Manuel Banet, ele próprio

sábado, 21 de novembro de 2020

Dr. Hodkinson critica a resposta oficial ao COVID

O Dr. Hodkinson é um perito de saúde canadiano de renome. O que está abaixo é a transcrição do seu testemunho oral, o mesmo que pode ser ouvido neste link:

https://www.brighteon.com/42ace589-01fc-4a2b-9654-20b0bf0bc315

Here’s the transcript of Hodkinson’s testimony:

This is Dr. Hodkinson, I just wanted to let you know I’m standing by.

OK, well we would love to hear from you, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate the opportunity to address you on this very important matter. What I’m going to say is lay language, and blunt. It is counter-narrative, and so you don’t immediately think I’m a quack, I’m going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I’m coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this.

I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test.

And [inaudible] you might say I know a little bit about all of this. The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.

There is no action of any kind needed other than what happened last year when we felt unwell. We stayed home, we took chicken noodle soup, we didn’t visit granny and we decided when we would return to work. We didn’t need anyone to tell us.

Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue-signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — seeing these people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.

Social distancing is also useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing. Enclosures have had such terrible unintended consequences. Everywhere should be opened tomorrow as well as was stated in the Great Barrington Declaration that I circulated prior to this meeting.

And a word on testing: I do want to emphasize that I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop. Unless you’re presenting to the hospital with some respiratory problem.

All that should be done is to protect the vulnerable and to give them all in the nursing homes that are under your control, give them all 3,000 to 5,000 international units of vitamin D every day which has been shown to radically reduce the likelihood of Infection.

And I would remind you all that using the province’s own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is one in 300,000. One in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this.

The scale of the response that you are undertaking with no evidence for it is utterly ridiculous given the consequences of acting in a way that you’re proposing. All kinds of suicides, business closures, funerals, weddings etc. It’s simply outrageous! It’s just another bad flu and you’ve got to get your minds around that.

Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health for this province. I am absolutely outraged that this has reached this level. It should all stop tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

COMO É ALIMENTADA A INDÚSTRIA DOS ARMAMENTOS?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176776/

ARTIGO de Cassandra Stimpson e Holly Zhang

Cassandra Stimpson e Holly Zhang, da "Iniciativa para a Transparência sobre Influência Estrangeira" (Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative (FITI) at the Center for International Policy) apresentam-nos um artigo muito bem documentado sobre o assunto do título.

Nós sabemos como o complexo militar-industrial nos EUA controla a totalidade das políticas externas deste país. Sabemos os rios de dinheiro que são aprovados nos orçamentos de «defesa» pelo Congresso, Senado e Presidência. Mas, muitos ignoram a importância estratégica dos think tanks - ou seja - grupos organizados de «pensadores», que se distinguem pelo exercício de influência directa sobre quem toma decisões cruciais, seja em relação a despesas militares, seja em relação à designação dos «inimigos» dos EUA e como lidar com eles.

No artigo acima referido, as autoras esclarecem quais as somas dadas pelo Japão, assim como pelos grandes fabricantes de armamento como Lockheed e outros, a alguns think tanks.

Afinal, a maneira de fazer «pensar» esses «pensadores», é simplesmente através de generosas somas. Assim, eles têm sempre soluções favoráveis aos seus doadores, propondo as soluções convenientes aos legisladores.

Neste pé andam os negócios da guerra e da paz. Muito mais da guerra, do que de outra coisa. A propaganda e o alarido em torno do «perigo da China comunista» ajudam a fazer passar orçamentos militares em tempo de paz, que ultrapassam (em termos absolutos e relativos) os orçamentos dos piores anos da chamada Guerra Fria Nº1.

Agora, o orçamento de defesa dos EUA é o triplo do da China, mas isto não satisfaz os donos das indústrias de armamento, querem um maior esforço.

Já na administração Trump, conseguiram que este «torcesse o braço» dos aliados/súbditos da NATO, para gastarem mais em equipamento militar (sobretudo fabricado nos EUA, claro!), de forma a atingir, em cada nação, o mínimo de 2% do PIB!

Tudo isto é extremamente grave também pelo facto das pessoas estarem distraídas com falsas «batalhas»: pelo ambiente, pela igualdade de géneros, de etnias...

Nas campanhas eleitorais pronunciam-se palavras bonitas sobre os referidos tópicos, mas os fundos mais substanciais são - de longe - reservados para fabricar armamentos, cada vez mais sofisticados e mortíferos e distribuí-los, num arco de círculo, em torno das fronteiras do «inimigo».

As verbas que deveriam estar disponíveis para melhorar os níveis de educação, saúde e bem-estar das populações, como também para descontaminar o ambiente e minorar o impacto das actividades humanas nos ecossistemas, vão para as indústrias de guerra.

Os «think tanks atlantistas», vivendo no universo mental duma guerra fria permanente, esmeram-se a encontrar sempre motivos para um reforço da compra (e investigação aplicada) de armamentos. Eles estão, obviamente, ao serviço de quem lhes paga... incluindo governos e interesses privados estrangeiros, assim como da indústria de armamentos nacional (dos EUA). Este «conflito de interesses», não só é mantido, como é cultivado e procurado em permanência. São, na realidade, agências de intermediação desses interesses junto dos órgãos legislativo e executivo, com poder de decidir sobre as verbas.

Resta acrescentar que, nesses «think tanks», se sentam políticos, no activo ou reformados, membros do «Estado Profundo», membros e ex-membros da CIA e doutras agências de «inteligência» e «cavaleiros de indústria», CEOs de grandes empresas. É frequente terem, para enfeitar o «ramalhete», um ou outro «académico», para dar um falso verniz às narrativas destes think tanks.

O círculo, como o demonstram Cassandra Stimpson e Holly Zhang, funciona na perfeição:

- O governo dum Estado, súbdito dos EUA, quer que sua política belicista e de rearmamento seja considerada virtuosa. Faz doações generosas a think-tanks, os quais também recebem doações da indústria bélica, entre outras.

- Estes think tanks produzem «relatórios» e «estudos», que apresentam a China como potência cada vez mais ameaçadora, com ambições imperialistas temíveis: Na realidade, trata-se de projecção de psicopatas, que povoam estes think-tanks.

- Os estudos referidos «sugerem» quais as respostas apropriadas dos EUA e seus aliados/súbditos.

- Os legisladores e outros políticos [aliás, subsidiados pelas mesmas indústrias, com doações para as suas campanhas eleitorais], vão receber e seguir os «bons» conselhos, visto que são «patriotas» e gostam de se manter no poder. Votam, portanto, os orçamentos sempre de acordo com os interesses do complexo militar-industrial.

- Nos países aliados/súbditos, os governos são - de igual modo - «persuadidos» a tomar atitudes firmes contra o inimigo.

- As indústrias de armamento, as agências do Estado profundo e os governos dos países interessados apoiam e recompensam (com dinheiro, promoção, favorecimento, etc...) os think tanks e seus membros afiliados.

Enquanto houver este circuito de corrupção ao mais alto nível do poder, nunca se poderá ter uma séria e coerente abordagem dos problemas que afligem a humanidade. Não haverá solução para estes problemas, enquanto houver a máquina, muito bem oleada, que tem mantido discretamente o fluxo de dinheiro dos orçamentos (do dinheiro dos impostos, colectados aos cidadãos) em direcção às indústrias de morte, às indústrias bélicas, assim como às agências de espionagem, vigilância global e subversão.

quinta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2020

VÍDEO INTELIGENTE SOBRE A EVOLUÇÃO DA CHINA (em francês)

(podes accionar as legendas automáticas em francês)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjReGwbQDhM

quarta-feira, 18 de novembro de 2020

O TOTALITARISMO - TERROR, VIOLÊNCIA, CENSURA UNIVERSAL NOS MEDIA

Entrevista com o Prof. Perrone (censurada)

F. William Engdahl descreve, no artigo abaixo, toda a corrupção e experimentação com humanos como se fossem «cobaias». Indispensável!

https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-not-said-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/5729461

O artigo seguinte do Dr. John Hunt MD desmonta as aplicações abusivas dos testes de detecção de COVID:

COVID Tests Gone Wild—An Epidemic of COVID Positive Tests

by John Hunt, MD

Editor’s Note: In the setting of COVID-19, almost every country in the world closed its borders, locked down its citizens, and forced businesses to close. Today, most governments still restrict travel, economic activity, and social gatherings.

The justification for these unprecedented measures has been a growing number of COVID-19 cases. This has unleashed an epidemic of COVID testing—with PCR and rapid antigen tests as the means of identifying positive COVID cases. Our very own Dr. John Hunt examines the science behind COVID testing, whether the testing paradigms are effective, and the rationality behind government response to the virus.

What COVID tests mean and don’t mean

RT-PCR tests can be designed to be highly sensitive to the presence of the original viral RNA in a clinical sample. But a highly sensitive test risks poor specificity for actual infectious disease.

Rapid antigen tests are different. They measure viral protein. They do so by reacting a clinical sample with one or two lab-created antibodies that are labeled with a measurable marker. These antigen tests are often poorly specific, meaning they can show as positive in the absence of any actual viral protein or any COVID disease.

**For a lab test, what does it mean to be sensitive? What does it mean to be specific?**

I’ll use COVID to help explain these terms. In order to do this correctly, we need to avoid using the language of the media and government because those institutions tend to mislead us via language manipulation. For example, they’ve wrongly taught us that a COVID-positive test is synonymous with COVID- disease. It isn’t, as you will soon see.

So for this article, I will use the term "Relevant Infectious COVID Disease" to mean a condition, caused by COVID-19, in which a patient is sickened by the virus or has (in their airways) living replicating virus capable of being transmitted to others. This seems a fair definition of what we should be caring about in this disease. If the patient isn’t sick and isn’t capable of transmitting the disease, then any COVID RNA or protein that may appear in a test is not relevant, nor infectious, and therefore of little to no consequence.

You can think of a test’s sensitivity like this: In a group of 100 people who absolutely have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many people does the test actually report as "positive?" For a test that is 95% sensitive, 95 of these 100 patients with the true disease will be reported by the test as COVID positive and 5 will be missed.

Specificity: In a group of 100 people who absolutely do not have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, how many will be reported by the test as "negative?" For a test that is 95% specific, 95 of these healthy people will be reported as COVID-negative and 5 will be incorrectly reported as COVID-positive.

Sensitivity and Specificity are inherent characteristics of a test, not of a patient, not of a disease, and not of a population. These terms are very different than Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV). PPV and NPV are affected not only by the test’s sensitivity and specificity but also by the characteristics of the people chosen to be tested and, particularly, the patients’ underlying likelihood of actually having true Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. The Positive Predictive Value—the chance a positive test actually indicates a true disease—is greatly improved if you test people who are likely to have COVID, and, importantly, avoid testing people unlikely to have COVID.

If you do a COVID test with 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity in 1,000 patients who are feverish, have snot pouring out of their noses, are coughing profusely, and are short of breath, then you are using that test as a diagnostic test in people who currently have a reasonable up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. Let’s say 500 of them do actually have Relevant Infectious COVID Disease, and the others have a common cold. This 95% sensitive test will correctly identify 475 of these people who are truly ill with COVID as being COVID-positive, and it will miss 25 of them. This same test is also 95% specific, which means it will falsely label 25 of the 500 non-COVID patients as COVID-positive. Although the test isn’t perfect it has a Positive Predictive Value of 95% in this group of people, and is a pretty good test overall.

But what if you run this very same COVID test on everyone in the population? Let’s guesstimate that the up-front chance of having Relevant Infectious COVID in the US at this moment is about 0.5% (suggesting that 5 out of 1000 people currently have the actual transmittable disease right now, which is a high estimate). How does this same 95% sensitive/95% specific test work in this screening setting? The good news is that this test will likely identify the 5 people out of every 1000 with Relevant Infectious COVID! Yay! The bad news is that, out of every 1000 people, it will also falsely label 50 people as COVID-positive who don’t have Relevant Infectious COVID. Out of 55 people with positive tests in each group of 1000 people, 5 actually have the disease. 50 of the tests are false positives. With a Positive Predictive Value of only 9%, one could say that's a pretty lousy test. It’s far lousier if you test only people with no symptoms (such as screening a school, jobsite, or college), in whom the up-front likelihood of having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease is substantially lower.

The very same test that is pretty good when testing people who are actually ill or at risk is lousy when screening people who aren’t.

A diagnostic test is used to diagnose a patient the doctor thinks has a reasonable chance of having the disease (having symptoms like fever, cough, a snotty nose, and shortness of breath during a viral season).In the first scenario (with symptoms), the test is being used correctly for diagnosis. In the second scenario (no symptoms), the test is being used wrongly for screening.

A screening test is used to check for the presence of a disease in a person without symptoms and no heightened risk of having the disease.

A screening test may be appropriate to use when it has very high specificity (99% or more), when the prevalence of the disease in the population is pretty high, and when there is something we can do about the disease if we identify it. However, if the prevalence of a disease is low (as is the case for Relevant Infectious COVID) and the test isn’t adequately specific (as is the case with PCR and rapid antigen tests for the COVID virus), then using such a test as a screening measure in healthy people is forcing the test to be lousy. The more it is used wrongly, the more misinformation ensues.

Our health authorities are recommending more testing of asymptomatic people. In other words, they are encouraging the wrong and lousy application of these tests. Our health officials are doing what a first-year medical student should know better than to do. It’s enough of a concerning error that it leaves two likely conclusions: 1) that our leading government health officials are truly incompetent and/or 2) that we, as a nation, are being intentionally gaslighted/manipulated. Or it could be both. (Another conclusion you should consider is that my analysis of these tests is incorrect. I’m open to a challenge.)

So what if you, as an individual, get a positive PCR test result (one that has 95% specificity) without having symptoms of COVID-19 or recent exposure to a true Relevant Infectious COVID Disease patient? What do you do? Well, with that positive test, your risk of having COVID has just increased from less than 5 in 1,000 (the general population risk) to about somewhere perhaps 5 in 55 (the risk of actual Relevant Infectious COVID Disease in asymptomatic people with a COVID-19-positive test). That’s an 18-fold increase in risk, amounting to a 9% risk of you having Relevant Infectious COVID Disease (or a 91% chance of you being totally healthy). That may be a relevant increase in risk in your mind, enough that you choose to avoid exposing your friends and family to your higher risk compared to the general population. But if the government spends resources to contact-trace you, then they are contact-tracing 91% of people uselessly. And they are deciding whether to lock us down based on the wrong notion that COVID-positive tests in healthy people are epidemiologically accurate when indeed they are mostly wrong.

For the 50 asymptomatic low-risk people falsely popping positive out of each group of 1,000, what makes them pop positive? For a rapid antigen test, it is because the test is never meant for use as a screening test in healthy asymptomatic people because it’s not specific enough. For a PCR test, positivity confidently means that there was COVID RNA in that sample, sure, but your nose or mouth very likely just filtered some dead bits of viral debris from the dust particles in the air as you walked through CVS to get the test before you learned you were supposed to use the drive-through. PCR can be way too sensitive.

A few strands of RNA are irrelevant. Even a few hundred fully intact viral particles are not likely to infect or cause disease. Humans aren’t that wimpy. But keep in mind that there is a very small chance that the test popped positive because you are about to get sick with COVID-19, and the test caught you, by pure luck, just before you are to become sick.

On top of this wrong use of diagnostic tests as screening tests, the government has been subsidizing hospitals for taking care of COVID-19-positive patients. Let’s say a hospital performs a COVID test 4 times during a hospital stay as a screening test in a patient who has no symptoms of COVID. If that test pops positive once and negative three times, the hospital will report that patient as having COVID-19, even though the one positive result is highly likely to have been a false positive. Why do hospitals do this testing so much? In part, because they’ll get $14,000 more from the government for each patient they declare has COVID-19.

When we see statistics of COVID-19 deaths, we should recognize that some substantial percentage of them should be called "Deaths with a COVID-19-positive test." When we see reports of case numbers rising, we should know that they are defining "case" as anyone with a COVID-19-positive test, which, as you might now realize, is really a garbage number.

Summary:

We have an epidemic of COVID-positive tests that is substantially larger than the epidemic of identified Relevant Infectious COVID Disease. In contrast, people with actual, mild cases of COVID-disease aren’t all getting tested. So the data, on which lockdowns are supposedly justified, are lousy.
The data on COVID hospitalizations and deaths in the US are exaggerated by a government subsidization scheme that incentivizes the improper use of tests in people without particular risk of the disease.
Avoid getting tested for COVID unless you are symptomatic yourself, have had exposure to someone who was both symptomatic and tested positive for COVID, or have some other personal reason that makes sense.
Know that getting tested before traveling abroad puts you at a modest risk of getting a false-positive test result, which will assuredly screw up your trip. It’s a new political risk of travel.
There is a lot more to this viral testing game, and there are a lot of weird incentives. There are gray areas and room for debate.
Yes, the COVID disease can kill people. But a positive test won’t kill anybody. Sadly, every COVID-positive test empowers those politicians and bureaucrats who have a natural bent to control people—the sociopaths and their ilk.

John Hunt, MD is a pediatric pulmonologist/allergist/immunologist, a former tenured Associate Professor and academic medical researcher, who has extensive experience and publications involving PCR, antigen testing, and analysis of respiratory fluid. He is internationally recognized as an expert in aerosol/respiratory droplet collection and analysis. He’s also Doug Casey’s coauthor for the High Ground novels Speculator, Drug Lord, and the just-released Assassin, and he is a founding member of the LLC that owns International Man.

Editor's Note: The ripple effects of the government lockdown are only starting to take shape.

RépondreTransférer

[THE BEATLES] MEDLEY (ABBEY ROAD)

[ver letras / lyrics no final deste artigo]

Esta rapsódia (medley) é um belo colar de pedras preciosas, onde cada pequeno fragmento tem vida própria. Estamos habituados a ouvir uma determinada sequência; porém, este vídeo reconstitui a sequência inicialmente planeada, mas que acabou por ser abandonada.

O LP «Abbey Road» é um poderoso veículo para nos projectarmos no passado, quando nos extasiávamos, a cada novo LP, com a audaciosa e fresca novidade dos Beatles.

1: You Never Give Me Your Money (0:00 - 3:51) 2: Sun King (3:52 - 6:17) 3: Mean Mr. Mustard (6:18 - 7:25) 4: Her Majesty (7:26 - 7:46) 5: Polythene Pam (7:47 - 9:05) 6: She Came In Through The Bathroom Window (9:06 - 10:55) 7: Golden Slumbers (10:58 - 12:30) 8: Carry That Weight (12:31 - 14:05) 9: The End (14:06 - 16:13)

Lyrics

You Never Give Me Your Money

You only give me your paper

And in the middle of negotiations you break down

I never give you my number

I only give my situation

And in the middle of investigation I break down

Out of college, money spent

See no future, pay no rent

All the money's gone, nowhere to go

Any jobber got the sack

Monday morning, turning back

Yellow lorry slow, nowhere to go

But, oh, that magic feeling

Nowhere to go

Oh, that magic feeling

Nowhere to go

One sweet dream

Pick up the bags and get in the limousine

Soon we'll be away from here

Step on the gas and wipe that tear away

One sweet dream came true today

Came true today

Yes it did (na, na)

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven