Connect with us

Opinion

COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate “May Be Considerably Less Than 1%” – Dr. Anthony Fauci

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Dr. Anthony Fauci was one of three authors in a paper recently published in the New England Medical Journal claiming that "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza."

  • Reflect On:

    Is it better to be safe than sorry? Or is there something else going on here? If we don't take the same shutdown measures for other viruses and diseases that may be just as or more dangerous, why are we doing it for COVID19?

As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4% for the new coronavirus, multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection. Most notably, three medical professors from Stanford University. Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, two professors of medicine at Stanford University recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Is the coronavirus as deadly as they say?” In it, they provide reasons for why the fatality rate might be significantly lower than the projection given by the World Health Organization (WHO).

advertisement - learn more

This is not to say they weren’t criticized, after these Stanford medical professors published their opinion, many took to YouTube in an attempt to explain why they were wrong. But if we stick to the experts, and scientific analysis, it’s safe to assume that the original case fatality rate put out by the WHO may be off by a significant margin.

--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford, recently published an article entitled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. In the article, he also argues that there is simply not enough data to make claims about reported case fatality rate.

He states that rates, “like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.”

He states that the real death rate of this virus could be five or more times lower, at 0.025 percent to 0.625 percent.

The main idea is that the number of people infected with the new coronavirus is most likely much higher than we know right now, which would drastically drop the case fatality rate.

advertisement - learn more

According to an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield,  the case fatality rate may be less than one percent, and the clinical consequences of Covid-19 may be more similar to that of a severe seasonal influenza.

On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al.  report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

I felt it was important to share this information because what we are seeing right now is a lot of hysteria, and a lot of fear from people. That’s not to say it’s not warranted, but we must remember that there’s a good chance that this is not going to turn out as bad as so many people believe when it comes to death rates, and perhaps there is something more behind this full economic shutdown.

With all of the models out there, it’s important to remember that modelling is quite controversial, and models that promote such deadly scenarios from this new coronavirus have been contested by other scientists.  That being said, there are models that have been published that show a much less cause for concern.

A study, from the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford, used data on the number of deaths and reported cases in the early stages of the epidemic in Italy and the UK. The researchers used mathematical modelling to estimate infection rates by fitting a “susceptible—infected—recovered” model of epidemics to the number of deaths seen. The researchers showed outcomes generated from different assumptions, including a reproduction number of 2.25 and 2.75, and setting the proportion of the population at risk of death or severe disease at 1% or 0.1%. The study was led by Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford.  One of the models in the study suggests that that millions may have already been affected by the new virus with little or no symptoms, and that the virus is actually in the later stage. If this is true, like all of the information above in this article suggests, then the death rate is much lower. 

Approximately 150,000 people die every day, worldwide. That’s 13 million people that have died so far this year. Coronavirus has killed 22,000 people worldwide so far this year. Perhaps this can offer a little perspective.

Deborah Leah Birx, an American physician and diplomat who serves as the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force also seems to contradict some mainstream media narratives, as well as all of the models that have predicted such doom and gloom and dire situations compared to what they are seeing on the ground, in real time.

She makes some interesting points.

The predictions of the models don’t match the reality on the ground in either China, South Korea, or Italy. We are about five times the size of Italy, so, if we were Italy and you did all those divisions, Italy should have close to 400,000 deaths, we’re not close to achieving that. So these are things kinds of thins we’re trying to understand, models are models, we’re adapting now, there’s enough data now of the real experience with the coronavirus on the ground, to really to really make these predictions much more sound. So when people start talking about 20 percent of the population getting infected, it’s very scary, but we don’t have data that matches that based on the experience.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves why certain narratives and opinions are being ridiculed. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, Dr. Ron Paul has received multiple “Fake News” strikes for sharing his opinions about the coronavirus. According to him, “people should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.”

What’s interesting is how some are allowed to share opinions, while others are not.  I’d also like to add in, again, when the final numbers come out they will most likely not account for all those infected or who have been infected.

Furthermore, why is mainstream media not mentioning what’s been happening with vitamin C? Why are they ridiculing it instead of exploring it? Where does government allegiance lie, with pharmaceutical companies or with the people?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Consciousness

The Leaderless Movement (Documentary)

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A documentary entitled 'The Leaderless Movement' covers a rally of 7000 people at Parliament Hill in Ottawa on August 29th, 2020 challenging Covid measures and other instances of government deception and overreach.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we seeing signs that the 'Great Awakening' of humanity has begun?

Ten days ago I swapped my writer’s pen for a video camera and drove off to Ottawa to document a rally on Parliament Hill that brought 7000 people together to challenge the Covid narrative and other issues involving government deception, overreach, and tyranny.

This is being called a ‘leaderless’ movement due to the awareness on the part of the organizers that humanity as a whole needs to be deprogrammed out of blindly trusting and following ANY leaders, and individuals need to step up and establish their own personal sovereignty.

Ottawa provides a microcosm of the way people all over the world are breaking down old divisions and uniting under a common cause. The rally on Parliament Hill saw a coming together and mutual respect between the English, French, and First Nations.

Meeting with the brave and wonderful people who worked together to organize this event confirmed my belief that we are seeing the beginnings of the great awakening of humanity unfolding before our eyes. The next big rally in Canada is in Montreal on September 12th where organizers say they are expecting 40,000 people to attend.

This article was originally posted at daocoaching.com.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Julian Assange’s Trial Has Begun: Judge Warns Him Not To Speak Again & Remain Silent

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Julian Assange has been warned by the judge in his extradition case that he could be removed from court with the case continuing in his absence after he interjected while a lawyer for the US sparred with a high-profile witness in favour of assange.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden face such a harsh backlash from Governments? If governments and elite corporations aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide? Why are the censoring so much information?

What Happened: Julian Assange’s legal battle to avoid US extradition to the United States for leaking classified information has begun. The latest news is that “English judge Vanessa Baraitser warns the most famous publisher/journalist in the world – Julian Assange, tortured by UK authorities according to the UN – not to speak again or be removed entirely from the court and be tried for his life in his absence,” according to Afshin Rattansi, a British broadcaster, journalist and author.

Over the years Assange has faced a number of smear campaigns and character assassinations that have been debunked, when in reality there are so many ‘high profile’ people around the word that support him and see quite clearly what is going on.

According to The Guardian,Julian Assange has been warned by the judge in his extradition case that he could be removed from court with the case continuing in his absence after he interjected while a lawyer for the US authorities sparred with a high-profile witness giving evidence in support of the WikiLeaks founder.”

I suggest you visit The Wikileaks Instagram Page for more the most recent and accurate updates.

Why This Is Important: Most of the world knows why they hunted him, and why he’s been treated the way he’s been treated and tortured in prison. The same goes for people like Edward Snowden, it’s because they expose lies, corruption, deceit, immoral and unethical actions that their own governments, as well as governments around the world have participated in. He exposed these characteristics that seem to represents the backbone of the Western military alliance and the American empire. He exposed, in the words of John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City, the “real menace of the Republic”, the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposed the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.” (source)(source)

“National Security” has become an umbrella tool to protect a number of unethical and immoral actions by governments, big corporations as well as those that take place in the world of finance.

How far have we sunk if telling the truth becomes a crime? How far have we sunk if we prosecute people that expose war crimes for exposing war crimes? How far have we sunk when we no longer prosecute our own war criminals? Because we identify more with them, than we identify with the people that actually expose these crimes. What does that tell about us and about our governments? In a democracy, the power does not belong to the government, but to the people. But the people have to claim it. Secrecy disempowers the people because it prevents them from exercising democratic control, which is precisely why governments want secrecy. – Nils Melzer, Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of Int Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Prof of Int Law at the University of Glasgow, UN Rapporteur on Torture and Other Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Wilikleaks has never had to retract a single story.

Politics has become a cesspool of corruption, and it’s now corporations and big banks that seem to dictate political policy. What we are presented with on our TV when it comes to geopolitical issues and war is far different from what’s happening in reality, and this is what Julian Assange made evident. Whether it’s the funding, arming and creation of  terrorist organizations like ISIS or Al-Qaeda by our governments, creating problems so they can propose the solutions, or documents showing the influence Big Pharma has on global health policy, obtaining this information and using it to inform the public is not a “threat” to the people, it’s a threat to to the people in power. These people in power are using “national “security as they always due to justify the locking Assange up for the rest of his life.

The Takeaway: Do we really live on a planet right now where those who expose truth, expose corporate corruption, and those who want what’s best for the world and want to change the world, are locked away, murdered, silenced, censored, and thrown in jail? Furthermore, what time of ‘machine’ is required to justify his jailing in the minds of the masses? What kind of propaganda tools are used and how powerful are they if they have the ability to completely control human consciousness and perception in a way that best fits their interests?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

RFK Jr. & Children’s Health Defense Sue University of California For Making Flu Shot Mandatory

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Children's Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will sue the University of California for mandating the flu shot for all students, faculty and staff.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are vaccine mandates moving forward when there is adequate evidence showing that they are not a one size fits all product, they cause injury, they've never provided herd-immunity and they are not effective all the time against the target disease?

What Happened: The University of California is one of many in the United States that have made the flu shot mandatory for all students, staff and faculty. Prior to now, it remained a choice for people. Flu shots must be taken by November 1st of this year, according to UC, it’s a “proactive measure to help protect members of the UC community – and the public at large – and to ameliorate the severe burdens on health care systems anticipated during the coming fall and winter from influenza and COVID-19.”

Due to the growing amount of evidence that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, let alone completely safe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, renowned attorney and Chair of Children’s Health Defense, is now suing the University of California.

 Kennedy Explains,

Dr. Janet Napolitano says mandatory flu shots will “lessen the chance of being infected with COVID.” However, prevailing research suggests that flu vaccines actually raise the risk from coronavirus infection.

A January 2020 US Pentagon study (Wolff 2020) found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…”

Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections, including coronavirus, following vaccination for influenza.

  • 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.

  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.

  • 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.

  • 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Children’s Health Defense is aware of a contrary study published last month by Gunther Fink et. al. That report appears to conclude that flu vaccines may be prophylactic against coronavirus. The study, of Brazilian populations, has many dubious unexplained outcomes including a 47% death rate among study subjects, raising numerous unanswered questions about the methodology and validity of this research. UC campuses should not be encouraging flu shots until we have unambiguous science supporting efficacy against COVID.

It’s important to mention that the coronavirus study listed above from Wolff does not include COVID-19, but the coronaviruses already in circulation prior to the novel coronavirus outbreak.

Why This Is Important: This is important because all of these mandates are being enacted under the belief that they will prevent flu cases, COVID-19 cases, and also help protect other people as well, which is the backbone argument of the vaccine industry. Mandates are also moving forward based on the assumption that vaccines are completely safe and effective for everyone.

The problem is, these assumptions do not match a lot of the science that’s been published over the years regarding the flu shot.

Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy  published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.”  In it,  he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”

He goes on to state:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).⇓ All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:

The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of  vaccine related injuries are the flu shot. I think many of you it’s been recommended to you that you get the flu shot, I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact, the CDC statistics are, that every year they look at vaccine effectiveness, for this particular year the vaccine effectiveness is 48 percent, so that means it’s not highly effective. It’s not even all that effective, if you look at the scientific literature…the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine is moderate to weak. It is not strong evidence. They say the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine to people over the age of 65 is not there, it’s inconclusive. So a lot of the things we’ve been told as Americans about vaccinations are not really based on the science. (source)

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) has already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported.

Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. (source)

This completely contradicts the CDC’s claim that 1/1,000,000 people are injured from vaccines.

Our CETV Episode About The Flu Shot: Facebook is blocking many of our posts from our own audience, Youtube demonetized us and many articles like this particular one may labelled and are labelled as “fake news.” As a result, in order to (attempt to) stay alive and continue doing what we do, we created a platform called CETV. It’s away for people to access information without organizations like Google or Facebook stepping in to censor it. You can sign up for your free trial  if you’re interesting in browsing through what we have, and if you’re interested in supporting us you can get a monthly/yearly subscription after that if you want to continue. In one of our latest episodes, CE founder Joe Martino and I discuss the flu vaccine. Here  is a brief clip of the episode, again, you can sign up for a free trial to watch the full episode.

The Takeaway:  Why are so many concerns being raised with regards to vaccinations being completely ignored and unacknowledged? Why are those who raise these concerns labelled as “anti-vaccination?” Why does the mainstream use these labels, as well as ridicule, instead of actually addressing the points made and countering them? Why are vaccines marketed to be gods gift to humanity when there are so many safety concerns? Would more rigorous safety testing not be in the best interest of everybody? Wouldn’t everybody agree that any concerns with vaccinations should be addressed openly, publicly and transparently?

Vaccine mandates, and others, are simply going to force people to exit various parts of the ‘system’ they will no longer be allowed to participate in. This begs the question, do we want to continue to be dependent on an entity, like the government, for our basic needs, like food and shelter, etc, or is there another way to do it? With so many conflicts of interests and examples of corruption within our federal health regulatory agencies, as well as clear evidence of concern, why do we continue to live the way we do, why do we keep voting when that only upholds a system we no longer want to play with? Why are we letting powerful entities make our decisions and do our thinking for us? What’s really going on here?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!