Corona virus COVID-19- hype and hysteria? Demystification of the nightmare! Prof. Dr.Sucharit Bhakdi - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15078294


One of 'the most cited medical experts and microbiologists in Germany'. He claims that the current preventive measures are a tragedy and pointless. He reasons that the original corona positive death rate in Germany was already 22 deaths per day and that the new death rate of 30 per day due to the Wuhan/Covid 19 virus doesn't compare to the social, cultural and economic impact of the government measures, which will result in a higher death toll among senior citizens.

He also states that Northern Italy and China were hit so hard because of the heavy air pollution. Smokers are a high-risk category for Wuhan/Covid 19 because of their damaged lungs. Air pollution in certain areas of China is so bad that it's the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes per day.

He also claims that most of the Covid-19 deaths in Germany were elderly with 'concurrent medical conditions' that weakened their immune systems.
#15078319
12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic

Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.

***

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

What he says:

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.


*

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

What he says:

Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?”

That’s missing.

*

Dr Joel Kettner s professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

What he says:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.

[…]

I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.

[…]

In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.


*

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

[…]

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.

[…]

…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

*

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

What he says:

We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.

[…]

In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the end of their lives.

[…]

If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.

[…]

We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.

– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020

*

Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

What he says:

I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.

– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020


Source: OffGuardian

*

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

What he says:

The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.

[…]

You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020

*

Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.

What they say:

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.

[…]

This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).

[…]

…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.

– “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020

*

Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

What he says:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.

– “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020

*

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

What he says:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.

[…]

[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.

– “Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure”, Washington Post 21st March 2020

*

Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.

What he says:

Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian. They will only get in trouble if they do too little. So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do.

No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere. We cannot close down the whole world permanently.

Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!”

– “Corona: an epidemic of mass panic”, blog post on Deadly Medicines 21st March 2020

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12- ... rus-panic/
#15078336
Kevin Williamson wrote:On ‘The Cure Is Worse Than the Disease’

March 24, 2020 6:30 AM

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book arguing that we live in part under a “tyranny of clichés,” and one of the most shopworn of clichés — “The cure is worse than the disease” — is at the moment at the forefront of our public discourse. Millions of lives and untold trillions in wealth and income may be saved — or lost — as the result of public policies shaped by that cliché.

In the matter of the coronavirus epidemic and our response to it, the question “Is the cure worse than the disease?” is almost useless, because it asks us to judge one discrete thing we know against a half-dozen critical things we do not know.

What we know right now is that the U.S. economy (and the world economy — which, nationalists note, matters quite a bit to our own national prosperity) is cratering while the coronavirus still is spreading. This seems, from the point of view of right this moment, intolerable — or “unsustainable,” in the antiseptic language of American journalism.

But is it intolerable? It seems intolerable because it is very painful and because it is very painful right now. As individuals — and, more important, as a polity — we suffer from what is sometimes known as “present bias,” meaning that we assign more weight and relevance to things we are experiencing right now. If you were in possession of a crystal ball that could tell you the future with absolute reliability, and you learned that departing from our current course of action would produce both public-health and economic effects that would be much, much worse than what we are experiencing right this moment, then the conditions prevailing at right this moment would not be judged intolerable at all. They would be considered relatively desirable — relative not to the recent past or to our best hopes for the future, but relative to a much worse outcome.

In the same way, we go to doctors and pay them great sums of money to do things to us that would seem intolerable if not for our knowledge that these horrifying experiences — chemotherapy, for example — prevent something far worse. If you were just being forced to undergo chemotherapy with no context, you would believe that you were being tortured by evil men, not treated by men who wish you well. If you were subjected to the rigors of military training and military life with no explanation, you would think you were being abused — not that your apparent tormentors were trying to save your life.

What we know is that there is economic pain in the present, and that this is associated with what is at best an imperfect prophylactic strategy against the coronavirus.

What we do not know makes for a longer list:

We do not know how effective our current practices are going to be at mitigating the effects of the epidemic. It is even possible that our current practices will leave us worse off than some other strategy would have. That is a possibility as a matter of logic; that does not make it likely, nor does that constitute a case for ignoring the advice of the relevant experts. If we could know with absolute certainty (or even believe with overwhelming confidence) that the current course of action is the best one available to us, then there would be no debate about altering the current course of action. It may be that we have a high degree of confidence that we are doing the right thing, but our confidence is not unqualified.

We do not know how deep or long-lasting the economic damage will be. It may be that the economy is able to come back like gangbusters once the public-health crisis is under control, that growth will recover quickly, and that the many Americans who are out of work or who soon will be out of work are able to return to work at similar wages very quickly. It may be that the disruption leaves growth stunted for an extended period of time and that many Americans are unable to find suitable work.

And while we do not know how our current course of action will work out, we also do not know how any other possible course of action will work out. And if we choose some other course of action, we will then be in a position of never being able to know what would have happened if we had stayed the course.

We do not know what the economic consequences of a worsening epidemic would be. The measures we are taking right now impose terrible economic costs, but a catastrophic epidemic — one that is orders of magnitude worse than what we are experiencing right now — would impose terrible economic costs, too, on top of an unthinkable amount of death and suffering.

These problems are present in most political decision-making, albeit usually with lower stakes. We generally misunderstand the relevant questions — or, as often, we misrepresent the question. For example, advocates of higher minimum wages will sometimes point to a time and a place in which a higher minimum wage has been imposed and unemployment either decreased or at least failed to increase. And then they will say, “This shows that increasing the minimum wage does not increase unemployment.” But the relevant comparison is not between the labor market before the minimum-wage increase and the labor market after the minimum-wage increase — it is between the labor market before the minimum-wage increase and the future labor market that would have existed without the minimum-wage increase. It may be that a market with 4 percent unemployment before the minimum-wage increase held steady after a 50 percent increase in the minimum wage; it also may be the case that without that hike in the minimum wage, the unemployment rate would have dropped to 3 percent or to 2 percent. This is the right question, but it is a question that is of no political value, because it cannot be answered with any confidence.

People in politics are people in the business of pretending that they have simple answers to complex questions; they are not in the business of frankly admitting that they do not know what the actual results of their policies are — or even what they were — and that they have no way of knowing.

And so we must approach the cliché of the moment — “Is the cure worse than the disease?” — with a degree of humility. And with a high degree of caution about the incentives that shape the decisions of political actors: The authorities in Beijing tried to cover up the facts of the coronavirus epidemic for reasons of narrow political self-interest — they did not wish to create a crisis that would undermine the economy. President Trump made rosy pronouncements about the epidemic in its early days, contradicting some of his most intelligent advisers, for precisely the same reason. It is worth keeping in mind that the administration’s efforts to prevent a stock-market selloff were entirely unsuccessful and that the president’s optimistic public-health pronouncements did not come to pass. Which is to say, the effort to stave off present economic pain in the face of some notional future public-health crisis prevented neither the economic pain nor the public-health crisis. It would be a bitter thing to repeat such a mistake in such a short period of time.

When Adolf Hitler was making war on the United Kingdom and Europe, the question that commanded the attention of the American people was whether they could trust President Franklin Roosevelt to make the right decision for the right reason. And the conclusion a great many of them reached was — “No.” Antiwar sentiment was by no means restricted to cranks and anti-Semites such as Charles Lindbergh. So intense and widespread was hostility to entering the war that the Republican nominee, interventionist Wendell Willkie, felt the need to court (if only halfheartedly) the isolationists, while President Roosevelt himself was obliged, on the eve of the 1940 election, to declare: “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. We will not send our Army, Navy, or air forces to fight in foreign lands, except in case of attack.” The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor rendered that promise moot. Things might have gone differently: Patrick J. Buchanan has one vision of what might have been, and Philip Roth had another.

The problem for the United States is that there is unlikely to be a coronavirus Pearl Harbor, a dramatic clarifying event that points clearly toward the necessary course of action. What we have is Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell meditating upon a half-understood cliché and trying to answer unanswerable questions, and trying to do so with one eye on the ICU and the other on the unemployment office.

No worries. I've never been accused of being sho[…]

@Atlantis @ingliz @Wellsy @Rugoz One coo[…]

I believe in facts. Truth is often subjective. Fa[…]

You are trying to apply the exception(even in the[…]