Vaccines Archives - Page 49 of 58

September 5, 2020November 12, 2023

WHO & Legally Binding International Health Regulations (IHR)

The World Economic Forum, which has: Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, and Al Gore as Trustees, it still promoting the “Great Reset” agenda. The person in the top photo self-identifies as Theresa Tam, who is supposed to be the Public Health Officer of Canada.

People seem to think that Canada has control and sovereignty over its own health care and health systems. Let’s put that illusion to rest, once and for all.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.

2. Important Links

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

Background
-Established in 1946, Canada was the Third Member State to ratify the Constitution on August 29, 1946
-A Canadian Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Brock Chisholm, became WHO’s first Director General
-Canada’s points of intervention occur during the World Health Assembly, at the Executive Board, Regional Committees and by participating in the work of technical groups; Tropical Diseases Research, Human Reproduction and Child Health and Development. Technical input is with Health Canada
-International Affairs Directorate is the primary contact for WHO in Canada
-The Directorate performs a representation and co-ordination function for the Canadian Health Sector – Health -Canada, other federal agencies, the provinces, universities and the NGO sector
-Support increasing involvement by line branches in the technical work of WHO and its programmes (International Agency on Cancer, International Program on Chemical Safety, etc)

Canada joined the WHO on August 29, 1946.

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

WHO originally adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR or Regulations) as the International Sanitary Regulations in 1951. Article 21 of the WHO Constitution (1948) empowers the World Health Assembly (the main policy-making organ of WHO) to adopt “regulations” concerning, among other things, infectious disease control; and the World Health Assembly adopted the International Sanitary Regulations under this authority in order to consolidate in one instrument the many international sanitary conventions negotiated since the late nineteenth century. [4] WHO changed the name of the Regulations to the IHR in 1969 and last revised them in 1983 when it removed smallpox from the IHR’s list of diseases. Under Article 22 of the WHO Constitution, Assembly-adopted regulations are binding on all WHO member states except those that notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within a specified time.

The International Health Regulations originally was called the International Sanitary Regulations, and was updated over time. An interesting article on it, by David Fidler.

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

WHA22.46 International Health Regulations
The Twenty- second World Health Assembly,
Having considered the recommendations of the Committee on International Quarantine in its fifteenth
report, Volume A, concerning the special review of the International Sanitary Regulations;
Noting that the Committee on International Quarantine reaffirmed the principles laid down in its fourteenth report, Volume II;
1 See Annex 5.
RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS 23
Noting also that the comments of Member States were considered by the Committee on International Quarantine at its fifteenth meeting when preparing the draft International Health Regulations to replace the existing International Sanitary Regulations,
1. cor1 ENDS the members of the Committee for their work; and
2. ADOPTS this twenty -fifth day of July 1969 the International Health Regulations annexed to this resolution together with Appendices 1 to 6 concerning the forms and certificates, and the rules applying thereto.’
Handb. Res., 10th ed., 1.3.9.3 Fourteenth plenary meeting, 25 July 1969 (Committee on Programme and Budget, sixth report)

1969 World Health Assembly, Boston.
official records, of WHA (Boston, 1969)

What all of this means is that the Committee on International Quarantine, (a subgroup of WHO), has laid out new guidelines for how to conduct a mass quarantine of people. Canada, as a member of the World Health Organization, is bound by these regulations.

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

If you think this issue is limited to Canada, you would be mistaken. New Zealand also adopted its version of a Quarantine Act, specifically to be compliant with the 1969 IHR.

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

Australia’s International Health Obligations
The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) are designed to prevent the international spread of infectious diseases while avoiding interference with international traffic and trade. As a Member State of the World Health Organization (WHO), Australia is obliged to comply with the IHR.

What are the International Health Regulations (2005)?
The IHR are an international legal instrument that is binding on 196 countries across the globe, including all Member States of the WHO. Their aim is to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide.

The IHR, which entered into force on 15 June 2007, require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public health events to the WHO. Building on the unique experience of the WHO in global disease surveillance, alert and response, the IHR define the rights and obligations of countries to report public health events, and establish a number of procedures that the WHO must follow in its work to uphold global public health security.

Australia also must comply with the International Health Regulations of 2005. Of course, we must ask WHY these politicians are willingly handing over national sovereignty.

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

There were some changes in the 1995 version. However, I haven’t been able to find a version of it online. In any event, since the 2005 version is in effect, that matters more.

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

FOREWORD
A central and historic responsibility for the World Health Organization (WHO) has been the management of the global regime for the control of the international spread of disease. Under Articles 21(a) and 22, the Constitution of WHO confers upon the World Health Assembly the authority to adopt regulations “designed to prevent the international spread of disease” which, after adoption by the Health Assembly, enter into force for all WHO Member States that do not affirmatively opt out of them within a specified time period.

A quote from the foreword of the 2005 edition of the International Health Regulations. No comment needed here.

The 2005 document still appears to be in place.

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

What are the International Health Regulations?
.
The International Health Regulations (2005), or IHR (2005), represents a binding international legal agreement involving 196 countries across the globe, including all the Member States of WHO. Their aim is to help the international community prevent and respond to acute public health risks that have the potential to cross borders and threaten people worldwide. The purpose and scope of the IHR (2005) is to prevent, protect against, control and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks, and which avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.

In case this wasn’t clear from the last several sections, the international health regulations ARE in fact, legally binding on all member states.

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

APPENDIX 1
STATES PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
REGULATIONS (2005) 1
Except as otherwise indicated, the International Health Regulations (2005) entered into force on
15 June 2007 for the following States:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands….

Appendix I, on page 59, lists all of the parties to the International Health Regulations.

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

Article 23
The Health Assembly shall have authority to make recommendations to Members with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization.

Article 33
The Director-General or his representative may establish a procedure by agreement with Members, permitting him, for the purpose of discharging his duties, to have direct access to their various departments, especially to their health administrations and to national health organizations, governmental or non-governmental. He may also establish direct relations with international organizations whose activities come within the competence of the Organization. He shall keep regional offices informed on all matters involving their respective areas.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members.

CHAPTER XVI – RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf#page=7

The Constitution of the World Health Organization is listed in this book of basic documents. To sum up some of the main points:

(a) WHO has the authority to set regulation on quarantine matters
(b) WHO has authority over pharmaceutical matters
(c) WHO and its staff have legal indemnification
(d) WHO and its staff have access to national health data.

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

The Paul Martin Liberals introduced Bill C-12, commonly known as the “Quarantine Act”. It passed 249-54, with only the Bloc Quebecois voting against it. It’s not a stretch to see what this was: the Federal Government domestically implementing regulations required by a supra-national body.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/meeting-4/notice
quarantine.act.dec.8.2004.hearings

Must be quite the coincidence that the Federal Government was conducting hearings into passing a Quarantine Act, around the same time the World Health Organization was updating its International Health Regulations. It’s almost like they coordinated on it.

Of course, there have been some modifications to the Quarantine Act over the years, but same principles remain intact.

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

At the historic 73rd World Health Assembly in May, Member States adopted a landmark resolution that called on WHO to initiate an independent and comprehensive evaluation of the lessons learned from the international health response to COVID-19.

Noting resolution EB146.R10 (2020) on strengthening preparedness for health emergencies: implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005), and reiterating the obligation for all States parties to fully implement and comply with the International Health Regulations (2005);

That’s right, the May 2020 Convention called for all nations to comply with their MANDATORY obligations under the IHR. “Obligation” means that it isn’t optional.

1. CALLS FOR, in the spirit of unity and solidarity, the intensification of cooperation and collaboration at all levels in order to contain and control the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its impact;

2. ACKNOWLEDGES the key leadership role of WHO and the fundamental role of the United Nations system in catalysing and coordinating the comprehensive global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the central efforts of Member States therein;

3. EXPRESSES its highest appreciation of, and support for, the dedication, efforts and sacrifices, above and beyond the call of duty of health professionals, health workers and other relevant frontline workers, as well as the WHO Secretariat, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic;

4. CALLS FOR the universal, timely and equitable access to, and fair distribution of, all quality, safe, efficacious and affordable essential health technologies and products, including their components and precursors, that are required in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic as a global priority, and the urgent removal of unjustified obstacles thereto, consistent with the provisions of relevant international treaties, including the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the flexibilities within the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health;

9. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(4) to provide support to countries upon their request, in accordance with their national context, in support of the continued safe functioning of the health system in all relevant aspects necessary for an effective public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other ongoing epidemics, and the uninterrupted and safe provision of population- and individual-level services, for, among other matters: communicable diseases, including through undisrupted vaccination programmes, and for neglected tropical diseases, noncommunicable diseases, mental health, mother and child health and sexual and reproductive health; and to promote improved nutrition for women and children;

Yes, they absolutely had to throw in a pledge to keep abortion accessible to all. If this “virus” is so deadly, why exactly are we pushing to kill more kids, and at a faster rate?

9. REQUESTS the Director-General:
(5) to support countries, upon request, in developing, implementing and adapting relevant national response plans to COVID-19, by developing, disseminating and updating normative products and technical guidance, learning tools, data and scientific evidence for COVID-19 responses, including to counter misinformation and disinformation, as well as malicious cyber activities, and to continue to work against substandard and falsified medicines and medical products;

Countering “misinformation and disinformation”? One can’t help but be reminded of Objective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, which called for defunding, and ultimately silencing critics of the population replacement agenda. Presumably this time those people are the ones questioning the official narrative.

https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-third-world-health-assembly
ihr.may.2020.who.convention.free.speech

Aside from the self-congratulatory nature of the resolution, it is actually quite alarming, some of the contents within it.

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

To repeat a point made earlier, the International Health Regulations that the WHO puts out are MANDATORY. They are binding on all member states, which Canada is one.

The Quarantine Act brought in by the Martin Liberals seems like a way to domestically implement what the WHO was doing globally. The timing is too coincidental, and they all speak the same. The Quarantine Act also specifies that it is binding both on Ottawa, and the Provinces.

Given the lies and contradictions coming from our officials, nothing they say can be trusted. All of this comes across as a means to implement a larger social agenda.

It’s not limited to Canada either. Two of the examples posted are Australia and New Zealand, nations similar in many ways to us.

August 31, 2020

CV #61: U.S. CDC Admits Serious Co-Morbidities For 94% Of Virus Deaths; Patents; Masks

The CDC has recently published an updated page to inform the public that a mere 6% of CV deaths were exclusively caused by this virus.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. August 26th Quote From CDC

Comorbidities
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR0fUcThh_Dn2PL3FqFmpNqJPUX1pFJKkaw5oNtwZsiOn-xr96v9gnxhmYE#Comorbidities

It doesn’t get much worse than this. Only 6% of U.S. deaths were solely due to this virus. There were an average of 2.6 additional causes or underlying conditions. So that 150,000 deaths is actually about 9,000 due just to the virus. This is in a country of 330 million.

3. Vaccine Patents Held By CDC

The Mad Truther deserves a (belated) thanks for publishing in 2017 a list of vaccine patents held by the Center for Disease Control.

Preparation and use of recombinant influenza A virus M2 construct vaccines
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6169175

Thermal inactivation of rotavirus
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8357525

Synthetic peptides immunoreactive with hepatitis A virus antibodies
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7223535

Real-time PCR point mutation assays for detecting HIV-1 resistance to antiviral drugs
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8592146

Serologic correlates of protection against Bacillus anthracis infection
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9102742

Pan-lyssavirus vaccines against rabies
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9248179

Dengue serotype 2 attenuated strain
https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2611954C/

Chimeric west nile/dengue viruses
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8715689

Peptide vaccines against group A streptococci
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8637050

Recombinant lipidated psaa protein, methods of preparation and use
https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2319404C

Invasion associated genes from Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6472518

Aerosol delivery systems and methods
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7954486

CD40 ligand adjuvant for respiratory syncytial virus
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8354115

This is by no means all of them. Check out the article by the Mad Truther for many, many more patents. Makes this a lucrative company to invest in it seems.

4. CDC Admits No Evidence Masks Work

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

In a May 5 study that went largely unnoticed, the Center for Disease Control admitted that there was little evidence that masks worked, either on sick or healthy people.

5. Takeaways From This Piece

This was a shorter article than what usually comes out. Just remember 3 important points about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC admits 94% of CV deaths had underlying conditions
The CDC holds many vaccine patents
The CDC admits little evidence masks actually work

August 30, 2020May 4, 2022

CV #60: Virus Deaths Pale In Comparison To Other Preventable Causes (BC)

8 months into a “pandemic” the BC Government has recorded some 204 deaths in the Province. Setting aside the issue of death count inflation, there are other preventable problems that kill more people.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports?keyword=deaths
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents In BC

bc.motor.vehicle.death.totals.per.year

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2008	MVA	377
2009	MVA	390
2010	MVA	383
2011	MVA	311
2012	MVA	291
2013	MVA	287
2014	MVA	306
2015	MVA	304
2016	MVA	320
2017	MVA	299
2018	MVA	314

3. Deaths By Suicide In BC

bc.annual.deaths.suicide

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2008	Suicide	485
2009	Suicide	510
2010	Suicide	533
2011	Suicide	527
2012	Suicide	512
2013	Suicide	525
2014	Suicide	644
2015	Suicide	616
2016	Suicide	603
2017	Suicide	572
2018	Suicide	575

4. Deaths Of The Homeless In BC

bc.homeless.people.deaths

YEAR	CATEGORY	# OF DEATHS
2007	Homeless	43
2008	Homeless	50
2009	Homeless	43
2010	Homeless	33
2011	Homeless	24
2012	Homeless	30
2013	Homeless	30
2014	Homeless	49
2015	Homeless	73
2016	Homeless	175

Note: This category includes all causes of death, the bulk of which were accidental, according to the records provided.

5. Illicit Drug Deaths In BC Per Year

bc.drug.toxicity.deaths.per.year

bc.fentanyl.detected.deaths.per.year

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2010	Drugs	211
2011	Drugs	295
2012	Drugs	270
2013	Drugs	334
2014	Drugs	369
2015	Drugs	529
2016	Drugs	991
2017	Drugs	1,495
2018	Drugs	1,547
2019	Drugs	984
2020 (July)	Drugs	909

YEAR	TYPE	# OF DEATHS
2012	Fentanyl	12
2013	Fentanyl	50
2014	Fentanyl	91
2015	Fentanyl	153
2016	Fentanyl	667
2017	Fentanyl	1,226
2018	Fentanyl	1,335
2019	Fentanyl	835
2020 (July)	Fentanyl	709

Of course, the fentanyl deaths are a subset of illicit drugs overall. However, they do make up a very large percentage of those deaths.

6. Deaths Caused By Alcohol In BC

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/statistics-reports/annual-reports/2011/pdf/death.pdf

Looking at the year 2011 for a moment, it seems that 1,412 men and 482 women died of alcohol related causes. That is almost 1,400 in total. However, alcohol wasn’t declared to be a pandemic by the British Columbia Government at that time. But in 2020, some 200 deaths (and an inflated amount), is enough to declare a state of emergency in the Province.

7. Abortion/Infanticide Deaths Per Year

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

YEAR	BC	ONTARIO	CANADA
2007	15,770	32,331	98,762
2008	12,914	32,150	95,876
2009	12,461	30,268	93,755
2010	12,149	28,765	90,747
2011	14,341	44,434	108,844
2012	7,128	44,636	100,958
2013	9,574	43,865	102,446
2014	9,196	42,043	100,194
2015	13,166	39,679	100,104
2016	13,116	38,383	97,764
2017	13,182	35,587	94,030
2018	12,206	29,513	85,195

A few clinics did not report, so the national numbers are actually a bit higher. Nonetheless, killing 100,000 Canadian babies per year is apparently no big deal, but 9,100 coronavirus deaths in 8 months is a pandemic. Provincially, 10,000 dead babies in BC is nothing to worry about, but 200 deaths in 8 months is enough to shut the province down. Sees very out of proportion.

8. Why Aren’t These Deaths A Pandemic?

There are other preventable causes of death, of course. However, the point is that this coronavirus is by no means the be-all that it’s being made out to be.

Even with the “flexible” death counts, CV deaths are just at 200, and that’s some 8 months into a pandemic. We need a little perspective here.

August 29, 2020June 13, 2021

CV #59: How Are People Recovering If There Is No Cure Or Vaccine?

Why the global pressure to come up with a coronavirus vaccine, even one that will alter our DNA? What people seem to forget is that most patients recover. It would have been nice if that had been posed to Gates.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Canadians Recovering From Virus

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html

3. Provinces All Recovering From Virus

This was addressed in Part 35, but remains just as relevant. Despite all the media and political hysteria over a vaccine, their own data shows that Canadians are overwhelmingly recovering. This is a hoax.

4. Australians Recovering From Virus

https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers

5. New Zealanders Recovering From Virus

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases

6. UK PM Boris Johnson Recovered

The UK reports people who die WITH this disease as having died BECAUSE OF it, if the death happened within 28 days of being testes. This seems to apply to all regions within the UK.

Total number of people who had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test, reported on or up to the date of death or reporting date (depending on availability).

People who died more than 28 days after their first positive test are not included, whether or not COVID-19 was the cause of death. People who died within 28 days of a positive test are included: the actual cause of death may not be COVID-19 in all cases. People who died from COVID-19 but had not been tested or had not tested positive are not included.

Death data can be presented by when death occurred (date of death) or when the death was reported (date reported) and the availability of each of these time series varies by area:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/about-data

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recovered in just a few days of having this virus — unless of course it was entirely staged.

The UK doesn’t seem to be reporting on its recovered cases, (perhaps no one else in the UK ever has), but it seems like a very strange and suspicious omission.

10. WebMD On Coronavirus Recovery Rates

Coronavirus Recovery Rates
Scientists and researchers are constantly tracking infections and recoveries. But they have data only on confirmed cases, so they can’t count people who don’t get COVID-19 tests. Experts also don’t have information about the outcome of every infection. However, early estimates predict that the overall COVID-19 recovery rate is between 97% and 99.75%.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-recovery-overview#1

This is just WebMD, so take it for what it’s worth. Still, 97% recovery at the low end, and 99.75% recovery at the high end. This isn’t a legitimate pandemic.

11. WHO Admits In March Good Recovery Rates

Can antiretrovirals be used to treat COVID-19?
Several studies have suggested that patients infected with the virus causing COVID-19, and the related coronavirus infections (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) had good clinical outcomes, with almost all cases recovering fully. In some cases, patients were given an antiretroviral drug: lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (LPV/r). These studies were mostly carried out in HIV-negative individuals.

It is important to note that these studies using LPV/r had important limitations. The studies were small, timing, duration and dosing for treatment were varied and most patients received co-interventions/co-treatments which may have contributed to the reported outcomes.

While the evidence of benefit of using antiretrovirals to treat coronavirus infections is of very low certainty, serious side effects were rare. Among people living with HIV, the routine use of LPV/r as treatment for HIV is associated with several side effects of moderate severity. However, as the duration of treatment in patients with coronavirus infections was generally limited to a few weeks, these occurrences can be expected to be low or less than that reported from routine use.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-hiv-and-antiretrovirals

The World Health Organization admitted back in march that antivirals were used on people with this virus, and with fairly good results. Again, why the push for a vaccine?

While the WHO doesn’t list the overall recovery numbers on its website (or at least they aren’t obvious), there are links on reporting “misinformation” on social media.

12. Once Again, Death Totals Inflated

Although a fairly long list, this is just a sample of the evidence that the coronavirus death toll has been inflated. If this were legitimate, there would be no need to falsify the data.

August 27, 2020December 24, 2021

CV #58: Vaxx Or Mask Rulings (2015, 2016 & 2018); Bonnie Henry Testifies; BC Ombudsman Report

There were 2 rulings in Ontario (2015 and 2018), which concerned the “vaccinate or mask” policy for health care workers. BCPHO Bonnie Henry testified in the 2015 case that there was very limited evidence to support masks. Also, the June 2020 BC Ombudsman report is interesting in terms of government overreach.

Keep in mind that Bonnie Henry also says there’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people. (See 1:00 in above video). But she imposed that restriction anyway.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Decisions

Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

William Osler Health System, 2016 CanLII 76496 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.pdf
2016.william.osler.health.system.ruling

St. Michael’s Hospital v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2018 CanLII 82519 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2018/2018canlii82519/2018canlii82519.pdf
2018.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report
https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/ExtraordinaryTimesMeasures_Final-Report.pdf
2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

3. Sault Area Hospital (2015)

2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

322. The assertion that a mask requirement serves a valuable or essential purpose, albeit that there is only “some” evidence, is also weakened by actual employer practice. If the mask evidence were as supportive as claimed, it would suggest that vaccinated HCWs should also wear masks given the limited efficacy of the vaccine even in relatively ‘good’ years. The SAH Chief of Medical Staff raised this question at the outset. The Hospital’s failure to consider re-evaluating the Policy’s application when the extent of the 2014-2015 vaccine mismatch became known raises the same issue. The OHA/SAH expert responses to these questions set out in full above[425] were short of satisfying.

323. Wearing a mask for an entire working shift, virtually everywhere, no matter the patient presenting circumstances, is most unpleasant. While I readily accept that the wearing of a mask for good reason may reasonably be expected of HCWs, an Irving “balancing of interests” is required. The Policy makes a significant ‘ask’ of unvaccinated employees; that is to wear an unpleasant mask for up to six months at a time. As noted, the evidence said to support the reason for the ‘ask’—evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness–may be described at best as “some” and more accurately as “scant”. I conclude that many of the articles footnoted in support of the strong opinions set out in the OHA/SAH expert Reports provide very limited or no assistance to those views. The required balancing does not favour the Policy.

Decision
.
342. On the evidence before me, I find the VOM provisions of the SAH Policy to be unreasonable. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, I declare SAH to be in breach of Article B-1 (e) of the ONA/SAH Local Agreement and Article 18.07 (c) of the ONA Central Agreement.
.
343. Any question concerning the need, if any, for additional relief is remitted to the parties for their consideration. I remain seized of remedial issues.
.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2015

It was found that there wasn’t strong evidence that masking health care workers for months at a time actually had a proven effect. It was further undermined by inconsistent practices at the Sault Area Hospital.

4. Bonnie Henry Testifies In 2015 Case

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.

Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.

5. William Osler Health System (2016)

2016.william.osler.health.system.ruling

2. The primary issue dividing ONA and the hospitals was the controversial ‘vaccination or mask’ policy (“VOM policy”) adopted by many hospitals. The question proceeded to arbitration by test case leading to the decision in Sault Area Hospital, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). Following an exhaustive review of the available medical scientific literature and having heard from a number of expert witnesses, I determined that:
.
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable. (at para. 13)

12. Insofar as the First Issue is concerned, I do not agree that the recommendation to wear a mask for the duration of the influenza season in any patient area of the Hospital is sustainable. I found at para. 319 of Sault Area Hospital that there was “scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of influenza virus to patients”. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no reasonable basis for the recommendation and that it should be deleted from the Policy.

13. Insofar as the Second Issue is concerned, I am satisfied that a blend of the Hospital and Union proposals is preferable to either of them standing alone.

14. The Union accurately summarizes the evidence heard in Sault Area Hospital about the typical length of the influenza incubation period before the onset of symptoms. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to designate a specific number of hours; the length of time will almost certainly vary with individual circumstances. The Hospital’s written submission states that: “We have chosen with our proposed language to have individual assessments made by Infection Control Practitioners at the Hospital.” On the assumption that those assessments will be made available and conducted very close to the 72-hour mark, I find the Hospital’s approach to be acceptable. I also find that the Union’s alternative suggestion to the ‘patient care area’ question to be appropriate.

Just as with the Sault Area Hospital case, this “vaccinate or mask” policy was found to be unreasonable, an unsupported by hard evidence.

6. St. Michael’s Hospital (2018)

2018.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

Introduction
.
Summarily stated, this case concerns the reasonableness of the Vaccinate or Mask Policy (hereafter “VOM policy”) that was introduced at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereafter “St. Michael’s”) in 2014 for the 2014-2015 flu season and which has been in place ever since. Under the VOM policy, Health Care Workers and that group, of course, includes nurses (hereafter “HCWs”), who have not received the annual influenza vaccine, must, during all or most of the flu season, wear a surgical or procedural mask in areas where patients are present and/or patient care is delivered.

St. Michael’s is one of a very small number of Ontario hospitals with a VOM policy: less than 10% of approximately 165 hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association (hereafter “the Association”) immediately grieved the VOM policy in every hospital where it was introduced. It should be noted at the outset that the VOM policy has nothing to do with influenza outbreaks that are governed by an entirely different protocol, and one that is not at issue in this case.

This is not the first Ontario grievance taking issue with the VOM policy. The parties appropriately recognized that the matters in dispute were best decided through a lead case rather than through multiple proceedings at the minority of hospitals where the policy was in place. Accordingly, the Association grievance at the Sault Area Hospital was designated as that lead case and proceeded to a lengthy hearing before arbitrator James K.A. Hayes beginning in October 2014 and ending in July 2015. Arbitrator Hayes heard multiple days of evidence (replicated to some extent in this proceeding) and issued his decision, discussed further below, on September 8, 2015 (hereafter “the Hayes Award”). Arbitrator Hayes found that the Sault Area Hospital’s VOM policy was inconsistent with the collective agreement and unreasonable. The grievance was, accordingly, upheld.

Conclusion
.
It was noted at the outset that this case was, in large measure, a repeat of the one put before Arbitrator Hayes. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is an identical outcome. Ultimately, I agree with Arbitrator Hayes: “There is scant scientific evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission, and, also, scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of the virus to patients” (at para. 329). To be sure, there is another authority on point, and the decision in that case deserves respect. But it was a different case with a completely different evidentiary focus. It is not a result that can be followed.

One day, an influenza vaccine like MMR may be developed, one that is close to 100% effective. To paraphrase Dr. Gardam, if a better vaccine and more robust literature about influenza-specific patient outcomes were available, the entire matter might be appropriately revisited. For the time being, however, the case for the VOM policy fails and the grievances allowed. I find St. Michael’s VOM policy contrary to the collective agreement and unreasonable. St. Michael’s is required, immediately, to rescind its VOM policy. I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.

The Sault Area Hospital case had largely set the precedent, and the issues were were virtually identical. Another hospital was forced to scrap its “vaccinate or mask” policy.

7. BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report

2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

Conclusion: The Ministerial Orders Are Contrary to Law Based on the above analysis of the orders and the Emergency Program Act, I have concluded that to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend the provisions of statutes, Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 are contrary to law because they are not authorized by the governing legislation, the Emergency Program Act. Many of the orders made by the minister have been in place for more than two months. In my view, it is incumbent on government to seek an appropriate solution to this problem of invalidity that minimizes any negative impacts to the public. In this respect, I note that Ministerial Order M192, the order replacing M139, continues to purport to suspend and amend statutory requirements that apply to local governments.

The Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that just as there are limits on what statutory powers can be exercised under a statute, there are also limits on how those powers can be exercised: . . . there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled “discretion,” that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose . . . regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute

The BC Ombudsman found that 2 Ministerial Orders were actually illegal, and far exceeeded the discretion which they were allowed to use.

8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging

The 2015 and 2018 rulings are important, as they are 2 precedents in a quasi-judicial body, that found mask wearing to be of very limited value. It’s even better (from a B.C. perspective), that Bonnie Henry is on record saying that there is little evidence that masks work.

The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report is also helpful. Although not binding on a court, those opinions do carry some weight. And 2 orders have already been found to be illegal.

August 26, 2020August 27, 2020

CV #57: US CDC Says Problems In Testing, False Positives And Negatives

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
CDC.serious.testing.problems.July.13

3. CDC: Not Enough Isolates For Testing

Analytical Performance:
.
Limit of Detection (LoD):
.
LoD studies determine the lowest detectable concentration of 2019-nCoV at which approximately 95% of all (true positive) replicates test positive. The LoD was determined by limiting dilution studies using characterized samples.
.
The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. Samples were extracted using the QIAGEN EZ1 Advanced XL instrument and EZ1 DSP Virus Kit (Cat# 62724) and manually with the QIAGEN DSP Viral RNA Mini Kit (Cat# 61904). Real-Time RT-PCR assays were performed using the ThemoFisher Scientific TaqPath™ 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG (Cat# A15299) on the Applied Biosystems™ 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument according to the CDC 2019-nCoV RealTime RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel instructions for use.

Taken at face value, they don’t have enough isolates available, alternative methods would have to be used.

4. CDC Admits False Positives Happen

CDC.serious testing.problems.July.13

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

(Page 3) So a positive result could mean you have the coronavirus, or it could mean something else. That isn’t exactly very helpful.

5. CDC Admits False Negatives Happen

CDC.serious testing.problems.July.13

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

Testing with the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is intended for use by trained laboratory personnel who are proficient in performing real-time RT-PCR assays. The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is only for use under a Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

(Page 3) Okay, so not only will these tests not tell you conclusively that you have the virus, it won’t tell you that you DON’T have it either. False positives and false negatives are bound to happen

5. Extensive List Of Limitations

CDC.serious testing.problems.July.13

• All users, analysts, and any person reporting diagnostic results should be trained to perform this procedure by a competent instructor. They should demonstrate their ability to perform the test and interpret the results prior to performing the assay independently.
• Performance of the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has only been established in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate).
• Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Optimum specimen types and timing for peak viral levels during infections caused by 2019-nCoV have not been determined. Collection of multiple specimens (types and time points) from the same patient may be necessary to detect the virus.
• A false-negative result may occur if a specimen is improperly collected, transported or handled. False-negative results may also occur if amplification inhibitors are present in the specimen or if inadequate numbers of organisms are present in the specimen.
• Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False-negative test results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False-positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low.
• Do not use any reagent past the expiration date.
• If the virus mutates in the rRT-PCR target region, 2019-nCoV may not be detected or may be detected less predictably. Inhibitors or other types of interference may produce a false-negative result. An interference study evaluating the effect of common cold medications was not performed.
• Test performance can be affected because the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of infection caused by 2019-nCoV is not fully known. For example, clinicians and laboratories may not know the optimum types of specimens to collect, and, during the course of infection, when these specimens are most likely to contain levels of viral RNA that can be readily detected.
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

(Page 37/38) A pretty lengthy list: the test itself seems to be plagued by limitations.

6. CDC On Test’s Intended Use

INTENDED USE
The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a realtime RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate) collected from individuals who meet 2019-nCoV clinical and/or epidemiological criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV infection, contact with a probable or confirmed 2019-nCoV case, history of travel to a geographic locations where 2019-nCoV cases were detected, or other epidemiologic links for which 2019-nCoV testing may be indicated as part of a public health investigation). Testing in the United States is limited to laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 42 U.S.C. § 263a, to perform high complexity tests.

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

(Page 56) Again, plenty of room for false positives and false negatives from happening. These testing methods can’t even exclude having the virus. They can’t even tell if some other disease is causing the positive result.

7. Testing Has Very Serious Problems

These tests won’t definitively tell people that they have this virus. Nor will they definitively show that a person doesn’t have it. A secondary verification is needed.

The tests also can’t rule out diseases caused by other bacteria or pathogens. So false positives could be cause by other, unrelated illnesses.

The CDC concedes that not enough cell line has been isolated (when at the time of publication), which would further complicate things.

What do Canadian officials have to say about testing and error rates? See the next piece on errors.
-Barbara Yaffe admits up to 50% false positives in virus tests
-Bonnie Henry admits up to 30% false negatives in virus tests
-Bonnie Henry admits high error rates (false positives and false negatives) when it comes to antibody testing.

Do these tests work? Perhaps, but officials admit that the results are highly unreliable. Combine this with the political agendas of many of our leaders, and people have good reason to be skeptical.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

3. Canada Joins World Health Org. (1949)

4. International Sanitary Regulations (1951)

5. Convention On Immunities & Privileges (1959)

6. World Health Assembly (1969, Boston)

7. New Zealand, Quarantine Act (1983)

8. Australia Also Complies With IHR

9. World Health Assembly (1995)

10. Foreword Of 2005 IHR Guide

11. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

12. Canada A Party To 2005 IHR

13. Constitution Of World Health Org.

14. Quarantine Act, Ottawa Adopting IHR (2005)

15. Covid World Health Assembly (2020)

16. All An Excuse To Implement Changes

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. August 26th Quote From CDC

3. Vaccine Patents Held By CDC

4. CDC Admits No Evidence Masks Work

5. Takeaways From This Piece

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents In BC

3. Deaths By Suicide In BC

4. Deaths Of The Homeless In BC

5. Illicit Drug Deaths In BC Per Year

6. Deaths Caused By Alcohol In BC

7. Abortion/Infanticide Deaths Per Year

8. Why Aren’t These Deaths A Pandemic?

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Canadians Recovering From Virus

3. Provinces All Recovering From Virus

4. Australians Recovering From Virus

5. New Zealanders Recovering From Virus

6. UK PM Boris Johnson Recovered

7. Japanese Are Recovering From Virus

8. Philippinos Are Recovering From Virus

9. Michigan Residents Recovering From Virus

10. WebMD On Coronavirus Recovery Rates

11. WHO Admits In March Good Recovery Rates

12. Once Again, Death Totals Inflated

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Decisions

3. Sault Area Hospital (2015)

4. Bonnie Henry Testifies In 2015 Case

5. William Osler Health System (2016)

6. St. Michael’s Hospital (2018)

7. BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report

8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

3. CDC: Not Enough Isolates For Testing

4. CDC Admits False Positives Happen

5. CDC Admits False Negatives Happen

5. Extensive List Of Limitations

6. CDC On Test’s Intended Use

7. Testing Has Very Serious Problems

Share this:

Like this: