Coronavirus

I have to get a rapid test today. Been up most of the night, slight fever, aches and chills. I’ve had three shots so I’m not concerned but still going to get tested.

0 Replies

At a press conference, the Swiss president announced the end of most Corona measures - and laughingly took off his mask. Now he has tested positive.

Honni soit qui mal y pense.

0 Replies

COVID test negative. Probably just got some flu bug that's going around, which means the kids will probably get it.

0 Replies

A further analysis confirms that most of the recorded deaths associated with Corona in Germany are attributable to the virus itself. In 86 percent of the autopsied cases, Covid-19 was actually the underlying cause of death, according to a study published in the journal The Lancet. Only in 14 percent of the cases examined was corona merely the concomitant disease, the researchers report.

The Lancet: First report from the German COVID-19 autopsy registry

0 Replies

New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin

1 Reply

@hightor,

Since registration is necessary to view the research you've linked to, why don't you provide the relevant excerpt/s explaining what this new research has shown concerning the origin of Sars Covid-19?

This should be interesting since a FOIA request caused the CDC to retract an earlier statement and finally admit that they didn't have it and used a virus from 2003 for reference purposes--a virus that is NOT the novel covid-19.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

You seem to think that COVID doesn't exist, I hope you're right.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Since registration is necessary to view the research you've linked to, ..

I've got it as open reports, here and here.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

From your link:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hence, as with SARS-CoV-1 in 2002 and 2003, SARS-CoV-2 emergence likely resulted from multiple zoonotic events.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

As you interpret that, how does it address the fact that there was no Covid-19 at the beginning of all this, which is why the CDC did not have a copy of it, which is why they used the virus from 2003 as a reference for study? Out of all the patients who tested positive for Covid-19, the CDC couldn't come up with a copy when asked to produce it? Why did they report on their own site that they were in possession of the virus, only to later report that they don't have it? My guess is that after being hit with a FOIA request for a copy of the virus, they had to tell the truth. What do you think?

The other study you provided uses language indicating what they think is likely. What they haven't said is that they have a copy of the Covid-19 virus. If the virus was novel, tell me why the CDC can't produce what they've already named.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

These two new studies provide fairly strong evidence that Sars-CoV-2 must have jumped to humans in the Wuhan wildlife market - possibly twice.

Glennn wrote:

From your link:

I posted two links, each to a different study.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

I posted two links, each to a different study.

And neither of them answered the question of why the CDC said they had a copy of the virus which they had cultured and sent to labs to use as a reference point for study . . . until they were forced via a FOIA request to produce it. That's when they had to tell the truth and expose themselves as liars, explaining that they had to use a virus from 2003 which was NOT the "NOVEL" Covid-19.

And that brings us to the question of why you listen to them at all. They were even aware of the fact that the PCR-test was pointless. But that didn't prompt them to speak up; they willingly decided to not mention the fraud. Tony was aware of the fraud, too, but, like the FDA and CDC, he decided to keep quiet about that. Why are you okay with medical fraudsters?

So, if you were going to defend their blatant deception, how would you explain it?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

And neither of them answered the question

1.) My above post was a response to your "From your link:"
2.) Why don't you do such researches?

A survey "SARS-CoV-2 emergence very likely resulted from at least two zoonotic events" certainly doesn't include your question nor does one with the title"The Huanan market was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 emergence".

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

A survey "SARS-CoV-2 emergence very likely resulted from at least two zoonotic events" certainly doesn't include your question nor does one with the title"The Huanan market was the epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 emergence".

He obsessively attempts to direct discussions to selected phrases which he quotes out of context and gets bent out of shape because no one takes the bait.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I'm telling you that your link does not include information concerning isolation of the virus. I'm also telling you that the CDC knew full well that they had no copy of the virus, but claimed that they did. I also told you that they a FOIA request caused them to suddenly recall that they in fact don't have it. So, they were caught lying. You must have some great reason for ignoring the medical fraud. I'd like to hear that.

I've already provided you with quotes from the CDC--FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE--showing their unexplained about-face regarding possession of the virus. I did not take the quotes out of context. The dates are there to see. So now what?

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

He obsessively attempts to direct discussions to selected phrases which he quotes out of context

Hmm. You made that claim before. I recall showing you that the CDC , the FDA, and tony knew that the PCR-test was set too high. I provided you with tony's statement that was absolutely clear about that. You said I took his statement out of context. However, whenever you're asked to give the proper context, you disappear. Or am I taking your inability to provide proper context way out of context here? Below is my last post to you--the one that caused your last disappearance.

Are you ready to present your interpretation of tony's claim that a cycle threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results? You've seen the quote. Maybe fact-checkers has something to change the meaning of what he said, but I doubt they want to touch that one. There is no doubt that he said a cycle threshold of anything 0ver 35 will give meaningless results, but since that casts doubt on the narrative, you're willing to ignore the fact, as well as overlook the fact that no one can come up with the virus.

Context please!

0 Replies

Scientists have detected a new, highly mutated version of the coronavirus in white-tailed deer in the southwest of the Canadian province of Ontario. This strain of the virus may have evolved in the animals since the end of 2020.

It is well known that animals such as the white-tailed deer can become infected with Sars-CoV-2. However, it is now somewhat worrying that the experts say they found a very similar virus sequence in a person in the region who had close contact with deer. This is the first evidence of a possible transmission of the virus from deer to humans, a new study says. The work has not yet gone through the peer review process, i.e. it has not yet been reviewed by independent experts.

Highly divergent white-tailed deer SARS-CoV-2 with potential deer-to-human transmission

Quote:

Summary
Wildlife reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 can lead to viral adaptation and spillback from wildlife to humans (Oude Munnink et al., 2021). In North America, there is evidence of spillover of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), but no evidence of transmission from deer to humans (Hale et al., 2021; Kotwa et al., 2022; Kuchipudi et al., 2021). Through a multidisciplinary research collaboration for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in Canadian wildlife, we identified a new and highly divergent lineage of SARS-CoV-2. This lineage has 76 consensus mutations including 37 previously associated with non-human animal hosts, 23 of which were not previously reported in deer. There were also mutational signatures of host adaptation under neutral selection. Phylogenetic analysis revealed an epidemiologically linked human case from the same geographic region and sampling period. Together, our findings represent the first evidence of a highly divergent lineage of SARS-CoV-2 in white-tailed deer and of deer-to-human transmission.

0 Replies

National narcissism identified as a robust predictor of belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories

Quote:

New research published Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin provides evidence that national narcissism is strongly tied to the spread of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. National narcissism, a type of collective narcissism, refers to the belief that one’s nation is exceptional and entitled to special treatment.

“We were interested in the role that conspiracy theories might play during the pandemic. The United Nations and the World Health Organization began using the term ‘infodemic’ during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 to communicate the risk that misinformation might play in addressing the pandemic,” said study author Jay J. Van Bavel, an associate professor at New York University and author of “The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and Promote Social Harmony.”

“I also wrote about the key role of misinformation and conspiracy theories, as well as collective narcissism, in my initial paper on COVID a few weeks later. This paper was a way to study those issues with a global sample and help understand what might predict the belief and dissemination of conspiracy theories during the pandemic.”

The researchers found consistent evidence that greater national narcissism was associated with stronger belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Those who scored higher on a measure of national narcissism were also more willing to disseminate conspiracy theories related to COVID-19. The findings were based on a survey of 293 U.S. adults, a survey of 637 U.K. adults, and a survey of 50,757 participants from 56 countries.

In all three surveys, the participants were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “I will never be satisfied until [my country] gets the recognition it deserves” and [My country] deserves special treatment.” They also indicated the extent to which they endorsed conspiracy theories about COVID-19, such as the belief that the Chinese government deliberately engineered and spread the virus as a bioweapon.

“People should understand that social identity plays a central role in how people construct beliefs,” Van Bavel told PsyPost. “This can, of course, be a good thing if you are part of a group that values accuracy and the well being of group members. Alternatively, it can be a bad thing if your identity involves inflated views of your group and an obsession with dominance or image management.”

“In this case, we found strong evidence across 56 different countries that this more narcissist form of collective identity is a very strong predictor of a bad outcome–the belief in conspiracy theories about the pandemic. And I want to underscore that this is a pretty big effect size, much larger than other factors we’ve explored in the domain of conspiracy theories and misinformation.”

The findings held even after the researchers controlled for national identification, belief in conspiracy theories unrelated to COVID-19, and political ideology. But the study, like all research, includes some limitations.

“The single biggest caveat is that we have no clear evidence of causation,” Van Bavel explained. “We tried to rule out a number of alternative explanations by statistically adjusting for relevant variables, but future research needs to find a way to experimentally manipulate collective/national narcissism. I think that is the most obvious future direction.”

psypost

1 Reply

@hightor,

Why are you refusing to put tony's statement into the proper context? When you accuse someone of taking someone's words out of context, and you can't put them in the proper context, it means you just WISH tony's statement was taken out of context so as to avoid having to deal with the fact that he allowed a test to be used at a cycle-threshold that he himself said would produce meaningless results.

By the way, you still have yet answer the question of whether the CDC was lying when they said they had the virus or when they later admitted that they didn't. I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for continuing to trust them after lying to you.

The actual interesting thing about your article is that whoever wrote it shared your ignorance of the implications of tony's lie of omission concerning the meaninglessness of the PCR-test. They also must share your willingness to pretend that the CDC didn't lie about having the virus when they did not

1 Reply

@Glennn,

As usual, you just keep trying to change the subject. Why don't you answer your own questions instead of asking other people to explain stuff to you?

1 Reply

@hightor,

I showed you that the CDC and tony lied, and yet you go on as if you still aren't aware of it. Why is that? When you can't come up with the proper context of a statement after accusing me of taking it out of context, it makes it look like you're stalling for lack of a valid answer to that.

Quote:

Why don't you answer your own questions

The reason I don't know the answer to the question of why you can't explain how it is that you still listen to proven liars is because you are the only one who knows the answer to that. You're not logical.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know