Coronavirus 2020



Fake self-critique?? Well, Blamegame should know. And he stands for the oppressed and exploited legal profession.

I don’t want to divert this thread. Let’s come back to it in a few years when, I fear, our courts will be dealing with COVID vaccine claims and awarding higher levels of compensation than any of the billions of vaccinated people worldwide could dream of. And the vaccine producers will be immunised (legally!)


PCR “Tests”.

Kary Mullis, again the noble laureate who who invented the PCR process.

“…it’s just a process…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick… it doesn’t tell you that thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you…”

Recently I tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In this video I explain how the PCR test was done, what the Ct value that I received means, and why I was not worried about the result.

Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectious potential assessment – a systematic review

T Jefferson, E A Spencer, J Brassey, C Heneghan

Clinical Infectious Diseases ciaa1764,


03 December 2020

Article history



to review the evidence from studies relating SARS-CoV-2 culture with the results of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and other variables which may influence the interpretation of the test, such as time from symptom onset


We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database for Covid-19 to 10 September 2020. We included studies attempting to culture or observe SARS-CoV-2 in specimens with RT-PCR positivity. Studies were dual extracted and the data summarised narratively by specimen type. Where necessary we contacted corresponding authors of included papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool.


We included 29 studies reporting attempts at culturing, or observing tissue infection by, SARS-CoV-2 in sputum, nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal, urine, stool, blood and environmental specimens. The quality of the studies was moderate with lack of standardised reporting. The data suggest a relationship between the time from onset of symptom to the timing of the specimen test, cycle threshold (Ct) and symptom severity. Twelve studies reported that Ct values were significantly lower and log copies higher in specimens producing live virus culture. Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in Ct. Six of eight studies reported detectable RNA for longer than 14 days but infectious potential declined after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads. Four studies reported viral culture from stool specimens.


Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential.



“I can condemn the politicisation of your health”

“Vaccines for Corona viruses have had a terrible safety record”

“21% of people are having serious adverse affects from this vaccine in that trial (Moderna)”

“What are we doing to our children exposing them to these cleaners (schools) that might shut down their reproduction… harm their immune systems”

Takes no prisoners.



Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing. For two weeks starting in mid-April last year, she coughed, seemingly nonstop, followed by another week when she coughed sporadically, annoying, she said, everyone who worked with her.

Before long, Dr. Kathryn Kirkland, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth, had a chilling thought: Could she be seeing the start of a whooping cough epidemic? By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing, and severe, intractable coughing is a whooping cough hallmark. And if it was whooping cough, the epidemic had to be contained immediately because the disease could be deadly to babies in the hospital and could lead to pneumonia in the frail and vulnerable adult patients there.

It was the start of a bizarre episode at the medical center: the story of the epidemic that wasn’t.

For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.

Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.

Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.

Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.

Infectious disease experts say such tests are coming into increasing use and may be the only way to get a quick answer in diagnosing diseases like whooping cough, Legionnaire’s, bird flu, tuberculosis and SARS, and deciding whether an epidemic is under way.

There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.

There was a similar whooping cough scare at Children’s Hospital in Boston last fall that involved 36 adults and 2 children. Definitive tests, though, did not find pertussis.

“It’s a problem; we know it’s a problem,” Dr. Perl said. “My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.”

Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.

“You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,” with the new molecular tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “All bets are off on exact performance.”

Of course, that leads to the question of why rely on them at all. “At face value, obviously they shouldn’t be doing it,” Dr. Perl said. But, she said, often when answers are needed and an organism like the pertussis bacterium is finicky and hard to grow in a laboratory, “you don’t have great options.”

Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.

Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.

“That’s kind of what’s happening,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. “That’s the reality out there. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.”

The Dartmouth whooping cough story shows what can ensue.

To say the episode was disruptive was an understatement, said Dr. Elizabeth Talbot, deputy state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.

“You cannot imagine,” Dr. Talbot said. “I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.”

Yet, epidemiologists say, one of the most troubling aspects of the pseudo-epidemic is that all the decisions seemed so sensible at the time.

Dr. Katrina Kretsinger, a medical epidemiologist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who worked on the case along with her colleague Dr. Manisha Patel, does not fault the Dartmouth doctors.

“The issue was not that they overreacted or did anything inappropriate at all,” Dr. Kretsinger said. Instead, it is that there is often is no way to decide early on whether an epidemic is under way.

Before the 1940s when a pertussis vaccine for children was introduced, whooping cough was a leading cause of death in young children. The vaccine led to an 80 percent drop in the disease’s incidence, but did not completely eliminate it. That is because the vaccine’s effectiveness wanes after about a decade, and although there is now a new vaccine for adolescents and adults, it is only starting to come into use. Whooping cough, Dr. Kretsinger said, is still a concern.

The disease got its name from its most salient feature: Patients may cough and cough and cough until they have to gasp for breath, making a sound like a whoop. The coughing can last so long that one of the common names for whooping cough was the 100-day cough, Dr. Talbot said.

But neither coughing long and hard nor even whooping is unique to pertussis infections, and many people with whooping cough have symptoms that like those of common cold: a runny nose or an ordinary cough.

“Almost everything about the clinical presentation of pertussis, especially early pertussis, is not very specific,” Dr. Kirkland said.

That was the first problem in deciding whether there was an epidemic at Dartmouth.

The second was with P.C.R., the quick test to diagnose the disease, Dr. Kretsinger said.

With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.

At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms.

“That’s how the whole thing got started,” Dr. Kirkland said. Then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing.

“Because we had cases we thought were pertussis and because we had vulnerable patients at the hospital, we lowered our threshold,” she said. Anyone who had a cough got a P.C.R. test, and so did anyone with a runny nose who worked with high-risk patients like infants.

“That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days.

“If we had stopped there, I think we all would have agreed that we had had an outbreak of pertussis and that we had controlled it,” Dr. Kirkland said.

But epidemiologists at the hospital and working for the States of New Hampshire and Vermont decided to take extra steps to confirm that what they were seeing really was pertussis.

The Dartmouth doctors sent samples from 27 patients they thought had pertussis to the state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control. There, scientists tried to grow the bacteria, a process that can take weeks. Finally, they had their answer: There was no pertussis in any of the samples.

“We thought, Well, that’s odd,” Dr. Kirkland said. “Maybe it’s the timing of the culturing, maybe it’s a transport problem. Why don’t we try serological testing? Certainly, after a pertussis infection, a person should develop antibodies to the bacteria.”

They could only get suitable blood samples from 39 patients — the others had gotten the vaccine which itself elicits pertussis antibodies. But when the Centers for Disease Control tested those 39 samples, its scientists reported that only one showed increases in antibody levels indicative of pertussis.

The disease center did additional tests too, including molecular tests to look for features of the pertussis bacteria. Its scientists also did additional P.C.R. tests on samples from 116 of the 134 people who were thought to have whooping cough. Only one P.C.R. was positive, but other tests did not show that that person was infected with pertussis bacteria. The disease center also interviewed patients in depth to see what their symptoms were and how they evolved.

“It was going on for months,” Dr. Kirkland said. But in the end, the conclusion was clear: There was no pertussis epidemic.

“We were all somewhat surprised,” Dr. Kirkland said, “and we were left in a very frustrating situation about what to do when the next outbreak comes.”

Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.

“The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.”

As for Dr. Herndon, though, she now knows she is off the hook.

“I thought I might have caused the epidemic,” she said.


In your face.

Video @


silver fox on Twitter: ":ireland::fox_face:… great people giving their time and money to try and wake the public up…" / Twitter

Airside Retail Park.
You may spot this trailer around town in the coming weeks


Use your head here. This is not the real issue. This is a strawman.

What is normally indemnified and is this situation identical or is it novel?

If it is novel, then this argument or topic (however anyone perceives it). Is a strawman.
If it is not novel and this is how it has always worked. Then it is not a strawman.

Is this how it has always worked?


Trump - Vaccine Summit for Operation Warp Speed (Live Feed)


Here is todays “media” spin on the same event to lock it down and frame it before it goes viral. They really do themselves no favours but since the media are pups of the regime, let the dogs howl says I!

One of the messages is “no forced vaccines”, which is not an anti-vaccine message. It is a “my body my choice” message or aka a “pro choice” message.

I wonder will this be classed as some kind of HATE SPEECH or a HATE CRIME NON CRIME or is it just ART, it might be art. I mean, they could be lines in a play, experts from a poem… here is a work of art from An Garda -


Some of the other messages where:



Image Src:

The truth has arrived In Blanchardstown Village today

Super-Duper-30 second FACTCHECK:

Based on the independents video and other images currently circulating the internet this is in fact not an anti-vaccine message, it is most likely to be a) a political demonstration b) a work of art c) a political based work of art in the form of activism using creative interplay between electricity and state of the art technology that illuminates that which is hidden so a deeper meaning can be construed through the fog of everyday reality subverting the known knowns and ushering in an exciting pinnacle moment that encapsulates the honest reflection of the perceivers hopes and dream surrendered to a gross provocative display that is yet so ordinary in statement it has the audacious power across the divides of gender, sexuality, coffee orders, intersectional traffic jams and most anthropological constructs to steal a simpler understanding of the vastly complex thought forms so overly commodified and fixated within the modes of instant hyper-consumerism routines by utterly denying the fluid dogma of official realities that seeks to hijack the common good for savage profit and tyrannical overload.


People are usually paid and volunteer to take part in clinical trials

UK regulators have issued a warning that people who have a history of “significant” allergic reactions should not currently receive the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine after two people who had the jab yesterday had allergic reactions.

Two NHS staff members who received the vaccine on the first day of the mass vaccination programme suffered an allergic reaction, the NHS in England has confirmed.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has given precautionary advice to NHS trusts that anyone who has a history of “significant” allergic reactions to medicines, food or vaccines should not receive the vaccine.

The NHS in England said all trusts involved with the vaccination programme have been informed.

This means that anyone scheduled to receive the vaccine today will be asked about their history of allergic reactions.

Archived link:


Prediction: Most of the people who will get “allergic” reactions are sensitive people - sensitive stomachs, sensitive minds, sensitive skin, sensitive immune system etc.


Semi-amazed this has been reported, as always read the article backwards.

The trial has enrolled over 44,000 participants to date, over 42,000 of whom have received a second vaccination."

Approx 5% or 2000 or less did not get the second vaccine. Why?

Pfizer said the vaccine was “well tolerated” during the trials with “no serious safety concerns”.

Well tolerated and no serous safety conners, in other words, no one died and some sustained injuries… always read the label (article) backwards.

Meanwhile, what’s the story with this?


Six people died in Pfizer’s late-stage trial of the COVID-19 vaccine, the US Food and Drug Administration has revealed just hours after Britain became the first country in the world to roll out the vaccine.

But the deaths are said to raise no new safety issues or questions about the vaccine’s effectiveness because all represented events that occurred in the general population at a similar rate, the FDA concluded.

Its 53-page briefing report, released on Wednesday morning (Australian time) is the first detailed analysis of the vaccine trial by Pfizer and BioNTech, which found in November that its vaccine was 95 per cent effective in preventing coronavirus infections.

The documents revealed that two people who received the experimental vaccine had died during the trial. Four others who died were on a placebo.

“All deaths represent events that occur in the general population of the age groups where they occurred, at a similar rate,” the report said.

It confirmed the vaccine was, as reported by Pfizer, 95 per cent effective at least seven days after the second injection.

Data shows the vaccine was just 52 percent effective after the first dose.

90-year-old Margaret Keenan is the first patient in the UK to receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The report concluded the vaccine’s efficacy data met the FDA’s expectations for emergency use authorisation.

There was, however, insufficient data for the FDA to conclude how safe the vaccine is in children under 16, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.


More proof that none of them believe a word of the stuff they so vehemently spout…

He has been a strong advocate for face masks, heavily criticising the last government for the “chronic disaster” in communications around wearing them.

He told the Dáil in June: “Nobody should get on public transport without a mask, full stop. People should wear masks in retail outlets to protect workers. They deserve respect and to be protected.”

In October he said the Government needed to be clearer in calling on the public to wear masks instead of visors.

“We have to communicate to the public and get across the difference between bloody visors and proper masks. There is a huge difference. I have stressed it for a week to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health. We really need to deal with this and we need to practice what we preach in here,” he told the Dáil.


In terms of propaganda war, the Establishment have been pushing the exceptions for 9 months - “young otherwise healthy person is experiencing Long Covid !” - in order to ramp up the hysteria.

The Establishment is now faced with the dilemma that the same tactic is being used on them - “Look at the rare exception of weird side effect!” - is being used against them

Information Wars are interesting



Byrne brought a batch of German-made coronavirus test kits, which he said provide results in 15 minutes and are 99.9-percent accurate.

Jeeze maybe he should be minister for health - all they can manage is 3% accuracy.

However, before any of you leg it out the door and let anyone stick something up your nose:

I thought psycho-surgery was a thing of the past! :icon_eek:


Polls suggest
the majority
roll up their sleeves

There’s a few other PR chestnuts in there.


Is it Proof of Captivity or Proof Of Consent?

Revelation 13:16-18 (KJV):

“16. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.”

Revelation 14:9-11 (NKJV):

“9. Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10. he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.’”


The purpose of polls is to manipulate and sway the opinions of the general public. The comments under that video and the like/dislike ratio tell a different story.