Ontario’s former Chief Public Health Doctor, pushes back against harmful COVID lockdowns
https://www.nomorelockdowns.ca/former_c ... _lockdowns
Ontario’s former Chief Public Health Doctor, who helped train the present Dr. David Williams is pushing back against these harmful COVID lockdowns.
This tragedy has been prolonged and is causing unnecessary harm due to the government and media's attempts to vilify and besmirch dissenting views and label them as conspiracy theorists.
If you agree with Dr. Schabas and the many other professionals who have been censored, be sure to contact the Premier, your MPP, local representatives, health unit, and the Minister of Health.
Let them know we have had enough of these harmful policies and it is time to admit our dreadful mistakes and work towards real solutions.
Thoughts on coronavirus...
Dr. Fauci: "No asymptomatic transfer of disease"
^^ that fucks up the entire concept of lockdowns.
^^ that fucks up the entire concept of lockdowns.
Dr. Tam: "current evidence doesn't support public needing masks"
^^ that fucks up the narrative too.
These people are blatantly taking hypocritical stances.
Flip flopping with millions of lives.
^^ that fucks up the narrative too.
These people are blatantly taking hypocritical stances.
Flip flopping with millions of lives.
COVID Tests: You get false positives half the time
Wearing masks not part of official COVID recommendation:
Damn, the narrative seems to be falling apart by their own sources.
And yet....
Damn, the narrative seems to be falling apart by their own sources.
And yet....
WHO says asymptomatic transmission is rare
This graph, which reflected data in Ontario at it's time of production in September 2020, compared the data on recovery rates of the flu season in 2018 (2019 data was not available at the time of production) and that of COVID-19. The data clearly reflects similar trends in recoveries as expressed in a percentage to that of a typical flu season.
Given the severity of COVID being so similar to the typical flu season, does it warrant the overreaction we have seen by our governments? does it justify further lockdowns? destroying more businesses and families?
WHO Finally Admits COVID-19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’
The WHO’s new guidance, which includes lower PCR thresholds, almost guarantees COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... a-problem/
the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated new rules regarding the PCR assays used for testing for COVID-19.
Even though they’ve been widely used across the U.S. and around the world to determine who has a positive case of COVID, PCR assays are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools, as they can’t distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.
Besides that, previously, the WHO had recommended 45 “amplification” cycles of the test to determine whether someone was positive for COVID or not.
The thing is, the more cycles that a test goes through, the more likely that a false positive will come up — anything over 30 cycles actually magnifies the samples so much that even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.
What that means in plain language is that the more cycles a test goes through, the more false positives that are reported.
Now, with the WHO’s lower PCR thresholds, it’s practically guaranteed that COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.
Here’s in-part what the WHO notice says:
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
The WHO’s new guidance, which includes lower PCR thresholds, almost guarantees COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... a-problem/
the World Health Organization (WHO) initiated new rules regarding the PCR assays used for testing for COVID-19.
Even though they’ve been widely used across the U.S. and around the world to determine who has a positive case of COVID, PCR assays are not designed to be used as diagnostic tools, as they can’t distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.
Besides that, previously, the WHO had recommended 45 “amplification” cycles of the test to determine whether someone was positive for COVID or not.
The thing is, the more cycles that a test goes through, the more likely that a false positive will come up — anything over 30 cycles actually magnifies the samples so much that even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.
What that means in plain language is that the more cycles a test goes through, the more false positives that are reported.
Now, with the WHO’s lower PCR thresholds, it’s practically guaranteed that COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.
Here’s in-part what the WHO notice says:
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
More talk that nobody can seem to find any actual cases of a pre isolated sample of the virus:
Please refer to the post about CHRISTINE MASSEY a page or 2 back ^^
Christine is a friend of a buddy of mine here, I may get to meet her soon we're talking about setting up some hearings