NETANYAHU IS ALARMED!! MORBIDITY? LOCKDOWN!

NETANYAHU IS ALARMED

*Netanyahu:

"In recent days we have seen a steep and alarming increase in morbidity," Netanyahu explained, noting that the Corona Cabinet will today discuss steps ahead of Hanukkah.

WHERE ARE THE “STEEP MORBIDITY” **NUMBERS?  

AFTER SPENDING MILLIONS OF SHEKELS TO BUY VACCINES                 [the government will make sure you take them]

Bennett’s Plan to Avoid Lockdown

1. It is mandatory to test everyone who enters Israel. Anyone wishing to enter Israel will have to present a negative COVID-19 test 72 hours in advance and will be re-examined upon landing. After the test one will be sent several hours for isolation (in a hotel or at home), until a negative result is obtained. Those who are unwilling will not enter Israel.

Although I raised this already in March, up to this moment the State of Israel does not do so. I can not understand why.

2. Regular mass testing throughout Israel. From disease centers to green cities. Israel today has the ability to process 100,000 tests a day. Using the proven pooling method, it is possible to process about 2 million tests every day. Every day. Meaning - there is no problem to perform a regular weekly inspection of all Israel's citizens.

Full mass tests in schools and kindergartens. There is no reason to leave children or teachers at home. Just check again and again and again.

4. Light up the traffic light. To this day, much has been said about the traffic light system, but in practice — it is not implemented. Currently there is no difference between a business in a red city and a green city. The gyms are closed in both. Same as restaurants. The whole idea of the traffic light is the different attitude. Today a green city pays the price of promiscuous conduct in a red city. It makes no sense.

5. Upgrade an array of epidemiological tests and integrate them into surveillance tools. In short - today the investigation is based on the memory of a tested person. On the other hand, the GSS often sends people to isolation unnecessarily, which involves losing millions of hours of work. Connecting both solves the problem. GSS surveillance tools will aid investigation.

6. Get rid of the lockdown and accordion concepts. This perception sees lockdown as a "success" and does not attempt to move to the "tweezers" method, aimed at locating and isolating carriers, alongside opening up the economy and the education system.

7. Full operation of the education system based on the 11 points. The rule: no longer close the education system. What do we do? Study outside. Reduction to 4 basic subjects. Volunteering. Shifts. And of course - a mass of tests.

8. Returning the activities in classes and informal enrichment for the children of Israel. Based on a stricter purple badge in green cities and weekly tests. One million children lose the right to know robotics, hiking, physical training, judo and more. Especially in the periphery.

9. Returning sports and physical training - Israeli citizens deteriorate physically and emotionally without physical activity. Approve a purple badge adapted for gyms (in green cities), Pilates, and all physical training centers. The price of health care paid by the citizens of Israel is terrible, and we are losing thousands of businesses, sending tens of thousands into unemployment. In vain. For no reason.

10. Vocational training, vocational retraining before hitting the wall of July 1, 2021. Nearly a million people are currently receiving unemployment benefits or are on unpaid leave. The State does not have the money for this, so it is taking huge loans, 80% (!) Of GDP. What will happen on July 1? Are there a million jobs waiting? No. So we need to act now to encourage businesses, create jobs, prepare people to leave the lockdown. It is possible otherwise.

* * * 

Ten Fatal Errors: Scientists Attack Paper That Established Global PCR Driven Lockdown

By Celia Farber -

December 3, 202

War has broken out in the scientific literature that strikes at the existential core of Covid-19 and its proposed causative virus.

At the heart of the controversy lies the fact that the creators of the most commonly used test, the RT-PCR, published instructions for how to test for SARS-CoV-2 “without having virus material available,” in their own words, relying instead on the Chinese scientists’ genetic sequence published on the internet.

The paper “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time PCR” was published 24 hours after it was submitted to Eurosurveillance, clearly evading peer review. Its lead authors were Christian Drosten and Victor Corman, which is how it took on the title  “Corman-Drosten paper.” It provided the “recipe,” or work flow for the Covid-19 diagnostic test, quickly applied all over the world, after it was accepted as the standard of testing by the WHO.

German scientist Christian Drosten was also a co-discoverer of the SARS-associated coronavirus, and developed a test for it in 2003. Drosten, who heads the Charite Institute of Virology in Berlin, and a team of fellow scientists in Europe and Hong Kong, moved very quickly, as soon as cases of the illness were being reported out of Wuhan in December of 2019. They submitted the paper on Jan. 21, it was published in Eurosurveillance on Jan. 23,* and was immediately accepted as the standard of testing internationally, by the WHO, which began sending test kits to affected regions. (Fact check: was it 24 hours? Corbett says yes.)

In the harrowing months that followed, amid lockdowns, economic collapse, school closures and widespread panic, few were aware of the immense problems with the paper, which tragically offered a testing method that would yield between 80 and 97 percent false positive results, due to a non existent gold standard which would be the virus itself.

It all came to a head on Nov. 30, when the Corman-Drosten foundation paper was challenged by 22 international scientists who wrote a letter demanding the paper’s retraction, along with an extensive critique citing 10 errors in the paper it deemed “fatal.”

Titled “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-Cov-2 Reveals 10 Major Flaws At The Molecular and Methodological Level: Consequences For False-Positive Results,” the paper’s lead author is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression. Several other esteemed names are associated with the paper including Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer and outspoken critic of much of the so-called science beneath the WHO’s global lockdown, masking, and school shut-down measures.

I reached one of the authors, Dr. Kevin Corbett, at his home in London. He spoke simply  and with controlled apoplexy. He confirmed and cast additional light on the shocking fact that the paper was written in the absence of a viral isolate, among many other problems.

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the Covid test,” he said. “When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.”

I asked him to define “viral morphology” for the layperson.

“In the fish market,” he said, “it’s like giving you a few bones and saying that’s your fish. It could be any fish. Not even a skeleton. Here’s a few fragments of bones. That’s your fish. Listen, the Corman/Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. and the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is; it’s a code. So its ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some what you think is EEE so you put it in. It’s all synthetic. You just manufacture the bits that are missing. This is the end result of the geneticization of virology. This is basically a computer virus.“

In an interview posted on his Twitter feed, Dr. Pieter Borger said,”The virus wasn’t in Europe and the paper was already finished.”  He said these facts “should have been on television long ago. I explained it on LinkedIn, but you get banned if you do. Regarding PCR he said, “You are not detecting a virus.”

“Once I heard a good comparison,” he continued. “If you go to a junkyard and you find a wheel or a hubcap from a Mercedes, and a steering wheel of a Mercedes, can you infer that you are in a Mercedes garage at that moment? If you only see those two parts? No, you can’t. You don’t know anything about it . . . you only know you have a steering wheel, you can find those things everywhere. In every junkyard you can find them.” He describes the RT PCT tests as having “no relevance for the diagnosis whatsoever.”

German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich who is central to a growing group of lawyers, scientists, politicians, and even secret pharmaceutical whistleblowers, said in an interview, “We believe that in order to make this house of cards collapse, we have to attack the PCR test. The fact is, there are no asymptomatic infections.”

This seemingly radical claim was bolstered by a paper out of Wuhan of all places, published by Nature.com, which found no “viable virus” in PCR positive cases.

“The screening of the 9,865,404 participants without a history of COVID-19 found no newly confirmed COVID-19 cases, and identified 300 asymptomatic positive cases with a detection rate of 0.303 (95 % CI 0.270–0.339)/10,000. … A total of 1174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19. … Of the 34,424 participants with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive again, giving a repositive rate of 0.310% (95% CI 0.423–0.574%.) Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study.”

Dr. Corbett, a Ph.D., and retired RN elaborated: “There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper. Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this paper. But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”

I read him some of the critiques from the other side, that say it’s been isolated “all over the world.”

“Yes, there have since papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July, I think it was, where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

One of their 10 challenges is the stunning fact that EuroSurveillance published the paper 24 hours after it was submitted back in January. “Twenty-four hours,” Dr. Corbett said incredulously. “That never happens. It takes months to get a review done. They turned this around in 24 hours. It was waved through, it was not peer-reviewed. There’s no standard operational procedure for this test. There’s major and minor concerns about this paper and we go through it all here. it should be retracted. If they retract it, it means the whole thing falls to bits. The whole edifice collapses. It’s a house of cards built on sand and we’ve just moved the sand.”

The authors of the Drosten paper, for their part, were dismissive on social media. One of them, Marion Koopman, referred to the Borger et al critique as “ongoing nonsense.” Drosten himself launched ad-hominem attacks at some of the authors via Twitter.

Koopman tweeted: “The labs on this paper all had worked with SARS, had samples from SARS patients in their freezers. So that made it possible to do a first check of how this would work. A valid choice in an emerging disease outbreak, where you are in the blind phase.”

[…]

At press time, Eurosurveillance at least did acknowledge to the paper’s authors that they had received it and were reviewing it. When asked on Twitter if there had been a response, lead author Peter Borger replied that the response among scientists had been overwhelming in its support.

[…]

From his home in Germany, Reiner Fuellmich said, “The reason why I decided to speak out is that I didn’t want these crazy people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes to rule the world. I had no idea when I came out with my first video that these people and their corporations were such a powerful block. We are up against some really powerful and devious and bad, evil people. But they’re not a united front. We on the good side so to speak, I am firmly convinced that we have the better people, who know much more not just intellectually. The thing is . . . we’re humans, and they’re not.”

 

Celia Farber is half-Swedish and being raised there, she knows socialism from the inside. She has focused her writings on freedom and tyranny, with an early focus on the pharmaceutical industry and media abuses on human liberties. She has been under ferocious attack for her writings on HIV/AIDS, where she has worked to document the topic as a psychological operation, rooted in fake science. She has contributed to the Epoch Times, Harper’s, Esquire, Rolling Stone and more. She left the legacy media, never to return. She is the recipient of the Semmelweis International Society Clean Hands Award For Investigative Journalism. She is the author of Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, and the editor of The Truth Barrier, an investigative and literary website. She co-hosts The Whistleblower Newsroom with Kristina Borjesson on PRN, Fridays at 10 a.m.

Twitter: @CeliaFarber

Web: www.truthbarrier.com

FB: Celia Ingrid Farber

* I just don’t understand that Netanyahu doesn’t realise that much of the public is fed up with the manipulations; the loss of income from small businesses; the isolation from family and friends; depression; abuse; and suicides – All because of his commitment to the UN Agendas? What is he to gain from this? 

** From TomerDevorah Casedemic :

Hadassah Hospital - Jerusalem reports (3 Dec. 20):  42 COVID patients  - 2 on ventilator

Sha'arei Tzedek Hospital - Jerusalem reports (3 Dec. 20):  COVID patients - 4 on ventilator 

Nationwide - 292 hospitalized in serious condition: 99 of them on ventilators

The Great Barrington Declaration – Over 30,000 Signed

Great Barrington Declaration: “Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.”

The lockdowns of society and the cold stop of the world’s economy in the face of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a huge mistake, argue some prestigious scientists in the world of epidemiology. 

The Great Barrington Declaration, released last week by scientists who argue that most of us should return to our pre-COVID ways of life, has generated a lot of attention and controversy.

The declaration is spearheaded by some heavy hitters in the scientific community including Martin Kulldorff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, PhD, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, and Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a public health policy expert and a professor at Stanford University.

One of the arguments put forth by the three and about 35 cosigners amounts to saying that the cure has been worse than the disease for society as a whole.

“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people,” the declaration states. “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.”

The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, (who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD.

The declaration states that growing knowledge about COVID-19 includes the facts that older and infirmed people have a “thousand-fold” higher increase of dying from it than the young. “Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza,” the declaration states.

As might be expected, push-back against the declaration was immediate and fierce. Some members of the scientific community contend that the declaration puts too much faith in the quick arrival of herd immunity and doesn’t account for so-called “long-haulers,” people who may suffer from the effects of the disease for years.

A group of experts—who also brandish impressive credentials—published a response that challenges many of the declaration’s premises. For instance, Rupert Beale, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, said that herd immunity depends on the wide distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine, which has yet to be developed. In his response, Beale also wrote that the “declaration prioritizes just one aspect of a sensible strategy—protecting the vulnerable—and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible—so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine.”

Nonetheless, the basic premise of the declaration, which states that the lockdowns do more harm than good, resonates with many.

see also gbdeclaration

________________

Great Barrington Declaration: “Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open.”

The lockdowns of society and the cold stop of the world’s economy in the face of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a huge mistake, argue some prestigious scientists in the world of epidemiology. 

The Great Barrington Declaration, released last week by scientists who argue that most of us should return to our pre-COVID ways of life, has generated a lot of attention and controversy.

The declaration is spearheaded by some heavy hitters in the scientific community including Martin Kulldorff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, Sunetra Gupta, PhD, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, and Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, a public health policy expert and a professor at Stanford University.

One of the arguments put forth by the three and about 35 cosigners amounts to saying that the cure has been worse than the disease for society as a whole.

“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people,” the declaration states. “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.”

The cosigners represent a host of scientific disciplines such as public health, biostatistics, finance, and psychiatry. They include Michael Levitt, PhD, (who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2013), Jonas Ludvigsson, MD, Angus Dalgleish, PhD, David Katz, PhD, and Mike Hulme, PhD.

The declaration states that growing knowledge about COVID-19 includes the facts that older and infirmed people have a “thousand-fold” higher increase of dying from it than the young. “Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza,” the declaration states.

As might be expected, push-back against the declaration was immediate and fierce. Some members of the scientific community contend that the declaration puts too much faith in the quick arrival of herd immunity and doesn’t account for so-called “long-haulers,” people who may suffer from the effects of the disease for years.

A group of experts—who also brandish impressive credentials—published a response that challenges many of the declaration’s premises. For instance, Rupert Beale, PhD, of the Francis Crick Institute, said that herd immunity depends on the wide distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine, which has yet to be developed. In his response, Beale also wrote that the “declaration prioritizes just one aspect of a sensible strategy—protecting the vulnerable—and suggests we can safely build up ‘herd immunity’ in the rest of the population. This is wishful thinking. It is not possible to fully identify vulnerable individuals, and it is not possible to fully isolate them. Furthermore, we know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time, and re-infection is possible—so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing ‘herd immunity’ is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine.”

Nonetheless, the basic premise of the declaration, which states that the lockdowns do more harm than good, resonates with many.

____________________

Annie Janvier, PhD, one of the declaration’s cosigners and a pediatric and clinical ethics professor at the University of Montreal, said that “it’s not science that seems to be leading what's going on with COVID, it’s public opinion and politics.”

The declaration states that “Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.” infectioncontroltoday

ISRAEL Needs to Heed Current Virus Data

Israel’s Approach Needs Immediate ReAssessment

Op-Ed: Deblasio Says Lockdowns Are “Based on Data And Science.” The World Health Organization Disagrees 

 [...] However no less an authority than the World Health Organization (WHO) has condemned the widespread use of lockdowns as the primary method taken to contain COVID-19. In an interview with Andrew Neil of The Spectator magazine, Dr David Nabarro, the WHO’s Special Envoy on COVID-19 said, “We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method.” He then went on to cite the many real-world problems that lockdowns cause. “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.” He also forecasted an astonishing possible doubling of world poverty next year and “at least a doubling of child malnutrition” as a result of the lockdowns. 

According to Dr. Nabarro, the only time the WHO believes a lockdown is justified is when a short time is needed “to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted.”

None of these conditions are the current reality in NYC. The hospitalization rates have remained the same over the past few months after falling off in June.

Neither is the WHO alone. An open letter signed by more than 3,500 medical professionals has recently called on leaders the world over to end the harmful lockdowns.

In the letter called the The Great Barrington Declaration. The authors, professors from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford, write, “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.”

Highlighting the huge cost of the pervasive lockdowns, they continue, ” Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Proceeding to outline a new plan, they note, “Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.”

A recent study conducted by Just Facts, a public policy institute, shows that anxiety and social disruption because of the coronavirus could destroy 7 times more years of human lives than can be saved by strict lockdowns.

The study, based on a broad array of scientific data, computed that stress is one of the deadliest health hazards in the world, and stay-at-home orders, business shutdowns, media frenzy, as well as legitimate concerns about the virus can ultimately cost more lives than lockdowns can save.

With such a solid weight of expert opinion against the use of brutal, suffocating lockdown measures, the question must be asked, why are politicians such as Cuomo and De Blasio so fanatically obsessed with enforcing them? Why continue to use tactics that do more harm than good?

It seems obvious that what at first glance would appear to be genuine concern for the wellbeing and safety of the city is in reality the actions of shortsighted, egotistical, and selfish politicians, who are far more concerned with their public image and maintaining a veneer of control, than in doing what’s right and what’s best for New York. By their reckoning, it is much preferred to shut down the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and be spared the harangues of a hysterical media than to adopt a policy of herd immunity such as that espoused by the authors of The Great Barrington declaration. It takes courage and real leadership to allow the rise in infections in order to give herd immunity a chance to work. Both of these attributes are unfortunately in short supply by the mayor and governor, which means NY can expect to see many more rounds of lockdowns.

After NY’s disastrous first few months which included Gov. Cuomo famous nursing home debacle, the city’s infection rate declined dramatically. Gov. Cuomo went on a “victory tour” and was met with effusive praise by the media including sugary interviews with his brother CNN anchor Chris Cuomo. Small wonder then when small enclaves in Brooklyn saw an uptick in infection rates, he went ballistic. How dare these communities mess with the infection rates that HE personally had lowered? How dare these people think that they can go on with their lives while disturbing the statistics that had won HIM so much praise? It also explains his bizarre and aggressive attitude to the community which was rightly criticized by community leaders. Cuomo turned it personal because for him it is personal. This is a man who, after all, is considered a favorite for the 2024 election.

The general populace is in denial and is in for a rude awakening if they are under the impression that a resurgence of COVID-19 is something that can only happen in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods. Already in Europe, many countries such as France and the UK are beginning to see a second wave across the country.

Gov. Cuomo And Mayor de Blasio should be made to answer the following questions: Why do they believe the best way to combat COVID-19 is by using methods that the most *prestigious global body of public health, The World Health Organization, considers unjustified under current circumstances? Why do they refuse to reexamine the current situation and adopt far more sensible solutions, such as those advanced by the Great Barrington Declaration, instead of mindlessly continuing to take the same extreme course of action used when the virus was completely unknown? 

How do they plan to account for the catastrophic damage to the city’s economy, the long-term consequences of school closures, and the dramatic increase in mental health issues due to their continued use of extreme lockdown measures solely for the gratification of their self-centered purposes?

 Source: YWN

______________________

*the purpose thereof is to stymie and confuse the public to increase “fear”

Cuomo is at it Again! Myopic Focus on Jews

Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo mentioned recent “intense COVID outbreaks” in Broome County, Orange County, Rockland County, and Nassau County, however, he strangely focused many of his remarks during an hour-long press conference on the recent upticks in Brooklyn and his outreach to Orthodox Jewish leaders.

WHAT ELSE CAN HE DO TO DEFLECT THE INVESTIGATION OF HIS DECISIONS REGARDING THE NURSING HOME DEATHS

   Gov. Cuomo also mentioned many sites of mass gatherings, which he said are “super-spreaders of the virus,” but despite many different kinds of political, musical, restaurant and bar, secular holiday (4th of July, Labor Day), and college party gatherings: not to mention mask-less political protests and rioting that have caused outbreaks in New York, Cuomo strangely focused on Orthodox Jewish gatherings at “houses of worship” in Brooklyn throughout his press conference.

We have had concerts in the Hamptons that should have never happened,” Cuomo rued. “We’ve had bars that have attracted crowds over and over again, that should have never happened. We have had college parties that have often happened off site, that should have never happened.

  “We have had religious gatherings that have been circulated on social media for weeks and action was not taken.”

  Cuomo made no secret that he did not approve of “local governments” who fail to enforce the state laws right now that require mask-wearing and social distancing.

    “A law doesn’t work if you are too incompetent or too politically frightened to enforce it,” said Cuomo, seemingly criticizing New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who just yesterday wanted to take further steps than Gov. Cuomo in protecting the nine neighborhoods with COVID spikes.

After closing both public and private schools today in areas in New York state with COVID spikes, Gov. Cuomo said today the same areas have until Friday close “high-risk” non-essential businesses, such as gyms and businesses that offer personal care, and he reiterated that the areas with COVID surges can have no indoor dining, and outdoor tables are limited to four diners.

What is our strategy?” Cuomo asked. “Crush the cluster. And stop the spread.”

   In explaining how he plans to “stop the spread,” Gov. Cuomo didn’t happen to mention the 200 people who attended a campaign fundraiser at the Trump National Golf Course in Bedminster, NJ, last week or Joe Biden’s recently increased in-person campaigning.   

   Cuomo strangely did not wonder what the mass gatherings may be that are causing what he calls “intense outbreaks” in Binghamton, and other smaller cities throughout New York State or what he planned to do to stop them.

   Gov. Cuomo, did, however, make sure to repeatedly mention he religious Jews of Brooklyn and Queens, that he would reduce the maximum capacity of shuls to 25% and to 10 people, masks-or no masks, just days before the final two days of our Fall Yom Tov season, and that he is increasing the fines against mass gatherings to $15,000.

   “A mass gathering causes infections,” Cuomo said. “Infections cause a cluster, and a cluster causes community spread. That is the natural evolution of things, unless, we intervene, and we stop the cycle.

If we just let the cycle run, that is what is going to happen.”

  Cuomo went on to admit, “We see clusters now across the state.”

“We have clusters Binghamton, Orange, Rockland, Queen, Brooklyn, and Nassau.”

  But what is causing all those clusters that are erupting all across New York state? And why is Gov. Cuomo spending so much of his time talking about Brooklyn?

 (Mike Groll/Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo)

Physicians and Scientists and Former MK Call For Anti–Lockdown Demonstration

 Israeli physicians, scientists to hold anti-lockdown demonstration

Doctors and scientists are demanding a halt to the closure, the decision of which to impose is based on zero transparent information to the public, biases and distortions of morbidity and mortality data, without any serious discussion, and ignoring the voices of many experts who have expressed dissent. Please come and share so we can prevent the catastrophic closure." arutzsheva

Prof. Itamar Grotto: It was a mistake to reopen schools on September 1

The deputy director-general of the Health Ministry, Prof. Itamar Grotto, told Galei Tzahal this morning that it was a mistake to reopen the education system on September 1.

"I don't blame only the politicians for this," he noted. "Many experts, including myself, thought that we could allow schools to resume on-site teaching."

Teachers' Union head: Govt is destroying education system

Teachers' Union head Yaffa Ben David for imposing regulations that she states will destroy the education system.

"If you lose the public's trust, that will be a real catastrophe," she told the Knesset Channel. "Someone has to take responsibility for what is going on here."

The above were on the arutzsheva ‘News Briefs'

___________________

Grotto wants children home so parents cannot go to work, and to sabotage the economy. He and the dir–general do NOT have the best intentions for the Israeli citizens. Too much collaboration with the WHO and CDC. 

__________________

Litzman calls on haredim to take to the streets

United Torah Judaism chief who resigned from government calls on haredim to protest upcoming holiday lockdown. arutzsheva

HIGHLY Important Interview With Dr. Scott Atlas

YouTube Censors White House Health Advisor

“As censorship goes, this is both terrifying and idiotic. Like him or hate him, Scott Atlas is ADVISING THE PRESIDENT ON COVID – no one gains when YouTube denies everyone the chance to hear what he thinks. People who oppose him should want to know even more.” naturalblaze

By AIER

In late August, the Hoover Institution filmed an in-depth interview with Dr. Scott Atlas who serves as a top health advisor to the White House, more or less replacing Anthony Fauci in that role. Atlas is an advocate for opening up the economy and allowing natural immunities to control the virus. In this, he has many colleagues in the public-health profession who agree with him, including many epidemiologists, virologists, immunologists, and medical doctors, all names frequently cover in AIER. This interview conducted by Hoover allows him to explain his views in depth. Incredibly, YouTube has take down the video interview of Scott Atlas for the usual vague reasons about community standards.

In order to view the Interview with Dr. Atlas: 

“The Doctor Is In: Scott Atlas And The Efficacy Of Lockdowns, Social Distancing, and Closings," go here. A transcript is also provided. You will be much more knowledgeable after hearing the interview.

___________________________

Founded in 1933, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is one of the oldest and most respected nonpartisan economic research and advocacy organizations in the country. With a global reach and influence, AIER is dedicated to developing and promoting the ideas of pure freedom and private governance by combining advanced economic research with accessible media outreach and educational programming to cultivate a better, broader understanding of the fundamental principles that enable peace and prosperity around the world.

___________________________

Not taking away the importance of the dialogue, these are well-meaning professionals, but it sounds like the are discussing things in a “normal” world. This interview was made in June. By now, in mid-September, it may have dawned on some or many that the restrictions have become a weapon, and that there is a covert purpose to them. And that is why the recommendations for people to follow first said one thing, then that was changed to something else, then back and forth like a bouncing ball making people weary and distressed.

Cause of High Case Numbers is Over-Testing

This was deliberate in order to inflate numbers, but when one checks actual sick patients and the dying, it comparable to the same numbers from the yearly flu. Therefore torturing the people over lockdowns and masks, KILLS the economy and distressed people. Cases that enter the hospital get reimbursed funds from the govt. There are many factors involved.

High Number of Coronavirus Cases may be due to Oversensitive Testing

"If the number of ‘rounds' is reduced, the number of patients may be smaller – and then the pressure to close the country will also be smaller." JPost

Samples taken from the subjects are transferred to the PCR device in the laboratory to identify the genetic material of the coronavirus. The device tries to detect signs of the virus in a process that is repeated dozens of times.

[...] The Health Ministry has set a quota of 37 rounds. In Germany a quota of 30 rounds was set, and the United States requires 34.

Prof. Shlomo Maayan, director of the Infectious Disease Unit at Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon, estimates that if there is an adjustment in Israel to the number of rounds in other countries, the number of patients reported may be only hundreds per day instead of thousands.[...]

* * *

In other words, they tweak the genetic material until it show a 'casual connection' to a coronavirus (and we have stated there are a myriad of such viruses in our genetic makeup). Therefore, many or most “cases” are not infected with the sickening novel virus; and therefore, the entire political nonsense is crippling  and killing people from the lockdowns, quarantines, and depression and anxiety, not to mention those who do not obtain their ongoing medical treatments out of fear of catching a virus in the hospitals.

AND if those who begin to show actual COVID-19 symptoms were given the HCQ protocol, many more would recover quickly and many would  not have to be intubated and put on respirators to eventually possibly pass from this world.

EVEN DR FAUCI TAKES VITAMIN C AND VITAMIN D (three guesses what for) However the doses recommended by this site, is way way off for combating the “Virus”. Rather, visit your health professional naturopathic for precise doses for your specific makeup. health.com

* * *

Finally, some action to be taken:

Health Expert Predicts Eventual COVID-19 Commission of Inquiry

Health Communication Lecturer at IDC Herzliya International School Dr. Yaffa Shir Raz: 'This peddling the epidemic will also be judged.’

[…] Shir Raz today wrote: "Remember my investigative article that revealed the inflation of the number of coronavirus deaths that was removed from Ynet a month-and-a-half ago after its publication?

"So now the truth is revealed, and a storm is brewing in the Knesset Coronavirus Committee:

"MK Yifat Shasha-Biton: 'I have data from one of the hospitals that 23% of the patients who were reported to have died from coronavirus did not die from the virus!’[…]  arutzsheva

Lockdowns Don’t Work, Masks Don’t Work

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

AU CONTRAIRE THEY CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM

Lockdowns Don’t Work

And why was it considered impractical and unnecessary? There is more than one reason, but one major reason is that lockdowns have never been shown to be particularly effective. And this lack of success in containment must also be weighed with the very real costs of forced isolation. This was explained in a 2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism called “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’Toole, and D.A. Henderson. The authors conclude:

There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.” Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.

The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.

Not surprisingly, then, it’s now becoming apparent that lockdowns don’t work when actually tried. Earlier this month, for example, Donald Luskin noted in the Wall Street Journal:

Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.

Basically, Luskin searched for a clear correlation between lockdowns and better health outcomes in relation to covid-19. He found none. He continues:

It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use.

We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding….

[T]here’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little. So where’s the science that would justify the heavy lockdowns many public-health officials are still demanding? 

https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/09/the-evidence-keeps-piling-up-lockdowns-dont-work.html

 

“SO WHAT IS THE THREAT!”

One Level Headed Woman:  

Chairwoman, Coronavirus Committee, Yifat Shasha-Biton (Likud)

“The hospitals aren't collapsing, there's no need for lockdowns”

“For a pretty long time we’ve had the threat of a general lockdown hovering over us, amid claims that we’re our epidemiological system necessitates it. Yet the more we’ve seen here the statistics, we have seen that they aren’t dramatic.”

“I would like to ask the Health Ministry what facts and statistics it bases it decisions to push methods to curb the spread of the virus,” said Dr. Shahar.

“As of right now I count 131,000 [total diagnosed cases] and a bit over 1,000 deaths, which is about a 0.7% fatality rate. That is the level of fatalities of the flu. So what is the threat to the general population? What are we so afraid of?” 

“It is important to point out that the increase in the number of confirmed cases follows an increase in the number of tests administered.”

“We need to stop with this fear mongering and to take [lockdowns] off the agenda.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/286759