Thoughts and Concerns Regarding the New Corona Virus — John Hardie BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC



, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thoughts and Concerns Regarding the New Corona Virus

John Hardie BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC

Source: Thoughts and Concerns Regarding the New Corona Virus [PDF]


The late winter and early spring of 2020 will be earmarked in history as the era of, “The Great Corona Virus Pandemic.” It remains undecided if this designation will be one praising the collective efforts of all to defeat an invisible foe, or if it will be remembered as a public health over reaction which precipitated an economic disaster. As this article is being written in late March to mid April 2020 it would be foolhardy to predict on which side of the equation the pandemic will be judged. However, the author has had a 35 year interest in infectious diseases and has, over the last six weeks, amassed a considerable amount of literature on the new corona virus. Reading this material has identified a recurring theme, an absence [of] actual information on the virus. It has led to the conclusion that the world has rushed to a premature assessment of a virus about which little is known. What follows are the authors thoughts and concerns that have justified this understanding of the corona pandemic.

The New Virus

The presumptive pandemic inducing virus now named SARS-CoV-2 ( previously referred to as: 2019 nCoV) was initially identified in 3 adults with severe pneumonia admitted to a hospital in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in late 2019. (1). The article describing the investigation of the three cases was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2020. (1)

Patient 1 was a 49 year old otherwise healthy woman admitted with a cough, fever and chest discomfort. Patient 2 was a 61 year old male who presented with fever and cough and increasing respiratory distress during his hospital stay. Patient 3 was a 32 year old male with clinical signs of pneumonia. Similar to patient 2, his previous medical history was not recorded. The diagnosis of pneumonia in the three patients was confirmed by CT scans. Patients 1 and 3 were discharged following a 21 day hospital stay. Unfortunately, patient 2 died 14 days after his hospital admission. (1)

In the laboratory, bronchial fluid from the patients was cultured in human respiratory epithelial cells allowing genome sequencing, real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and isolation techniques to be used in identifying the virus as belonging to the family of widely distributed coronaviruses known to be a cause of common cold like symptoms.(1) Its unique genome sequencing resulted in the virus being referred to as a “novel” corona virus.

The investigators admit that while their labour intensive research methods had identified the new coronavirus as the “likely” cause of the pneumonia, their study did “not fulfill Koch’s postulates”-a historical method of identifying pathogens.(1)

A little later similar procedures were used by different investigators who determined that 41 of 59 patients admitted to a Wuhan hospital with pneumonia had “laboratory confirmed 2019 nCoV infection.”(2)

It is a concern that in a short space of time a new virus considered a few days before to be a likely cause became universally accepted as the confirmed cause of the pneumonia although it had not be verified as the cause of a viral pneumonia.(3) This is worrying as there ought to be independent studies performed on patients having similar signs and symptoms but in different world –wide locations whose lower respiratory tract samples were subjected to the same investigations as the Wuhan patients. If such studies showed any variation in results from the Wuhan ones, the credibility of the latter must be questioned. Which begs the question, “How new is this novel virus?” Continue reading


COVID19 in Italy? — Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg | wolfgang wodarg



, , , , , , , , , ,

Source: wolfgang wodarg

Note: translated by means of Google Translate

Norm’s note, an update (3/27/2020):

Merely to clarify what was my original note and as a point of emphasis:

Dr. Wodarg posts two additional links on his website (HERE and below) to studies by Drosten et al. that ‘prove’ that their test targets viruses known to have been established in the human virome before the so-called emergence of sars-cov-2.  
One link references a study from as early as November 2010, titled: 

Ecology, Evolution and Classification of Bat Coronaviruses in the Aftermath of SARS

From the abstract of that study, you can quote the following:

We then present evidence for a zoonotic origin of four of the six known human CoVs (HCoV), three of which likely involved bats, namely SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and HCoV-229E; compare the available data on CoV pathogenesis in bats to that in other mammalian hosts; and discuss hypotheses on the putative insect origins of CoV ancestors.

(The emphasis is mine.)
Now put that together with this quote from the detection study of the 2019 novel coronavirus: 
“These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. Detection of these phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade suggests that all Asian viruses are likely to be detected. “
Clearly, then, the Drosten test is sensitive to viruses known since at least 2014 to have been established in the human virome. Thus, indeed, as Dr. Wodarg asserts: “Drosten’s test detects SARS-like viruses, that preexisted worldwide before Wuhan.”
If you are testing for a pathogen already widespread in a population, it’s not the pathogen that’s novel and propagating, but your testing and its misleading results.  In effect, the so-called ‘pandemic’ is an artifact of the testing.

COVID19 in Italy?

By Wolfgang Wodarg

Frequently asked questions:
How can the drama of the many intensive care patients and deaths in Italy (previously also in China) be explained? Doctors in Italy do not have enough space in the intensive care units and have to send older people home to die, one reads. Doesn’t that go beyond the flu waves of recent years? Or is it due to the poor quality of the health system?


Thank you very much for your questions. We have known for a long time that conditions in hospitals in Italy are becoming problematic at the time of the flu season. There are now sufficient reports and data showing that the positive corona tests are mostly secondary findings and other diseases are the killers. Air pollution, miserable hospital hygiene, irresponsible use of antibiotics and other problems have been known there for several years. Now we are putting the Schiuld in the shoes of the corona viruses. The same applies to Spain.

What you can read from the official statistics is that in Italy not more people die than usual during this flu season .

To answer further questions, the following would have to be researched, for example:

A .: Questions about the baseline (annual average) and possible secondary interests of the rapporteurs

  1. How many hospital beds per inhabitant are there in the regions to be compared?
  2. How was the occupancy of the beds last year?
  3. How has the incidence of acute respiratory diseases developed in Italy this winter compared to previous years?
  4. Is there an outpatient shortage situation, so that people are increasingly forced to use the hospitals directly?
  5. Do the prospective European grants for Italian clinics play a role in the media presentation of the situation by individual hospitals?
  6. What is the rate of nosocomial respiratory infections in the clinics in focus compared to others? (A much higher rate of antibiotic resistance is known.)
  7. Is it true that hospital care has long been a problem in regions of Italy ? (Staff, ventilation places, etc?)

For example: Questions about possible distortion of the facts due to incorrect or selective recording of the cases

For example, there are indications that the COVID19 test is used selectively in Italy, where particularly severely ill people are often found.

Here is an explanation:

  • For example, if I used 1000 COVID19 tests in schools or factories on people who said they just had a cold, I would find corona viruses in 5 people. If the “new” corona viruses are really so important this season, I should have found them too.
  • If I as a doctor were to examine 1000 people in my practice who have acute respiratory problems (ARE), I would probably find significantly more cases (eg 15 “positives”), because only people who seek help because they are alone come into the practice can not cope with the disease.
  • If I do 1000 tests in the emergency room of a clinic for all patients with acute respiratory problems, I have to reckon that up to 15% of the tests will be positive, which would be 150 cases.

With a limited number of available tests, the greater the proportion of those examined who show clinically strong symptoms of an ARE, the more cases I find.

When I know that the mortality rate for severe, intensive care pneumonia patients is 20-30% in most countries , the alarmist reports from Italy appear in a different light. Continue reading


Marx in the Age of Trump — Moishe Postone in conversation with Raimund Löw


, , , , , , , , , , ,

YouTube summary:



Marx in the Age of Trump

The concepts of Karl Marx have been among the most powerful tools for the critical analysis of Western society. What can they tell us about the current moment? Is Donald Trump the apotheosis of global capitalism or the harbinger of its demise? University of Chicago Professor and IWM Visiting Fellow Moishe Postone, one of the world’s leading interpreters of Marx, pursues these questions in a conversation with Raimund Löw, former correspondent for Austrian television in Washington.