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."
That's another can of worms. If you only test sick people, you end up with case fatality rates like 3% (which is what they did early on and the media was like "oh no, the worst plague of all time is upon us"), but on the other hand, widespread PCR testing is nonsensical because let's say the false positive rate is 1%. Now if you test 1 million people and there are 1000 true "cases", you will also get 10000 false positives and the media can again go "oh, look, already 11000 cases, the coof is going around, everyone panic now", but if you test positive in that scenario, the probability that you are really infected is 9% and the chance that you have a false positive is 91%.
But PCR tests are great to test archived waste water samples, which they could have done earlier and it would also have been easier because instead of thousands of tests, a few dozens would have been sufficient.
They didn't test water water treatment plants either. The antibody tests are the only lab-test they could have done that would give them an idea of how many people were infected. The Red Cross study showed 2.04 percent positives from a random sample of blood donors. I'm sure the real percentage is higher than2.04 percent because I think the antibody tests are more likely to miss cases than pick them up. I also don't trust the government labs.
But 2.04 percent "prevalence" in Washington, California and Oregon in November is enough "proof" that a lot of people had this virus .... in November. (Important note: While the blood was donated in mid-December 2019, these blood donors weren't infected in December - a couple of days before they donated blood. The vast majority of these 39 positive donors were no doubt infected weeks earlier.)
As you'll probably remember, the CDC also didn't interview any of the 39 people who tested positive to see when or if they had Covid symptoms. This is another example of "virus-origination sleuths" not investigating that which they did not want to "confirm."
PCR tests are a bit of a red herring. There is no way a test swab needs to be inserted up to the Brain barrier if its respiratory in nature. A spit, throat or nasal swab would have been sufficient. Makes me wonder why the theatrics of PCR was carried out.
On one occasion I found the nasel swab to be painful because the person who administered it was rough and jammed it in as far as it would go. On other occasions the medical technician was much gentler and didn’t place the swab in as far.
I have now read through the Red Cross study. I don't think you can conclude that 2.04% had The Virus. The main problem is cross reactivity with other coronaviruses. What you would have to do, and what they sort of did, are different antibody tests against different parts of The Virus (for example, S1, S2, RBD), then define some cutoff values (which are somewhat arbitrary), and from the combination of these results, you may then conclude that the antibodies are "probably from SARS-CoV-2" or "inconclusive" or "probably from cross reactivity". When you do that, the lowest estimate is something like 0.027%, anything above that would be "inconclusive" at best.
What I agree with is that The Virus was probably in the US in late fall of 2019 and they were negligent by not looking further into this. So, if I could go back in time to January 2020 and be declared "Science King of the World", I would immediately order tests on wastewater samples. They did that later and estimated a prevalence of 5% for late March 2020, (although it may be as low as 0.1% because it is again based on estimates and "guesswork"). But at least it contributes to the overall picture.
I'm very familiar with the counter argument that we can just throw out all the "positive" antibody tests of people who think they were sick in 2019. I'm just not convinced by this argument. I guess They are saying ALL of these "positive" results were the results of "cross-reactivity."
Or, do they say that a few of these results might have been "legit?" Even if they are saying this, I argue they are admitting "early spread" ... that is, if the virus is/was very contagious the transmission chain wouldn't have stopped with these one or two people, right?
Also, look at all the positive antibody results from people who definitely had Covid symptoms (like Mayor Michael Melham) in November 2019. Or the 13 people from the French Study (who all had "neutralizing antibodies.") French officials did interview at least 13 "positive" blood donors. Were these positive results also all due to "cross reactivity?"
Lastly, I'd note that, as far as I am aware, none of these "positive" early cases came down with Covid in the 12 months after "official" Covid arrived. I would argue this observation strongly suggests these people acquired natural immunity from their earlier cases, which were legit in my opinion.
What I'm saying is, if I were judge and had to decide solely based on these antibody tests, I would not be convinced because the evidence is inconclusive. It's like finding footprints: Even if model and size match the shoes of the suspect, it doesn't necessarily mean the suspect was there, it just means that someone with similar shoes was there. It's circumstantial evidence, but not enough to prove anything.
The French Study used a test against S1 which is at least more specific than full spike. Together with high neutralization titers and some of them describing symptoms, I would say it is probable that at least some of the 13 people had Covid.
Patient 7 in the French study was sick in October 2019 and had PCR-confirmed Covid 11 months later.
Thanks for the link. I agree we need more waste water tests, but I still think the antibody tests are telling the tale. Officials also dismiss all the positive antibody results that came from independent labs and smaller medical clinics or in-house tests. Those tests were all "junk science" - if you believe these people, which I don't.
I think they are really saying: "Hey, you can trust the later antibody tests ... just don't trust those early ones"
The PCR tests from the start were nothing more than a scam. Even the inventor Kary Mullis stated they were not ment to be used for detecting this alleged virus.
What they are being used for is DNA collection and conveniently being sent to a data base in China.
Think about what designer viruses can be made from this and on how they can target certain individuals/races etc. Not a pretty picture. This is science run amok!
Yes I understand this to be true. Some were injured by the swabs and the swabs themselves were contaminated. Kary Mullis who died in Aug 2019 had choice words about Fauci. Hilarious but too sad:
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.
He blew out the national debt, locked us down, shoved ventilators down people's throats, and bribed the perjurers. Something there to like? (Granted, fuels were more accessible during his reign.) O'Biden is just more of the same, except he doubled the prices of fuels, blew up the Nordstream pipelines, and sells off Ukrainian and Russian vital organs. (Only Palestinians got that privilege under Trumpenstein.)
Bill Clinton wasn’t perfect but he had a balanced budget at the end of his second term. I wonder what would have happened if the constitution didn’t prohibit a third term.
In my article, I also make clear I think the "watchdog" press is part of the conspiracy to conceal evidence of early spread.
I'll note that I have read a couple of articles where mainstream press journalists DO note that many Americans think they might have had "early" Covid. I've saved hundreds of reader comments where people say this - and give their reasons they think this.
But all these articles say, "No, all you people are wrong. That's simply not possible - according to the experts."
For my part, when you have millions of people around the world sharing similar anecdotes, maybe you should give these testimonials a little more credibility or weight?"
And I've of course pointed out time and again that many of these people who think they had early Covid later tested positive for antibodies. But those cases are just the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority of the population never got an antibody test or if they got one it was four to seven months after they had experienced these symptoms. And "detectable" levels of antibodies fade in many people.
Also, state health agencies have never disclosed how many positive antibody results their agencies were receiving from the labs and medical clinics that did begin testing for antibodies in March 2020, April 2020 and May 2020. That's a giant "concealment" tell as well.
In a podcast I listened to yesterday (Del Bigtree interviewing Dr. Scott Atlas on the Highwire) it was confirmed that Mike Pence was the head of the White House Task Force, then I listened to Mike Pence being interviewed by Jordan Peterson praising the military and I thought to myself Hmmmmm.
I added this text to the story a few hours after I originally posted the article.
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.
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 place 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.
Lockdowns served many purposes, including convincing people to take "safe and effective" experimental gene therapies or grandma would die, as well as an excuse to explain much of the excess death that would follow from the poison shots,
Right. They HAD to have the lockdowns ... because they HAD to have the "life-saving vaccines." No lockdowns, the panic and requisite fear would have been much lower.
The key fraction is the REAL IFR. If the public knew this virus was no more lethal than the common flu, there wouldn't have been any clamor for the new mRNA vaccine.
The way you get the "real" IFR is counting "real" prior cases - which gets us back to "early spread."
In my articles, I've now identified at least 153 "antibody-confirmed" cases of "early" Covid. All - or the vast majority - of these cases would have occurred in November 2019 or even earlier.
The counter-argument to my journalism is that these antibody results must have been producing "false positives" (probably from "cross-reactivity" to other viruses).
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that 90 percent of the people who tested positive for antibodies actually didn't have Covid. Ninety percent of these test results were "false positives."
Okay, what about the other 10 percent?
This would leave us with at least 15 people around the world (10 percent of 153) who DID have legitimate positive antibody results that were Covid cases. (This would actually be 30 people as we don't know the identify of the 15 unknown virus-transmitters who infected the 15 people who later tested positive).
Question: How do the experts explain these 30 cases? If they all had Covid, the virus was "spreading" and didn't originate in Wuhan in November 2019 (as these people had not been to Wuhan or been infected by anyone who had been to Wuhan).
So, really, this knowledge/conclusion would prove that the virus existed by early November 2019 and was infecting people in multiple locations.
I think this leads to the conclusion that these naysayers of my theory would have to say that 100-percent of these antibody tests were "false positives." ALL of them were "false positives." They can't say that ANY of them were "real Covid."
So what they are really saying is that every antibody test that came back positive was bogus. The tests were awful and should all be discredited. Thinking about this, I wonder why the CDC even did that one "Red Cross" antibody study if study authors are going to come back and simply say, "Ignore this study. It's bunk. We don't believe our own results."
I keep making this point: If just one or two people really had Covid in November 2019 or earlier, this virus WAS spreading. But I don't think all 153 antibody results were bogus. I actually think it's more likely these antibody tests produce(d) "false negatives" than "false positives."
As I understand it, the virus traveled from China to Italy first. From Italy to other European countries. And then quickly to the US. Thousands of people arrive daily in the US from all over the world. Especially in Dec. as people often take a holiday around that time and if they can afford it, they travel abroad. The US is 2nd in the world as a vacation destination.
... It should be clear that I place a great deal of weight on the results of the "Red Cross Antibody Study" that was (belatedly) performed. I'd also note that "Red Cross blood donors" is about as random a "sample" of the American population as epidemiologists could get.
In other words, this was not a sample of people who said they'd had Covid symptoms months earlier. This was just typical Americans who donate blood. In fact, if the "sample" HAD been people who had experienced ILI-type symptoms weeks earlier, the "positive" percentage probably would have been higher than 2.04 percent.
I also note that, per my research into antibody test results, it seems clear that people who had definite and pretty serious Covid symptoms were much much more likely to later test positive for antibodies than the group who had no symptoms or mild symptoms.
I imagine this "sample" included people who did have some symptoms weeks earlier and some who did not. It is a good sample in the sense that it tested people close to when they might have had symptoms or not. Of course, people who have recently been sick with cold or ILI symptoms are not supposed to donate blood. This tells me some of those positive blood donors might have had symptoms at least two weeks or more before they donated blood. This makes me think some of these people may have been symptomatic in October 2019 if not even earlier.
If memory serves, this CDC study does not report if the positive donors tested positive for IgG antibodies, IgM antibodies or both. That would be very important information on when these people may have been infected as IgM antibodies are not detectable after about a month of infection.
So an IgM "negative" result and an IgG "positive" antibody result actually means that person was infected at least 30 days before they donated blood. As far as I am aware, ALL of the individual cases I have highlighted in articles fit this description. That is, they got a positive antibody result in late April or early May but the test was "negative" for the IgM antibody. This means they did NOT have a recent case - which supports their position/belief they had Covid when they were "sick" many months earlier - in 2019.
So much done wrong. Most importantly, knowing that every single thing the media he called 'The Enemy of the People' lie about everything should've been the first disqualifier of all about a pandemic virus. They had spent five years lying about him, Russia, everything, witch hunt, even overlapped an impeachment hearing for conducting foreign policy, decisions vetoed by a Lt Colonel serving him, lies, lies, lies. Yet he believed them about a virus threat?!?!?!
No, it didn't exist outside of the fearporn. It wasn't real. Excess morbidity tables from prior to the experimental biotech shoved into everyone's arms prove it. If the lies of the Enemy of the People had been ignored and business as usual been allowed to continue none of this would've happened.
Which, as devastating as it's been may have served the purpose of exposing an evil system that was hidden from view before it was ready to be exposed. Giving us a better chance to prevent a dystopian darkness from settling on humanity. Still big odds against us, but better than it would've been. If we can reach enough hypnotized minds to make a difference.
I like your point that President Trump's default thinking on the virus should have been: The press is lying or grossly exaggerating. He should have been far more skeptical of the official narrative that quickly ... spread.
Also don't forget that in January, 2017 that Fauci warned us that the next administration would be dealing with a pandemic. Wouldn't you think that Trump and others would have remembered this and it would have set off BS detectors later on? Such as in, how would Fauci have been able to predict it? What did he know and when did he know it?
Prez Trump knew late January/early February that a dangerous infection was spreading. He mentioned this to Bob Woodward, who was interviewing him for an upcoming book. Woodward did not share this (important!) information with fellow journalists, but kept it to himself.
Okay, I get it. You're a Southern, "Evangelical" Zionist. (I've recovered from my Zionist upbringing.) Why don't you take it (Don't forget Jared Kushner!) up with Donald Jeffries? https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/
How did certain people know ahead of time about this virus? Hmmm because our very own gubment made it and released it. This was and still is a very well throughout meticulous plan to commit mass DEMOCIDE! And unfortunately, it’s working.
I've followed John Ioannidis' work for many years, way before Covid. When they started demonizing him was when I started to suspect something was going on. Yes, I'm slow.
"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. When it came to locking down a couple billion people on the planet, why check any antibody test results first?"
This pretty much proves that China was Covid's last landing place. First, because the WHO investigative committee traced the first case to September, 2019, and second–and most convincing–lockdowns of 7% of the population proved sufficient to contain the virus.
My husband was sick late Dec. 2019 - he went through O'Hare twice in the week before. I had never seen him so ill, delirious and 104F. He went to his M.D. about two weeks later and mentioned it. The doctor answered that we had a bad flue season. I asked if this was communicated to the CDC. The answer was no, these cases were not reported.
I had similar experience in 2017 when I got ill after being bitten by an Aedes mosquito (living in the CA Central Valley). I mentioned it to my M.D. thinking he would report it. Answer: why would the CDC be interested in a mosquito bite ?
Based on these experiences, I have serious doubt about information collecting by the CDC.
I just got to your essay........and yes, when my husband, his sister and brother in law and I had "something" - theirs was the 3rd week of Feb 2020 and mine began March 1 2020, I went to the Tarrant County health site and looked at the reported ILI reports. I still have access to those charts. For those that actually got tested, the regular flu virus was minimal, BUT a high percentage of "unknown" ILI reports beginning at that time.
As for Trump, I watched those press meetings closely, Trump's expression and body language reflected to me someone that was not pleased with what was transpiring. Of course the medical field is not his field...what else could he do but let "them" - the bad guys take over. Even at those press meetings, they would belittle him constantly. Of course he wasn't saying go drink bleach....he asked a simple question....couldn't we come up with something that you could take - a TREATMENT - that could help as well as bleach?
I am afraid this country has been hijacked......most likely for good.
Teri, I'd love to look at any document you have that shows ILI reports, and specifically the percentage of people who were going to the doctor with some kind of "bug" symptoms who tested "negative" for influenza.
FWIW, friends of mine who work at a big local medical clinic told me they were being inundated with sick patients, almost none of whom were "testing positive" for influenza. One administrator told me, "We thought there was something wrong with the flu tests."
I'd like to get all the documentation I can that might show this was common at medical clinics around the country.
I will send it to you this evening. I can still access it at that site...........very very curious indeed. That's another reason I felt my antibody test that showed negative was most likely bogus.
Pez Trump's bleach remark could have been triggered by a story about scientists in Guyana who got malaria and got better by taking the water treatment Chlorine Dioxine/Hydrochloric Acid. This remedy is apparently also prescribed by holistic practitioners for cleansing purposes.
Thank you for that information.....very interesting. To me, it was also his way of saying...hey, surely there is something ...some treatment.....to try.........perhaps already knowing that repurposed drugs were being used.......For "them," it was just another way to demean him.
Yes. I have no love for Marjorie Taylor Green. But the way she was ridiculed about her questioning rays from space and CA wildfires, is a similar example how journalists are not doing their job very well. MTG was referring to an experiment proposed by power co. PG&E. It was supposed to start in 2014. Solar energy was te be collected in space, then beamed back as microwaves, to be converted to electricity. The receiving sub station would be located in Fresno, CA. The experiment never happened in the US. Currently Germany is giving it a try.
Yes...........I am afraid no matter what is said is going to be skewed to the point it makes the statement absurd. Our country is headed for a point of no return.
I wish I had a dime for every anecdote I've read like yours (regarding people who think/suspect they might have had Covid in the fall or winter of 2019/early 2020). We're supposed to believe ALL of these people are wrong. In other words, even if millions of people have the same anecdotes and beliefs, "science" should ignore these voluminous anecdotes.
The medical, science, government and journalism professions have done the exact same thing with MILLIONS of anecdotes about "vaccine" injuries and deaths.
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."
That's another can of worms. If you only test sick people, you end up with case fatality rates like 3% (which is what they did early on and the media was like "oh no, the worst plague of all time is upon us"), but on the other hand, widespread PCR testing is nonsensical because let's say the false positive rate is 1%. Now if you test 1 million people and there are 1000 true "cases", you will also get 10000 false positives and the media can again go "oh, look, already 11000 cases, the coof is going around, everyone panic now", but if you test positive in that scenario, the probability that you are really infected is 9% and the chance that you have a false positive is 91%.
But PCR tests are great to test archived waste water samples, which they could have done earlier and it would also have been easier because instead of thousands of tests, a few dozens would have been sufficient.
They didn't test water water treatment plants either. The antibody tests are the only lab-test they could have done that would give them an idea of how many people were infected. The Red Cross study showed 2.04 percent positives from a random sample of blood donors. I'm sure the real percentage is higher than2.04 percent because I think the antibody tests are more likely to miss cases than pick them up. I also don't trust the government labs.
But 2.04 percent "prevalence" in Washington, California and Oregon in November is enough "proof" that a lot of people had this virus .... in November. (Important note: While the blood was donated in mid-December 2019, these blood donors weren't infected in December - a couple of days before they donated blood. The vast majority of these 39 positive donors were no doubt infected weeks earlier.)
As you'll probably remember, the CDC also didn't interview any of the 39 people who tested positive to see when or if they had Covid symptoms. This is another example of "virus-origination sleuths" not investigating that which they did not want to "confirm."
PCR tests are a bit of a red herring. There is no way a test swab needs to be inserted up to the Brain barrier if its respiratory in nature. A spit, throat or nasal swab would have been sufficient. Makes me wonder why the theatrics of PCR was carried out.
On one occasion I found the nasel swab to be painful because the person who administered it was rough and jammed it in as far as it would go. On other occasions the medical technician was much gentler and didn’t place the swab in as far.
I have now read through the Red Cross study. I don't think you can conclude that 2.04% had The Virus. The main problem is cross reactivity with other coronaviruses. What you would have to do, and what they sort of did, are different antibody tests against different parts of The Virus (for example, S1, S2, RBD), then define some cutoff values (which are somewhat arbitrary), and from the combination of these results, you may then conclude that the antibodies are "probably from SARS-CoV-2" or "inconclusive" or "probably from cross reactivity". When you do that, the lowest estimate is something like 0.027%, anything above that would be "inconclusive" at best.
What I agree with is that The Virus was probably in the US in late fall of 2019 and they were negligent by not looking further into this. So, if I could go back in time to January 2020 and be declared "Science King of the World", I would immediately order tests on wastewater samples. They did that later and estimated a prevalence of 5% for late March 2020, (although it may be as low as 0.1% because it is again based on estimates and "guesswork"). But at least it contributes to the overall picture.
I'm very familiar with the counter argument that we can just throw out all the "positive" antibody tests of people who think they were sick in 2019. I'm just not convinced by this argument. I guess They are saying ALL of these "positive" results were the results of "cross-reactivity."
Or, do they say that a few of these results might have been "legit?" Even if they are saying this, I argue they are admitting "early spread" ... that is, if the virus is/was very contagious the transmission chain wouldn't have stopped with these one or two people, right?
Also, look at all the positive antibody results from people who definitely had Covid symptoms (like Mayor Michael Melham) in November 2019. Or the 13 people from the French Study (who all had "neutralizing antibodies.") French officials did interview at least 13 "positive" blood donors. Were these positive results also all due to "cross reactivity?"
Lastly, I'd note that, as far as I am aware, none of these "positive" early cases came down with Covid in the 12 months after "official" Covid arrived. I would argue this observation strongly suggests these people acquired natural immunity from their earlier cases, which were legit in my opinion.
Thanks for the discussion, highly appreciated.
What I'm saying is, if I were judge and had to decide solely based on these antibody tests, I would not be convinced because the evidence is inconclusive. It's like finding footprints: Even if model and size match the shoes of the suspect, it doesn't necessarily mean the suspect was there, it just means that someone with similar shoes was there. It's circumstantial evidence, but not enough to prove anything.
The French Study used a test against S1 which is at least more specific than full spike. Together with high neutralization titers and some of them describing symptoms, I would say it is probable that at least some of the 13 people had Covid.
Patient 7 in the French study was sick in October 2019 and had PCR-confirmed Covid 11 months later.
This is the wastewater study I was referring to (gross, don't read if you're planning to have lunch):
https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.00614-20
Thanks for the link. I agree we need more waste water tests, but I still think the antibody tests are telling the tale. Officials also dismiss all the positive antibody results that came from independent labs and smaller medical clinics or in-house tests. Those tests were all "junk science" - if you believe these people, which I don't.
I think they are really saying: "Hey, you can trust the later antibody tests ... just don't trust those early ones"
The PCR tests from the start were nothing more than a scam. Even the inventor Kary Mullis stated they were not ment to be used for detecting this alleged virus.
What they are being used for is DNA collection and conveniently being sent to a data base in China.
Think about what designer viruses can be made from this and on how they can target certain individuals/races etc. Not a pretty picture. This is science run amok!
Yes I understand this to be true. Some were injured by the swabs and the swabs themselves were contaminated. Kary Mullis who died in Aug 2019 had choice words about Fauci. Hilarious but too sad:
https://youtu.be/-nXjE_W8TXo
Mullis was warning about using PCR for general diagnoses. He wasn't talking about Covid in particular, because he died in August 2019.
By the way his book "Dancing in the Mind Field" is excellent.
BINGO!
Also graphene oxide in some PCR test swabs:
https://www.holistichealthonline.info/pcr-swabs/
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.
What; did the entire executive branch prevent Trumpenstein from appointing PCR chief of staff? Boggles the imagination!
Trumpenstein? Ok we get it. You hate him.
He blew out the national debt, locked us down, shoved ventilators down people's throats, and bribed the perjurers. Something there to like? (Granted, fuels were more accessible during his reign.) O'Biden is just more of the same, except he doubled the prices of fuels, blew up the Nordstream pipelines, and sells off Ukrainian and Russian vital organs. (Only Palestinians got that privilege under Trumpenstein.)
Bill Clinton wasn’t perfect but he had a balanced budget at the end of his second term. I wonder what would have happened if the constitution didn’t prohibit a third term.
Maybe the GOP led by Gingrich had a hand in that too.
Okay, who else could he have appointed that would not have done the same?
In my article, I also make clear I think the "watchdog" press is part of the conspiracy to conceal evidence of early spread.
I'll note that I have read a couple of articles where mainstream press journalists DO note that many Americans think they might have had "early" Covid. I've saved hundreds of reader comments where people say this - and give their reasons they think this.
But all these articles say, "No, all you people are wrong. That's simply not possible - according to the experts."
For my part, when you have millions of people around the world sharing similar anecdotes, maybe you should give these testimonials a little more credibility or weight?"
And I've of course pointed out time and again that many of these people who think they had early Covid later tested positive for antibodies. But those cases are just the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority of the population never got an antibody test or if they got one it was four to seven months after they had experienced these symptoms. And "detectable" levels of antibodies fade in many people.
Also, state health agencies have never disclosed how many positive antibody results their agencies were receiving from the labs and medical clinics that did begin testing for antibodies in March 2020, April 2020 and May 2020. That's a giant "concealment" tell as well.
In a podcast I listened to yesterday (Del Bigtree interviewing Dr. Scott Atlas on the Highwire) it was confirmed that Mike Pence was the head of the White House Task Force, then I listened to Mike Pence being interviewed by Jordan Peterson praising the military and I thought to myself Hmmmmm.
I added this text to the story a few hours after I originally posted the article.
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.
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 place 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.
Lockdowns served many purposes, including convincing people to take "safe and effective" experimental gene therapies or grandma would die, as well as an excuse to explain much of the excess death that would follow from the poison shots,
Right. They HAD to have the lockdowns ... because they HAD to have the "life-saving vaccines." No lockdowns, the panic and requisite fear would have been much lower.
The key fraction is the REAL IFR. If the public knew this virus was no more lethal than the common flu, there wouldn't have been any clamor for the new mRNA vaccine.
The way you get the "real" IFR is counting "real" prior cases - which gets us back to "early spread."
If you can control people though fear, panic, and uncertainty then you have achieved the goal. This was just a test folks. Lotsa sheep out there.
In my articles, I've now identified at least 153 "antibody-confirmed" cases of "early" Covid. All - or the vast majority - of these cases would have occurred in November 2019 or even earlier.
The counter-argument to my journalism is that these antibody results must have been producing "false positives" (probably from "cross-reactivity" to other viruses).
Okay, for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that 90 percent of the people who tested positive for antibodies actually didn't have Covid. Ninety percent of these test results were "false positives."
Okay, what about the other 10 percent?
This would leave us with at least 15 people around the world (10 percent of 153) who DID have legitimate positive antibody results that were Covid cases. (This would actually be 30 people as we don't know the identify of the 15 unknown virus-transmitters who infected the 15 people who later tested positive).
Question: How do the experts explain these 30 cases? If they all had Covid, the virus was "spreading" and didn't originate in Wuhan in November 2019 (as these people had not been to Wuhan or been infected by anyone who had been to Wuhan).
So, really, this knowledge/conclusion would prove that the virus existed by early November 2019 and was infecting people in multiple locations.
I think this leads to the conclusion that these naysayers of my theory would have to say that 100-percent of these antibody tests were "false positives." ALL of them were "false positives." They can't say that ANY of them were "real Covid."
So what they are really saying is that every antibody test that came back positive was bogus. The tests were awful and should all be discredited. Thinking about this, I wonder why the CDC even did that one "Red Cross" antibody study if study authors are going to come back and simply say, "Ignore this study. It's bunk. We don't believe our own results."
I keep making this point: If just one or two people really had Covid in November 2019 or earlier, this virus WAS spreading. But I don't think all 153 antibody results were bogus. I actually think it's more likely these antibody tests produce(d) "false negatives" than "false positives."
As I understand it, the virus traveled from China to Italy first. From Italy to other European countries. And then quickly to the US. Thousands of people arrive daily in the US from all over the world. Especially in Dec. as people often take a holiday around that time and if they can afford it, they travel abroad. The US is 2nd in the world as a vacation destination.
... It should be clear that I place a great deal of weight on the results of the "Red Cross Antibody Study" that was (belatedly) performed. I'd also note that "Red Cross blood donors" is about as random a "sample" of the American population as epidemiologists could get.
In other words, this was not a sample of people who said they'd had Covid symptoms months earlier. This was just typical Americans who donate blood. In fact, if the "sample" HAD been people who had experienced ILI-type symptoms weeks earlier, the "positive" percentage probably would have been higher than 2.04 percent.
I also note that, per my research into antibody test results, it seems clear that people who had definite and pretty serious Covid symptoms were much much more likely to later test positive for antibodies than the group who had no symptoms or mild symptoms.
I imagine this "sample" included people who did have some symptoms weeks earlier and some who did not. It is a good sample in the sense that it tested people close to when they might have had symptoms or not. Of course, people who have recently been sick with cold or ILI symptoms are not supposed to donate blood. This tells me some of those positive blood donors might have had symptoms at least two weeks or more before they donated blood. This makes me think some of these people may have been symptomatic in October 2019 if not even earlier.
If memory serves, this CDC study does not report if the positive donors tested positive for IgG antibodies, IgM antibodies or both. That would be very important information on when these people may have been infected as IgM antibodies are not detectable after about a month of infection.
So an IgM "negative" result and an IgG "positive" antibody result actually means that person was infected at least 30 days before they donated blood. As far as I am aware, ALL of the individual cases I have highlighted in articles fit this description. That is, they got a positive antibody result in late April or early May but the test was "negative" for the IgM antibody. This means they did NOT have a recent case - which supports their position/belief they had Covid when they were "sick" many months earlier - in 2019.
So much done wrong. Most importantly, knowing that every single thing the media he called 'The Enemy of the People' lie about everything should've been the first disqualifier of all about a pandemic virus. They had spent five years lying about him, Russia, everything, witch hunt, even overlapped an impeachment hearing for conducting foreign policy, decisions vetoed by a Lt Colonel serving him, lies, lies, lies. Yet he believed them about a virus threat?!?!?!
No, it didn't exist outside of the fearporn. It wasn't real. Excess morbidity tables from prior to the experimental biotech shoved into everyone's arms prove it. If the lies of the Enemy of the People had been ignored and business as usual been allowed to continue none of this would've happened.
Which, as devastating as it's been may have served the purpose of exposing an evil system that was hidden from view before it was ready to be exposed. Giving us a better chance to prevent a dystopian darkness from settling on humanity. Still big odds against us, but better than it would've been. If we can reach enough hypnotized minds to make a difference.
I like your point that President Trump's default thinking on the virus should have been: The press is lying or grossly exaggerating. He should have been far more skeptical of the official narrative that quickly ... spread.
Also don't forget that in January, 2017 that Fauci warned us that the next administration would be dealing with a pandemic. Wouldn't you think that Trump and others would have remembered this and it would have set off BS detectors later on? Such as in, how would Fauci have been able to predict it? What did he know and when did he know it?
Thanks for reminding my readers of this Fauci comment. I remember it and thought it was pretty prescient of him. How did he know this?
B.I.N.G.O
He said the media is the Enemy of the People himself. Does he not believe his own rhetoric?
Prez Trump knew late January/early February that a dangerous infection was spreading. He mentioned this to Bob Woodward, who was interviewing him for an upcoming book. Woodward did not share this (important!) information with fellow journalists, but kept it to himself.
Reach Trumpenstein's hypnoziotized mind first!
Why don’t you knock that off?
Serves no purpose.
Okay, I get it. You're a Southern, "Evangelical" Zionist. (I've recovered from my Zionist upbringing.) Why don't you take it (Don't forget Jared Kushner!) up with Donald Jeffries? https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/
Why don’t you f off?
Stop trolling me.
They knew because the US DOD was behind the gain-of-function “virus” & not just in Wuhan, but North Carolina too
That's one of the big possibilities that of course occurs to me as well, Cindi.
They WOULD know if a few key officials knew the virus had escaped somewhere else.
It’s all very depressing, Bill. To think our “leaders” as politicians & military are aggressively & hatefully working against we the people.
And nobody who could stop it ... will stop it.
Yes nobody will
How did certain people know ahead of time about this virus? Hmmm because our very own gubment made it and released it. This was and still is a very well throughout meticulous plan to commit mass DEMOCIDE! And unfortunately, it’s working.
Bill, you're a genius. This is a top ten piece (substack column) of TRUTH that no one wants to get out.
Thanks, Rev. I liked this one and thought it made some of my main points. Thanks for reading it.
I've followed John Ioannidis' work for many years, way before Covid. When they started demonizing him was when I started to suspect something was going on. Yes, I'm slow.
"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. When it came to locking down a couple billion people on the planet, why check any antibody test results first?"
This pretty much proves that China was Covid's last landing place. First, because the WHO investigative committee traced the first case to September, 2019, and second–and most convincing–lockdowns of 7% of the population proved sufficient to contain the virus.
My husband was sick late Dec. 2019 - he went through O'Hare twice in the week before. I had never seen him so ill, delirious and 104F. He went to his M.D. about two weeks later and mentioned it. The doctor answered that we had a bad flue season. I asked if this was communicated to the CDC. The answer was no, these cases were not reported.
I had similar experience in 2017 when I got ill after being bitten by an Aedes mosquito (living in the CA Central Valley). I mentioned it to my M.D. thinking he would report it. Answer: why would the CDC be interested in a mosquito bite ?
Based on these experiences, I have serious doubt about information collecting by the CDC.
Thanks for sharing this! I'll save it in my "early spread" testimonials files.
I just got to your essay........and yes, when my husband, his sister and brother in law and I had "something" - theirs was the 3rd week of Feb 2020 and mine began March 1 2020, I went to the Tarrant County health site and looked at the reported ILI reports. I still have access to those charts. For those that actually got tested, the regular flu virus was minimal, BUT a high percentage of "unknown" ILI reports beginning at that time.
As for Trump, I watched those press meetings closely, Trump's expression and body language reflected to me someone that was not pleased with what was transpiring. Of course the medical field is not his field...what else could he do but let "them" - the bad guys take over. Even at those press meetings, they would belittle him constantly. Of course he wasn't saying go drink bleach....he asked a simple question....couldn't we come up with something that you could take - a TREATMENT - that could help as well as bleach?
I am afraid this country has been hijacked......most likely for good.
Teri, I'd love to look at any document you have that shows ILI reports, and specifically the percentage of people who were going to the doctor with some kind of "bug" symptoms who tested "negative" for influenza.
You can contact me by email at:
wjricejunior@gmail.com
FWIW, friends of mine who work at a big local medical clinic told me they were being inundated with sick patients, almost none of whom were "testing positive" for influenza. One administrator told me, "We thought there was something wrong with the flu tests."
I'd like to get all the documentation I can that might show this was common at medical clinics around the country.
I will send it to you this evening. I can still access it at that site...........very very curious indeed. That's another reason I felt my antibody test that showed negative was most likely bogus.
Pez Trump's bleach remark could have been triggered by a story about scientists in Guyana who got malaria and got better by taking the water treatment Chlorine Dioxine/Hydrochloric Acid. This remedy is apparently also prescribed by holistic practitioners for cleansing purposes.
Thank you for that information.....very interesting. To me, it was also his way of saying...hey, surely there is something ...some treatment.....to try.........perhaps already knowing that repurposed drugs were being used.......For "them," it was just another way to demean him.
Yes. I have no love for Marjorie Taylor Green. But the way she was ridiculed about her questioning rays from space and CA wildfires, is a similar example how journalists are not doing their job very well. MTG was referring to an experiment proposed by power co. PG&E. It was supposed to start in 2014. Solar energy was te be collected in space, then beamed back as microwaves, to be converted to electricity. The receiving sub station would be located in Fresno, CA. The experiment never happened in the US. Currently Germany is giving it a try.
Yes...........I am afraid no matter what is said is going to be skewed to the point it makes the statement absurd. Our country is headed for a point of no return.
I worked for a group out of Pelham at the time. Almost the entire office was hit by a really bad flu-like illness in the fall of 19.
In the spring of 20 we were all saying that this was around BEFORE the claims by the criminals (including Trump).
If he was wrong then, he is wrong now, yet he is STILL bragging about how many lives he saved. He needs to hang with the rest.
I wish I had a dime for every anecdote I've read like yours (regarding people who think/suspect they might have had Covid in the fall or winter of 2019/early 2020). We're supposed to believe ALL of these people are wrong. In other words, even if millions of people have the same anecdotes and beliefs, "science" should ignore these voluminous anecdotes.
The medical, science, government and journalism professions have done the exact same thing with MILLIONS of anecdotes about "vaccine" injuries and deaths.