Thanks for liking my post. The virus is definitely airborne. The upper estimate is that an activated individual releases enough virus to infect every man woman and child with 10 viral particles. The key thing is that the virus embeds and lies dormant until it is activated. As you point out this was borne out by remote polar stations and fishing trawlers appearing to having sudden outbreaks without any external contact / exposure.
You have to go back to Chapin to understand the fixation with person to person transmission. He decreed it and every epidemiological textbook since has parroted it. It’s also almost certainly hogwash, as is much of epidemiology. Given - inter alia - the ability of respiratory viruses to pop up in remote Antarctic encampments indicates that they are almost certainly airborne. Which obviously means that lockdowns are futile.
I believe that most of the early 2020 deaths attributed to Covid were iatrogenic and that this was all part of the globally-coordinated Covid “plandemic”. This wave of deaths under cover of lockdown peaked then fell away when they ran out of helpless care home and hospitalised victims. The next wave in early 2021 was due to the rollout of the so-called vaccines. It peaked and fell away in a similar profile to the 2020 wave when all the infirm elderly with already weakened immune systems had succumbed to the “toxic by design” (Dr Mike Yeadon) jabs.
Douglas I do not agree that this was due to the direct action of the vaccines. I think that there is reasonable evidence that the vaccines created an immune diversion which left those vaccinated with greater susceptibility to the mutated virus and to other health conditions.. It is also conceivable that clotting maybe due to a high antibody vaccine response that the virus moves to a dormant cell to cell transmission phase: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23219376/
I'm now on the "this was all a psyop with chemical / biochemical poisons + death-inducing hospital / care home protocols" train. Wide distribution of this symptoms-inducing chemical could also explain this uniform-across-the-country data, I believe. A "spreading" virus does not explain it.
Suzanne thanks for your comment. It does not seem plausible that the pandemic
interventions could be coordinated to create an identical response in Spain and the UK. As stated patterns emerged all over the world. Even Australia saw a synchronised early response. The analogies with influenza are striking and I believe that there is substantial evidence to support that respiratory viruses have evolved common mechanisms of survival.
Well, to continue the psyop / symptom generating chemicals theory, it was a rolling global attack of whatever chemical crap they were using. It was planned for decades. All the quasi-legal laws that had to be in place to enable what they did took generations to install. (See Katherine Watt’s substack Bailiwick News) All the key puppet people had to be in place. The bogus PCR tests had to be ready. All the 3D models of a fake “virus” had to be created and focus group tested to see which was the most scary. The sophisticated graphically dramatic “tracking coronavirus” website had to be ready to go. These things did not happen overnight as it seemed. That’s what’s not plausible. They even had a masterclass on how it can / would be done in 2017.
How to fake pandemics - presentation dr James Giordano 2017 neirotechnology in national defense
1. I agree that the word scientist is not applicable to the vaccine developers. I believe that what they did is engineering: a disciplined approach to solving a specific problem, in this case making a substance that could be marketed as a vaccine.
2. While your hypothesis of simultaneous activation may have legs, you have to eliminate other potentially confounding factors such as iatrogenesis or the nocebo effect resulting from the induced atmosphere of fear and panic.
Jim thanks for your comments. I am aware of the potential of coordinated medical interventions and psychological influence as the reason for the simultaneous triggering of the mortality response. The seasonality of viruses, the work of Hope-Simpson, the distinct mortality patterns indicate that UV light triggering is far more plausible. The extreme pandemic mortality response seen in Equator and Peru provide further evidence for this concept / hypothesis.
Andrew, can you clarify your argument on transmission, please? As I read it, you say that the REHS hypothesis results in 'super spreaders' releasing highly infectious viral particles that can potentially cause serious, secondary infection for those with poor immune systems? Doesn't this imply that there could be multiple, simultaneous origins ("centres of transmission"), explaining why all regions were "hit" at the same time and perhaps even suggesting that the containment measures might potentially have been effective (if they had worked?!), at multiple, local levels?
Joel thanks for liking this short article. I think there is evidence to suggest that the virus spread much earlier (2019) and during that initial infection period there is limited immune response as we / mankind had not seen this pathogen (product of gain off function). It is only when or immune systems have built up a response that we start to develop more deadly variants through mutation and selection. The immune systems of the healthy are selecting more deadly evasive mutations. In addition the estimates are that we expel 10 to the power 9 to 10 to the power 11 viral particles. The upper limit is enough for one individual to infect every man woman and child with over 10 viral particles mind boggling numbers that if correct demonstrate what we were and are dealing with.
You say the healthy are selecting more deadly variants? I thought the theory was that less deadly variants are naturally selected? that would be more logical, even in healthy people?
Joel from my general reading viruses are a quasi species relying on a cloud of viral particles with sufficient variation . This variation, which is continuous through mutation, is part of the success as a "living" entity and the selection and variation within the viral cloud is key to their success. Lethality is an unfortunate biproduct of this mechanism largely in the "unhealthy". The fact that Sars-CoV-2 came from gain of function meant hat it initially lacked diversity so it went through a peak of excess morality but the virus will eventually become less deadly in the ongoing battle with the prevailing state of our immune systems.
So, you're saying that viruses do transmit person-to-person but the measures to mitigate the spread were ineffective because they were too late or simply that it's not possible to stop infectious people infecting others?
That is pretty much my thoughts that I like to think are backed by the data. Even when there is a gap in infection or high antibody / immune effectiveness the virus lies dormant until it has developed a cloud that will infect effectively. Viruses as an example of Darwinian evolution are truly staggering. As human beings we simply cannot get our head around the numbers involved and the relatively rapid rate of mutation. The key to the solar / UV light signal is that it appears that the viruses have selected this mechanism as it facilitates their survival and this appears to be common to RSV and influenza.
I have had a look at some of your other articles. Correct me if I'm wrong, you basically conclude that social distancing (as an umbrella for various similar measures) is ineffective because everyone is already exposed/infected by the time you realise there's a novel virus worth worrying about? Moreover, only the vulnerable will, therefore be susceptible to secondary infection as the virus evolves to be more pathogenic (at least in the first instance, in the healthy)? Would I be correct in assuming that you think that shielding the vulnerable would nevertheless be a viable mitigation strategy if it could be achieved successfully?
Stephen, I was fascinated by REHS. I too hoped that what he describes as "the simultaneity of peaks of mortality and morbidity in widely separated areas" might give more people pause for thought.
Another simple and, one would hope, easily grasped shortcoming of the concept of measles-like spread is the fact that flu epidemics have *never* run through the whole population in a single wave. REHS explains what happened with Asian flu as it "erupted in the community" and had in 3 weeks attacked 8% of the population across a wide area, yet, it would all be over in six weeks, with only around 15% of being attacked. Even the dreaded Spanish flu appears to have infected less than 30% in its huge second wave. If we are concerned about multiple waves then surely we can recognise that a single wave cannot sweep through the entire population...and the fact that they never have done suggests none of our models can be relied upon.
Yet the beliefs of both sides in our lockdown debate seem to have been predicated on the possibility of more or less the whole population being attacked in a single wave. One side believed if we could flatten the curve, almost everyone would still get it, but the health service might not be overwhelmed. The other side argued that the wave would end in 'herd immunity', if we just let it run its course.
Anyway, you know all this. For what it's worth, I thought the more interesting (but slightly less easily grasped) argument and, possibly, the one which convinced REHS, was the absence of serial interval. Perhaps that could convince the scientists?
As for our well intentioned vaccine scientists...epidemiology, demography, economics...these 'sciences' seem to explain quite a lot. I've no doubt that those who created China's one-child policy sincerely believed they were saving the nation, perhaps saving humanity, from overpopulation. Now that China's fertility rate is down at levels similar to those of other East-Asian countries, apparently with little prospect of returning to sustainable levels, I wonder how many have stopped to question whether the policy's many harms were justified, or even whether it changed anything at all?
Misa. Thank you for your message. REHS (& the Russian D.B.Golubev) seemed to have created a massive body of evidence which the world chose to ignore. Quite staggering really.
I have a hardback copy of REHS’s book and even visited the commemorative plaque during a walking holiday in the Cotswolds. The limited attack rates of infection should also have been a big clue. During the covid-19 pandemic the intensity of mortality in Ecuador and Peru could have been analysed in greater depth in order to ascertain what was really going on. I have written about this on Substack:
Thanks for liking my post. The virus is definitely airborne. The upper estimate is that an activated individual releases enough virus to infect every man woman and child with 10 viral particles. The key thing is that the virus embeds and lies dormant until it is activated. As you point out this was borne out by remote polar stations and fishing trawlers appearing to having sudden outbreaks without any external contact / exposure.
You have to go back to Chapin to understand the fixation with person to person transmission. He decreed it and every epidemiological textbook since has parroted it. It’s also almost certainly hogwash, as is much of epidemiology. Given - inter alia - the ability of respiratory viruses to pop up in remote Antarctic encampments indicates that they are almost certainly airborne. Which obviously means that lockdowns are futile.
I believe that most of the early 2020 deaths attributed to Covid were iatrogenic and that this was all part of the globally-coordinated Covid “plandemic”. This wave of deaths under cover of lockdown peaked then fell away when they ran out of helpless care home and hospitalised victims. The next wave in early 2021 was due to the rollout of the so-called vaccines. It peaked and fell away in a similar profile to the 2020 wave when all the infirm elderly with already weakened immune systems had succumbed to the “toxic by design” (Dr Mike Yeadon) jabs.
Douglas I do not agree that this was due to the direct action of the vaccines. I think that there is reasonable evidence that the vaccines created an immune diversion which left those vaccinated with greater susceptibility to the mutated virus and to other health conditions.. It is also conceivable that clotting maybe due to a high antibody vaccine response that the virus moves to a dormant cell to cell transmission phase: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23219376/
Direct or indirect, so what. The jabs were still toxic.
By an odd coincidence, Dr Johnathan Engler who is infinitely more qualified than me on medical matters has just published a post which supports my stance, saying that “the pandemic construct was staged”: https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/why-i-have-asked-for-my-name-to-be.
I'm now on the "this was all a psyop with chemical / biochemical poisons + death-inducing hospital / care home protocols" train. Wide distribution of this symptoms-inducing chemical could also explain this uniform-across-the-country data, I believe. A "spreading" virus does not explain it.
Suzanne thanks for your comment. It does not seem plausible that the pandemic
interventions could be coordinated to create an identical response in Spain and the UK. As stated patterns emerged all over the world. Even Australia saw a synchronised early response. The analogies with influenza are striking and I believe that there is substantial evidence to support that respiratory viruses have evolved common mechanisms of survival.
Well, to continue the psyop / symptom generating chemicals theory, it was a rolling global attack of whatever chemical crap they were using. It was planned for decades. All the quasi-legal laws that had to be in place to enable what they did took generations to install. (See Katherine Watt’s substack Bailiwick News) All the key puppet people had to be in place. The bogus PCR tests had to be ready. All the 3D models of a fake “virus” had to be created and focus group tested to see which was the most scary. The sophisticated graphically dramatic “tracking coronavirus” website had to be ready to go. These things did not happen overnight as it seemed. That’s what’s not plausible. They even had a masterclass on how it can / would be done in 2017.
How to fake pandemics - presentation dr James Giordano 2017 neirotechnology in national defense
https://youtu.be/Ez4m_NqSRCU?si=_9bOoz05-AxZyJXw
I have a couple of comments:
1. I agree that the word scientist is not applicable to the vaccine developers. I believe that what they did is engineering: a disciplined approach to solving a specific problem, in this case making a substance that could be marketed as a vaccine.
2. While your hypothesis of simultaneous activation may have legs, you have to eliminate other potentially confounding factors such as iatrogenesis or the nocebo effect resulting from the induced atmosphere of fear and panic.
Jim thanks for your comments. I am aware of the potential of coordinated medical interventions and psychological influence as the reason for the simultaneous triggering of the mortality response. The seasonality of viruses, the work of Hope-Simpson, the distinct mortality patterns indicate that UV light triggering is far more plausible. The extreme pandemic mortality response seen in Equator and Peru provide further evidence for this concept / hypothesis.
Ecuador!!
Andrew, can you clarify your argument on transmission, please? As I read it, you say that the REHS hypothesis results in 'super spreaders' releasing highly infectious viral particles that can potentially cause serious, secondary infection for those with poor immune systems? Doesn't this imply that there could be multiple, simultaneous origins ("centres of transmission"), explaining why all regions were "hit" at the same time and perhaps even suggesting that the containment measures might potentially have been effective (if they had worked?!), at multiple, local levels?
Joel thanks for liking this short article. I think there is evidence to suggest that the virus spread much earlier (2019) and during that initial infection period there is limited immune response as we / mankind had not seen this pathogen (product of gain off function). It is only when or immune systems have built up a response that we start to develop more deadly variants through mutation and selection. The immune systems of the healthy are selecting more deadly evasive mutations. In addition the estimates are that we expel 10 to the power 9 to 10 to the power 11 viral particles. The upper limit is enough for one individual to infect every man woman and child with over 10 viral particles mind boggling numbers that if correct demonstrate what we were and are dealing with.
You say the healthy are selecting more deadly variants? I thought the theory was that less deadly variants are naturally selected? that would be more logical, even in healthy people?
Joel from my general reading viruses are a quasi species relying on a cloud of viral particles with sufficient variation . This variation, which is continuous through mutation, is part of the success as a "living" entity and the selection and variation within the viral cloud is key to their success. Lethality is an unfortunate biproduct of this mechanism largely in the "unhealthy". The fact that Sars-CoV-2 came from gain of function meant hat it initially lacked diversity so it went through a peak of excess morality but the virus will eventually become less deadly in the ongoing battle with the prevailing state of our immune systems.
So, you're saying that viruses do transmit person-to-person but the measures to mitigate the spread were ineffective because they were too late or simply that it's not possible to stop infectious people infecting others?
That is pretty much my thoughts that I like to think are backed by the data. Even when there is a gap in infection or high antibody / immune effectiveness the virus lies dormant until it has developed a cloud that will infect effectively. Viruses as an example of Darwinian evolution are truly staggering. As human beings we simply cannot get our head around the numbers involved and the relatively rapid rate of mutation. The key to the solar / UV light signal is that it appears that the viruses have selected this mechanism as it facilitates their survival and this appears to be common to RSV and influenza.
I have had a look at some of your other articles. Correct me if I'm wrong, you basically conclude that social distancing (as an umbrella for various similar measures) is ineffective because everyone is already exposed/infected by the time you realise there's a novel virus worth worrying about? Moreover, only the vulnerable will, therefore be susceptible to secondary infection as the virus evolves to be more pathogenic (at least in the first instance, in the healthy)? Would I be correct in assuming that you think that shielding the vulnerable would nevertheless be a viable mitigation strategy if it could be achieved successfully?
Stephen, I was fascinated by REHS. I too hoped that what he describes as "the simultaneity of peaks of mortality and morbidity in widely separated areas" might give more people pause for thought.
Another simple and, one would hope, easily grasped shortcoming of the concept of measles-like spread is the fact that flu epidemics have *never* run through the whole population in a single wave. REHS explains what happened with Asian flu as it "erupted in the community" and had in 3 weeks attacked 8% of the population across a wide area, yet, it would all be over in six weeks, with only around 15% of being attacked. Even the dreaded Spanish flu appears to have infected less than 30% in its huge second wave. If we are concerned about multiple waves then surely we can recognise that a single wave cannot sweep through the entire population...and the fact that they never have done suggests none of our models can be relied upon.
Yet the beliefs of both sides in our lockdown debate seem to have been predicated on the possibility of more or less the whole population being attacked in a single wave. One side believed if we could flatten the curve, almost everyone would still get it, but the health service might not be overwhelmed. The other side argued that the wave would end in 'herd immunity', if we just let it run its course.
Anyway, you know all this. For what it's worth, I thought the more interesting (but slightly less easily grasped) argument and, possibly, the one which convinced REHS, was the absence of serial interval. Perhaps that could convince the scientists?
As for our well intentioned vaccine scientists...epidemiology, demography, economics...these 'sciences' seem to explain quite a lot. I've no doubt that those who created China's one-child policy sincerely believed they were saving the nation, perhaps saving humanity, from overpopulation. Now that China's fertility rate is down at levels similar to those of other East-Asian countries, apparently with little prospect of returning to sustainable levels, I wonder how many have stopped to question whether the policy's many harms were justified, or even whether it changed anything at all?
Misa. Thank you for your message. REHS (& the Russian D.B.Golubev) seemed to have created a massive body of evidence which the world chose to ignore. Quite staggering really.
I have a hardback copy of REHS’s book and even visited the commemorative plaque during a walking holiday in the Cotswolds. The limited attack rates of infection should also have been a big clue. During the covid-19 pandemic the intensity of mortality in Ecuador and Peru could have been analysed in greater depth in order to ascertain what was really going on. I have written about this on Substack:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-124341846?r=16e1vo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web