Category Archives: Of Interest

Talking Crow

Posted on by

Surprising New Study Shows Crows Experience Complex Subjective Experiences and Consciousness

Crows experience conscious perception and subjective awareness in ways that are neurologically similar to humans and non-human primates.

Jake Anderson

(TMU) – Consciousness is one of the greatest mysteries in the universe and humans are still in the dark on a wide range of related scientific questions, but a new paper is presenting a fascinating plot twist in the story of conscious perception on Earth. Based on the first experimental study of its kind, the authors suggest that crows experience conscious perception and subjective awareness in ways that are neurologically similar to humans and non-human primates.

The results of the new study provide the first experimental neurological data suggesting that crows – and, presumably, other birds and non-primate animals – are capable of vastly more complex cognitive processes than previously believed.

The lead author of the study, Andreas Nieder, says:

“The results of our study opens up a new way of looking at the evolution of awareness and its neurobiological constraints.”

Nieder and his neuroscience research team at the University of Tübingen conducted the study by measuring the brain signals of corvid songbirds as they received visual sensory input and simultaneously documenting their behavior. The results, which stunned the scientists, demonstrated the birds experience a form of conscious perception that was previously considered the domain of humans and other primates.

“Nerve cells that represent visual input without subjective components are expected to respond in the same way to a visual stimulus of constant intensity,” Nieder explains. “Our results, however, conclusively show that nerve cells at higher processing levels of the crow’s brain are influenced by subjective experience, or more precisely, produce subjective experiences.”

The reason the results were so surprising is that birds have very different brain structures than humans and non-human primates, who have a cerebral cortex. Until now, many scientists have considered the cerebral cortex the main mechanism for the production of strong subjective experiences. While crows and other corvid birds have demonstrated cleverness and the ability to solve puzzles, they were not thought to subjectively analyze the external world.

Brain scans from the new experiment suggest otherwise and, according to Nieder, this could have ramifications for how we study the origins of consciousness on Earth and its evolution across a wide variety of species.

“The last common ancestors of humans and crows lived 320 million years ago,” the neurobiologist states. “It is possible that the consciousness of perception arose back then and has been passed down ever since…the capability of conscious experience can be realized in differently structured brains and independently of the cerebral cortex.”

The finding could alter how we view the evolution of consciousness. Some scientists believe that there may have been multiple different forms of sentient awareness that developed independently across the world in different species.

In addition to bolstering the study of consciousness in non-human species, the work could help change the way we view animals in general, as we learn that they have their own universe of perception, replete with their own subjective feelings and reactions.

At the very least, the phrase “bird brain” may be on the chopping block.

Surprising New Study Shows Crows Experience Complex Subjective Experiences and Consciousness

Riding On the Tail of A CME

Posted on by

Solar storms more severe when two events ‘slipstream’ behind each other

Posted by on (1 day ago)

Solar storms more severe when two events 'slipstream' behind each other

A research team led by Imperial College London has presented in a new study that Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) or solar storms could be more extreme than previously believed when they “slipstream” each other or when two such events follow each other. Modeling of an extreme space weather event that missed the Earth narrowly in 2012 shows that it could have been worse if another one occurred.

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are explosions of vast amounts of magnetized material from the Sun, which travel at high speeds and release a large amount of energy in a short period. When the CMEs reach the Earth, they trigger auroras, but they can also disrupt satellites and communications.

The most extreme of space weather events are likely to be catastrophic, causing power blackouts that would damage transformers, and it could take years to repair. Therefore, precise monitoring and forecasting are important to reduce possible damage.

The research team analyzed a large CME that happened on July 23, 2012, which narrowly missed the Earth by a couple of days. It traveled at around 2 250 km/s (1 400 mps), making it comparable to one of the biggest events on record– the 1859 Carrington event.

“The 23 July 2012 event is the most extreme space weather event of the space age, and if this event struck the Earth, the consequences could cause technological blackouts and severely disrupt society, as we are ever more reliant on modern technologies for our day-to-day lives,” said lead author Dr. Ravindra Desai from the Department of Physics at Imperial.

“We find however that this event could actually have been even more extreme– faster and more intense– if it had been launched several days earlier directly behind another event.”

The team studied one of the possible causes to identify what made the storm so extreme, and determined that it was the release of another CME — on July 19, just a few days before — that ‘cleared’ the path for another.

CMEs travel faster than the ambient solar wind, the stream of charged particles constantly flowing from the sun. This means the solar wind exerts drag on the traveling CME, slowing it down.

However, if a previous CME has recently passed through, the solar wind will be affected in such a way that it will not slow down the subsequent CME as much. This is similar to how race car drivers ‘slipstream’ behind one another to gain a speed advantage.

solar-storms-oct-1-2020

The July 23 event. Image credit: NASA/STEREO

The team developed a model that accurately represented the traits of the July 23 event, then simulated what would happen if it had happened earlier or later, or closer to the July 19 event.

The researchers found that by the time of the July 23 event, the solar wind had recovered from the July 19 event, thus, the previous event had a small impact. However, the model showed that if the latter event happened earlier– nearer the July 19 event– it could have been more extreme and could have possibly reached up to 2 750 km/s (1 700 mps).

“We show that the phenomenon of ‘solar wind preconditioning’, where an initial CME causes a subsequent CME to travel faster, is important for magnifying extreme space weather events,” said co-author Han Zhang.

“Our model results, showing the magnitude of the effect and how long the effect lasts, can contribute to current space weather forecasting efforts.”

“There have been previous instances of successive solar storms bombarding the Earth, such as the Halloween Storms of 2003,” co-author Emma Davies added.

“During this period, the sun produced many solar flares, with accompanying CMEs of speeds around 2 000 km/s. These events damaged satellites and communication systems, caused aircraft to be re-routed, and a power outage in Sweden.”

“There is always the possibility of similar or worse scenarios occurring this next solar cycle, therefore accurate models for prediction are vital to helping mitigate their effects.”

Reference

“Three-Dimensional Simulations of Solar Wind Preconditioning and the 23 July 2012 Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection” – Desai, R. T. et al. – Solar Physics – DOI: 10.1007/s11207-020-01700-5 – OPEN ACCESS

Abstract

Predicting the large-scale eruptions from the solar corona and their propagation through interplanetary space remains an outstanding challenge in solar- and helio-physics research. In this article, we describe three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the inner heliosphere leading up to and including the extreme interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) of 23 July 2012, developed using the code PLUTO. The simulations are driven using the output of coronal models for Carrington rotations 2125 and 2126 and, given the uncertainties in the initial conditions, are able to reproduce an event of comparable magnitude to the 23 July ICME, with similar velocity and density profiles at 1 au. The launch time of this event is then varied with regards to an initial 19 July ICME and the effects of solar wind preconditioning are found to be significant for an event of this magnitude and to decrease over a time-window consistent with the ballistic refilling of the depleted heliospheric sector. These results indicate that the 23 July ICME was mostly unaffected by events prior, but would have traveled even faster had it erupted closer in time to the 19 July event where it would have experienced even lower drag forces. We discuss this systematic study of solar wind preconditioning in the context of space weather forecasting.

Featured image credit: NASA/STEREO

from:    https://watchers.news/2020/10/04/cme-slipstream-research/

Inaccurate Tests, Experimental Treatments, & Conspiracy…

Posted on by

Trump in danger—the test, the experimental drugs

Trump tests positive on the most unreliable diagnostic test ever devised; taking experimental drugs

PHONY TEST, DANGEROUS DRUGS

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2020Trump

UPDATE 1: Trump flown to Walter Reed Hospital. Watch out for toxic antiviral drugs; e.g, remdesivir. And ventilators (lethal). This is a field day for Biden, and also for promoters of the pandemic and all the regulations. For example—“everyone must get tested.” Trump is made into the poster boy for COVID-19 propaganda. “The PRESIDENT has it.” No matter what happens to Trump, this is another step in the ongoing coup.

UPDATE 2: CNN reports— “Trump had a fever Friday, a source said. He has received the unapproved experimental Regeneron treatment as well as the drug remdesivir, according to the President’s physician.” NOT GOOD NEWS.

Regeneron is an experimental antibody cocktail. Typically, when the news reports use of these drugs, no mention is made of negative effects or toxicity.

The Daily Mail reports: “[In an ongoing clinical trial of Regeneron] Two patients who got the antibody cocktail drug had side effects. One of them was ‘serious,’ though it’s not clear what exactly happened to that person.”

In tests of antibody drugs, serious problems have occurred. These are characterized as “increased infection.”

Drugs.com discusses remdesivir: “[the drug] has not been approved to treat coronavirus or COVID-19. It is not yet known if remdesivir is an effective treatment for any condition. The FDA has authorized emergency use of remdesivir only in people with COVID-19 who are in a hospital. You must remain under the care of a doctor while receiving remdesivir.”

Adverse effects, according to Drugs.com: “Get emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficult breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat…”

More adverse effects: “…chills, nausea, vomiting…increased sweating…a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out…abnormal liver function tests…anemia or decreased hemoglobin concentrations…acute kidney injury…”

And then we have this: “[remdesivir] is being investigated for and is currently available under an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

Trump doesn’t have “severe COVID-19.” So why is he being given remdesivir at all—especially given all the adverse effects of the drug?

Plus: NO ONE HAS EVER STUDIED THE EFFECTS OF COMBINING REGENERON AND REMDESIVIR—THE TWO DRUGS TRUMP IS TAKING. The doctors are playing god with the president’s life.

And now we come to the diagnostic test—Big question: how many cycles was Trump’s COVID test set for? I’ll explain.

Each cycle of the PCR test is a quantum leap in magnification of the test sample Trump provided. As every PCR tech knows, different labs use a different number of cycles when they perform the test. There is no uniform standard.

That is a giant scandal, because when you do the test using more than, say, 30 cycles, all sorts of irrelevant and inconsequential material shows up that can be counted as “positive for the coronavirus”—when that is NOT the case.

This is exactly what is happening all over the world every day. Too many cycles; absurd and wrong diagnosis.

Could Trump’s COVID test have been rigged in this fashion? It’s as easy as pie. Just increase the number of cycles. Doesn’t matter how many times the test was repeated for “confirmation.” It’ll read positive if there are too many cycles. Of course, no one will admit that Trump’s test was set for 40 cycles, if it was.

And guess what? The “cycle problem” is just one of many fatal flaws in the PCR test. I’ve covered this subject many times. Here it is again:

COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?

The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:

“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”

This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.

In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.

Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The PCR is an unproven fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies—never done.

In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.

Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:

“A review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.”

If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.

Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research” [6]:

“Awareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.”

Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” [7]

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“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.”

“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 [PCR] that led them astray.”

“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 of the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] 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 [PCR] 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’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] 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.”

“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’.”

There is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I’ll make this final point for now: I’ve presented, over the last several months, compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there?

And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

[4] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm

[5] https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

[6] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.12801

[7] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

And So It Blows…

Posted on by
HUAWEI 5G RESEARCH LAB FIRE
HUAWEI 5G RESEARCH LAB FIRE

September 30, 2020 By Joseph P. Farrell

So far, the twenty-worst century has proven to be pretty bad, having started off on a real downer with the election of Bush the Stupid and Vice-President Martin Borma… er… Dick Cheney, then all that business in Florida about whose chads were really hanging – Bush’s or [aptly named] Gore’s – then the execution of Timothy McVeigh, whom some witnesses at the scene said was still breathing as his corpse(?) was laid on the gurney to haul him out of the execution chamber, then of course the grand false flag of all false flags, 9/11, with all the conveniently highly suspicious financial activity associated therewith, not to mention the “New Physics” of skyscrapers falling due to burning jet fuel, pancaking floors, and managing to do it all at freefall speed, then the financial “bailouts” of 2008 as the house of derivatives cards came crashing down, and the banksters before Congress were acting like kids caught in the cookie jar, or like they were panicked because someone offstage had some sort of tall-building-collapsing-technology-guns to their heads, and ending up with the perpetual four-year tantrum we’ve been subjected to in the last four years, and finally the Fauci-Baal Gates-Lieber-Wuhan virus planscamdemic, increased bluster from Mr. Xi and what appears to be some sort of covert hot war going on with China.

It’s with that idea of a possible covert hot war with China that I’m concerned with today. My suspicions that we might be looking at such a covert hot war began with the explosion of the chemical plant in Tianjin China in 2015. There was nothing unusual about the explosion itself; chemical plants can and do explode. What was unusual about it to my mind was not only the size of it and the massive amount of destruction it caused, but the crater it left; it was a big crater, to be sure, but it was not a shallow one. Rather, in terms of a diameter-to-depth ratio, it seemed extraordinarily deep based on the pictures that emerged, though to my mind, I don’t recall ever seeing any actual data on its depth. The pictures, however, appeared to be telling; a chemical explosion above ground would tend, even in a building, to go “up and out” following the path of least resistance, rather than “down and deep”. At the time, I speculated that perhaps China had been deliberately hit with a “rod of God” kinetic weapon based in space. Nor was I the only one thinking it. Others saw the same pictures, and reached a similar conclusion for similar reasons. The question was who, and why? Then, almost on cue, North Korea, China’s uppity client state, had an earthquake which supposedly ruined some of its nuclear facilities, and more recently an American general was caught offguard(?) by a reporter who asked him if “all the options on the table” with North Korea included “kinetic weapons,” to which the answer was “yes.”

Then we started having hospitals and ammo dumps explode in Russia, and, right on cue as if someone was shooting back, more chemical plant explosions, this time in Texas, France, and Spain. Then, after that, a weather system that parked itself for weeks in the Indian Ocean, resulting in massive floods in China, the ruination of its harvest, and concerns about the Three Gorges Dam. Then Mr. Xi’s army picked a fight with the Indian army, which I think went much worse for the Chinese than they’re willing to admit, followed by Russia not sending its S400 surface-to-air missile system to China, while sending it to India and parking more batteries of tactical missiles in Siberia. Chinese papers then reasserted their claims to Vladivostok (good luck with that one!), India extended a billion or so dollars of credit to Russia (some of which I actually suspect came from America, believe it or not), and invited American soldiers to the hot zone along the Chinese border, signed a military logistical assistance pact with Japan, and recently articles have appeared connecting Chinese financing of Antifa and BLM (and don’t forget those seized arms shipments and counterfeit dollar bills coming from China)… well, you get the idea. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this. Either this is a remarkable string of coincidences – and I’d like to see the actuarial tables on it – or it’s not. My wager is that it’s not.

With all that in mind, I received from many readers this story:

Massive fire breaks out in Huawei 5G research facility in China (VIDEOS)

Now it’s the timing, and place, of these fires that intrigue me and make me strongly suspicious that this is the latest episode in this possible “covert hot war.” Mr. Trump, for example, has prohibited Huawei from any more engagement in the USA, and other countries are following suit and even sending messages of their own. The Canadian government has shown a rare episode of sanity under the wacky Mr. Trudeau and suspended further free trade negotiations with the country. And now a fire at a Huawei research facility which, according to some sources, was researching 5G antennae. Given the recent claims of a Chinese virologist that the Wuhan virus was an engineered biowarfare technology, and given my own speculations that we’re looking at a “magic  virus” with a possible electromagnetic and/or nanotechnology component, part of which might be microwave interferometry, I can’t help but think “Hhhmmm…”

The timing also is suspect. It’s convenient for whomever might be behind this possible “hot covert war”, and highly inconvenient to Mr. Xi. Even if it should prove to be entirely an accident – and I don’t believe it is – it’s another example of a failure on the part of his government, which is finding itself increasingly isolated diplomatically (consider only the failure of the Chinese foreign minister’s recent visit to Europe).

So, yes… the Huawei fires rank right up there, in my opinion, with the flooding, and the Tiangjin explosion.

See you on the flip side…

from:    https://gizadeathstar.com/2020/09/huawei-5g-research-lab-fire/

You’ll Never Hear THIS on the MSM

Posted on by

Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Says “Second Wave” Faked on False-Positive COVID Tests, “Pandemic Is Over”

By Ralph Lopez
Global Research, September 24, 2020
HubPages 23 September 2020

In a stunning development, a former Chief Science Officer for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer says “there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.” The “Big Pharma” insider asserts that false positive results from inherently unreliable COVID tests are being used to manufacture a “second wave” based on “new cases.”

Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer for 16 years, says that half or even “almost all” of tests for COVID are false positives. Dr. Yeadon also argues that the threshold for herd immunity may be much lower than previously thought, and may have been reached in many countries already.

In an interview last week Dr. Yeadon was asked:

“we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six people in a meeting…all based on, what may well be, completely fake data on this coronavirus?”

Dr. Yeadon answered with a simple “yes.”

Dr. Yeadon said in the interview that, given the “shape” of all important indicators in a worldwide pandemic, such as hospitalizations, ICU utilization, and deaths, “the pandemic is fundamentally over.”

Yeadon said in the interview:

“Were it not for the test data that you get from the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over, as nothing much has happened. Of course people go to the hospital, moving into the autumn flu season…but there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.”

In a paper published this month, which was co-authored by Yeadon and two of his colleagues, “How Likely is a Second Wave?”, the scientists write:

“It has widely been observed that in all heavily infected countries in Europe and several of the US states likewise, that the shape of the daily deaths vs. time curves is similar to ours in the UK. Many of these curves are not just similar, but almost super imposable.”

In the data for UK, Sweden, the US, and the world, it can be seen that in all cases, deaths were on the rise in March through mid or late April, then began tapering off in a smooth slope which flattened around the end of June and continues to today. The case rates however, based on testing, rise and swing upwards and downwards wildly.

Media messaging in the US is already ramping up expectations of a “second wave.”

Source

Source

Source

Source

Survival Rate of COVID Now Estimated to be 99.8%, Similar to Flu, Prior T-Cell Immunity

The survival rate of COVID-19 has been upgraded since May to 99.8% of infections. This comes close to ordinary flu, the survival rate of which is 99.9%. Although COVID can have serious after-effects, so can flu or any respiratory illness. The present survival rate is far higher than initial grim guesses in March and April, cited by Dr. Anthony Fauci, of 94%, or 20 to 30 times deadlier. The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) value accepted by Yeadon et al in the paper is .26%. The survival rate of a disease is 100% minus the IFR.

Dr. Yeadon pointed out that the “novel” COVID-19 contagion is novel only in the sense that it is a new type of coronavirus. But, he said, there are presently four strains which circulate freely throughout the population, most often linked to the common cold.

In the scientific paper, Yeadon et al write:

“There are at least four well characterised family members (229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1) which are endemic and cause some of the common colds we experience, especially in winter. They all have striking sequence similarity to the new coronavirus.”

The scientists argue that much of the population already has, if not antibodies to COVID, some level of “T-cell” immunity from exposure to other related coronaviruses, which have been circulating long before COVID-19.

The scientists write:

“A major component our immune systems is the group of white blood cells called T-cells whose job it is to memorise a short piece of whatever virus we were infected with so the right cell types can multiply rapidly and protect us if we get a related infection. Responses to COVID-19 have been shown in dozens of blood samples taken from donors before the new virus arrived.”

Introducing the idea that some prior immunity to COVID-19 already existed, the authors of “How Likely is a Second Wave?” write:

“It is now established that at least 30% of our population already had immunological recognition of this new virus, before it even arrived…COVID-19 is new, but coronaviruses are not.”

They go on to say that, because of this prior resistance, only 15-25% of a population being infected may be sufficient to reach herd immunity:

“…epidemiological studies show that, with the extent of prior immunity that we can now reasonably assume to be the case, only 15-25% of the population being infected is sufficient to bring the spread of the virus to a halt…”

In the US, accepting a death toll of 200,000, and an infection fatality rate of 99.8%, this would mean for every person who has died, there would be about 400 people who had been infected, and lived. This would translate to around 80 million Americans, or 27% of the population. This touches Yeadon’s and his colleagues’ threshold for herd immunity.

The authors say:

“current literature finds that between 20% and 50% of the population display this pre-pandemic T-cell responsiveness, meaning we could adopt an initially susceptible population value from 80% to 50%. The lower the real initial susceptibility, the more secure we are in our contention that a herd immunity threshold (HIT) has been reached.”

Masthead for "Lockdown Skeptics.org" publisher of "How Likely is a Second Wave?"

Masthead for “Lockdown Skeptics.org” publisher of “How Likely is a Second Wave?” | Source

The False Positive Second Wave

Of the PCR test, the prevalent COVID test used around the world, the authors write:

“more than half of the positives are likely to be false, potentially all of them.”

The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is “simply the presence of partial RNA sequences present in the intact virus,” which could be a piece of dead virus which cannot make the subject sick, and cannot be transmitted, and cannot make anyone else sick.

“…a true positive does not necessarily indicate the presence of viable virus. In limited studies to date, many researchers have shown that some subjects remain PCR-positive long after the ability to culture virus from swabs has disappeared. We term this a ‘cold positive’ (to distinguish it from a ‘hot positive’, someone actually infected with intact virus). The key point about ‘cold positives’ is that they are not ill, not symptomatic, not going to become symptomatic and, furthermore, are unable to infect others.”

Overall, Dr. Yeadon builds the case that any “second wave” of COVID, and any government case for lockdowns, given the well-known principles of epidemiology, will be entirely manufactured.

In Boston this month, a lab suspended doing coronavirus testing after 400 false positives were discovered.

An analysis of PCR-based test at medical website medrxiv.org states:

“data on PCR-based tests for similar viruses show that PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.”

University of Oxford Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, writes in a July article “How Many COVID Diagnoses Are False Positives?”:

“going off current testing practices and results, Covid-19 might never be shown to disappear.”

Of course, the most famous incidence of PCR test unreliability was when the President of Tanzania revealed to the world that he had covertly sent samples from a goat, a sheep, and a pawpaw fruit to a COVID testing lab. They all came back positive for COVID.

Made in China

In August, the government of Sweden discovered 3700 false COVID positives from test kits made by China’s BGI Genomics. The kits were approved in March by the FDA for use in the US.

Second Waves of Coronaviruses Not Normal

Dr. Yeadon challenged the idea that all pandemics take place in subsequent waves, citing two other coronavirus outbreaks, the SARS virus in 2003, and MERS in 2012. What may seem like two waves can actually be two single waves occurring in different geographical regions. They say data gathered from the relatively recent SARS 2003 and the MERS outbreaks support their contention.

In the case of the MERS:

“it is actually multiple single waves affecting geographically distinct populations at different times as the disease spreads. In this case the first major peak was seen in Saudi Arabia with a second peak some months later in the Republic of Korea. Analysed individually, each area followed a typical single event…”

In the interview, when questioned about the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918, which came in successive waves during World War I, Yeadon pointed out that this was an entirely different kind of virus, not in the coronavirus family. Others have blamed general early century malnutrition and unsanitary conditions. World War I soldiers, hard hit, lived in cold mud and conditions the worst imaginable for immune resistance.

Saudi and Korea Waves of MERS Coronavirus

Saudi and Korea Waves of MERS Coronavirus

Lockdowns Don’t Work

Another argument made by Yeadon et al in their September paper is that there has been no difference in outcomes related to lockdowns.

They say:

“The shape of the deaths vs. time curve implies a natural process and not one resulting mainly from human interventions…Famously, Sweden has adopted an almost laissez faire approach, with qualified advice given, but no generalised lockdowns. Yet its profile and that of the UK’s is very similar.”

Mild-Mannered Yeadon Demolishes Man Who Started It All, Professor Neil Ferguson

The former Pfizer executive and scientist singles out one former colleague for withering rebuke for his role in the pandemic, Professor Neil Ferguson. Ferguson taught at Imperial College while Yeadon was affiliated. Ferguson’s computer mode lprovided the rationale for governments to launch draconian orders which turned free societies into virtual prisons overnight. Over what is now estimated by the CDC to be a 99.8% survival rate virus.

Dr. Yeardon said in the interview that “no serious scientist gives any validity” to Ferguson’s model.

Speaking with thinly-veiled contempt for Ferguson, Dr. Yeardon took special pains to point out to his interviewer:

“It’s important that you know most scientists don’t accept that it [Ferguson’s model] was even faintly right…but the government is still wedded to the model.”

Yeardon joins other scientists in castigating governments for following Ferguson’s model, the assumptions of which all worldwide lockdowns are based on. One of these scientists is Dr. Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist for the European Center for Disease Control and Prevention, who called Ferguson’s model “the most influential scientific paper” in memory, and also “one of the most wrong.”

It was Ferguson’s model which held that “mitigation” measures were necessary, i.e. social distancing and business closures, in order to prevent, for example, over 2.2 million people dying from COVID in the US.

Ferguson predicted that Sweden would pay a terrible price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden’s death count is now 5800. The Swedish government says this coincides to a mild flu season. Although initially higher, Sweden now has a lower death rate per-capita than the US, which it achieved without the terrific economic damage still ongoing in the US. Sweden never closed restaurants, bars, sports, most schools, or movie theaters. The government never ordered people to wear masks.

Dr. Yeadon speaks bitterly of the lives lost as a result of lockdown policies, and of the “savable” countless lives which will be further lost, from important surgeries and other healthcare deferred, should lockdowns be reimposed, .

Yeardon is a successful entrepreneur, the founder of a biotech company which was acquired by Novartis, another pharmaceutical giant. Yeadon’s unit at Pfizer was the Asthma and Respiratory Research Unit. (Yeadon, partial list of publications.)

Sweden During International "Lockdowns"

Sweden During International “Lockdowns”

Why is All This Happening? US Congressman Says He is Convinced of “Government Plan” to Continue Lockdowns Until a Mandatory Vaccine. Conspiracy Theories?

The list of news items grows which reflects unfavorably upon the narrative being played out on the major television networks, of a mysterious, “novel” virus which has been controlled only by an unprecedented assault on individual rights and liberties, now ready to pounce again, on already suffering populations with no choice but to submit to further government orders.

Governors have quietly extended their powers indefinitely by shifting the goalpost, without saying so, from “flattening the curve” to ease the strain on hospitals, to “no new cases.” From “pandemic,” to “case-demic.”

In Germany, an organization of 500 German doctors and scientists has formed, who say that government response to the COVID virus has been vastly out of proportion to the actual severity of the disease.

Evidence of chicanery mounts. Both the CDC, and US Coronavirus Task Force headed by Dr. Deborah Birx, are candid that the definition of death-by-COVID has been flexible, and that the rules favor calling it COVID whenever possible. This opens the possibility of a vastly inflated death count. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s administration is under federal investigation for all but signing the death warrants for thousands of nursing home elderly, when the state sent COVID patients into the nursing homes, over the helpless objections of nursing home executives and staff.

Why are the major media ignoring what would seem to be an eminently newsworthy item, an industry rockstar like Yeadon, calling out the biggest guns in the public health world? Would not the Sunday talk shows, the Chris Wallaces and Meet the Press, want to grill such a man for record audiences?

Here the talk may turn to dark agendas, and not just mere incompetence, obtuseness, and stupidity.

One opinion was put forth by US Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) when he said on the Tom Woods Show on August 16th:

“The secret the government is keeping from you is that they plan to keep us shut down until there is some kind of vaccine, and then whether it’s compulsory at the federal level, or the state level, or maybe they persuade your employers though another PPP program that you won’t qualify for unless you make your employees get the vaccine, I think that’s their plan. Somebody convince me that’s not their plan, because there is no logical ending to this other than that.”

Another theory is that the COVID crisis is being used consolidate never-before-imaged levels of control over individuals and society by elites. This is put forth by the nephew of the slain president, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of also-assassinated Bobby Kennedy. In a speech at a massive anti-lockdown, anti-mandatory COVID vaccination rally in Germany, Bobby Jr. warned of the existence of a:

“bio-security agenda, the rise of the authoritarian surveillance state and the Big Pharma sponsored coup d’etat against liberal democracy…The pandemic is a crisis of convenience for the elite who are dictating these policies,”

In a lawsuit, Kennedy Jr.’s medical witnesses warn that mandatory flu shots many make children more susceptible to COVID.

The warnings of dire intentions of Kennedy’s “elite” are coming from more mainstream sources. Dr. Joseph Mercola, of the highly trusted, mega-traffic medical information site Mercola.com, has penned a careful review of one doctor’s claims of genetics-altering vaccines coming our way.

And it does not assuage fears that a defense establishment website, Defense One, reports that permanent under-the skin biochips, injectable by the same syringe that holds a vaccine, may soon be approved by the FDA. It does not help the anti-conspiracy theory cause that, according to Newsweek, Dr. Anthony Fauci actually did give NIH funding to Wuhan lab for bat coronavirus research so dangerous it was opposed on record by 200 scientists, and banned in the US.

In 1957, a pandemic hit, the H2N2 Asian Flu with a .7% Infection Fatality Rate, which killed as many people per capita in the US as the COVID has claimed now. There was never a single mention of it in the news at the time, never mind the extraordinary upheaval that we see now. In 1968 the Hong Kong Flu hit the US (.5% IFR,) taking 100,000 people when the US had a markedly lower population. Not single alarm was raised, not a single store closed nor even a network news story. The following summer the largest gathering in US history took place, Woodstock.

Mass hysteria is never accidental, but benefits someone. The only question left to answer is, who?

August Protest in Berlin Against Lockdown, and Against Mandatory COVID Vaccination

August Protest in Berlin Against Lockdown, and Against Mandatory COVID Vaccination| Source

Woodstock 1969

Woodstock 1969

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The original source of this article is HubPages
Copyright © Ralph Lopez, HubPages, 2020
from:    https://www.globalresearch.ca/chief-science-officer-pfizer-says-second-wave-faked-false-positive-covid-tests-pandemic-over/5724753

Following the NEW Numbers

Posted on by

New CDC Estimates: Fatality Rate For COVID-19 Drops Again And May Surprise You 

Submitted by Mark Glennon of Wirepoints

What’s are the real chances of dying if you are infected with COVID-19? You’ll probably be surprised how low they are according to new numbers from the Center for Disease Control. We’ll state those numbers simply for those of you who aren’t crazy about math.

The CDC’s new estimate, for the first time, is broken down by age groups. Here is what the CDC calls its “current best estimate” of chances of dying from the virus if you get infected:

1 out of 34,000 for ages 0 to 19;

1 out of 5,000 for ages 20 to 49;

1 out of 200 for ages 50 to 69; and

1 out of 20 for ages 70 and up.

Here’s another way to look at the same numbers. If you get infected, your chances of surviving are as follows:

Age Group                                           Probability of Survival

0-19:                                                    99.997%
20-49:                                                  99.98%
50-69:                                                  99.5%
70+:                                                     94.6%

The CDC’s numbers are actually published as what’s called the “Infection Fatality Ratio” or IFR. The relevant portion of their chart is reproduced below. We’ve just stated their numbers a different way and rounded a bit. IFR includes, as those who were “infected,” those who got the virus but never got sick or displayed symptoms.

The CDC’s “best estimate” may be off and it offered other scenarios, also shown in the chart below. They are all very low, however, as you can see. For those age 20-49, for example, even under the worse case scenario, the IFR is only .0003. That means your chances of dying even if you got infected would be 1 out of 3,333.

Estimates of COVID’s lethality have been dropping regularly. In March, when most of the nation went into lockdown, Dr. Anthony Fauci estimated the mortality rate at about 2% and the World Health Organization pegged it at about 3.4%. Both are far higher than the current CDC estimate.

Those earlier numbers, which were far more frightening, got extensive press coverage. Very little media attention, however, has gone toward the new numbers.

Source: CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/new-cdc-estimates-fatality-rate-covid-19-drops-again-and-may-surprise-you?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

SAVE Everything

Posted on by

Episode 384 – The Library of Alexandria is on Fire

• 09/18/2020

We all know the story of the Library of Alexandria, the vast repository of ancient texts that was burnt to the ground by Caesar in 48 B.C. While the story itself isn’t accurate, it speaks to us today as we face the digital book burnings that are threatening the modern-day Library of Alexandria: the internet. In this speech delivered at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s Justice Rising conference on September 13, 2020, James Corbett connects the dots from that ancient story to the internet censorship of today, and outlines what we can do to fight the fire that is threatening our most important information.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:
Justice Rising conference

9/11 Trillions: Follow the Money

Why Aren’t Insurers 9/11 Truthers? – Questions For Corbett #067

9/11: Decade of Deception

Operation Northwoods

Press For Truth BANNED On YouTube!

The Library of Babel – FLNWO #27

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

YouTube Blacklists Federal Reserve Information. It’s Up To YOU To Spread It!

Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube

Twitter shadowbans content

Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu explains shadowbanning

Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers?

Gordon Crovitz Newsguard co-founder

Newsguard advisors

Agamben book burning quotation

Fahrenheit 451

Aeschylus Meets the Mummy: 2,500-Year-Old, Lost Greek Trilogy Found Under Wraps

from:   https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-384-the-library-of-alexandria-is-on-fire/

Fire at Huawei Facility in China???

Posted on by

Huawei R&D Lab Catches Fire in Dongguan, China

Matt Novak

Huawei’s research and development lab in the city of Dongguan, China is on fire, with large clouds of gray smoke billowing from the building, according to multiple videos posted to social media and the state news outlet Global Times. It’s not clear what caused the blaze, but firefighters are on the scene, according to China’s Sixth Tone news outlet, and there have been no reports of casualties.

People presumed to be Huawei employees, some dressed in white lab coats, can be seen fleeing the area. Some social media videos refer to an “explosion” but state media has only reported on a fire and there’s no immediate evidence to suggest any kind of “explosion” occurred.

Dongguan is located in Guangdong province, the site of Huawei’s $1.5 billion Songshan Lake campus. Huawei reportedly has roughly 25,000 employees there, a corporate park which gained widespread attention in U.S. media last year for its European-themed buildings.

Early reports indicate that the R&D lab may contain “sound absorbing materials,” like cotton, that are highly flammable, according to the Global Times. The building was reportedly under construction, suggesting that the number of people inside may have been minimal.

Several Chinese-based media outlets tweeted videos about the incident using videos posted to Weibo, a popular social media service it China, but some deleted their tweets without explanation.

The Global Times first tweeted video around 5:30 p.m. local time, 5:30 a.m. ET, but deleted the video less than 10 minutes later. Sixth Tone did the same thing, crediting their video to Fengmian News, but deleted it from Twitter rather quickly. Both sites appear to have reposted video and text roughly 30 minutes later similar to the content that was deleted. It’s not clear why the tweets were deleted and reposted.

A compilation video published to YouTube by China’s The Paper shows the fire from several angles. [Update, 7:20 a.m.: The Paper’s YouTube video was deleted for an unknown reason, but other videos have been reposted showing the blaze.]

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in 2019 banning Huawei from using U.S. tech, excluding it from much of the American market, especially when it comes to the development of 5G networks. But the company is still going strong in the rest of the world, with healthy growth from its smartphone market.

Matt Novak is the editor of Gizmodo’s Paleofuture blog

from:    https://gizmodo.com/huawei-r-d-lab-catches-fire-in-dongguan-china-1845177778

More CV-19 Doublespeak….

Posted on by

CDC says it erroneously posted guidance that said coronavirus spreads through air and travels beyond 6 feet

Key Points
  • Earlier in the day, the World Health Organization said it contacted the CDC about the guidance change.
  • The WHO has said Covid-19 primarily spreads through respiratory droplets that pass when an infected person coughs, sneezes or breathes.
A sign informing people to stay 6 feet apart stands on Marina Boulevard at Marina Green in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Wednesday, March 25, 2020.
A sign informing people to stay 6 feet apart stands on Marina Boulevard at Marina Green in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Wednesday, March 25, 2020.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday it erroneously posted guidance saying the coronavirus spreads through airborne particles that can remain suspended in the air and travel beyond 6 feet.

The updated guidance, posted on the CDC’s website on Friday, also recommended that people use air purifiers to reduce airborne germs indoors to prevent the disease from spreading, according to Reuters.

“A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website,” the CDC said Monday. “CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the update language will be posted.”

Earlier in the day, the World Health Organization said it contacted the CDC about the guidance change.

The WHO had not seen any “new evidence” on airborne particles and was checking with the CDC to “better understand” the exact nature of the change, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, said during a news conference at the agency’s Geneva headquarters.

watch now
VIDEO01:53
CDC: U.S. should have enough coronavirus vaccine to return to ‘regular life’ by third quarter of 2021

The WHO has said Covid-19 primarily spreads through respiratory droplets that pass when an infected person coughs, sneezes or breathes. Studies have shown that the coronavirus could spread through aerosols in the air, and the WHO has said it is monitoring “emerging evidence” of possible airborne transmission.

The international agency’s position “on this remains the same,” Ryan said, “and we’ve always said going back over months and months about the potential for different kinds of roots of transmission and particularly driven by the context, the proximity, the intensity, the duration and the potential for different forms of transmission.”

The update comes days after the CDC reversed controversial coronavirus testing guidance that said people who were exposed to an infected person but weren’t showing any symptoms did “not necessarily need a test.”

Many public health specialists criticized the CDC’s change in testing guidance in August for appearing to play down the significance of testing people who don’t have symptoms but who might be spreading the virus.

Studies have suggested the virus can spread through the air. A study published by researchers at the National Institutes of Health earlier this year found that particles of the coronavirus released by talking can remain in the air for eight to 14 minutes.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Covid-19 was detectable in aerosols for up to three hours.

In July, the WHO said there is still no “definitive” evidence that indicates the virus is spreading widely by air, although it added that the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings “cannot be ruled out.”

If the coronavirus does primarily spread through the air, masks may prove to be more important than ever.

Both health agencies recommend that people wear face masks. Studies suggest the masks may serve as a helpful barrier to spreading infection.

–CNBC’s Will Feuer contributed to this report. 

from:    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/21/cdc-says-it-erroneously-posted-guidance-that-said-coronavirus-spreads-through-air-and-and-travel-beyond-six-feet.html

COVID Questions? Check Here

Posted on by
Working with Documenting COVID-19 to understand the epidemic

Working with Documenting COVID-19 to understand the epidemic

The project will build a shared repository to benefit newsrooms around the country.

Written by Michael Morisy
Edited by Beryl Lipton

Building on our COVID Public Info partnership, we’re excited to announce that we’re combining efforts with Documenting COVID-19. The project, based out of Columbia University’s Brown Institute for Media Innovation, is similarly working to use public records to build a shared repository to advance understanding of the impact of the pandemic.

Partnering will help us better serve newsrooms around the country while gathering a more comprehensive collection of records requests, databases, and other primary source materials.

Today, Documenting COVID-19 has launched two pages that highlight the work done so far and make it more easily accessible: The Examiners Project, which aims to compile detailed records on COVID-19 deaths from local medical examiners and coroners across the U.S., and The Algorithms Project, which aims to obtain information about state and federal agencies’ use of algorithms and other predictive tools amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. There’s more about each project below.

We’re also want to use the increased resources to help more newsrooms report in new ways on the epidemic. If you’re interested in collaborating email info@documentingcovid19.io.

We’re grateful for the critical support of COVID Public Info provided by the John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships at Stanford University. Without it, we would not have been able to ramp this project up and file hundreds of requests on key issues facing communities around the country. Covid Public Info was started and managed by Outlier Media, the MuckRock Foundation, Matt Kiefer, and Garance Burke

The Examiners Project

The Examiners Project aims to compile detailed records on COVID-19 deaths from local medical examiners and coroners across the U.S. The records are maintained separately from health authorities and often include case details that local governments do not make public, including the names; race and ethnicities; addresses and ZIP codes; and other important data points about those who have died. This data can be used to fact-check reported deaths due to COVID-19 and identify gaps in existing fatality data relating to the pandemic.

The Examiners Project, started by former JSK Fellow Matt Kiefer and now led by Chicago-based investigative journalist Kyra Senese, began with support from the John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships at Stanford University as part of the Covid Public Info project. It included contributions from team members, including JSK Fellow Garance Burke, as well as MuckRock and Outlier Media, and partner newsrooms around the country, including KQED.

Documenting COVID-19 has obtained public records from health departments and other local authorities in counties throughout the U.S. in recent months to gain insight into the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a repository of searchable documents related to the response to the virus. The project is now collaborating with Kiefer’s team to continue progress on the medical examiner project.

The Algorithms Project

The Algorithms Project, started by former Stanford JSK-HAI Fellow Garance Burke and now led by New York-based investigative journalist Georgia Gee, began with support from the John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships at Stanford University as part of the Covid Public Info project. It included contributions from MuckRock’s Beryl Lipton and input from team members, MuckRock and Outlier Media.

The project aims to obtain information from state and federal agencies around the use of algorithms and other predictive tools amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the project looks into the function of algorithms in policy decisions regarding unemployment; release from state and federal prisons and jails; and surveillance, such as thermal cameras and facial recognition. These records are maintained by federal and state governments but typically are not made public without an open records request.

Documenting COVID-19 continues to look into the use of algorithms amid the pandemic, exploring the extent of bias in AI medical technologies. The project aims to investigate whether predictive tools related to COVID-19 have had an impact on marginalized communities, such as data-driven decisions on testing locations.

Do you want to collaborate with us or contribute records you’ve obtained? Subscribe, follow us on Twitter and email us at info@documentingcovid19.io. You can also learn more about us here.

from:    https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2020/sep/24/working-documenting-covid-19-understand-epidemic/