This guy is fantastic and brilliant

Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD Crushes Dr. Fauci Exposes Birx, Clintons, Bill Gates, And The W.H.O

April 16, 2020 | 17 Comments » | 746 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

17 Comments / 17 Comments

  1. “Pair of scientists estimate California has 10 times more coronavirus cases than reported
    A pair of scientists believe that up to 270,000 residents of California have the novel coronavirus, 10 times more cases than have been reported.

    The researchers estimate that up to 4.8 percent of the total US population was infected with the virus by April 6 – 40 times the number of confirmed cases.

    They also suggest that almost 50 percent of New Yorkers, which comes out to around nine million people, are likely infected, reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

    If true, the study would uphold the belief by some in the medical community that a group of asymptomatic and untested carriers are infecting others.

    Top articles2/5READ MORE
    Abbott announces new coronavirus antibody blood test to detect who has already been infected

    However, there have been assurances from both states’ officials – Governor Gavin Newsom of California and Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York – that they are ‘flattening the curve.’

    Additionally, local health experts disagree and told the Chronicle that they’re skeptical because the model is based on incomplete data.

    Two researchers, Dayton Thorpe (pictured) and Kelsey Lyberger estimate 4.8% of the total US population was infected with the novel coronavirus by April 6 – 40 times the number of confirmed cases
    In that model, researchers estimate California has 10 times more cases than have been reported and that half of all New Yorkers are infected. Pictured: Lyberger
    Two researchers, Dayton Thorpe (left) and Kelsey Lyberger (right) estimate 4.8% of the total US population was infected with the novel coronavirus by April 6 – 40 times the number of confirmed cases. In that model, researchers estimate California has 10 times more cases than have been reported and that half of all New Yorkers are infected

    The team believes a group of asymptomatic and untested virus carriers are infecting others. Pictured: A patient at the Magnolia Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Riverside, California, is evacuated to a waiting ambulance, April 8
    The team believes a group of asymptomatic and untested virus carriers are infecting others. Pictured: A patient at the Magnolia Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Riverside, California, is evacuated to a waiting ambulance, April 8
    The authors of the study are Dayton Thorpe, a data scientist from San Francisco, and Kelsey Lyberger, a doctoral candidate in population biology at the University of California, Davis.

    For the report, which was viewed by The Chronicle but has not yet been published, the pair extrapolated death and infection percentages from US citizens repatriated from China.

    They calculated the number of Americans infected across the country as 39 times higher than the 633,000 reported.

    Additionally, the researchers determined that the death rate was 0.8 percent, which is eight times deadlier than the seasonal flu.

    ‘There are more cases than I thought,’ Thorpe told the Chronicle.

    ‘That is absolutely a concern. The virus is in more people and in more places’ than anybody believes.

    Researchers also confirmed that New York is the worst-hit state but that it’s infection rate is closer to 46 percent and not the 1.09 percent recorded.

    ‘The estimated value in New York is so high that it is likely close to herd immunity,’ Thorpe and Lyberger wrote, according to the Chronicle.

    Herd immunity occurs when so many people become infected – or vaccinated – that a disease cannot spread because the majority of the population is immune.

    No other state has reached such a level.

    Behind New York was New Jersey, with an estimated 16 of the population infected, and in third was Louisiana with an estimated 10 percent of residents infected.

    As of Wednesday, the number of confirmed cases of the virus in the US was 633,000, according to Johns Hopkins University. The team estimates the true number is closer to 15.8 million.

    Thorpe and Lyberger said their calculations are not far-fetched, telling the Chronicle it’s the same method used by an Imperial College of London study.

    In that study, researchers predicted that two million Americans would die of social distancing measures were not put in place.

    But their colleagues don’t necessarily agree.

    Dr Joseph Lewnard, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health told the Chronicle the new study ‘doesn’t pass the smell test.’

    ‘Even if the situation seems to have come under control earlier in California, it is highly suspect that the cumulative infections would be roughly 100 times higher in New York than in California,’ Lewnard told the newspaper.

    ‘For a virus that first emerged in humans around December 2019 in China, it is very hard to picture that there have been enough generations of spread to result in nine million infections in New York alone, given what we know about transmissibility.’

    California Governor announces fund to give immigrants $1,000”

    From today’d (UK) Daily Mail.

  2. PHD in conspiracy theories. Some truths, some lies and lots of over reach. He is not an MD but knows more than MDs.

  3. https://archive.is/ONUmi
    Here is an interesting article on how covid-19 works!

    Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret.
    In the last 3–5 days, a mountain of anecdotal evidence has come out of NYC, Italy, Spain, etc. about COVID-19 and characteristics of patients who get seriously ill. It’s not only piling up but now leading to a general field-level consensus backed up by a few previously little-known studies that we’ve had it all wrong the whole time. Well, a few had some things eerily correct (cough Trump cough), especially with Hydroxychloroquine with Azithromicin, but we’ll get to that in a minute.
    ……..

  4. @ stevenl:
    Thank you for the excellent reference.
    The author describes how COVID-19 really works based on the latest research. However, he makes a mistake of cursing out China at the end of the article and warning everyone not to trust the Chinese while being unaware that the original research he describes was done in China by the Chinese scientists:
    https://chemrxiv.org/articles/COVID-19_Disease_ORF8_and_Surface_Glycoprotein_Inhibit_Heme_Metabolism_by_Binding_to_Porphyrin/11938173
    The original Chinese scientific article was submitted on the 5th of March, 2020 and posted on the 13th of April, 2020.

  5. A leaked document from the US Department of Homeland Security shows that the US government’s working assumption is that coronavirus is less deadly than it is often assumed to be, The Spectator reported.

    According to the report, the document compares a scenario in which coronavirus spreads as it will, while routines continue uninterrupted, with a scenario in which a month-long lockdown is imposed, followed by additional measures intended to stop the spread of coronavirus.

    The document estimates that the mortality rate in the first scenario would be 0.15%, while in the second scenario it would be 0.125%. Both of these figures are not significantly different than those for seasonal influenza.

    However, it is not clear how the Data and Analytics team calculated the figures, or whether they are backed by science.

    Currently, the World Health Organization estimates that coronavirus has a fatality rate of 3.4% globally. However, various countries have shown widely differing fatality rates, influenced in part by the number of tests conducted, by which asymptomatic carriers may be detected.” From today’s Arutz Sheva.

  6. @ stevenl:

    I came across the same article (about how COVID-19 attacks the body), and I re-posted it on facebook a few days ago. I was interested strictly from a clinical viewpoint, as the article made perfect sense, and tends to support the anecdotal evidence. The article was not particularly political, except for one explicit pro-Trump reference. Within one day, facebook notified me that they had fact-checked my post, found it to be false, and were flagging it as such. I checked, and indeed they had done so. They further stated that no clinical studies had been done to show that this is how the virus works. OK…but if no studies have been done, then how do they know that the information is false? Hmmm. It is disturbing to find that facebook would be scrutinizing my posts, (as I am a virtual nobody), and taking it upon themselves to be the guardians of truth, particularly when they let so much other out and out crap slide by. That they would find it necessary to critique my post, and defacto censor it, is absolute Big Brotherism. Why would they do this, I wonder. I can only assume that it is because it does not fit the narrative that they espouse, and because it tends to support President Trump and the efficacy of the Hydroxychloroquine therapy, which he has endorsed. I may not know how the virus works, but one thing I do know is that facebook is a propaganda tool (as are their “independent” fact-checkers), and a threat to liberty.

  7. @ Shmuel Mohalever:
    If this goes into moderation, I will split it into several parts.
    I found the actual article from The Spectator that Arutz7 is referring to:
    https://spectator.us/leaked-homeland-security-report-coronavirus/

    The Department for Homeland Security document suggests that the real impetus for lockdown was not to try to stop people catching the virus but to slow it down sufficiently in order not to exceed the US’s supply of ventilators.

    AND the actual memo dated 9 April 2020 with the models from 3/31/20:
    https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6874-fema-coronavirus-projections/1e16b74eea9e302d8825/optimized/full.pdf
    If you look at the memo, you will see that both the projected (“Best Guess”) number of the coronavirus illnesses in the US and the number of deaths estimated by the DHS are VASTLY greater than those from the seasonal flu BUT the death rates calculated by The Spectator are not much higher than those for the flu (see the CDC website) and, at the same time, are MUCH less than the 3.+% given by the WHO.
    WHY?
    Because, in order to calculate the death rate, The Spectator uses the RATIO of the estimated number of deaths/the estimated number of the coronavirus illnesses (infections) but the WHO used the RATIO of REPORTED deaths/REPORTED cases.
    No one can blame the WHO for overestimating the death rate simply because the WHO refused to use its “Best Guess” for the number of infections (there was no way to know this at the time) to calculate the death rate (the seasonal flu’s death rate in the US for the years 2019-2020 is 0.062%-0.11% using deaths/illnesses (infections) ratio).
    The Spectator also says that according to the memo the number of the infections will be reduced only by a sixth. However, the journalist ignores the fact that according to the memo the estimated number of deaths (in the US) would be REDUCED by 85,000 (the HIGHEST number of deaths from the 2019-2020 flu epidemic was estimated to be 62,000).

  8. Why was my comment put in moderation even AFTER it was posted?
    I don’t understand it.
    It was posted, it was out there for several minutes, and then it goes into moderation.
    What is supposed to be wrong with it?
    It feels like you have a censor sitting there checking the content of the comments.

  9. @ Raphael:
    I found something yesterday that might explain (indirectly) why Facebook reacted the way it did.
    Someone, not a scientist, posted the hemoglobin/COVID-19 info on the website below with a reference to 3 scientific articles (2 from China, 1 from Italy), and the American reviewers roundly dismissed it as bunk.
    Personally, I think they either didn’t understand what they were reading because the articles are extremely technical and use a lot of specialized scientific jargon that only highly trained specialists understand, OR this person who posted the info presented it incorrectly (not being a specialist himself).
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-that-sars-cov-2-binds-to-hemoglobin-in-red-blood-cells-unsupported-and-implausible-andrew-gaiziunas/

  10. @ Raphael:
    I found something yesterday that might explain (indirectly) why Facebook reacted the way it did.
    Someone, not a scientist, posted the hemoglobin/COVID-19 info on the website below with a reference to 3 scientific articles (2 from China, 1 from Italy), and the American reviewers roundly dismissed it as bunk.
    Personally, I think they either didn’t understand what they were reading because the articles are extremely technical and use a lot of specialized scientific jargon that only highly trained specialists understand, OR this person who posted the info presented it incorrectly (not being a specialist himself).
    https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-that-sars-cov-2-binds-to-hemoglobin-in-red-blood-cells-unsupported-and-implausible-andrew-gaiziunas/

  11. @ Reader: Hi, Reader. I can’t even remember what comment of mine you are referring to. But Shabbat Shalom.

    I don’t know what to make of your analysis of the Spectator report.

    I seem to recall that WHO published extremely high estimates of the likely deaths from coronavirus that have since proved to be drastic overestimates. Is my memory correct on that point?

  12. Scientists who had been tracking Covid-19 from its early emergence were clear that it appeared those with underlying health conditions were more vulnerable.

    New figures show that 91 per cent of people who died from Covid-19 had at least one underlying health condition, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

    The most common pre-existing condition was heart disease, which affects 7.4 million people in the UK, and is the biggest killer every year.

    It was followed by dementia and Alzheimer’s disease – conditions that 850,000 people are currently living with in Britain.

    Chronic lower respiratory diseases, diabetes and the flu were other pre-existing issues that accounted for the most deaths in England and Wales in March.

    Another recent study found that those with just one pre-existing condition was at an 80 per cent increased risk of dying from the illness.

    Experts from the China Medical Treatment Expert Group identified cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the most at-risk conditions.

    COPD – a type of lung disease – affects 1.2 million in the UK, while the most recent figures estimate that there are 2.5 million people living with cancer in Britain.

    The research, published in the European Respiratory Journal, also found those with high blood pressure, diabetes or cardiovascular disease were at an increased risk from Covid-19.

    Other conditions which have been identified include asthma – which affects 5.4 million Brits, cystic fibrosis, primary immumodeficiency (PID), HIV and Aids, chronic liver or kidney disease and neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s.” From the Sun (UK).

    The fact that the overwhelming majority of coronavirus victims have “underlying conditions” makes me wonder whether it isn’t the “underlying conditions” that are the primary causes of death in these individuals. If so, coronavirus may not be especially deadly–perhaps no more so than influenza or the common cold, either of which could push a terminally ill patient “over the edge.”

  13. @ Shmuel Mohalever:
    “Spectator report”
    You referred to this article on Arutz7 “What is COVID-19’s true fatality rate?”.
    I found it on Arutz7.
    It cited an article from The Spectator.
    I found that article also.
    The Spectator article cited a leaked DHS memo.
    I found the memo.
    I my reply I gave the actual links to both the Spectator article and the leaked memo, in case you wanted to read them.
    Then I analyzed the mortality rates from the DHS memo vs. the mortality rates given by the WHO.
    If you’ve been reading my previous posts, I made a point that mortality rates will look differently depending on how they are derived.
    This is proven again in my reply about The Spectator’s article.

  14. @ Shmuel Mohalever:
    The WHO mortality rates were NOT drastic overestimates.
    The WHO took the number of REPORTED deaths and divided them by the number of REPORTED cases.
    This was the only FACTUAL information they had then.
    This is how they came up with 3.4% mortality rate.
    I am not familiar with their estimates of absolute numbers of deaths and infections. Maybe they were excessive, I don’t know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*