Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Obviously, asymptomatic people are far more likely to be contagious in a household setting, but study finds chance is less than 1% in a household. Why are we treating casual public contacts as potentially deadly?
Simple. It’s not about the virus.
2014: the [PCR] method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of this virus. For example, if such a pathogen scurrys over the nasal mucosa in a nurse for a day without falling ill or noticing anything else, then she is suddenly a Mers case. Where previously fatally ill people were reported, mild cases and people who are actually core healthy are now suddenly included in the reporting statistics.
— Read on amp2.wiwo.de/technologie/forschung/virologe-drosten-im-gespraech-2014-der-koerper-wirdstaendig-von-viren-angegriffen/9903228.html
Very sensible. PCR testing is a bad idea for diagnostics. Yet, fast forward 6 years, and Drosten is responsible for the paper that formed the basis for the worldwide mass testing policy for Covid19.
What changed? Certainly not the science or the tests. After all, use of PCR has been widely criticised by many scientists (no, not on the MSM). And recently a damning review of the above paper appeared.
If you live in Ontario, be prepared to lose your “freedom to move around” if you refuse the Covid-19 vaccine, according to Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer.
— Read on charliekirk.com/news/chief-medical-officer-says-canadians-will-lose-freedom-to-move-around-if-they-refuse-the-vaccine/
Not about the virus.
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/
Allow me to be blunt, but at this point in time, anyone denying that HCQ-based protocols are effective is either a total ignorant or an evil liar. There’s just too much evidence. As Dr McCullough said, there’s only 1 in 17 billion chances that HCQ doesn’t work for Covid-19.
However, evidence for the even superior efficacy of Ivermectin is mounting quickly.
The video below and the accompanying post are worth your time.
© 2021 Diarium Neminis
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑
