Knew a # of people pretty sick w/ mystery illnesses in Fall 2019. I had what I thought was a bad bronchitis in Feb 2020, did not see a doc so nothing confirmed (& there wasn’t testing yet), just rode it out but it lasted 2-3 weeks. I did have confirmed “Covid pneumonia” in Dec 2021 & it was pretty rough (every symptom in the book & on…
Knew a # of people pretty sick w/ mystery illnesses in Fall 2019. I had what I thought was a bad bronchitis in Feb 2020, did not see a doc so nothing confirmed (& there wasn’t testing yet), just rode it out but it lasted 2-3 weeks. I did have confirmed “Covid pneumonia” in Dec 2021 & it was pretty rough (every symptom in the book & on home 02 for 15 days) but I managed to stay out of the hospital, thank God.
Anyway, check out those articles I sent & let us know what you think
I'll go ahead and post this, which comes from my research and investigative journalism. It might be of interest to some people and I always value feedback on my hypothesis, which is definitely taboo. Quick summary: The fact there were no tests for Covid in the "early weeks" of Covid is probably more significant than many people probably realize ...
Something to perhaps think about: Yes, we know that PCR tests are badly flawed and we also know that PCR tests weren’t widely used to diagnose “cases” until around late March 2020. But when were ANTIBODY tests first used to ascertain “prevalence” in the community? These assays weren’t widely utilized until mid or late April 2020. Why is this? Antibody tests are NOT new scientific technology. Per my research, they were being used in China in January 2020.
What would have been the result if random samples of the public had been tested for antibodies by, say, February 15, 2020? Would these tests show no positives or would they have shown prevalence of, say, 2 percent or more? If prevalence was 2 percent in adults tested, this would equate to about 5 million Americans who had already been exposed to this virus by this date. Question: Why would public health officials recommend lockdowns of society to “prevent” or “stop” the “spread” of a virus if millions of Americans had already been infected … weeks before the lockdowns?
Unlike PCR swab tests, with antibody tests, scientists don’t necessarily have to test blood on a given date. Scientists could, in fact, test blood that had already been collected and stored (by organizations like the American Red Cross).
We also know that public health officials performed only ONE such antibody study of “archived” blood. This one study found that 2 percent of blood donors in California, Washington and Oregon had Covid antibodies at the time these people donated blood (Dec. 13-16, 2019). (Here one might want to multiply 2 percent by 330 million Americans). As it often takes two weeks for detectable levels of antibodies to form, this means many of these people had Covid antibodies in their systems in November 2019 (if not earlier).
For the life of me, I can think of no reason why the CDC would test only two small tranches of archived blood to gauge “community prevalence” pre February 2020. Check that … I CAN think of one reason they might decide to NOT test blood from other states and other points in time. This possible reason: Because SOMEONE knew if they tested a lot more archived blood from different points in time, these blood samples and antibody tests would provide undeniable evidence that this virus had spread across the entire country by the time of the Wuhan outbreak (Dec. 31, 2019). Such results would be hard to explain and certainly wouldn’t support lockdowns and NPIs to stop spread.
Such hypothetical results would also throw a monkey wrench into the effort to get every citizen on the planet vaccinated. Why would this also mess up the vaccination effort? Because it would show that millions of people had already had the virus … and nobody had even known this. The Infection Fatality Rates - so important to stoking fear - would be adjusted from 4 percent to say, 0.1 percent - the mortality rate of the flu.
I think our trusted public health officials and virus sleuths simply didn’t test what they didn’t want to “confirm.”
One tranche of archived Red Cross blood was collected Dec. 13-16, 2019. The CDC’s very belated study showed that at least 39 blood donors had Covid antibodies as of this date. For some reason, this study was not released to the public until late November 2020. In other words, it took 11 months to publicize the findings of an antibody study that only tested about 1,700 samples of blood.
I’m a contrarian, but I maintain this blood COULD and should have been tested - and the results known - by February 2020 - weeks before the lockdowns were announced.
Why were PCR tests AND antibody tests delayed for so long? Maybe someone knew what would happen if wide-spread testing were to occur much earlier. This is also why no Red Cross blood from other pre-lockdown dates and other sections of the country was never tested.
One day, history is going to tell us that the “first wave” of this virus actually happened in the “cold and flu” months of November 2019 - March 2020. Not that anyone seems to care, but copious evidence exists that the birthday of Covid Spread is completely wrong.
after reading this interesting thread I'm at a loss where to post my reply, but first off I think a lot of really smart "fringe" people have echoed Lysias' comment below. seems plausible to me.
adding some anecdotal info, my family had covid in March 2020 before widespread testing. once we were well and trying to figure shit out, I found out from a ton of neighbors and friends that they probably all had covid even before we did. nobody thought so, they had all been waiting for the bomb to burst after the fact so to speak. lots of probable cases at church, but also the town I live in is populated by airport staff and Schiphol airport is a major European hub. We should have freaking known. What the media can manage.
I know that they started doing sewage testing and blood bank monitoring at some point and still do, though the release of that information is hit or miss. it is easier in a small country of course, but I echo your puzzlement at why this was not more widely employed. Sorry I am not inclined to find and post links, which would be in Dutch in any case.
Last comment is the fact that antibody testing was not covered by insurance or encouraged in tandem with the vaccine rollout is what finally got me to grudgingly admit there was something sinister afoot rather than mere bumbling bureaucrats. There is limited supply of this new vaccine (such a transparent marketing ploy) and we are just going to carpet bomb the population? My sister in law who works in healthcare and recovered from covid in 12/2020 got her doses before her parents in their 70s who had to wait another few months. Excuse me? And I had a huge blowout with friends about the logic of performing bloodtests before vaccination. It was simply not possible. Okay. we can warp speed a vaccine, but we can't perform a routine blood test? We paid for one nine months post infection and knew they were lying to us. makes my blood boil.
Knew a # of people pretty sick w/ mystery illnesses in Fall 2019. I had what I thought was a bad bronchitis in Feb 2020, did not see a doc so nothing confirmed (& there wasn’t testing yet), just rode it out but it lasted 2-3 weeks. I did have confirmed “Covid pneumonia” in Dec 2021 & it was pretty rough (every symptom in the book & on home 02 for 15 days) but I managed to stay out of the hospital, thank God.
Anyway, check out those articles I sent & let us know what you think
I'll go ahead and post this, which comes from my research and investigative journalism. It might be of interest to some people and I always value feedback on my hypothesis, which is definitely taboo. Quick summary: The fact there were no tests for Covid in the "early weeks" of Covid is probably more significant than many people probably realize ...
Something to perhaps think about: Yes, we know that PCR tests are badly flawed and we also know that PCR tests weren’t widely used to diagnose “cases” until around late March 2020. But when were ANTIBODY tests first used to ascertain “prevalence” in the community? These assays weren’t widely utilized until mid or late April 2020. Why is this? Antibody tests are NOT new scientific technology. Per my research, they were being used in China in January 2020.
What would have been the result if random samples of the public had been tested for antibodies by, say, February 15, 2020? Would these tests show no positives or would they have shown prevalence of, say, 2 percent or more? If prevalence was 2 percent in adults tested, this would equate to about 5 million Americans who had already been exposed to this virus by this date. Question: Why would public health officials recommend lockdowns of society to “prevent” or “stop” the “spread” of a virus if millions of Americans had already been infected … weeks before the lockdowns?
Unlike PCR swab tests, with antibody tests, scientists don’t necessarily have to test blood on a given date. Scientists could, in fact, test blood that had already been collected and stored (by organizations like the American Red Cross).
We also know that public health officials performed only ONE such antibody study of “archived” blood. This one study found that 2 percent of blood donors in California, Washington and Oregon had Covid antibodies at the time these people donated blood (Dec. 13-16, 2019). (Here one might want to multiply 2 percent by 330 million Americans). As it often takes two weeks for detectable levels of antibodies to form, this means many of these people had Covid antibodies in their systems in November 2019 (if not earlier).
For the life of me, I can think of no reason why the CDC would test only two small tranches of archived blood to gauge “community prevalence” pre February 2020. Check that … I CAN think of one reason they might decide to NOT test blood from other states and other points in time. This possible reason: Because SOMEONE knew if they tested a lot more archived blood from different points in time, these blood samples and antibody tests would provide undeniable evidence that this virus had spread across the entire country by the time of the Wuhan outbreak (Dec. 31, 2019). Such results would be hard to explain and certainly wouldn’t support lockdowns and NPIs to stop spread.
Such hypothetical results would also throw a monkey wrench into the effort to get every citizen on the planet vaccinated. Why would this also mess up the vaccination effort? Because it would show that millions of people had already had the virus … and nobody had even known this. The Infection Fatality Rates - so important to stoking fear - would be adjusted from 4 percent to say, 0.1 percent - the mortality rate of the flu.
I think our trusted public health officials and virus sleuths simply didn’t test what they didn’t want to “confirm.”
One tranche of archived Red Cross blood was collected Dec. 13-16, 2019. The CDC’s very belated study showed that at least 39 blood donors had Covid antibodies as of this date. For some reason, this study was not released to the public until late November 2020. In other words, it took 11 months to publicize the findings of an antibody study that only tested about 1,700 samples of blood.
I’m a contrarian, but I maintain this blood COULD and should have been tested - and the results known - by February 2020 - weeks before the lockdowns were announced.
Why were PCR tests AND antibody tests delayed for so long? Maybe someone knew what would happen if wide-spread testing were to occur much earlier. This is also why no Red Cross blood from other pre-lockdown dates and other sections of the country was never tested.
One day, history is going to tell us that the “first wave” of this virus actually happened in the “cold and flu” months of November 2019 - March 2020. Not that anyone seems to care, but copious evidence exists that the birthday of Covid Spread is completely wrong.
after reading this interesting thread I'm at a loss where to post my reply, but first off I think a lot of really smart "fringe" people have echoed Lysias' comment below. seems plausible to me.
adding some anecdotal info, my family had covid in March 2020 before widespread testing. once we were well and trying to figure shit out, I found out from a ton of neighbors and friends that they probably all had covid even before we did. nobody thought so, they had all been waiting for the bomb to burst after the fact so to speak. lots of probable cases at church, but also the town I live in is populated by airport staff and Schiphol airport is a major European hub. We should have freaking known. What the media can manage.
I know that they started doing sewage testing and blood bank monitoring at some point and still do, though the release of that information is hit or miss. it is easier in a small country of course, but I echo your puzzlement at why this was not more widely employed. Sorry I am not inclined to find and post links, which would be in Dutch in any case.
Last comment is the fact that antibody testing was not covered by insurance or encouraged in tandem with the vaccine rollout is what finally got me to grudgingly admit there was something sinister afoot rather than mere bumbling bureaucrats. There is limited supply of this new vaccine (such a transparent marketing ploy) and we are just going to carpet bomb the population? My sister in law who works in healthcare and recovered from covid in 12/2020 got her doses before her parents in their 70s who had to wait another few months. Excuse me? And I had a huge blowout with friends about the logic of performing bloodtests before vaccination. It was simply not possible. Okay. we can warp speed a vaccine, but we can't perform a routine blood test? We paid for one nine months post infection and knew they were lying to us. makes my blood boil.
The lockdowns happened because the economy was in the process of collapsing in late 2019/early 2020. Locking down was a way to conceal the collapse.