Re Early Spread, what did President Trump NOT Know
… And why didn’t he know it? Were his advisors concealing key information from him? Here’s what SHOULD have happened ….
A fascinating “what-might-have been” article published by The Brownstone Institute presents evidence that one White House meeting - later cancelled - might have prevented the lockdowns and much of the Covid madness that later ensued.
According to author Eric Hartmann, Stanford scientist Dr. John Ioannidis and a team of other “elite” scientists were set to meet with President Trump. The goal: Let the President know that every scientist didn’t think like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx.
(Ioannidis later became famous, or infamous, for showing that, for most citizens, the Infection Fatality Rate for this virus was roughly the same or lower than the death risk of the flu.)
The article’s salient points hinge on my favorite taboo subject - “early spread” - as Ioannidis is among the group who believed many Americans had probably already been infected by this virus by mid-March 2020.
This would mean any lockdowns to slow or stop the spread - or “flatten the curve” - were probably pointless and would cause far more harm than these draconian, unprecedented “mitigation” measures would prevent.
For me, the article also raises this intriguing question: What did certain officials know (about virus origins and spread) … and when did they know this?
Although my formal “science education” ended in 11th grade, my parents and God bestowed me with common sense, which I’m going to employ in today’s thought exercise, which shows what I would have done if I was Donald Trump or if I was the Science King of the World in the first 75 days of 2020.
Something like the events that follow SHOULD have happened in the pivotal, history-changing weeks of early 2020.
The fact something like this did NOT happen provides another giant tell about how corrupt and captured our science establishment has become.
I’m no scientist, but here’s what I would have done ….
The key “known knowable” in the “virus origins” saga is perhaps this nugget of information:
On the last day of December 2019, Chinese officials reported a pneumonia-like illness of “unknown origins” to the World Health Organization.
For the entire global “public health” establishment, this was a Super Bowl-type event.
“Okay, guys, this might be the Big One we’ve all been predicting. Let’s all get hot and prove our expert bonafides and save the world,” etc.
What would I have done when this news hit the Emergency Bat Wire?
First, I would have asked, “Okay, what are the symptoms of this alleged/possible new disease?”
Next, I would have asked: “Is it possible this possible new virus was already infecting people outside of Wuhan?”
Knowing the symptoms of this new disease are almost exactly like Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI), I would have immediately started looking at all the weekly ILI “Surveillance Reports” produced by all 50 U.S. state health agencies and the CDC.
I would have asked: “Have we had a conspicuous spike of people going to the doctor with similar symptoms? For example, are people getting more flu tests than in previous flu seasons?”
As it turns out, as I showed in a recent article, the answer is/was, “Yes. No doubt.”
The next thing I would have done is told all my public health colleagues: “Guys, we need to develop an antibody assay to test for this new disease ASAP.”
After our crack scientists and medical labs had developed a suitable antibody test (China had one by late January 2020), I would have said: “We need to test ‘archived’ blood we already have in storage and see if any Americans had developed antibodies to this virus before, say, Dec. 30, 2019.”
My next Question: “Do we have any stored archived blood we can actually test for Covid antibodies?”
Answer: As it turns out, we do.
The Red Cross (and several other blood-bank organizations) actually collects tens of thousands of pints of blood every single day. One assumes at least some of this blood must be saved for weeks or months.
I would then order that we expedite the testing of every vial of “archived blood” in the country - Blood from California, Washington, New Jersey, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama - from all 50 states.
The whole purpose of this exercise would be to provide data and intelligence on how many people may have already been infected by this virus.
As Science King, I’d order that we use our invaluable new antibody-diagnostic tool to test samples collected from October 2019 through February 2020.
This way we could see if more blood donors in January had Covid antibodies than in November. If this was the case, we’d have what some might call “a virus-spread situation.”
Another point I would have made: Why do we have to depend on the Red Cross to provide us blood we can test for antibodies? We’re the U.S. Government; can’t we start collecting our own blood? Tell people it’s for a good cause - “Science.”
Apparently, the U.S. only had one batch
of archived blood that could be tested ….
As readers of Bill Rice, Jr’s Substack Newsletter surely know by now, the CDC identified ONE tranche of saved Red Cross blood from three states, with that blood having been collected Dec. 13-16, 2019.
But surely this was not the only archived blood that had been saved and could have been tested (given that this was, after all, a “national emergency” - The Mother of All Live Exercises.)
But let’s say this was the only 1,900 vials of blood in the country available for antibody testing.
I would have said: “Okay, let’s at least go ahead and test that blood … but let’s test it as fast as we can …. Before we order the whole country to lock down.”
At some point, these 1,900 pints of Red Cross blood were tested for Covid antibodies, but, to this day, nobody knows WHEN these preserved blood specimens were tested. For all we know, that blood might have been tested by the end of February 2020 (weeks before the lockdowns were ordered) … or in September 2020, nine months after the blood had originally been collected.
All we know is the CDC (itself) published a “study” in late November 2020 telling everyone that at least 39 of those blood donors (2.04 percent of the tested cohort) did test positive for IgG (and/or IgM) antibodies via an ELISA antibody test.
So, to be clear, the dad-blasted virus was here - in at least three U.S. states in November 2019. That’s what the CDC’s own antibody test showed.
And President Trump - and Bill Rice, Jr. - could have known this by March 2020 if the Science officials had just put a “rush job” on the testing project. I mean, how long does it really take to test 1,900 units of blood for antibodies? Probably a couple of days.
I also note that the “Red Cross Antibody Study” results were published AFTER the 2020 presidential election - when the vaccine had already begun to be rolled out.
We also know (I think) President Trump wasn’t told anything like this in the weeks between January and March 2020:
“Mr. President, we’ve got a lot of blood we are currently testing to see if any Americans might have had this virus in November or December 2019. It’s possible, sir, this virus was already spreading pretty widely in America a couple of months ago. If this is the case, lockdowns to slow or stop virus spread probably won’t do much good.”
For what it’s worth, my conjecture is that SOMEONE in our Science/Virus-Fighting Leadership didn’t want the President (and/or the public) to know this non-trivial information.
Certainly nobody ordered any Red Cross archived blood to be tested as soon as possible.
(Also, just as certainly, no Cracker Jack investigative journalist at The New York Times, Wall Street Journal or “Sixty Minutes” asked any questions like: “Is there any evidence this virus has already been spreading around the world?”)
My main point is that nobody at NIH, NIAID, the HHS, the CDC or any member of the White House’s Covid Leadership Team said, “Let’s hold on here. Let’s see what these blood donor antibody tests tell us.”
When it came to locking down a couple billion people on the planet, why check any antibody test results first?
So what does this basic information tell us?
It tells me “someone” wanted to conceal evidence of early spread in America … that these trusted public health officials didn’t want to “confirm” anything that might stop or “call-off” the lockdowns.
… and, if we didn’t have the lockdowns, we might not have had 250 million Americans lining up to get a rushed, experimental” mRNA “vaccine,” a shot that was mandatory for many Americans if they wanted to keep their jobs or keep attending college.
Eric Hartmann’s article is about a White House meeting that did NOT take place, a meeting that might have changed history for the better if it had taken place.
Regarding Hartmann’s article, I’d simply highlight the topics that could and should have been brought up at said non-meeting … but weren’t … for some reason.
So what might this reason have been?
My strong hunch is that “someone” (or several people) knew, or at least strongly suspected, that this virus had already spread around the world, including America.
This prompts one final question: How in the hell could this person or people have known this?
It seems to me they knew what they didn’t want anyone to investigate. They didn’t want anyone to find undeniable evidence of early spread and then publicize said evidence to the entire world. Again, how did these people know or suspect what those investigations would have revealed?
ADDENDUM …. Put it this way ….
If public health officials were sincerely interested in dating virus spread and identifying the true “Case Zero” of Covid, everything they did NOT do they would have done. For example. …
* Officials would have tested more “archived” blood (from the Red Cross and other blood bank companies) for antibodies. They would have tested blood collected from all sections of the country, as well as blood collected at various points in time.
Instead, CDC officials only tested two tranches of Red Cross blood - one tranche collected Dec. 13-16, 2019 and the other tranche collected Dec. 30, 2019 - January 16, 2020.
* They would have expedited testing of this blood and certainly tested it weeks before the lockdowns.
* They would have interviewed every person who provided a blood sample that was positive for Covid. They also would have interviewed the “close contacts” of these positive individuals (and also tested these people for antibodies).
Instead, public health officials didn’t interview a single person who tested positive for antibodies and had Covid symptoms in 2019 or January 2020.
* They would have encouraged every American who thought they might have been infected earlier (who experienced Covid symptoms) to get an antibody test once such tests became available in their communities.
Instead, they didn’t encourage anyone to get an early antibody test. Of the few labs and clinics that did begin to offer antibody tests in March 2020, officials and experts often maligned these tests and results as “junk tests” and not credible.
The Seattle Times wrote a story in May 2020, suggesting that officials were making it intentionally difficult for people to receive antibody tests. The paper called this “throttled access.”
* Officials would have released the information about early antibody tests that private citizens began to get in March 2020 through May 2020.
Instead, no state or national public health agencies have ever released any data on how many antibody test results were positive among the group of citizens who reported Covid-like symptoms prior to late February 2020.
* Antibody tests (and PCR tests) would have been available much sooner. Instead, the major lab and testing companies the government often works with didn’t begin to offer antibody tests until the last week of April 2020.
It should be noted that the longer someone waits to get an antibody test (after infection), the more likely it might be that the test result is “negative” (as antibody titer levels apparently fade to undetectable levels after two or three months in some percentage of the population).
Delaying the date people received antibody tests probably ensured fewer “positive” results.
Officials would have placed a great significance on the number of states (almost every U.S. state) that were experiencing “severe” and “widespread” outbreaks of ILI between December 2019 and early March 2020.
In the “Flu Season” of 2019-2020, ILI cases began earlier than in previous flu seasons (in early November 2019 in many states) and remained far above “baseline” levels into early March.
The fact tens of millions of Americans were sick with Covid-like symptoms (most testing negative for influenza) should have strongly suggested early spread of a novel coronavirus to officials.
In short, everything officials could have done if they were genuinely curious about the start date of virus spread in America … they did NOT do. In fact, they did the opposite, which makes skeptics like myself think certain public health officials were intentionally trying to conceal evidence of early spread from the public.
The strongest “evidence” my hypothesis might be true actually comes from all the things that should have happened … but did not happen.
This article focusses on antibody tests, which of course are created to show evidence of "prior infection." I don't focus on the PCR swab tests, which were not available for most Americans until latter March 2020 (significantly, AFTER the lockdowns started).
I also think wide-spread use of PCR tests were intentionally delayed to conceal evidence of "early spread." True, the PCR tests were/are very dubious and a scandal by themselves - especially when they are set to 35 or 40 "cycles" - ensuring that the vast majority of test results are probably "false positives."
This stipulated, PCR tests set at 25 "cycles" of magnification are probably very accurate at picking up authentic cases. I have no doubt if PCR tests were being widely given in January 2020, the world would have also known that this virus had spread widely through the population.
So our public health "conspirators" HAD to delay PCR testing ... and, as this article suggests, they also refused to go back and test archived blood via the antibody tests, which should have been available to the CDC by, say, mid-February 2020.
Any testing that might have provided over-whelming evidence of "early spread" was delayed, not done and/or "suppressed" or "concealed" in my opinion.
... All to make sure nothing happened that might scuttle the REAL plan- rolling out the mRNA "vaccines."
What ever did or did not happen with this particular situation, President Trump was ill served by almost the entire executive branch. A greater case of gross insubordination can not be imagined.