the work they did, other attributes may motivate you to offer a tip. For instance, check their communication techniques and overall work ethic. If you notice that they have good traits within them, then they probably deserve a tip from you.
Generally, if the junk removal service goes beyond your expectations, it’s only fair to have the decency to say thanks. Sometimes you may even become more excited and tip a little extra than you had planned.
What to Give as a Tip
A tip for a junk removal service doesn’t have to be monetary. Yes, the haulers would definitely appreciate cash, but they would also appreciate other items. A good example of an alternative to give is food and drinks (non-alcoholic). This should especially be the case if they’ve worked for a while with nothing to eat.
Giving them food and drinks motivates them to carry on with the job effectively. Their energy and spirits will be high, as their stomachs are full.
Why You Should Reward a Good Junk Removal Service
The primary reason why you need to reward a well done junk removal service is because of time. The saying time is money applies in the junk removal service a lot. For instance, if they’ve spent a significant amount of time at your place, it probably means that they won’t go elsewhere that day. That’s another client missed and a chance to earn more money.
And also let’s be honest – junk removal isn’t easy. Consider all the factors and put yourself in their shoes. You’ll immediately see the need to tip them.
Final Thoughts
Wrapping up, tipping junk removers is more about an individual’s decision and perception. Still, it would be great if you decided to tip the haulers. Ensure you have spare cash if you intend to tip them, so that sorting them out individually isn’t an issue.