BONUS CONTENT: I will also soon present evidence that at least two “case zeroes” on the Roosevelt came on board the ship when it left port from San Diego on January 17, 2020 - the day before the first “confirmed” case of Covid in America.
As my regular readers know by now, I’m not afraid to present novel or original theories or ask questions nobody else has asked. One question that comes to mind about the Roosevelt antibody study is this one: If this virus is so contagious and crew members were exposed to infected shipmates for such a prolonged period of time, why didn’t virtually every sailor test positive for antibodies? Why didn’t, say, 90 percent of crew members (not “only” 61 percent) have antibody-evidence of prior infection?
I don’t know the answer for sure, but I think this is a fair and good question that hasn’t been answered to date.
I have some theories, including this one: Perhaps some percentage of crew members had already developed natural immunity when they boarded the ship in the days before January 17, 2020. Maybe by the time some crew members received antibody tests in late April 2020 (five or six months after they might have been infected), their antibody levels might have already faded to “undetectable” levels?
Or maybe “herd immunity” levels had already been reached?
Whether I’m onto something big or not, I’m pretty sure I’m asking non-authorized questions - questions that aren’t and weren’t supposed to be investigated and thus “confirmed.”
It should be acknowledged that my theory might be wrong. Maybe if every (or 50 or 25 percent) of crew members on other naval ships had been tested, this antibody study would produce zero positive results.
However, I seriously doubt this. I know the one CDC study of archived Red Cross blood found at least 2.04 percent of a random sample of the population from three western U.S. states (including California, the home port of The Roosevelt) had antibodies when they gave blood Dec. 13-16, 2020. Since it takes one to two weeks for antibodies to develop, we know most of these positive donors were infected in November 2019 (if not October or earlier).
From this one study (and many other reasons), I believe “virus spread” was already happening in November 2019. (Antibody studies of archived blood in France and Italy produced even more pre-December positives than the Red Cross study).
Based on the findings of these antibody studies, wouldn’t it follow that some percentage of naval crew members would have been infected by the time they boarded whatever Naval ship they served on a month later in December 2019 or two months later in January?
And if this virus is indeed contagious, wouldn’t these crew members - packed in like sardines - have started infecting other crew members as soon as they were on the ship?
Indeed, I’d argue that if just one crew member - already infected with Covid - came on board a vessel that was getting ready to spend a couple of weeks or months at sea, it would be impossible for “virus spread” to not commence immediately.
And we still don’t know where or when “case zeroes” on these three ships occurred. For some reason, those common-sense questions were NOT an important part of these outbreak “investigations.”
I also know that at least two sailors on the Roosevelt who tested positive for antibodies self-reported (via a questionnaire) “onset of symptoms” 98 and 99 days before they gave blood for their antibody tests in late April. If this is when these two sailors actually had Covid, this would date the start date of virus spread on the Roosevelt to at least January 17, 2020 - the day the ship left port in San Diego … which is the day before the first “confirmed” case of Covid in America.
I also suspect there would have been more than just two sailors who reported “onset of symptoms” by the same date if a lot more than 382 sailors (out of 4,800 on board the ship) had been tested for antibodies.
Anyway, I’ve identified another “unknown unknowable.” We don’t know how many crew members might have tested positive for antibodies if all crew members (or many more of them) had been tested for antibodies by March or April 2020.
This means we can’t “confirm” with antibody tests that more than two of these crew members might also have been infected months earlier.
But we also can’t confirm they wouldn’t have tested positive if such tests had been administered. So we’re back to my maxim: Never investigate that which you’d prefer not to confirm. In other words, if your goal was to conceal evidence of early spread, it was smart to only test 382 sailors (not 4,800) for antibodies.
It occurs to me that my caption under the aircraft carrier photo might contradict my premise. That is, the CDC and Navy DID conduct an antibody study of Roosevelt crew members, which actually did debunk a key narrative. This study proved that Covid was only lethal to 1 of 4,800 crew members on the Roosevelt. However, this was not the spin of the antibody study, which actually got very little media attention. As far as I can tell, every news organization MISSED the giant headlines from that study: The IFR for Covid is miniscule ... and the virus must have come on board that ship when it left port.
And after one antibody study that showed 60 percent of the crew had been infected, the CDC and NAVY should have immediately done antibody studies of all sailors (or, if they wanted to save money, at least test 10 percent of the sailors from other ships for antibodies). They didn't do this, which tells me they were interested in NOT confirming wide-spread early infections.
This also tells me the CDC and Navy could count on 100-percent of the MSM "journalists" being dunces and not only "burying the lede," but not picking up on the obvious "news-worthy" elements of this study and outbreak.
I still think one of my more valuable contributions to the Covid detective story is my piece "The Dog that Didn't Bark." As most readers are aware, Sherlock Holmes once solved a murder case by noting something that DIDN'T happen but should have: A dog SHOULD HAVE barked but didn't.
With these antibody tests/studies that were NOT performed, we have examples of things that any sincere or credible investigator WOULD have done if he/she was really trying to solve the case ... but, for some reason, they didn't do these things. The question is WHY didn't they? I think this question probably answers itself.
The easiest way to summarize my new mind-smacker question: Why didn't 100 percent of the crew of the USS Roosevelt contract this virus? How did 40 percent of crew members avoid getting this virus?
In a study by Grifoni et al.1, reactivity was detected in 50% of donor blood samples obtained in the USA between 2015 and 2018, before SARS-CoV-2 appeared in the human population. T cell reactivity was highest against proteins other than the coronavirus spike protein, but T cell reactivity was also detected against spike. The SARS-CoV-2 T cell reactivity was mostly associated with CD4+ T cells, with a smaller contribution by CD8+ T cells1. Similarly, in a study of blood donors in the Netherlands, Weiskopf et al.2 detected CD4+ T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides in 1 of 10 unexposed subjects and against SARS-CoV-2 non-spike peptides in 2 of 10 unexposed subjects. CD8+ T cell reactivity was observed in 1 of 10 unexposed donors. In a third study, from Germany, Braun et al.3 reported positive T cell responses against spike peptides in 34% of SARS-CoV-2 seronegative healthy donors. Finally, a study of individuals in Singapore, by Le Bert et al.4, reported T cell responses to nucleocapsid protein nsp7 or nsp13 in 50% of subjects with no history of SARS, COVID-19, or contact with patients with SARS or COVID-19. A study by Meckiff using samples from the UK also detected reactivity in unexposed subjects5. Taken together, five studies report evidence of pre-existing T cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 in a significant fraction of people from diverse geographical locations.
Another, probably more likely mechanism is training of the innate immune system where previous exposure can protect against a whole range of other glycosylated viruses (not just coronaviruses). The subject is really complicated and I'm not an expert in this, but it shows one thing: The notion that "this is a novel virus therefore nobody is immune" is as bogus as the other convid narratives that were thrust upon us by our dear overlords.
Yep T cells are an entirely separate (but very important) topic. I write elsewhere that antibody levels can fade, which is true of detectable levels. But this doesn't necessarily mean people who idon't have detectable IgG antibodies don't have natural immunity. The immunity is there. It kicks in when needed. The antibody levels are just one possible marker of prior infection.
With all due respect, PCR test aren't reliable. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test basically said we have a lot of bacteria in us and depending on how many cycles the PCR test runs for can show pretty much everyone has some kind of sickness.
Also what ever you do don't do autopsies.
And for goodness sakes don't ever do studies on what people over the years have claimed to heal people with cancer. Whether it is was Rene Caisse with her herbal tea being taken to court with 1,000 signatures stating she healed cancer patients, or Hoxsey 17 clinics shut down by Morris Fishbein from AMA. (Though I smile a little knowing that Fishbein had to admit in court that Hoxsey did cure cancer.) From Max Gerson diet, to Krebs vitamin B17 (laetrile), to mistlle toe, Dr. Simoncini baking soda cure, Royal Rife's electromagnetic microscope cure, and Brzynski peptides/antineoplastons being discredited despite their evidence. The Rockerfellers and Andrew Carnegie paid people to sit on medical boards to ensure the profit always fell back to them, and to harass anyone that had success treating cancer patients. We know often times a cheap anti-parasitic med, vitamin D, and vitamin C may turn a cancer patients diagnosis around, but oncologist today don't see that as an option instead opting for invasive cut, poison and burn profit for the "system". Even Dr. Akbar Khan tries to market his dichloroacetate (DCA) or his SEF that provides less toxins to chemo patients is denied to cancer patients. They won't do studies on any of these treatments as it could hurt Rockerfellers/Carnegie profits.
I agree, Dorothy. But the antibody tests are more convincing ... and the protocol that was being used was "We're not going to do any antibody tests of Naval crew members" unless we had some PCR tests that came back positive on a few ships.
Bogus or not, those PCR tests would have produced many "positives" if they'd been administered in December 2019 - March 2020.
I also think the PCR tests probably do pick up real "Covid cases" if they are set at 25 to 30 cycle thresholds. I actually think a lot of the later positives on the Roosevelt were picking up dead or non-contagious or 'old" virus. That's why crew members kept testing positive even after they were safely in port in Guam and all isolated on military bases or in single-room hotels.
An even more interesting question to me is why did "only" 60 percent of crew members test positive for antibodies. IMO there's no way that virus hadn't infected just about every person on that ship by the end of March 2020. I think the reason the antibody percentage wasn't higher is that some percentage of crew members had been infected in November, December 2019 and early January 2020 .... BEFORE these crew members had boarded the ship. By the time they got their antibody tests in late April, the antibodies had faded to undetectable levels in some percentage of the crew members. (Antibodies DO fade in two or three months in many people. Also, some small percentage of people never produce detectable levels of antibodies ... So I think that 60-percent figure is a significant undercount of people on that ship who had previously been infected.)
Not everyone who gets infected develops antibodies. If the infection is abrogated by the innate immune system, the adaptive immune system may not kick in ergo no antibodies. But that person would still have had an infection which, if tested at the right moment, would have produced a positive PCR result.
For me, a significant detail of the Roosevelt "antibody study" is that said study was only of 382 crew members (out of a crew of approximately 4,800). This means only 7.9 percent of the crew donated blood for this antibody study.
For some reason, 90 percent of crew members of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle gave blood for their antibody study. At one time, CDC/Navy officials said they were going to test at least 1,000 crew members. So why did the study get down-sized so dramatically? If the French could test 90 percent of crew members from one of their aircraft carriers, why couldn't Unites States' Naval/public health officials do the same thing?
My theory is that more antibody tests (and more questions of crew members on WHEN they first experienced symptoms) would have produced many more possible "early" cases. How could this be explained when the crew members had no contact with anyone else after the ship left port on January 17?
The obvious take-away would be that the virus - and virus spread - started when the ship pulled out of port on or before January 17, 2020. (I assume sailors boarded the ship a day or two before the ship left its home port of San Diego). This by itself would explode the narrative that this virus did not exist in America on January 17.
So, per my hypothesis, officials dramatically down-sized the size of the antibody study to conceal even more evidence of early spread.
It's great that officials decided to do antibody tests on crew members from three Naval vessels. However, once said antibody studies came back with "positive" percentages of 41, 60 and 65 percent from these studies, didn't it occur to ANY public health or Navy official that maybe they should test some more sailors from other ships for antibodies? I guess it didn't.
Another eye-opening piece of information from the Roosevelt antibody study is this fact: Of the 260 or so sailors (out of 382) who tested positive for antibodies, 12 self-reported symptoms 41 or more days before blood was drawn for their antibody tests. As my article notes, two sailors had symptoms 98 and 99 days before they donated blood for the study.
(Sailors participating in the study filled out questionnaires about any symptoms).
If these 12 sailors did have Covid when they were symptomatic, they would have been spreading virus to shipmates between January 17 and approximately March 10. How many other sailors would each sailor infect in such “congregate” settings?
Furthermore, as pointed out in my article, the CDC and Navy only performed antibody tests on 382 of the ship’s 4,8000 crew. This is 7.9 percent of the crew. If every sailor had received an antibody test and also filled out the same “symptom” questionnaire, the study might have produced 12.5X more antibody-confirmed cases that dated to or before the ship’s first port-of-call (in Vietnam, March. 8-10).
This would be approximately 150 sailors who might have been spreading virus on all levels of the ship in every department of the ship.
Again, it seems to me that it’s very possible every crew member would have been infected in a matter of weeks. (The ship was actually at sea for 2 months and 10 days.)
It’s never been explained why the Navy and CDC didn’t test many MORE sailors for antibodies. I did find one earlier story that said the Navy was planning on testing at least 1,000 sailors for antibodies, but it ended up testing only 382. And this antibody test was “voluntary.” It seems to me the Navy could have ordered its crew members to get an antibody test just like they ordered the same crew members to get PCR tests or, later, vaccines.
My suspicion: The size of the study was massively-downsized to prevent even more evidence of “early spread.”
Lastly, I note that none of the 12 possible “early spread” crew members were interviewed by CDC or Navy medical personnel about their symptoms. This is identical to the fact the CDC never questioned the 106 Americans who had antibodies in their blood when they donated blood to the Red Cross in December 2019 and January 2020.
For the 100th time: Officials never investigate that which they don’t want to confirm. And the investigations “virus sleuths” do perform aren’t nearly as comprehensive and thorough as they should have been.
If the CDC and navy were serious about finding answers on early spread, or possible "case zeroes" on this ship, they would have performed antibody tests on all 4,800 crew members of the Roosevelt and they would have interviewed every sailor who tested positive for antibodies and had symptoms many weeks before their blood was drawn ... especially those who had symptoms before Covid was suppose to even exist in America.
CDC and Navy officials also would have randomly tested sailors serving on many other Naval vessels in the weeks and months before "official" Covid.
I'm with Dorothy re PCR testing . When I called the biontech lab here in the Toronto area ( land of all things and more draconian) who were making these home tests and the grocery stores were giving them out free for the good of us all , the guy I spoke with had no idea what I was talking about when I asked what the CT level was in this things .
I agree the PCR tests are dubious and were used to massively inflate case studies. But when I write about these outbreaks on these three ships, I'm primarily thinking about the antibody test results. I do trust those. Or, I think they definitely pick up people who have been previously infected ... but probably not all people because I think (detectable) antibodies fade over time and some people never produce them. Only 60 percent of Roosevelt crew members had antibodies ... after two months of that virus spreading in super-tight quarters? In my mind, that test should have produced 90 percent positives.
I think these results are proof that antibodies do fade after a couple of months in many people - and the people who tested negative for antibodies were probably infected four to six months before they got this antibody test. That's possible evidence of early spread IMO. In other words, they already had natural immunity by the time they re-boarded the ship around January 17, 2020.
... It's a theory anyway (An original one - a taboo one!)
What isn't taboo for most people like us Bill. Was at a meeting here in Toronto this week with the panelists speaking about all things taboo here in Canada - like all our natural health products being deemed dangerous in that Health Canada is going after the natural health care providers as well as our supplements that will require a Dr's script ! There were also Doctors who questioned , as well as one of the first "ethics" professors who lost her job for questioning the narrative . It seems our battle has just begun and after reading Dr Naomi Wolf's : Think Like a Tyrant , it's a hard one when it feels like all the pieces are lined up against us all . It must be terrible for you and others who have small children and know how difficult things will be going forward even with all the data available .
That's what scares me, Linelle. It's almost impossible to "prove" any nefarious conduct or activities when virtually every "truth-seeking" organization is now captured or corrupt.
How do we get past all these "gatekeepers of the news" who don't want the real (scandalous) stories to reach the masses?
Based on Shawn Buckley who is a constitutional lawyer who used to work with Health Canada (https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=232501®Id=642944) and now works for the natural health industry as well as being the moderator for our National CItizens Inquiry , he is very excited ( maybe should be a football coach ?) about what is happening because now we have the alternative health people coming around to the draconian way our so called " health canada" is working ; he believes there are more people waking up . He said we all have to do something rather than saying what a great job "they" , meaning the ones on the stage, are doing . He is suggesting getting on school boards etc. and even get into politics - easy for him to say -he is a lawyer who has been fighting health canada for 35 years and very comfortable in this contrarian role ; he's also a lovely guy - this helps . I am trying to figure out how I can do more at this late stage of life because of the young people and because I think we have been totally infiltrated both by the Chinese communists as well as the WEF . Even your American doctors are weighing in on the way our health officials are treating the doctors here ( we don't have enough) and those who questioned are being destroyed . One doctor just wrote the other day , that he is now working on a farm since they took away his "right " to practice and he didn't want the years of legal challenges. However , on a real note , the oncologist who spoke , said the doctors are the canaries in the coal mines because they have to keep getting the latest iterations of these new drugs - I'll assume it's all the health care providers in any hospitals because they will mandate it . He ( the oncologist) is thinking of teaching English somewhere and his wife could teach French . I did not answer your question Bill because I think there really isn't any answers, but rather, how are we all prepared to "work around" and not self censor - as they want . Do you have many like minded souls where you are so that you all can articulate your ideas going forward especially for the kids ? I"ve been stocking piling my supplements and i think I'll sell them from my suit jacket on the street . Like the movie King Rat - everyone can find an opportunity to make their strengths shine.
I view my role as trying to prove at least one scandal to the masses. If one scandal was "proven," the whole house of cards might/would collapse IMO. Absent that long-shot (the Powers that Be are NOT going to let one scandal be exposed) ... I guess I'm just trying to move the needle.
I think if RFK, Jr. was elected he could use the presidency to expose a lot of these people and organizations and drain a fair portion of the corrupt swamp. DeSantis might be able to do the same thing, but, boy, are the narrative-controllers taking care of this "threat." It looks like that threat to the Status Quo has already been neutralized.
Still early days Bill in the big scheme of things - maybe there is a good UFO type out there who can fix things - or be the next best hero to save us all - not going to happen . You have a defined role and that is wonderful and hope there are more than a few people like you in your area . I do think JFK was /is wonderful in his role with the children's defense and because of his running he had an opportunity to reveal more even with his limited platform with the types who want to destroy him. At a certain stage for him, it might be a relief not to be running and perhaps stay alive. When no one can debate Biden , at least that is what I've read , who is really running these gin joins- for us as well . I have no doubt it is the WEF as well as XI and our guys in power are beholding to those nefarious people and agendas.
Also, present your doctor with a written list of side effects after your second vaccine and drop your jaw as she dismisses them as “ not worth reporting.” How many times did that happen?
Regarding "don’t investigate this", I have been unaware of the following paper which is mentioned in the latest bunch of FOIA documents where they basically said we should censor this because it contradicts our Wuhan wet market bat soup narrative: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.926477
Anyway, if their calculations are correct, The Virus started to spread at some point between May 2019 and September 2019, which is not only consistent with the outbreaks on various ships. The mysterious Greenspring outbreak which nobody is allowed to investigate also falls into that time frame.
The more I think about this, the more confident I am that every ship in the Navy would have had many people with antibody evidence of infections - if these sailors had been tested for them in April 2020. The story, to me, is all the "active surveillance" officials could have done but didn't do. This tells me they knew what they would find if they did more of this testing.
(You Have Said Repeatedly That You Do Not Know How To Get "Us" Out Of This Mess.)
I Do. It Is Staring The World In The Face:
Construct Every Sentence That You Utter Upon The Foundational Fuckery That You Revealed To Steve Bannon.
" I Haven't Wanted To Believe ... That ..."
That's It Bob. Tell Us Everything About Your Field That You Did Not Want To Believe, But That You Now Know Was A Lie. Then We Can Talk About Integrity. Because You Won't Be Talking About What To Do. You Will Have Done It.
Just about everything I write about falls into the category of "truths that would be very hard to handle" (for 90 percent of the population). It's hard for most people to believe that all the important "narratives" they've accepted as gospel/infallible/scientifically-proven truths ... might, in fact, be brazen and intentional lies ... told by all the people and institutions they have been conditioned to "trust."
Yes I haven't seen any reports of serious adverse effects from the mRNA flu shots. Have their been many? Did the adverse effects miss the news cycle? I have expected the flu shot AE's would be similar to Covid but haven't heard of any AE's.
My "Spidey sense" tells me that 70 percent of American senior citizens getting their flu shots in the fall of 2020 had something significant to do with the big spike of "Covid deaths" in the winter of 2020-2021. I can't "confirm" this of course ... but I dang sure know there will be no study or investigation that every looks into this possibility.
I have a post queued up that hits on the same thing. I think OJ Simpson is still 'looking' into who killed Nicole.
I want to know if Simpsonwood happened. If Simpsonwood happened and that transcript is real then we have to rethink an entire industry and some people owe RFK Jr. an apology or two.
Off topic, but a couple of posters at the Brownstone Writers group (including Jeffrey Tucker) say that the movie "Oppenheimer" is .... good!
I referenced this movie a couple of weeks ago in an article where I noted that I was glad Hollywood still made a couple of movies for adults. ... So I might have to break routine of the last seven years and go see a movie without the kids.
Heck, I had it early February on a cruise ship. Took a z pack, Sudafed and bourbon and I was back on my feet in a day. I’m old, but I’m certainly not overweight and I’m in pretty good shape. From the start, I knew it was bullshit. That’s a technical term.
BONUS CONTENT: I will also soon present evidence that at least two “case zeroes” on the Roosevelt came on board the ship when it left port from San Diego on January 17, 2020 - the day before the first “confirmed” case of Covid in America.
As my regular readers know by now, I’m not afraid to present novel or original theories or ask questions nobody else has asked. One question that comes to mind about the Roosevelt antibody study is this one: If this virus is so contagious and crew members were exposed to infected shipmates for such a prolonged period of time, why didn’t virtually every sailor test positive for antibodies? Why didn’t, say, 90 percent of crew members (not “only” 61 percent) have antibody-evidence of prior infection?
I don’t know the answer for sure, but I think this is a fair and good question that hasn’t been answered to date.
I have some theories, including this one: Perhaps some percentage of crew members had already developed natural immunity when they boarded the ship in the days before January 17, 2020. Maybe by the time some crew members received antibody tests in late April 2020 (five or six months after they might have been infected), their antibody levels might have already faded to “undetectable” levels?
Or maybe “herd immunity” levels had already been reached?
Whether I’m onto something big or not, I’m pretty sure I’m asking non-authorized questions - questions that aren’t and weren’t supposed to be investigated and thus “confirmed.”
It should be acknowledged that my theory might be wrong. Maybe if every (or 50 or 25 percent) of crew members on other naval ships had been tested, this antibody study would produce zero positive results.
However, I seriously doubt this. I know the one CDC study of archived Red Cross blood found at least 2.04 percent of a random sample of the population from three western U.S. states (including California, the home port of The Roosevelt) had antibodies when they gave blood Dec. 13-16, 2020. Since it takes one to two weeks for antibodies to develop, we know most of these positive donors were infected in November 2019 (if not October or earlier).
From this one study (and many other reasons), I believe “virus spread” was already happening in November 2019. (Antibody studies of archived blood in France and Italy produced even more pre-December positives than the Red Cross study).
Based on the findings of these antibody studies, wouldn’t it follow that some percentage of naval crew members would have been infected by the time they boarded whatever Naval ship they served on a month later in December 2019 or two months later in January?
And if this virus is indeed contagious, wouldn’t these crew members - packed in like sardines - have started infecting other crew members as soon as they were on the ship?
Indeed, I’d argue that if just one crew member - already infected with Covid - came on board a vessel that was getting ready to spend a couple of weeks or months at sea, it would be impossible for “virus spread” to not commence immediately.
And we still don’t know where or when “case zeroes” on these three ships occurred. For some reason, those common-sense questions were NOT an important part of these outbreak “investigations.”
I also know that at least two sailors on the Roosevelt who tested positive for antibodies self-reported (via a questionnaire) “onset of symptoms” 98 and 99 days before they gave blood for their antibody tests in late April. If this is when these two sailors actually had Covid, this would date the start date of virus spread on the Roosevelt to at least January 17, 2020 - the day the ship left port in San Diego … which is the day before the first “confirmed” case of Covid in America.
I also suspect there would have been more than just two sailors who reported “onset of symptoms” by the same date if a lot more than 382 sailors (out of 4,800 on board the ship) had been tested for antibodies.
Anyway, I’ve identified another “unknown unknowable.” We don’t know how many crew members might have tested positive for antibodies if all crew members (or many more of them) had been tested for antibodies by March or April 2020.
This means we can’t “confirm” with antibody tests that more than two of these crew members might also have been infected months earlier.
But we also can’t confirm they wouldn’t have tested positive if such tests had been administered. So we’re back to my maxim: Never investigate that which you’d prefer not to confirm. In other words, if your goal was to conceal evidence of early spread, it was smart to only test 382 sailors (not 4,800) for antibodies.
It occurs to me that my caption under the aircraft carrier photo might contradict my premise. That is, the CDC and Navy DID conduct an antibody study of Roosevelt crew members, which actually did debunk a key narrative. This study proved that Covid was only lethal to 1 of 4,800 crew members on the Roosevelt. However, this was not the spin of the antibody study, which actually got very little media attention. As far as I can tell, every news organization MISSED the giant headlines from that study: The IFR for Covid is miniscule ... and the virus must have come on board that ship when it left port.
And after one antibody study that showed 60 percent of the crew had been infected, the CDC and NAVY should have immediately done antibody studies of all sailors (or, if they wanted to save money, at least test 10 percent of the sailors from other ships for antibodies). They didn't do this, which tells me they were interested in NOT confirming wide-spread early infections.
This also tells me the CDC and Navy could count on 100-percent of the MSM "journalists" being dunces and not only "burying the lede," but not picking up on the obvious "news-worthy" elements of this study and outbreak.
Spot on. They didn't want to know -- or more importantly, didn't want US to know.
I still think one of my more valuable contributions to the Covid detective story is my piece "The Dog that Didn't Bark." As most readers are aware, Sherlock Holmes once solved a murder case by noting something that DIDN'T happen but should have: A dog SHOULD HAVE barked but didn't.
With these antibody tests/studies that were NOT performed, we have examples of things that any sincere or credible investigator WOULD have done if he/she was really trying to solve the case ... but, for some reason, they didn't do these things. The question is WHY didn't they? I think this question probably answers itself.
The easiest way to summarize my new mind-smacker question: Why didn't 100 percent of the crew of the USS Roosevelt contract this virus? How did 40 percent of crew members avoid getting this virus?
Innate immunity or some cross immunity due to previous infection with other coronaviruses.
Which we knew about in July 2020.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0389-z
In a study by Grifoni et al.1, reactivity was detected in 50% of donor blood samples obtained in the USA between 2015 and 2018, before SARS-CoV-2 appeared in the human population. T cell reactivity was highest against proteins other than the coronavirus spike protein, but T cell reactivity was also detected against spike. The SARS-CoV-2 T cell reactivity was mostly associated with CD4+ T cells, with a smaller contribution by CD8+ T cells1. Similarly, in a study of blood donors in the Netherlands, Weiskopf et al.2 detected CD4+ T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 spike peptides in 1 of 10 unexposed subjects and against SARS-CoV-2 non-spike peptides in 2 of 10 unexposed subjects. CD8+ T cell reactivity was observed in 1 of 10 unexposed donors. In a third study, from Germany, Braun et al.3 reported positive T cell responses against spike peptides in 34% of SARS-CoV-2 seronegative healthy donors. Finally, a study of individuals in Singapore, by Le Bert et al.4, reported T cell responses to nucleocapsid protein nsp7 or nsp13 in 50% of subjects with no history of SARS, COVID-19, or contact with patients with SARS or COVID-19. A study by Meckiff using samples from the UK also detected reactivity in unexposed subjects5. Taken together, five studies report evidence of pre-existing T cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 in a significant fraction of people from diverse geographical locations.
Don't get GVB started on T cells, for example: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/how-often-have-i-said-to-you-that-immune-correlations-do-not-equate-with-causality
Another, probably more likely mechanism is training of the innate immune system where previous exposure can protect against a whole range of other glycosylated viruses (not just coronaviruses). The subject is really complicated and I'm not an expert in this, but it shows one thing: The notion that "this is a novel virus therefore nobody is immune" is as bogus as the other convid narratives that were thrust upon us by our dear overlords.
Yep T cells are an entirely separate (but very important) topic. I write elsewhere that antibody levels can fade, which is true of detectable levels. But this doesn't necessarily mean people who idon't have detectable IgG antibodies don't have natural immunity. The immunity is there. It kicks in when needed. The antibody levels are just one possible marker of prior infection.
With all due respect, PCR test aren't reliable. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test basically said we have a lot of bacteria in us and depending on how many cycles the PCR test runs for can show pretty much everyone has some kind of sickness.
Also what ever you do don't do autopsies.
And for goodness sakes don't ever do studies on what people over the years have claimed to heal people with cancer. Whether it is was Rene Caisse with her herbal tea being taken to court with 1,000 signatures stating she healed cancer patients, or Hoxsey 17 clinics shut down by Morris Fishbein from AMA. (Though I smile a little knowing that Fishbein had to admit in court that Hoxsey did cure cancer.) From Max Gerson diet, to Krebs vitamin B17 (laetrile), to mistlle toe, Dr. Simoncini baking soda cure, Royal Rife's electromagnetic microscope cure, and Brzynski peptides/antineoplastons being discredited despite their evidence. The Rockerfellers and Andrew Carnegie paid people to sit on medical boards to ensure the profit always fell back to them, and to harass anyone that had success treating cancer patients. We know often times a cheap anti-parasitic med, vitamin D, and vitamin C may turn a cancer patients diagnosis around, but oncologist today don't see that as an option instead opting for invasive cut, poison and burn profit for the "system". Even Dr. Akbar Khan tries to market his dichloroacetate (DCA) or his SEF that provides less toxins to chemo patients is denied to cancer patients. They won't do studies on any of these treatments as it could hurt Rockerfellers/Carnegie profits.
I agree, Dorothy. But the antibody tests are more convincing ... and the protocol that was being used was "We're not going to do any antibody tests of Naval crew members" unless we had some PCR tests that came back positive on a few ships.
Bogus or not, those PCR tests would have produced many "positives" if they'd been administered in December 2019 - March 2020.
I also think the PCR tests probably do pick up real "Covid cases" if they are set at 25 to 30 cycle thresholds. I actually think a lot of the later positives on the Roosevelt were picking up dead or non-contagious or 'old" virus. That's why crew members kept testing positive even after they were safely in port in Guam and all isolated on military bases or in single-room hotels.
An even more interesting question to me is why did "only" 60 percent of crew members test positive for antibodies. IMO there's no way that virus hadn't infected just about every person on that ship by the end of March 2020. I think the reason the antibody percentage wasn't higher is that some percentage of crew members had been infected in November, December 2019 and early January 2020 .... BEFORE these crew members had boarded the ship. By the time they got their antibody tests in late April, the antibodies had faded to undetectable levels in some percentage of the crew members. (Antibodies DO fade in two or three months in many people. Also, some small percentage of people never produce detectable levels of antibodies ... So I think that 60-percent figure is a significant undercount of people on that ship who had previously been infected.)
Not everyone who gets infected develops antibodies. If the infection is abrogated by the innate immune system, the adaptive immune system may not kick in ergo no antibodies. But that person would still have had an infection which, if tested at the right moment, would have produced a positive PCR result.
For me, a significant detail of the Roosevelt "antibody study" is that said study was only of 382 crew members (out of a crew of approximately 4,800). This means only 7.9 percent of the crew donated blood for this antibody study.
For some reason, 90 percent of crew members of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle gave blood for their antibody study. At one time, CDC/Navy officials said they were going to test at least 1,000 crew members. So why did the study get down-sized so dramatically? If the French could test 90 percent of crew members from one of their aircraft carriers, why couldn't Unites States' Naval/public health officials do the same thing?
My theory is that more antibody tests (and more questions of crew members on WHEN they first experienced symptoms) would have produced many more possible "early" cases. How could this be explained when the crew members had no contact with anyone else after the ship left port on January 17?
The obvious take-away would be that the virus - and virus spread - started when the ship pulled out of port on or before January 17, 2020. (I assume sailors boarded the ship a day or two before the ship left its home port of San Diego). This by itself would explode the narrative that this virus did not exist in America on January 17.
So, per my hypothesis, officials dramatically down-sized the size of the antibody study to conceal even more evidence of early spread.
It's great that officials decided to do antibody tests on crew members from three Naval vessels. However, once said antibody studies came back with "positive" percentages of 41, 60 and 65 percent from these studies, didn't it occur to ANY public health or Navy official that maybe they should test some more sailors from other ships for antibodies? I guess it didn't.
Another eye-opening piece of information from the Roosevelt antibody study is this fact: Of the 260 or so sailors (out of 382) who tested positive for antibodies, 12 self-reported symptoms 41 or more days before blood was drawn for their antibody tests. As my article notes, two sailors had symptoms 98 and 99 days before they donated blood for the study.
(Sailors participating in the study filled out questionnaires about any symptoms).
If these 12 sailors did have Covid when they were symptomatic, they would have been spreading virus to shipmates between January 17 and approximately March 10. How many other sailors would each sailor infect in such “congregate” settings?
Furthermore, as pointed out in my article, the CDC and Navy only performed antibody tests on 382 of the ship’s 4,8000 crew. This is 7.9 percent of the crew. If every sailor had received an antibody test and also filled out the same “symptom” questionnaire, the study might have produced 12.5X more antibody-confirmed cases that dated to or before the ship’s first port-of-call (in Vietnam, March. 8-10).
This would be approximately 150 sailors who might have been spreading virus on all levels of the ship in every department of the ship.
Again, it seems to me that it’s very possible every crew member would have been infected in a matter of weeks. (The ship was actually at sea for 2 months and 10 days.)
It’s never been explained why the Navy and CDC didn’t test many MORE sailors for antibodies. I did find one earlier story that said the Navy was planning on testing at least 1,000 sailors for antibodies, but it ended up testing only 382. And this antibody test was “voluntary.” It seems to me the Navy could have ordered its crew members to get an antibody test just like they ordered the same crew members to get PCR tests or, later, vaccines.
My suspicion: The size of the study was massively-downsized to prevent even more evidence of “early spread.”
Lastly, I note that none of the 12 possible “early spread” crew members were interviewed by CDC or Navy medical personnel about their symptoms. This is identical to the fact the CDC never questioned the 106 Americans who had antibodies in their blood when they donated blood to the Red Cross in December 2019 and January 2020.
For the 100th time: Officials never investigate that which they don’t want to confirm. And the investigations “virus sleuths” do perform aren’t nearly as comprehensive and thorough as they should have been.
If the CDC and navy were serious about finding answers on early spread, or possible "case zeroes" on this ship, they would have performed antibody tests on all 4,800 crew members of the Roosevelt and they would have interviewed every sailor who tested positive for antibodies and had symptoms many weeks before their blood was drawn ... especially those who had symptoms before Covid was suppose to even exist in America.
CDC and Navy officials also would have randomly tested sailors serving on many other Naval vessels in the weeks and months before "official" Covid.
I'm with Dorothy re PCR testing . When I called the biontech lab here in the Toronto area ( land of all things and more draconian) who were making these home tests and the grocery stores were giving them out free for the good of us all , the guy I spoke with had no idea what I was talking about when I asked what the CT level was in this things .
I agree the PCR tests are dubious and were used to massively inflate case studies. But when I write about these outbreaks on these three ships, I'm primarily thinking about the antibody test results. I do trust those. Or, I think they definitely pick up people who have been previously infected ... but probably not all people because I think (detectable) antibodies fade over time and some people never produce them. Only 60 percent of Roosevelt crew members had antibodies ... after two months of that virus spreading in super-tight quarters? In my mind, that test should have produced 90 percent positives.
I think these results are proof that antibodies do fade after a couple of months in many people - and the people who tested negative for antibodies were probably infected four to six months before they got this antibody test. That's possible evidence of early spread IMO. In other words, they already had natural immunity by the time they re-boarded the ship around January 17, 2020.
... It's a theory anyway (An original one - a taboo one!)
What isn't taboo for most people like us Bill. Was at a meeting here in Toronto this week with the panelists speaking about all things taboo here in Canada - like all our natural health products being deemed dangerous in that Health Canada is going after the natural health care providers as well as our supplements that will require a Dr's script ! There were also Doctors who questioned , as well as one of the first "ethics" professors who lost her job for questioning the narrative . It seems our battle has just begun and after reading Dr Naomi Wolf's : Think Like a Tyrant , it's a hard one when it feels like all the pieces are lined up against us all . It must be terrible for you and others who have small children and know how difficult things will be going forward even with all the data available .
That's what scares me, Linelle. It's almost impossible to "prove" any nefarious conduct or activities when virtually every "truth-seeking" organization is now captured or corrupt.
How do we get past all these "gatekeepers of the news" who don't want the real (scandalous) stories to reach the masses?
Based on Shawn Buckley who is a constitutional lawyer who used to work with Health Canada (https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=232501®Id=642944) and now works for the natural health industry as well as being the moderator for our National CItizens Inquiry , he is very excited ( maybe should be a football coach ?) about what is happening because now we have the alternative health people coming around to the draconian way our so called " health canada" is working ; he believes there are more people waking up . He said we all have to do something rather than saying what a great job "they" , meaning the ones on the stage, are doing . He is suggesting getting on school boards etc. and even get into politics - easy for him to say -he is a lawyer who has been fighting health canada for 35 years and very comfortable in this contrarian role ; he's also a lovely guy - this helps . I am trying to figure out how I can do more at this late stage of life because of the young people and because I think we have been totally infiltrated both by the Chinese communists as well as the WEF . Even your American doctors are weighing in on the way our health officials are treating the doctors here ( we don't have enough) and those who questioned are being destroyed . One doctor just wrote the other day , that he is now working on a farm since they took away his "right " to practice and he didn't want the years of legal challenges. However , on a real note , the oncologist who spoke , said the doctors are the canaries in the coal mines because they have to keep getting the latest iterations of these new drugs - I'll assume it's all the health care providers in any hospitals because they will mandate it . He ( the oncologist) is thinking of teaching English somewhere and his wife could teach French . I did not answer your question Bill because I think there really isn't any answers, but rather, how are we all prepared to "work around" and not self censor - as they want . Do you have many like minded souls where you are so that you all can articulate your ideas going forward especially for the kids ? I"ve been stocking piling my supplements and i think I'll sell them from my suit jacket on the street . Like the movie King Rat - everyone can find an opportunity to make their strengths shine.
I view my role as trying to prove at least one scandal to the masses. If one scandal was "proven," the whole house of cards might/would collapse IMO. Absent that long-shot (the Powers that Be are NOT going to let one scandal be exposed) ... I guess I'm just trying to move the needle.
I think if RFK, Jr. was elected he could use the presidency to expose a lot of these people and organizations and drain a fair portion of the corrupt swamp. DeSantis might be able to do the same thing, but, boy, are the narrative-controllers taking care of this "threat." It looks like that threat to the Status Quo has already been neutralized.
Still early days Bill in the big scheme of things - maybe there is a good UFO type out there who can fix things - or be the next best hero to save us all - not going to happen . You have a defined role and that is wonderful and hope there are more than a few people like you in your area . I do think JFK was /is wonderful in his role with the children's defense and because of his running he had an opportunity to reveal more even with his limited platform with the types who want to destroy him. At a certain stage for him, it might be a relief not to be running and perhaps stay alive. When no one can debate Biden , at least that is what I've read , who is really running these gin joins- for us as well . I have no doubt it is the WEF as well as XI and our guys in power are beholding to those nefarious people and agendas.
Also, present your doctor with a written list of side effects after your second vaccine and drop your jaw as she dismisses them as “ not worth reporting.” How many times did that happen?
A lot. Most health care providers didn't bother filling out those VAERS reports, which were time-consuming.
Intentionally time consuming. The VAERS Site is under the HHS yet the CDC says they’re not credibility!
Regarding "don’t investigate this", I have been unaware of the following paper which is mentioned in the latest bunch of FOIA documents where they basically said we should censor this because it contradicts our Wuhan wet market bat soup narrative: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.30.926477
Anyway, if their calculations are correct, The Virus started to spread at some point between May 2019 and September 2019, which is not only consistent with the outbreaks on various ships. The mysterious Greenspring outbreak which nobody is allowed to investigate also falls into that time frame.
The more I think about this, the more confident I am that every ship in the Navy would have had many people with antibody evidence of infections - if these sailors had been tested for them in April 2020. The story, to me, is all the "active surveillance" officials could have done but didn't do. This tells me they knew what they would find if they did more of this testing.
cc: Bill
Dear Robert,
Here's Your Task:
(You Have Said Repeatedly That You Do Not Know How To Get "Us" Out Of This Mess.)
I Do. It Is Staring The World In The Face:
Construct Every Sentence That You Utter Upon The Foundational Fuckery That You Revealed To Steve Bannon.
" I Haven't Wanted To Believe ... That ..."
That's It Bob. Tell Us Everything About Your Field That You Did Not Want To Believe, But That You Now Know Was A Lie. Then We Can Talk About Integrity. Because You Won't Be Talking About What To Do. You Will Have Done It.
Just about everything I write about falls into the category of "truths that would be very hard to handle" (for 90 percent of the population). It's hard for most people to believe that all the important "narratives" they've accepted as gospel/infallible/scientifically-proven truths ... might, in fact, be brazen and intentional lies ... told by all the people and institutions they have been conditioned to "trust."
That's The That On That.
Whatever you do, don’t ask questions about the flu shot
Yes I haven't seen any reports of serious adverse effects from the mRNA flu shots. Have their been many? Did the adverse effects miss the news cycle? I have expected the flu shot AE's would be similar to Covid but haven't heard of any AE's.
I mean in 2019 and sooner.
Really weird that they could “risk” the alleged awesomeness of the flu shot in fall 2020 by predicting a twindemic. Something to consider
My "Spidey sense" tells me that 70 percent of American senior citizens getting their flu shots in the fall of 2020 had something significant to do with the big spike of "Covid deaths" in the winter of 2020-2021. I can't "confirm" this of course ... but I dang sure know there will be no study or investigation that every looks into this possibility.
Consider 2019 as well.
I have a post queued up that hits on the same thing. I think OJ Simpson is still 'looking' into who killed Nicole.
I want to know if Simpsonwood happened. If Simpsonwood happened and that transcript is real then we have to rethink an entire industry and some people owe RFK Jr. an apology or two.
Off topic, but a couple of posters at the Brownstone Writers group (including Jeffrey Tucker) say that the movie "Oppenheimer" is .... good!
I referenced this movie a couple of weeks ago in an article where I noted that I was glad Hollywood still made a couple of movies for adults. ... So I might have to break routine of the last seven years and go see a movie without the kids.
Heck, I had it early February on a cruise ship. Took a z pack, Sudafed and bourbon and I was back on my feet in a day. I’m old, but I’m certainly not overweight and I’m in pretty good shape. From the start, I knew it was bullshit. That’s a technical term.