A retired neurosurgeon tells the truth about the Covid pandemic

originally posted by: Thrumbo
a reply to: ColeYounger

6.5 million people died from covid-19 globally, just under 1% of the 8 billion of us, the total population of the planet. A "real" pandemic would be more like 10% of the species or more.

Of those 6.5 million, the vast majority were elderly or had poor health. Nature did us a favor? That's such a weak culling of the herd that you can't even call it that.

Did you know that the global population has more than doubled since 1960? There was only 3 billion humans back then, a mere 60 years ago. If this trend continues, in 2080 there will be over 16+ billion human beings. More than that, the equation is exponential until there aren't enough resources to support life. If we have supply chain issues now, imagine what they'll be like in the future.

In the year 1700, there was approximately 610 million people on the planet. Our population has increased over 10x.

So I see another incapable of thinking for one’s self. Peddling the same lies that the eugenics tell. Population is not growing at the same rate it was 30 years ago.

The supply chain issues we are experiencing now were completely orchestrated to make us feel the pain. They are not rooted in any form of reality. It is all part of the plandemic. They been calling every death under the sun for 2 years a Covid death and the best they could do was 6.5million? They’re not as smart as they think they are.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: chr0naut

If the SARS-CoV-2 virus had happened in 1918, there would have been about the same number of fatalities that the 1918 flu caused.

You must be joking ? Do you really think the people in 1918 would have even noticed a chest cold ? Covid-19 statistically killed almost no one chr0 and you know it , Those death numbers are wildly inaccurate .

The 1918 Flu on the other hand killed millions out right burning them up with fevers, it didn't matter if they were old , fat or had bad hearts .

You are hanging on your Covid-19 Talking points like they are actually true mate , The Curtain is lifting on the Plandemic mate it was a joke I suggest you pull chute while you can

Last week in New Zealand, COVID-19 caused the death of 37 people, one of whom was 10 years old, and two of whom were in the 15-35 year age bracket, out of an average of 9,611 active cases.

When people die of stuff, it is easily detectable. Even back in 1918, it was the case.

wow 37 people lets lock down the world again .

2,200 people die every day of heart attacks.
2,380 people die every day from Cardiovascular disease .
1,670 people die every day from Cancer.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Maybe we should just blow up the entire planet, that will solve ALL the problems!!!! OMG what a brilliant idea! Nobody will die ever again omgggggg. Cuz we care™.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

I haven't followed the conversation but a quick comment.

SARS-CoV-2 has an infection fatality rate of about 0.15%

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

On the other hand the Spanish Flu had an infection fatality rate of at least 10%

www.cdc.gov...

Two very different diseases COVID-19 and Spanish Flu.

At that time and according to the CDC around 500 million people were infected and at least 50 million died. If this has happened with a population of 8 billion and let's say one third of the population was infected then you were looking at least for 265 million deaths.

Best way to compare them is the IFR
The Spanish Flu has an IFR which is at least 67 times more than the IFR of COVID-19 and could be 100 times more lethal.

IFR is based upon assumptions about the total number of infections, but CFR is based upon confirmed cases.

Although IFR is important, it does not compare in statistical accuracy to CFR, as IFR is based upon, and extremely variable by, a guess about unreported figures.

a reply to: chr0naut


The IFR is the most important number in trying to understand a disease and take decisions about public policies. It is estimated using surveillance and seroprevalence data and although it is an estimate there is a very good degree of accuracy in predicting how many people have been infected in total. That's why there are several peer reviewed scientific publications on the subject. The one by John Ioannidis is one of the most cited papers in the world, if not the most cited one, and hence it is a recognition of the work done by him and his colleagues. It stands as 0.15% approximately and it shows that COVID-19 is a mild disease for most people. In a few words we are expecting let's say 15 deaths in every 10,000 infections.

As in my previous post the Spanish Flu had an IFR of at least 10% and you can easily make the comparison.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


In conclusion and going almost to the third year after SARS-CoV-2 was discovered we can see that COVID-19 indeed has a very small infection fatality rate. By now most of the populations have been infected.

Adding on the above comment.
The CFR is not a good indicator eventhough it describes the ratio of deaths to the actual confirmed cases.

The IFR is the most important from all and much harder to estimate as it describes the ratio of deaths to the total number of infected individuals.
The use of statistics play an importany role in determining the IFR. Surveillance and seroprevalence data mainly.

Is the good Professor a conspiracy theorist?
Or he hasn't been accused yet of incompetence and lack of understanding of his own research field or lack of understanding of medicine, biology, and research.

What I find fascinating is how suddenly and inexplicably we have experienced an epidemic of incompetent professors and researchers who are usually attacked at a personal level by keyboard warriors who don't even have the basic high school education and pretty much are irrelevant with science and research altogether.

We are living in very interesting times.

Hopefully logic and common sense will prevail.

Overall, our meta - analysis fails to confirm the notion that lockdowns – at least in the spring of 2020 – had a large , significant effect on mortality rates.

Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID - 19 mortality by 3.2 % compared to the most lenient COVID - 19 policy .

Shelter - in- place orders (SIPO s ) were also ineffective . They only reduced COVID - 19 mortality by 2 . 0 % . Based on nine specific NPIs , we estimate that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States in the spring of 2020 reduced mortality by 10.7 %. The 3.2% to 10.7 % correspond 6,000 - 23 , 000 avoided deaths in Europe and 4,000 - 16 ,000 avoided deaths in the United States .

In comparison, there are approximately 72,000 flu deaths in Europe and 38,000 flu deaths in the United States each year. 77 Thus, lockdowns in Europe and the United States on average saved lives correspond ing to 9% - 35% of an average flu season .

Of the spec ific NPIs, w e find that mask mandates had the largest effect ( reducing COVID - 19 mortality by 1 8 . 7 %) , but the estimate is based on just three studies with heterogeneity in the definition of the mandate . Limiting gatherings were counterproductive and increased mortality by 5.9%.

Our measured meta - results are supported by the natural experiments we have been able to identify through our work and by searches i n the abstract and citation database Scopus (see Table 17 ) .

Overall, our meta - analysis support s the conclusion that lockdowns – at least in the spring of 2020 – had little to no effect on COVID - 19 mortality

li nk

And how much did it cost again, which causes .....all the economic turmoil we're in right now???? And how many lives did it end? through suicide? through missed treatments, through crazy illogical fear tactics? How many people lost their jobs? How much did this affect peoples immune systems? Kids???? Not being able to see your loved ones as they die??? No weddings???? How much did it affect their minds and decisions making abilities? How was freedom affected???? Made people think they have to take some crazy untested drug??? Ignored treatments in favour of their little agendas and plans??? Like we're just experimental rats for data? WE HAVE THE DATA NOW, they lied! What is the cost?

Cause i can tell you, its gonna be much more than the pathetic effect you were forced to act out for the supposed "good". They lock us down? Well we'll have to do some locking up.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: chr0naut

If the SARS-CoV-2 virus had happened in 1918, there would have been about the same number of fatalities that the 1918 flu caused.

You must be joking ? Do you really think the people in 1918 would have even noticed a chest cold ? Covid-19 statistically killed almost no one chr0 and you know it , Those death numbers are wildly inaccurate .

The 1918 Flu on the other hand killed millions out right burning them up with fevers, it didn't matter if they were old , fat or had bad hearts .

You are hanging on your Covid-19 Talking points like they are actually true mate , The Curtain is lifting on the Plandemic mate it was a joke I suggest you pull chute while you can

Last week in New Zealand, COVID-19 caused the death of 37 people, one of whom was 10 years old, and two of whom were in the 15-35 year age bracket, out of an average of 9,611 active cases.

When people die of stuff, it is easily detectable. Even back in 1918, it was the case.

wow 37 people

lets lock down the world again.

No-one suggested that. At this stage, the vaccines and natural immunity are the primary defenses against the disease, but it is still killing people. Pretending it isn't, is denial of clear and uncontested fact.

2,200 people die every day of heart attacks.
2,380 people die every day from Cardiovascular disease .
1,670 people die every day from Cancer.

New Zealand does not have those numbers. I was relating details of what is happening in New Zealand.

In New Zealand (2019 data):
6 people die every day of heart attacks.
3 people die every day from Cardiovascular disease.
15 people die every day from Cancer.

In comparison to those numbers, the number of COVID-19 deaths of approximately (currently) 5.3 people per day are quite high.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

The IFR is the most important number in trying to understand a disease and take decisions about public policies. It is estimated using surveillance and seroprevalence data and although it is an estimate there is a very good degree of accuracy in predicting how many people have been infected in total. That's why there are several peer reviewed scientific publications on the subject. The one by John Ioannidis is one of the most cited papers in the world, if not the most cited one, and hence it is a recognition of the work done by him and his colleagues. It stands as 0.15% approximately and it shows that COVID-19 is a mild disease for most people. In a few words we are expecting let's say 15 deaths in every 10,000 infections.

As in my previous post the Spanish Flu had an IFR of at least 10% and you can easily make the comparison.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In conclusion and going almost to the third year after SARS-CoV-2 was discovered we can see that COVID-19 indeed has a very small infection fatality rate. By now most of the populations have been infected.

It is interesting to note that the paper you referenced, while including IFR estimates from several sources which include error margins, has no suggested error margins in its 'accumulated' result data.

Generally in scientific papers, if you see numbers which don't include error margins, it is an indicator that the confidence one can draw from the numbers is actually quite low.

a reply to: chr0naut

I understand that you are trying to doubt the validity of the paper however this cannot happen as the paper has been cited by hundreds of academics and scientists in the world. It is probably the most cited paper that exists as it gives a very accurate picture of what the IFR is.

If you believe you have the evidence to suggest that the findings of the paper are not representing accurately the IFR then you should ask why it has been cited so many times and why it is the reference frame which has also been published in the World Health Organisation here

apps.who.int...

The idea that there is somehow low confidence in these estimates when the paper has been accepted by the WHO long time ago and has become a reference frame for the scientific community is at least ludicrous.

You may have low confidence but the scientific community is very confident about the findings of John Ioannidis and his colleagues. They have already published, peer reviewed, and accepted by all major medical journals and the WHO.

Furthermore COVID-19 is a mild disease for most people according to the overwhelming evidence and contrary the dogma and rhetoric we have seen the last two years.

Again for comparison

IFR of COVID-19 around 0.15%
IFR of Spanish Flu at least 10%

a reply to: chr0naut

I forgot to mention that John Ioannidis was and still is against the very damaging long term lockdowns and he is correct. He was very vocal too as be knew the nature of the disease, its infection fatality rate, and the various harms that result from long term lockdowns of healthy people.

originally posted by: chr0naut




The 1918 flu had the almost the same case fatality ratio (CFR) as COVID-19 did prior to the roll-out of the vaccines (on average, the 1918 flu had a CFR slightly greater than 2.5%).

If the SARS-CoV-2 virus had happened in 1918, there would have been about the same number of fatalities that the 1918 flu caused.

Can you do the maths please to show how the number of deaths would have been the same if SARS-CoV-2 was present in 1918.

The IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15%
The Spanish flu had an IFR of at least 10%

Apply these two numbers to the population of 1.5 billion people (total population in 1918) and assume everyone was infected after 2-3 years.

a reply to: chr0naut

Let me do the maths for you then.

The infection fatality rate of the Spanish Flu was at least 10%. Let's say 10% for the calculations. Around 1/3 of the total population was infected and around 50 million people died. The total population was 1.5 billion people in 1918 and the number infected around 500 million.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



Let's see now COVID-19. The infection fatality rate is 0.15%.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Let's say then we go back to 1918 and we apply the IFR not to the entire population i.e assuming that everyone is infected with SARS-CoV-2! Then the maximum number of deaths we can have is about 2,250,000. That is around 2 million and 250 thousand deaths. Nowhere near and I have assumed everyone has been infected. If we assume that 1/3 of the planet is infected just as in the case of the Spanish flu then we have 750 thousands deaths.

The inferred IFR of COVID-19 was estimated long before the vaccines have come into play in case any claim is made as to why is so low. There is a huge difference between the Spanish Flu and COVID-19 but it was portrayed this way for political and ideological reasons.

Hence your argument that these two diseases would have killed the same amount of people back in 1918 has no merits and is dismissed i.e easily refuted given the unsubstantiated claims and voodoo maths.

a reply to: chr0naut

You said:

"The 1918 flu spread to nearly 100% of the world population over a three year period. COVID-19 has not spread that far. There were lock-downs, and vaccinations, and isolation of those affected with COVID-19, which were not possible in 1918."


Not that's not true just as most of the claims made.
The flu of 1918 infected an estimated 500 million people out of the population of 1.5 billion.
That's why the infection fatality rate is about 10%. Hence about 1/3 of the population was infected and not the entire population of the planet as you have claimed.


www.cdc.gov...


"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States"


Information provided by the CDC. Note that at least 50 million died which implies that the infection fatality rate could be higher than 10%.


In contrast the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and by February 2021 an estimated 1.5-2 billion people were infected. By October of 2022 you understand that the number of infections may well exceed the 4-5 billion and hence it has infected a much larger percentage of the population in comparison to the Spanish Flu.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


"All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations"


I think you need to re-evaluate again your claims and arguments as you have clearly confused them. The logic, sequence, and math, don't add up. I understand you are trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu but anyone with basic high school knowledge can refute your claims.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

You said:

"The 1918 flu spread to nearly 100% of the world population over a three year period. COVID-19 has not spread that far. There were lock-downs, and vaccinations, and isolation of those affected with COVID-19, which were not possible in 1918."


Not that's not true just as most of the claims made.
The flu of 1918 infected an estimated 500 million people out of the population of 1.5 billion.
That's why the infection fatality rate is about 10%. Hence about 1/3 of the population was infected and not the entire population of the planet as you have claimed.


www.cdc.gov...


"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States"


Information provided by the CDC. Note that at least 50 million died which implies that the infection fatality rate could be higher than 10%.


In contrast the IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and by February 2021 an estimated 1.5-2 billion people were infected. By October of 2022 you understand that the number of infections may well exceed the 4-5 billion and hence it has infected a much larger percentage of the population in comparison to the Spanish Flu.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


"All systematic evaluations of seroprevalence data converge that SARS-CoV-2 infection is widely spread globally. Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations"


I think you need to re-evaluate again your claims and arguments as you have clearly confused them. The logic, sequence, and math, don't add up. I understand you are trying to present COVID-19 as the Spanish Flu but anyone with basic high school knowledge can refute your claims.

The problem is, when you destroy his fabricated arguments so thoroughly, he just disappears, later to return to another thread to try the same cheap tactics. Like a pesky STD that won't go away.

Something....VERY interesting indeed.

Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t

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.

Drum roll please......... and guess who it is????? thats right.....our special little friend. THE PCR TEST!!!!!

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.

“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.”

Oh ......little did he know it could become a problem alright.

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.”

well, well thats a familiar name.....

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.

At 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.”

Oh is it now......oh are you now.....

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.

This sounds.....very familiar ...doesnt it?????

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.”

oh 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.

“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.”

link

Oh it came alright......... oh this happened in 2006 by the way. So its not like they had no clue....infact they knew all of this....as you can see. Just another coincidence ey.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

its simple Chr0naut literally thinks hes the smartest person to walk the earth

he has basically claimed this in other threads

There is no amount of evidence you can present him or from ANY source that will change his mind

HES made up his mind that HE knows the facts and everyone else is wrong

thats why most people anymore keep their interaction limited with him its pointless

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Except when around people that actually know what they're talking about.