We’re taught, I mean actively, we’re taught to respect and even admire doctors. Above all, to trust them. This teaching happens in many ways.
Education itself, I mean, first of all, it’s the primary lesson, the very purpose of education. What did we learn from 12 years of school, plus “university” after that? Really not much. Think about it.
If you can think. Can you, after being educated? You probably can’t. You’ve been trained specifically not to think. It’s been drilled out of you. In place of thinking, you’re taught to respect and obey, and if you’re a really enthusiastic student, to trust and admire those in authority, those who declare themselves to be in authority.
Are you trained to formulate high quality questions? To ask hard questions? Are you trained in any kind of structural, or non-structural, approach to thinking? Do you even know what it means to think about something?
Oh, WTF am I talking about?
How about this:
Is there any relationship between education and thinking? How about doctors? Do they think? Are they paid to think? I’ll come back to that.
It’s a big club. You ain’t in it.
In their club, they declare themselves to be in authority. And they cultivate a hierarchy consisting of a phalanx of paid shills bloviating about those in authority, at the top. Everything beneath the bloviating top is disciplined by systematic corruption:
- Doctors are paid to dispense pharmaceutical products. The form of the payment varies in different countries, but the effect is always the same.
- Mass media is owned by pharmaceutical companies. Newspapers and television stations depend on revenue from pharmaceutical advertising. Pharma advertising was legalized in the United States
Articles about direct to consumer advertising (DCTA) of pharmaceuticals are easily found. Here are two:
From the former:
The Prescription Drug DTCA Industry Landscape
DTC drug ads GETTY IMAGES
DTCA (direct to consumer advertising) for pharmaceuticals was legalized in 1997. Despite its relatively short 22-year existence, it has heavily impacted the advertising landscape for U.S. healthcare and stands in stark contrast to forms of legal advertising for drugs in other countries around the world. In the face of controversy and questions surrounding the ethics of DTCA, the U.S. and New Zealand remain the only two countries in the world that allow this practice. The U.S. may remain the only one if the draft of the Therapeutic Products Bill in New Zealand manages to include a ban on prescription drug advertising.
While DTCA has some positive effects, these commercials tend to mislead patients and can result in the breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship. Between 1983 to 2013, a span of 30 years, 449 articles about DTC prescription drug ads were published. These articles dissected the various pros and cons of the practice. The pros were primarily based on the belief that when patients saw ads for drugs that aligned with their symptoms, they would start a dialogue with their physician and take a more active role in their healthcare journey. Despite this well-intended strategy, DTCA of prescription drugs has shown the potential to jeopardize the doctor-patient relationship. According to an FDA survey, 65% of physicians said that DTCA for drugs sent confusing messages to the patients, and 8% claimed that they felt pressured to prescribe brand-name drugs after patients cited a DTC drug ad.
The routine use of DTCA and its adverse effects resulted in the AMA taking a stand against this type of advertising. The AMA was concerned that “a growing proliferation of ads is driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives.” The AMA’s stance is representative of the growing skepticism surrounding DTCA in the medical community. If the largest association of physicians in the country is voicing its concerns about this practice, why do pharmaceutical companies continue to use DTCA?
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), there has been a drastic increase in DTC prescription drug marketing budgets, jumping from $1.3 billion in 1997 to more than $6 billion in 2016.; that is a 361% increase. These companies use DTCA to promote prescription drugs because it increases the volume of drugs sold. A 2008 House Commerce Committee found that for every $1,000 spent on prescription drug ads, 24 new patients were added for the pharma industry. Additionally, a 2003 research report found that rates for prescription drugs with ads were almost seven times greater than for those without ads.
2 points about DCTA:
Articles such as those above describe the effect of direct to consumer advertising on drug sales. This is the typical advertising scenario. You motivate people to want your product, and if effective then you sell more product.
But that is not the primary effect, or purpose, of DCTA. The primary effect and purpose is ownership of mass media. Newspapers and television have, as is well known, lost their traditional advertising revenue streams due to the pressures first of the growth of the internet, and the concomitant shifting of advertising from traditional media to the web as readers left traditional and advertisers followed, and secondly, pressure from social media which, amplified the web effect and left TV and newspaper media high and dry, starved of ad revenue, on the brink of collapse.
But, you see, DCTA!
The effect of this condition is obvious. Mass media is owned and operated by pharmaceutical companies (plus their buddies in the war/arms industries).
This means that pharmaceutical companies are in control of hiring and firing. They exert editorial control. I laugh when I write that. Editorial control. Ha! There’s nothing to edit. They’re in control of content. They WRITE the content. They don’t edit it. They write it.
You think, “well I don’t live in the United States, so, that doesn’t happen here.”
Think again. You live in an empire. The tentacles of total corruption are strangling your institutions as well, by various means. These can be studied. But only after one is willing to recognize that such a thing can exist.
If you are unwilling to say, “oh, such a thing may exist”, then you will never look, and you will never see. But if you are willing to look, then you can see. Perhaps you will find it interesting that your country has signed contracts with the WHO and with Bill Gates individually, contracts that REQUIRE your authorities to follow orders given by WHO and Bill Gates:
There are different kinds of doctors. Like everyone else, most are intellectually lazy, incurious sychophant dullards. They’re educated more than most people, which means they’re even more obedient. Their work routines are simple recipe-following. Pharma companies instruct them on what to do when presented with whatever symptoms, which drugs to order in response. Largely this function can be automated, so doctors have reason to be concerned about the future viability of their profession.
In the mean time, they’re financially incentivized/rewarded for prescription. Little thought is required. In fact, it impedes.
Principle, morality, benefit to patient, these are obsolete notions. That is to say, in the actually existing environment within which the medical profession operates, with corruption so profound, so pervasive, “benefit to patient”, that concept sank to the bottom of the ocean long ago. And doctors are not exerting themselves to raise the bar.
I mean, there are exceptions, but the profession as a whole is complicit and is largely responsible for at least half the human population being interned, permanent gulag life.
There are exceptions. Some speak out for truth, against corruption, against crimes against humanity waged with their profession as the instrument. But they are suppressed.
Absolutely nothing about COVID-19 is scientific. It is entirely a top-down totally corrupt extortion scheme inflicted on the world by psychotic life long criminal frauds (Fauci, NIH, Gates, et al)
From Paul Bruno:
“A climate of fear is preventing experts from questioning the handling of the pandemic, with reputations smeared, jobs lost and even families threatened.Much abuse has come from within academic or professional circles, with one professor saying debate was becoming impossible because “we are not talking to each other properly. We are being thrown into confrontational positions.” Many leading experts have withdrawn from the debate after having reputations smeared, jobs lost and even families threatened raising questions about pandemic policy. This month alone has seen one leading medic, working to protect vulnerable children, forced to abandon a project to safeguard youngsters after their name was sullied when they questioned the government approach.
Another expert has been sidelined from a vital role on a government advisory group, while senior NHS staff have been threatened with disciplinary measures for questioning the government approach online or in the media.Senior academics say they have feared losing vital funding, warned not to speak out with the threat of disciplinary action or deemed ‘outliers’ for their views on lockdown.
At least two scientists have been subjected to public abuse by scientific colleagues who disagreed with their academic view.
One critic posted a grotesque image superimposed on a professor after he disagreed with his view. Other posts by scientists have branded colleagues “charlatans” and “snake oil merchants”.
A prominent professor accused a fellow academic of “deliberately subverting public health” on a twitter post after disagreeing with her views on managing the pandemic.
In another case a government scientific advisor called a university boss to try to stop one of its professors from criticising government policy.
Retired Supreme Court Lord Sumption told a podcast this week that he was a reluctant figurehead for questioning lockdown – but felt obliged because of the way critics had been treated.
He said the attacks were damaging to free speech. He said: “I have faced many defamatory things said to me on Twitter and to the media, including by other scientists who have even accused me of manipulating data. It becomes quite nasty.
“We are not talking to each other properly and there are many things we do not understand about this pandemic which we need to learn. But we are being thrown into confrontational positions on things, sometimes by the media and sometimes by the government. This is a bad atmosphere in which we can learn.
“Some of this culture is down to ego, but some people honestly believe only their way will solve things and will not listen to other peoples’ views.
“There is a range of disciplines including virologists, public health doctors, statisticians and clinicians and we don’t automatically understand each other.
“We don’t see the whole picture and it is very harmful in a pandemic if we are in a position where we cannot have a free discussion.
“I live on the positive support from the scientific community and I will not engage in this. I did get a bit down but many colleagues, my family and my teenage children have helped me to keep questioning where policy is not following science.
Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine said: “An envelope of fear has engulfed the debate around covid. Scientists who suggested an alternative way have been subject to attack, ridicule and threats by others. I have been called an “agent of disinformation” and one scientist even called me a “public health threat” on twitter. I’m happy to discuss any issue where people believe I got something wrong. But Science only operates if it continually opens up questions, uncertainty and debate. There is no such thing as “the science.”A consultant in the north of England said: “Many of us clinicians want to put more emphasis on the unintended consequences of lockdown that are harming people and these stories need looking at with the same vigour as coronavirus.“But everyone is so terrified of speaking out. I know of one senior NHS manager who was threatened with job loss..”
Allyson Pollock, a leading public health professor said funding also played a part because a significant proportion of academic research funds and university revenue is derived from the government.
She said: “Universities don’t want to upset the government because they rely on government funding. If academics criticise government policies there is often pushback.”Dr Kamran Abbasi Executive of the BMJ said: “Increasingly NHS clinicians are unable to express their concerns about the NHS service provision in case they are deemed to stray into political territory.”
He added: “Science is about debate and rarely absolute. Once we start attacking each other it has gone out of the realm of science and become personal. However debate needs to be encouraged as it is only this way that we can get closer to the truth.”A spokesman for the General Medical Council which regulates registered doctors said: “Good medical practice says that doctors must treat colleagues fairly and with respect. As outlined in our social media guidance, this expectation covers all situations and all forms of interaction and communication. We say doctor’s must not bully, harass, or make gratuitous, unsubstantiated or comments about individuals online.”
This is the original article, but it’s like swatting flies to evade the disturbing adds popping up from all sides continually blocking your vision and disturbing your attention, so I copy-pasted the entire text of it in my comment, but here it is anyway for reference sake:https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1415896/climate-fear-handling-pandemic-experts-jobs-lost-families-threats
The corruption of science is not new.
If that doesn’t strike you as abnormal, and even on the surface, as stupid, then do a self sanity check now. For those who’ve recognized this systematic failure/refusal to treat patients, the testimony here paints a clear and extremely disturbing picture. The picture happens to be consistent with decades worth of similar malfeasance surrounding Anthony Fauci, NIH, et al.
I’ll come back to this.
Duration 1:33:49 Fauci’s First Fraud is a 2020 independent film exposing how Fauci perpetuated misinformation over the AIDS pandemic leading to millions of deaths.“The Nobel Prize winner who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, said it does not cause AIDS,” explained producer, Ken McCarthy in an email interview.
“Another Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis — the one who invented the HIV PCR test that Fauci used to find ‘infected cases’ among the healthy — called the use of the test for diagnosis of AIDS a fraud.”
Watch the film at the link.
Remarkable Parallels Between the AIDS and COVID Scare.
The description for this documentary about the 1980’s AIDS scamdemic reads like the COVID-19 headlines of 2020:
“A deadly new virus is discovered… There’s no treatment or cure… It’s highly contagious… Everyone is a potential victim… The world is at risk from asymptomatic super spreaders… New clusters of cases reported daily…“
Everyone must get tested even though the tests are unreliable… Positive antibody tests are called ‘infections’ and ‘cases’ even when the patient has no symptoms… Every politician gets involved… Media hysteria in high gear… Activists demand salvation from government and Big Pharma…
The New Normal May Not Be All That New After All
The documentary presents a compilation of interviews, press releases and documents collected from YouTube, VHS, periodicals and even an audio cassette, showing the parallels between the new normal theater of 2020 with the HIV scare of the 1980s and 90s.
For example, the documentary includes an interview with Charles Geshekter Ph.D., a three-time Fulbright scholar who teaches African history at California State University in Chico. He explains how the WHO came to the conclusion that AIDS in Africa could be diagnosed with a broad list of common symptoms, just like COVID:
“A fever, a persistent cough, loose stools for 30 days, and a ten-percent loss of bodyweight over a two month period.”
The entire film is packed with such parallels. Another example, later in the documentary, states: “Over the last 36 years, Fauci has repeated the claim that all his AIDS patients were ‘otherwise healthy.’ ”
Yet, a clip with a gay historian, Mark Gabrish Conlan, shows that such victims were not healthy at all:
“The very first AIDS cases were five gay men diagnosed in Los Angeles in 1981… What linked them was that they were all in the ‘fast lane gay lifestyle…’ They were taking many different [recreational] drugs at the same time, combining drugs, much more than was the pattern for straight drug users. They also partied a lot, at the bars, the clubs, the bathhouses. They met a lot of men, had a lot of anonymous sexual contact. As a result they were exposed to a lot of the classic sexually transmitted diseases — like syphilis and gonorrhea. Because they were getting those diseases, they were also frequently going to doctors and getting antibiotic prescriptions….”
“All that created a situation where a handful of gay men were burning the candle at both ends and putting a blowtorch to the middle. It’s no wonder that after a while their immune systems started to collapse and they started getting sick in these unusual ways that previously had only been seen in older people whose immune systems had deteriorated from age.”
Today, Fauci and company have expanded their case load from a fringe group of homosexuals to the 73 million baby boomer population in the United States.Of course, we are now being told, the old are dying from COVID-19. As if, before the coronavirus went novel, frail nursing home residents were “otherwise healthy” and not already succumbing to respiratory diseases.
Just like, before AIDS, the overuse of antibiotics and a wide range of “party” drugs by a small subset of the gay male community was not severely compromising to health.
These recreational drugs included “poppers,” an immune-suppressing inhalant widely used and sold in gay clubs and bathhouses. As the documentary shows, poppers were heavily advertised in most gay magazines.
Of course, why would heavy narcotic use have anything to do with the collapse of their immune system? We are assured, two-thirds through the film, by much younger version of Anthony Fauci:
“There have been a number of theories as to what the origin of HIV/AIDS is. One of them was a theory that certainly turned out to be completely incorrect — that it is a lifestyle phenomenon.”Anthony Fauci
36 Years of Lies, Misinformation and Manipulation
“The documentary includes footage of Fauci at various points in his career, starting in 1984 and extending to the present, describing his work in his own words,” says producer, Ken McCarthy. “This is how Anthony Fauci built his career, credibility, and political base.”
McCarthy studied neuroscience at Princeton University in the late 1970s under Bart Hoebel, a pioneer in the study of sugar addiction. McCarthy is considered a pioneer, himself, in the field of internet marketing. A Time Magazine article credits Ken McCarthy’s insights into click-through tracking as a key factor in the commercialization of the World Wide Web.
Such marketing expertise makes McCarthy keenly aware of the true motivations behind mandating a COVID-19 vaccine.
“You have to understand, the vaccine business is fantastic,” he jokingly states in a interview on the The Finding Genius podcast. “Government mandated means [vaccines] have no marketing costs. Universal? Most markets are niche, even big markets. I can’t sell hair curlers to bald men; but [they] can dictate that every child in America get a vaccine….”
“If [they] can dictate that every breathing human being in America gets a vaccine the money becomes mind-boggling.”
In additional to pioneering fundamental elements of the commercial Internet, McCarthy has also been a pioneer of independent online journalism.
“In 1995, I organized and hosted the first conference on the subject of web-based reporting for local news markets,” he explains. “In 1997, as a demonstration of the potential of the medium, I produced what is still the most detailed documentation of an election fraud – the 1997 San Francisco 49er Stadium Bond Initiative – that appears in any format.”
And now he has compiled a detailed documentary showing how Anthony Fauci sold the HIV/AIDS scare in the 1980s, and is doing so again in 2020 with a brand new set of acronyms.
Kary Mullis full interview:
For another look at our new idols (Fauci et al). Here’s some help.
Kary Mullis in pink t-shirt, Nobel Prize winner, Chemistry, 1993, full interview, 1996. Listen to him in conversation interviewed.
Listen to him describe the reality of AIDS diagnosis and “treatment”.
Parallels to today are disturbing. Same players too. Same playbook. Larger scope.
Yeah, geniuses today, you see geniuses everywhere today, they call Mullis “bizzarre”, “conspiracy theorist”…
Idiocy, Magical Thinking, Corruption, and TDS
The idea that we can end respiratory illness with vaccines or masks or distancing is, very simply, idiocy.
If a vaccine reduced the effect of some virus, then another virus will take its place in human respiratory illness. To believe otherwise is magical thinking.
Idiocy and magical thinking are the basic narrative premises of “Covid 19”.
The other factor at work is the engine of the apparatus. The engine is simple (though on enormous scale) corruption.
There’s another essential factor.
Corruption, idiocy, and magical thinking are not enough. There must be some other factor that suppresses normal human reason, that otherwise would resist, oppose, and call out corruption, idiocy, and magical thinking.
So there is this other factor, the role of which is to suppress normal human reason. This factor, I suggest, is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) which was cultivated systematically for 5 years and has profound effect over much of the US and far beyond the US, throughout large parts of Europe and Latin America for example.
There’s a simple answer.
How can all previous frameworks of reason, evidence, and caution be dumped into the landfill?
How can principles of medicine like “first do no harm” be set ablaze, incinerated?
How can disease projection models be so wildly inaccurate, while those running the show are still believed?
How can those calling the shots demonstrate zero concern for the effects of their policy apparatus while maintaining their interest in nothing but their fanatical mission to inject every person on earth with their products, repeatedly?
How can the idea of a RUSH TO INJECT every person on earth be taken as a commitment to reason and science? CAUTION thrown to the wind. Surrender to the MANIC RUSH. How is that consistent with principles of science, testing, evidence, and public health, and humanitarianism?
How is it that this is being PUSHED? And how is it that it’s being followed?
The answers are EASY:
- The people PUSHING it are psychotic mother fuckers. And corrupt scumbags.
- The people following it were born yesterday. They hear no evil. See no evil. Corruption is inconceivable to them. They’ve been so sheltered, living on fantasy island where everyone’s good and the wealthy and powerful are like mommy and daddy carefully planning for good management and the safety and care of everyone. They don’t know what corruption is. It doesn’t look like anything to them. They can’t see it. Even when, or especially when, it’s right out in the open, and pervasive.
Not Even, as it’s injected right into their arm:
Anthony Fauci: 40 Years of Lies From AZT to Remdesivir
Oct 27, 2020 312
As the planet’s “Virus Tsar” since 1984, he has spread misinformation and ignored critical questions. The consequences could hardly be more fatal.https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/27/anthony-fauci-40-years-of-lies-from-azt-to-remdesivir/
Why are doctors so obedient?
It’s not just doctors. It’s people. And, apparently, education.
James Spione writes:
But the degree, the depth of the inability, the pervasiveness of the acceptance of the framing, and the effect of that, it does raise a doubt, some serious questions about what we thought it meant to be smart, and how smart people are, what it meant to us and to them, what it meant or means, to those who think themselves smart
I haven’t discerned any particular patterns but one thing does stands out. The most moronic responses come with certitude which is often related to the number years of of schooling. Schooling, in general, is the number one cause of killing off our natural capacity for critical thinking.
yes. It seems true among people I know. The more education, the more absolutely impervious people are to reason
Martin Bassani oh man is this ever true around me also. Thinking i could speak about this whole thing to some brilliant PHD’s who teach latin and greek at a big college nearby was a big mistake. they recoiled in horror and thought i was a trump supporter.
It could be connected to their belief that their advanced education has VALIDATED them. Which means they felt deeply inadequate before their validation. And doubts about official narratives — support of which makes them feel SELECTED and therefore reinforces their validation — your doubts are a threat they can’t tolerate. They’d end up invalidated and inadequate.
Does advanced education instill feelings of inadequacy, or do people lacking confidence migrate toward specialized advanced education?
That’s exactly it, very well put; they call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and write articles saying that people like me have inadequacy/inferiority ‘issues’ that we deal with by believing that we’re in a select group of people with secret knowledge, when in reality they’re projecting their own emotions onto us. They have convinced themselves that they are part of a well educated elite, too intelligent to possibly have been hoodwinked by a corrupt system, yet their confidence in their elite status is actually very shaky, therefore they get defensive when anything challenges their opinion of themselves.
What’s the result of this?
- Fauci is the object of greatest admiration, adulation.
- He’s IDOLIZED.
- Everything he says is true.
- Everything he says is believed.
- Every pronouncement he makes is obeyed.
- Obedience to Fauci is made into a sign of moral righteousness
- All evaluation of Fauci’s 4 decades long record of service to pharmaceutical corporations that are convicted criminal organizations = heresy
- heretics are EXCOMMUNICATED
Regarding item 7 above:
From the video:
This is what thinking looks like, with backbone, with establishment of principle, with clear perception (of for example, the environment (corruption), with high quality questions. First of all, with the formulation of RELEVANT questions:
Another paper, highly recommend:
Messianic Mad Men, Medicine, and the Media War on Empirical Reality: Discourse Analysis of Mainstream Covid-19 Propaganda
Daniel Broudy1 and Darwin K. Hoop2
2Independent Scholar and Researcher, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, firstname.lastname@example.org
This article critically examines the emerging global war on pathogens mimicking the Global War on Terror (GWOT). We draw upon the history of recent wars and the fear-driven narratives aimed at nudging the public toward uncritical acceptance of the new emerging social and economic global order. We adopt Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’ to describe how mainstream media perform in manufacturing consent to policies that tighten control overpopulations and degrade rights, agency, and sovereignty. Here we consider the efforts of globalist political actors who seek to co-opt or influence political institutions around the world and position themselves as unelected rulers of an emerging authoritarian order. We argue that agenda-setting media are predisposed to serve elite interests that shape news coverage, bound public debate, and obscure new forms of warfare behind the smokescreen of a manufactured Global War on Pathogens (GWOP). We introduce critical analysis and alternative perspectives, largely marginalized by the mainstream, on the hidden conflicts of interest involved in the demands for full social compliance.https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/22/25
pandemic, Covid-19, vaccination, experiment,mainstream media, integration propaganda, agitation propaganda, Propaganda Model, narrative control, GWOT, GWOP,fear, perception managementhttps://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/22/25
Straw Man Arguments
“Where it falls apart for me is the idea that this new coronavirus does not exist and that everybody with access to microscopes who is capable of identifying viral groups is in on it.”
That’s a straw man argument. No sensible person says that human respiratory illness does not exist. The real issue is that the C19 narrative is premised precisely on the ideas:
- that human respiratory illness does NOT exist typically
- that if a virus (Sar-cov-2) can be beaten by vaccine, that another virus will NOT take its place in human respiratory illness
- that, admitting (2), another virus (variant) will take its place after all, so therefore you need another vaccine, and another, and another, and another… forever.
The premise of C19 is utterly absurd, devoid of actual science, and is nothing more than the greatest extortion scheme ever played, by far.
by the way, “identifying viral groups with a microscope” or by any other means, like by Drosten PCR, does literally nothing to demonstrate that the detected viruses are causing “covid disease”.So “being in on it” is a useless concept.
The presence of respiratory disease also does precisely nothing to demonstrate the presence of “covid disease”. See item (1) again: human respiratory illness exists. C19 narrative is premised absurdly on the idea that every respiratory illness is covid, and that respiratory illness is novel.
Good points, Rob. Interesting that it hits the same subject that I just responded to in an email to a friend, here’s what I just said to him:
I’m not saying there is no coronavirus at all. In fact, there are all kinds of coronaviruses in circulation every year, they are among the 200 + different viruses which can cause the common cold. What I am saying is the specific coronavirus (SA-CoV-2, more commonly called covid 19) blamed for the pandemic is NOT PATHOGENIC in humans according to the one study that has been done which the CDC cites as evidence it is pathogenic. I have sent you my analysis on that several times, don’t you remember it? So, they apparently did study a virus they call covid 19, but they also showed that it cannot make humans sick…but you have to read the study yourself to see that, rather than simply believe the CDC’s interpretation of what it says.
I am saying there is no pandemic, it is a flat out fabrication. It is based on fraudulent statistics derived from illegal changes in disease reporting and procedures for reporting cause of deaths. I sent you a bunch of that documentation more than once before also, and can send that again if you like. Here is another video I saw yesterday, with a doc from Montana who gives a very good explanation on the issue of ’cause of death’ reporting on death certificates:
Here is an excerpt from an article from a few years back before all of this covid BS came along:
“Influenza-like illness (ILI) is a substantial clinical and economic burden on patients, healthcare providers, and the broader healthcare system. Depending on the pathogenicity of the viral strain and the effectiveness of the vaccine, there are typically between nine million and 36 million influenza cases annually in the United States, resulting in 140,000 to 710,000 hospitalizations.1 However, influenza represents a small percentage of the hundreds of millions of upper respiratory infections (URIs) that occur annually in the U.S. alone.2,3 This broader group of infections accounts for more healthcare provider visits than any other acute condition annually and results in almost 50 million lost days from work and school.
ILI is a condition that presents with fever, cough, sore throat, shivering, chills, malaise, body aches, and/or nausea and is often associated with rapid onset. Frequent causes include the common cold and influenza, but ILI can be caused by more than 20 different viral and bacterial pathogens with overlapping and non-specific presentations. This complicates accurate, timely diagnosis.
More than 200 subtypes of viruses cause the common cold. While rhinoviruses represent a plurality of causative pathogens (30 percent to 50 percent of colds), other infectious agents are also implicated: coronaviruses (10 percent to 15 percent); influenza viruses (five percent to 15 percent); respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV, ~10 percent); parainfluenza viruses (PIV, ~ five percent); enteroviruses (< five percent); and human metapneumovirus (hMPV).7 Additionally, the cause of 20 percent to 30 percent of common colds is unknown. Given the similar presentation associated with these viruses, it is not possible to establish the causative pathogen based on clinical diagnosis alone.
For instance, the differential for RSV in adults includes influenza and PIV. In infants it is even broader, including influenza, PIV, hMPV, rhinovirus, coronavirus, human bocavirus, and adenovirus. Studies have shown that RSV infection develops annually in three percent to seven percent of healthy older adults, may contribute to excess wintertime mortality previously attributed to influenza, and is a leading cause of hospitalization in young patients.8-10
Even the diagnosis of influenza can be confounded by the overlapping syndromes of ILI. A meta-analysis that reviewed the precision and accuracy of symptoms and signs of flu in adult patients over 60 years of age concluded that “clinical findings identify patients with influenza-like illness but are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza.”11
ILI poses a significant risk in immunosuppressed and immunocompromised patients… Rapid, accurate diagnosis is an important component of patient management in these populations as it helps direct appropriate antiviral and/or antibiotic therapy and can inform decisions about timing of transplant or additional therapy.15 Current practice guidelines support testing for a wide range of suspected respiratory pathogens in these high-risk populations.”
Stuart Davies continues:
“The state’s Public Health Laboratory in Rocky Hill misdiagnosed 90 people as COVID-19-positive during the past month, a mishap that likely led healthy nursing home residents to be housed with infected patients, state health officials acknowledged Monday. Department of Public Health Commissioner Deirdre Gifford and the public health laboratory’s director, Dr. Jafar Razeq, also could not say whether the four private labs assisting the state with COVID-19 tests had similar problems with false positives. But they said the reason for the misdiagnosis lies with the test’s manufacturer, and not with the state lab.” https://ctmirror.org/2020/07/20/connecticut-misdiagnosed-elderly-patients-as-covid-19-positive/
And especially this:
Also explained in this video: https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/investigatethecdc
“Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs. Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020. Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology. 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.” https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
“SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:
1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted ; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there  and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.”
And what’s needed is a disinfectant:
Brandeis made his famous statement that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.” But it was an image that had been in his mind for decades. Twenty years earlier, in a letter to his fiance, Brandeis had expressed an interest in writing a “a sort of companion piece” to his influential article on “The Right to Privacy,” but this time he would focus on “The Duty of Publicity.” He had been thinking, he wrote, “about the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men.” He then proposed a remedy:https://sunlightfoundation.com/2009/05/26/brandeis-and-the-history-of-transparency/