Low Risk of Coronavirus Spreading Through Tears

Study published today in the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology found no virus in tears of infected patients

While researchers are certain that coronavirus spreads through mucus and droplets expelled by coughing or sneezing, it is unclear if the virus is spread through other bodily fluids, such as tears. Today’s just-published study offers evidence that it is unlikely that infected patients are shedding virus through their tears, with one important caveat. None of the patients in the study had conjunctivitis, also known as pink eye.

However, health officials believe pink eye develops in just 1 percent to 3 percent of people with coronavirus. The study’s authors conclude that their findings, coupled with the low incidence of pink eye among infected patients, suggests that the risk of virus transmission through tears is low. Their study was published online today in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

To conduct the study, Ivan Seah, MBBS, and his colleagues at the National University Hospital in Singapore collected tear samples from 17 patients with COVID-19 from the time they showed symptoms until they recovered about 20 days later. Neither viral culture nor reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detected the virus in their tears throughout the two-week course of the disease.

Dr. Seah also took samples from the back of the nose and throat during the same time period. While the patients’ tears were clear of virus, their noses and throats were teeming with COVID-19. Dr. Seah said he hopes their work helps to guide more research into preventing virus transmission through more significant routes, such as droplets and fecal-oral spread.

Despite this reassuring news, it’s important for people to understand that guarding your eyes — as well as your hands and mouth — can slow the spread of respiratory viruses like the coronavirus.

Here’s why:

  • When a sick person coughs or talks, virus particles can spray from their mouth or nose into another person’s face. You’re most likely to inhale these droplets through your mouth or nose, but they can also enter through your eyes.
  • You can also become infected by touching something that has the virus on it — like a table or doorknob — and then touching your eyes.

American Academy of Ophthamology
Journal Article
Image credit Pixabay

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.


Coronavirus — 2019-nCoV — Coronavirus 2 — SARS-CoV-2 Old Angles Reviewed. Uncommon Angles Offered.

By Peter Tocci


What do coronavirus and money/currency have in common? As with so many things in this psychological operation we call society, it matters not what they are, but what people believe they are and their corresponding behavior.

With things like U.S. states declaring states of emergency over single cases of COVID-19, and Governor Cuomo trying to call out federal troops, this media-borne Virus-Fear episode has taken on surreal proportion against the particulars on the ground.

It’s been suggested rightly that few certainties exist about the COVID-19 pandemic. Accuracy of statistics particularly have been in question. Faulty testing either up or down, and potential deliberate biasing play into the picture.

Most remarkable for me, as implied, is the huge disconnect between numbers, accurate or not, and perceived threat. At this moment, 228,784 cases globally. Flu would be millions by 3 months into a season. Coronavirus 2 is not precisely flu, but there are similarities. It’s at 135,160 active, with 70,535 recovered in China. Praise societal programming and the media.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Certainly, no secret, economic impact is becoming cataclysmic, regardless of the intensity of the pandemic. How many would global economic collapse kill – in so many ways?

Silly me, I’ve not questioned “COVID-19” being used to refer to the virus, whereas, it’s officially the “disease” caused by what was 2019-nCoV, but which is now referred to by the US CDC as “coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)” No more year or “n”.

Later we’ll analyze information from two highly regarded ‘insider’ luminaries. The first is University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis A. Boyle, noted for drafting the US Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act of 1989. Reports have misconstrued that history, as we’ll see.

The second source is China-born Jennifer Zeng, top journalist and blogger with a large following. Both insiders hold, among other things, that a virus causing the COVID-19 epidemics and pandemic is a bioweapon that ‘leaked.’ And, in Ms Zeng’s case, that things in China are much worse than officially stated.

Given the outstanding history and credentials of these two, one is tempted to accept their views without question. But for this writer, certain aspects merit scrutiny.

There’s lots of speculative ‘fun’ to be had within the expansive sphere of possibilities. We’ll hopefully shed some light on the ‘funnier’ examples along the way, while looking at some key details rarely considered.


I’m not absolutely certain about other countries, but history shows that US “health” agencies – NIH/CDC under HHH – are overseen by, and serve — one could say are “operating arms” of — Big Pharma-Medical. With ’Pharma Cartel’ wielding global power, and standing to profit immensely, one might have to be a bit naive to think official sources elsewhere are ‘innocent’.

Test kits recommended by the FDA/CDC use the “PCR” method, or Polymerase Chain Reaction. It’s basically ‘amplification’ of an unidentifiably small amount of genetic protein, to make enough to then be identified.

CDC page says test kits are “…intended for use by laboratories designated by CDC as qualified, and in the United States, certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) to perform high complexity tests” [emphasis added].

After initial delays especially due to a faulty batch of kits, finally on 3/12/20 81 state and local public health laboratories in 50 states and the District of Columbia have successfully verified COVID-19 diagnostic tests and are offering testing. CDC removed the statement: “The test will not be available in U.S. hospitals or other primary care settings.” But it seems that’s the case, as the labs are taking over.

CDC: “The test kits also will be shipped to qualified international laboratories, such as World Health Organization (WHO) and Global Influenza Surveillance Response System (GISRS) laboratories.”

GISRS? Who knew? Influenza – serious biz.

Quite interesting, then, is that CDC-approved kits will be sent via the International Reagent Resource (IRR), formerly named Influenza Reagent Resource (IRR) — an agency established by the CDC. One wouldn’t be blamed for surprise and thinking that the WORLD Health Organization would be the one directing all this.

But it seems that CDC fingerprints are on the testing program at every step. Does this suggest to anyone a global “funnel” effect?

PCR accuracy is plagued by two issues. The first is false positives caused by something called “crossover contamination”. This is a major problem in “…using amplification techniques routinely, as in a regulatory agency such as the Food and Drug Administration…” not to mention labs doing corona tests.

Secondly, the test is excruciatingly complex, containing multiple points for potential error. First, just scan this page. Then take a look at the procedure.

Meanwhile, another test exists that shows potential. It’s called ViroCap: “With this test, you don’t have to know what you’re looking for,” said the study’s senior author… https://source.wustl.edu/2015/09/new-test-detects-all-viruses-that-infect-people-animals/ “researchers evaluated the new test in two sets of biological samples – for example, from blood, stool and nasal secretions…” How much simpler can you get?

Apparently, it’s not expensive, so you won’t need an “Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast DX Real-Time PCR Instrument with SDS 1.4 software” $$. Could this slow down its acceptance? 🙂

Alas, it seems both tests suffer a similar deficiency in that they detect a presence (qualitative) but not the viral load (quantitative). This is key because of the ongoing presence in the body of very low levels of various microorganisms doing nothing, such as incubating. Viruses in such a state don’t make symptoms and can’t be transmitted. Example: herpes has to flare up. Don’t confuse this with “asymptomatic transmission”.


There are a number of incidence “trackers” on the Net, one being U. of Virginia’s COVID-19 Surveillance Dashboard. It has coincided closely for the last few weeks with the interactive map at Johns Hopkins University, as well as other trackers. It had been suspect in some minds because JHU School of Public Health and the Gates Foundation hosted Event 201 on 10/18/19, a tabletop pandemic exercise modeled on a coronavirus shortly before the outbreak. But it seems as accurate as any, except note how the red dots make things look like the world is on fire 🙂

There has been remarkable consistency in statistics across sources. We have to settle somewhere in the sea of doubt, so the two cited above will be used for discussion.

Lethality from the outset running around 3.4-3.6% with overall recovery hovering around 50%, including China. What reason might there be for Pharma/Elite controlled agencies to understate? It certainly doesn’t look like an attempt by central authority to overstate. Apparently, that’s the media’s job.

Societal Manipulation

Before getting to the analysis noted above, I’d like to share some thoughts from having also spent much time looking into a rarely detailed level of societal influence/control, the supranational financial power Elite residing atop a massive power structure (there might be a level beyond, but we won’t go there) before whom (infiltrated) governments and the corporate monolith genuflect, and whose policy they execute. That executed policy I call Drama, or symptoms of their manipulations. Drama includes the money factor (more below).

How power operates and to what ends is the complex subject of books. Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope is an example, as well as Antony Sutton’s Trilaterals Over Washington (with Patrick Wood), and America’s Secret Establishment (Sutton’s “magnum opus”).

But briefly, as detailed in Trilaterals, the structure consists, top down, of policy setters (the “Elite”), policy holders, and policy executors (where the Drama lives and includes banks, corporations, NGOs, individuals and more). Research has long identified a single-minded Agenda — total world domination and control, with many supporting sub-routines and tactics, including propaganda and media-control, which are carried out by the corporatocracy.

One Elite ‘specialty’ is the creation and reinforcement in society of beliefs and belief systems, as mentioned in the opening. These are often exploited to create fear and anxiety, two of the best control mechanisms. Thus, the coronavirus-induced shutdown?

A consistent occurrence in previous ‘world-killer’ viral outbreaks is the eventual money-flood. Billions are currently being deployed and proffered to “control” and “fight” COVID-19. From banks, it’s debt slavery, a variation on the “Economic Hit Man” theme.

On 6 March, “President Trump signed an $8.3 billion spending bill … aimed at fighting the coronavirus outbreak… The bill will fund the development of vaccines, medications to treat the disease and diagnostic tests… [emphasis added].

He said he didn’t think Americans were too worried about the coronavirus. “I don’t think they’re panicking,” Trump said at the bill signing. “It’ll go away.” Well, he should have been in the supermarkets to witness the Black Friday of food. Cowardly hoarders making sure they’ll be safe, ignoring the fact that their fellow human beings might be in need.

It’s like a dinner for 12 people, and three rush in ahead and eat 90% of it before the rest arrive. Reprehensible.

A week later, Trump money was up to $50 bn. Interesting would be to find out where most of it flows.

For many analysts, “follow the money” answers all questions. It’s suggested this applies only to a point in the power structure. For the psychopaths at the top, money is not primary. Control is. Not that they don’t gain financially, because that’s just how their creation – the system – is set up.

But is money a primary motive here? Is it what drives policy? Is it a fundamental goal or a manipulative mechanism? Drama, in other words?

As suggested, the top level, operating above the law, sets policy, while lower levels hand it down and execute it. Lower levels are more visible, often regarded as “the perps.” It works much like Mafia contracts vs. triggermen. So greed is exploited at the Drama level to elicit/influence choices and actions that advance the overriding global Agenda, whether players are aware or not. And many are not.

What follows the money-flood this time is the main concern: The pattern has been that once the dam breaks, the world-killer threat begins to fade. Fizzle time. A big difference here has been the level of panic and extreme isolation practices created for this one almost out of the gate. Question is, will the draconian policy fizzle, and if so, will it do so in time to revive the dying global economy.


Again, though coronavirus 2 is not precisely flu, there is much in common. Flu “season” is roughly the cold part of the year geographically. Let’s give it 6 months. Though there are flu ‘waves,’ most seasons are in full swing by 3 months from onset.

A look at the history of flu pandemics is instructive. Scroll down this page to the “Influenza pandemics” chart. Note the Name, Date, Subtype and Deaths Worldwide columns.

Totaling the rough death estimates conservatively, we see that “flu” has killed around 57 million people in the last century or so. Over 7 million per pandemic on average. Of course, “Spanish” heavily biases the average. Least deadly was 2009 Swine flu, a new strain, at 151,700 low estimate; most, the “Spanish,” at 100 million, high estimate. ‘Halfway’ through SARS-CoV-2 ‘season’ (3 months), we have now a worldwide total of around 9,321 alleged deaths. These must be parsed as well, because relatively few die of the virus itself (more later).

Despite awareness of the rapid spread and large number of flu cases (in spite of the poison needle), no great panic, lockdown/shutdown and threat to collapse the global economy has even been suggested.

Yet, as coronavirus 2 was a mere couple of steps out of the gate, panic generation began in the media, with a sharp rise in that curve later in the young ‘season.’ panic intensity has increased since then, for numbers that just don’t warrant it.

Of course, we have no sound data point now, due to draconian stupidity now in progress. It might eventually be given the credit for saving lives while creating a living disaster that could easily more than make up the difference. Alsoi, corona 2, a new strain, certainly hasn’t stood up to its predicted 15-17% lethality. It’s been under 4%, which cannot be attributed to stupidity.

Why has authority ‘accepted’ flu death in a sense, but gone hysterical over a pandemic their own incidence statistics show to be a pussy cat? Thus, the most important question of all arises, as others have asked: “What is the ultimate purpose of this manufactured Fear-of-Virus episode?” We might be nearing the point of finding out — at least about what step this is toward the global-fascist system.

China’s lockdown procedure has been praised by WHO and President Trump. China has set the bar and governments, national and within nations, won’t hesitate to “do the responsible thing” in the face of a threat, real or not. Widespread lockdowns/quarantines could be a preamble to the introduction of any number of additional totalitarian unpleasantries, including “gunpoint” vaccination.

A major tactic cited to facilitate full implementation of the control Agenda is a third world war, bringing nations to their knees, preparing for acceptance of the ‘Global Solution.’ Another tactic is global economic collapse, which could be caused without a virus. Response from the ‘Belief-Corona’ eminently serves the latter, as we see looming, and perhaps less directly, the former. Power has repeatedly shown its ability to concoct and orchestrate war. Just pick any major one.

Instability is built into the rigged and crooked economic system, which can easily be influenced to create booms and busts (e.g., housing bubble): The Great Depression resulting from the Stock Market crash was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence….The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all. – Louis McFadden US Congressman (R-PA) 1915-1935, Chairman of House Banking and Currency Committee. Poisoned in 1936.

Well-intentioned and courageous as he was, McFadden apparently didn’t realize banksters, or Elite families, had been ruling (manipulating) the roost for centuries, and royalty/aristocracy long before that. That episode was just a major transfer of wealth.

One of the ‘planks’ in the psychopaths’ control-system platform is the cashless society – a lip-smacking Elite liberty killer. We know China destroyed a huge amount of cash to ‘stop the spread.’ And folks are generally being advised to use digital/plastic exclusively to ‘stop the spread.’ Conditioning for what’s planned?

One of the more clever Elite tactics is called the ‘reverse psyop’ (RP). It operated in the CO2/climate change controversy. From the outset, everyone, especially CO2 believers, reacted to fossil-fuelers and associates as being in “climate denial,” a term intended to skirt reason.. Thus, ‘denial’ by the earth-wrecking evil ones reinforces the desired belief. Even if it’s untrue. The Bad-Guy Reverse psyop.

Previously, the global government/control-system, often called the New World Order, looked like it would operate supranationally via business structures (e.g., trade zones), but the MO now seems to be virtual hive-mind domination in the technosphere. “You will be assimilated.”

The control-system foundation is wireless technology per se — “5G” included, not “5G” alone, which nonsense constantly bombards us. This is a theme in the writings of this author. See section The Real Reason for the Wireless “Season”? in Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological.

COVID-19 and the “5G” crisis have something else in common – concocted hysteria. For the documented evidence on “5G,” please see also What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”? (Revision/Update 1/24/20) and Geneva Telecom Antenna Map Illustrates How the “Stop 5G!” Campaign Misleads Supporters.


In an InfoWars®/Alex Jones interview (transcript here), Professor Boyle says he’s been attacked “… for being a conspiracy theorist [also intended to skirt reason] and fake news and I’m a nutcase and a nut job and everything else. … And indeed, as I told you before, I’d been completely censored out of all the mainstream news media here in the United States.”

NOTE: There is no intent by any means to ‘accuse’ Professor Boyle of collusion. Just saying his work may ipso facto be playing into the hands of any possible fear-mongering-perpetrators in a Good-Guy reverse-psyop-like way, because the bioweapon hypothesis carries additional weight if the persecuted one says it’s true. Still, the case merits scrutiny. It’s not cut and dry as presented.

We should be aware, for example, that the complete title of the 1989 Act is: An Act to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction, by prohibiting certain conduct relating to biological weapons, and for other purposes.

In other words, “An Act” to implement an international resolution previously signed by over 100 countries — in 1972, effective 1975. While weapon research raged, it took only a mere 14 years for the Good Guys to comply. Reports have said incorrectly that “Boyle’s Law,” if you’ll excuse the pun, was ‘adopted globally.’ In the interview reviewed here and in two others, no attempt was made to clarify this.

A related historical note is that the resolution became lip service — a de facto PR smokescreen. The purpose attributed to the research changed from offensive-weapon to the whiter lily of “defense.” Other than that, not much changed. None of the big players ‘trusted’ the other guy’s adherence. Secret research has been a threat since. Military facilities with “internal” budgets being the best venues. Elite controlled.

The move recalls for me how, after WW I, leftover organophosphate WMDs virtually had the labels changed and became the wonderful new chemicals for industrial agriculture.

“Virus-Fear” becomes amplified and is exploited, whether ‘the’ virus is weaponized (which term itself can vary in meaning), or not – despite what science papers are interpreted to mean. As we’ll see, even ‘bioweapon’ can have different connotations.

A key point rarely mentioned about infectious pandemics/epidemics is that they’re inherently life-cyclic. Individuals may perish, even in large numbers, but it seems there’s a failsafe mechanism built in. Examples are the Black Plague, Bubonic, and the “Spanish flu”. Although many perished, the three burned themselves out without any help from conventional medical wizardry, thank you.

One might reply that those weren’t bioweapons, although the case has been made that the “Spanish flu,” though ‘officially’ blamed on Chinese slaves laborers working behind the lines in WW I, resulted from massive vaccination of US troops sent into WW I. If so, it had that tint of artificiality.

The most important fact, however, is that it was neither Spanish nor flu. Bacterial pneumonia killed the vast majority of people. And this is an important lesson on flu pandemics in general, because most flu victims don’t die of it. Abstract: “…data from the subsequent 1957 [Asian] and 1968 [Hong Kong] pandemics are consistent with these findings.” It’s been published that the virus has been identified (H1N1), but somehow the killers – pneumo, strep, and staph – don’t get the same respect. See also.

The following is from a 2/29/20 CDC Telebriefing Update on COVID-19. Dr Duchin: “…people who are having the most severe impact of this disease are those who are older, those who are medically fragile, for example with chronic underlying health conditions — and I’m talking about the same conditions that we’re used to hearing about with seasonal influenza, chronic cardiac disease, lung disease, diabetes and other conditions…” Do we need to shut down the world to protect this sector of the population?

Thus, though COVID-19 symptoms vary somewhat from flu, its impact on underlying conditions seems to be quite similar.

The cyclic quality of infectious pandemics is not stressed by advocates of the poison needle, because during the ‘classic’ period of pandemics, it helped create the illusion of efficacy by introducing vaccines on the later downside of the cycle.

CDC page on the 2009-10 flu (“swine”) pandemic: “While a … vaccine was produced, it was not available in large quantities until late November—after the peak of illness during the second wave had come and gone in the United States.”

Keyword: peak. And guess who knows when that is.

For a short discussion on immune function, please see OK, Let’s Talk Immunity.

At any rate, a few questions do come up about particulars of the bioweapon construct, as well as some significant missing possibilities.

For example, Boyle to Jones: “Today in USA Today, Tony Fauci admits that the lethality rate of MERS is about 36%, whereas SARS is 10%. This Wuhan is 15% to 17%” (British medical journal Lancet said the latter).

As noted, it’s just stunning that the level of hysteria we’re seeing can be worked up with such mediocre numbers in our face. www.metanoia-films.org/psywar Back to the bioweapon drawing board? More below.

Among four science papers Boyle has traveled with as evidence of bioweapon work, two intriguing ones stand out for me. I acknowledge that Abstracts and stated purpose can be formal rhetoric/propaganda covering evil.

“Cleavage” Study

One paper is entitled The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade [“clade” is a group of organisms believed to be evolved from a common ancestor] Published here.

No access without paying, but the Abstract says, “…we discuss the possible functional consequences of this cleavage site in the viral cycle, pathogenicity and its potential implication in the development of antivirals.” [emphasis added].

Dr. Boyle states that this study shows the Wuhan virus to be a bioweapon because of this unique cleavage and that the text says, “…may provide a gain of function to coronavirus for efficient spreading in the human population—”

Three things strike me about this. First, the word “may”. It’s not “does.” May and might are generally interchangeable. It would seem the scientists are speculating about something not verified in the study.

Also, below the the Abstract it says under Research data for this article:

Data not available / No data was used for the research described in the article

Not sure what that means. You’ll see ones where data isn’t released.’ ‘Used’ is a bit different. Data includes protocols, procedures and methods. Hopefully, there’s some in the text.

Key distinction to consider: Does “efficient spreading” necessarily indicate virulence/lethality? Could a mild virus be GOF’d to spread more efficiently? Mildly pathogenic agents can and have spread efficiently when released on the uniformed public for observation.

With SARS-CoV-2, however, it seems we have a reverse: Relatively mediocre spreading (with a few exceptions) relative to flu, for example, but a higher lethality rate. Unreliability of stats notwithstanding, does this compute to a vicious bioweapon?

“Cluster” Study

A more detailed and useful discussion concerned an 11/1915 University of North Carolina study, SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence It was funded by many grants, seen under “Acknowledgements” (directory at right).

Having earlier said he thought a theft story was possible, he has changed his mind: “I think I have the definitive evidence where this came from and it came from the BSL-3 biowarfare lab at the University of North Carolina” [emphasis added].

On the basis of past research, I seriously doubt the ‘stolen’ notion in general (not to mention ‘leak’ and ‘escape’) − unless we think the designers of security for these facilities don’t give any thought to theft (more later). On the basis of history as well, we can’t dismiss the possibility of ‘field test,’ to put it politely.

Abstract describes research on a virus currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations to assess the potential for cross-species transmission.

Why don’t they just leave the poor bats alone. They never caused such problems until Dr Frankenstein ‘spelunked’ their homes and kidnapped and dragged viruses out of them.

Boyle: “…first notice who was involved in this DNA genetic engineering of SARS, which is already a biological warfare agent to give it gain of function activities.” Indeed, SARS was billed as a world-killer. Like others so billed, however, as discussed above, it fizzled  as a virulent and lethal ‘biological warfare agent.’

“And then at the very bottom of the list, who is involved? Zhengli-Li Shi, [Zhengli Shi – PT] Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China. So it’s very clear to me that this scientist from the Wuhan Institute of Virology got this gain of function [GOF – PT] technology for SARS from this University of North Carolina lab.”

“…scientists at the University of North Carolina took dirty money from China to allow that one of their top biowarfare experts from this Wuhan Institute of Virology and Wuhan … and they permitted this Chinese scientist to work with them to give gain of function biowarfare DNA genetic capability to SARS” [emphasis added].

Boyle asserts several times that China “bought” this tech and brought it back to Wuhan. With due respect to him, unless one can prove the quite unlikely case that this “top biowarfare expert” didn’t already have such knowledge, and could even have brought some expertise to the table, doesn’t the conclusion seem presumptive?

This paper reveals that GOF has been a subject of discussion concerning whether the 1977-78 flu epidemic was the result of an accident. This suggests that the subject has been in the literature since the 1970s.

Wikipedia (OK for stuff like this) says: In 1974, the first report of a genetically modified virus that could also replicate and infect was submitted for publication by Noreen Murray and Kenneth Murray. Just two months later in August 1974, Marjorie Thomas, John Cameron and Ronald W. Davis submitted a report for publication of a similar achievement. Search “Genetically Modified Virus”.

How, then, do we conclude that China paid “dirty money” so Zhengli Shi could learn about technology that’s been in the literature in one form or another for around 50 years?

Boyle asserts that the technology used in the study (GOF) for more efficient spreading in the human population…” has absolutely “…no legitimate scientific or medical use…”

Both papers question, not the usefulness of such research, which is considerable from a particular point of view, but the danger of it.

Included in the stated purpose of this study was to test “…available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities…” which “…revealed poor efficacy…” Abstract conclusion: “Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.” Should they have added, “…including those hanging around in our labs”?

Even if lying about motive, would experts report in the open literature something that has no legitimacy? Especially after being so widely funded, and after getting special permission to go ahead? See first paragraph in Biosafety and biosecurity under Methods.

The U.S Government Gain-of-Function Pause document of 2104 says, Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, thereby enabling assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, informing public health and preparedness efforts, and furthering medical countermeasure development.

What about anticipating what an enemy might be doing (the Elite often play both/all sides) to see what defense might already exist and whether something else need be created? After all, who was blamed, though falsely, for the anthrax attacks of 2001? The country whose devastation was planned from the day Saddam was CIA-assisted to power in 1979, to have the war with Iran.

“Highlights” in the cleavage study says, for one thing, “Campaigns to develop anti-2019-nCoV therapeutics should include the evaluation of furin inhibitors.” For what it’s worth, the word ‘furin’ doesn’t appear in the  SARS/cluster study.

Among the many funders of this work, with any number of possible motives, was National Natural Science Foundation of China. This is considered suspicious, but international scientific cooperation is no surprise, especially considering that France sold the facility to China in the first place, and was closely involved in the setup.

Boyle declares SARS-CoV-2 was an accident because the lab had two ‘leaks’ before, and because Chinese scientists themselves confirmed it. Now we believe the Chinese? Might ‘escapes’ or ‘leaks’ be convenient for avoiding truth? Wouldn’t anyone ‘confess’ more readily to accident than release?

As noted, I seriously question ‘accident.’ Because nice old China would never experiment on its citizens — as the US military has many, many times on its citizens, at various scales, without public knowledge.

For security measures, see second paragraph, Biosafety and biosecurity. This is Level 3 — Wuhan, Level 4. Now consider whether even a bonehead could be allowed by the system itself to be sloppy enough for a leak or escape. I want to draw a cartoon of a virus visiting his brother in a facility and bringing a tiny cake with a file in it.

Another possible scenario is that the virus now in circulation could easily have been dropped on China. Why could it not have come from DARPA, for example, with several facilities in the region, and why can’t it be spreading via a series of drops? Microdrones would serve nicely.

Boyle: Pathogenesis means lethality and infectiousness… Not exactly. In this context, It means infectiousness (otherwise, it can apply to non-infectious disease), but not lethality necessarily. For example, E. coli can be the pathogenesis of a bladder infection. Usually not lethal, however.

Again, the prior health status of the deceased should also affect total deaths from SARS-CoV-2 or flu. How about lowered immunity due to excessive cellphone use. A good one to compare with total cases would be the impossible-to-specify ‘exposed but not infected,’ category. Or harboring, but not transmitting.

If we want to believe Chinese scientists, all 49 cases in Wuhan at the beginning of the media blitz recovered. Didn’t seem to slow the media down, though.

There are also studies saying ‘no weapon.’

Top civilian investigator Jennifer Zeng has said it’s very difficult to get reliable information, especially on numbers of victims, because everything is so controlled by China’s totalitarian, one-party government. A truism.

I’d be most grateful, however, for an explanation of how this is much different, in effect, from what is handed down from Pharma-controlled HHH/NIH/CDC/FDA (and many Government agencies, like FCC)? This alphabet soup of corruption is no stranger to misrepresentations and lies.

It may come as a surprise to some that propaganda is even more necessary in the ‘free’ world than in totalitarian regimes. An entire, huge industry has grown up wherein a PR “…company crafted that news story you just watched then gave it to the network, with the understanding that they would put their own logos on it, identify it as real journalism and air it. … There are more PR flaks in the United States than there are journalists. Propaganda has become the primary means by which the wealthy communicate to the rest of society.” Again, metanoia-films.org/psywar

Based on information she has allegedly obtained directly from local folk, including on crematoria/incinerator staffs working to exhaustion, Zeng has surmised that China’s incidence numbers are very likely much higher than being reported.

What other reason, she has said, could there be for this volume of alleged death/incinerations. One thing comes to mind: A purge of citizens low on the ‘social credit’ totem pole.

Another – ‘drop-deads’ due to severely compromised immunity from a combination of several factors, including the radiation from Wireless technology and hitech environment in general.

Or, as Matt Agorist reported: …thousands of people are dying from the lockdown — not because they have the coronavirus — but because they are unable to leave their homes to receive treatment for curable diseases. To stop the spread of the coronavirus, Chinese officials have reportedly condemned thousands of other sick folks to death.

That would up the need for furnaces while recovery stats stay in place. Well, I guess we can feel fortunate that confinement deaths weren’t added to those ‘caused by the virus’.

A most interesting hypothesis is that major revolutions in EM technology in the age of electricity preceded each major pandemic. This is plausible, especially if you view flu as a major defense/detox process.

Speculation has emerged saying this crisis is caused by “5G” being heavily implemented in China’s cities, especially Wuhan, with higher Covid-19 incidence and deaths − due to lowered immunity, or simply deaths due to “5G” virus or no.

While a wireless/EMF correlation with illness if all kinds is a certainty, to blame this on “5G” alone is irresponsible, opportunistic and specious. Cities have long been irradiated, thus people sensitized, by 2G-4G radiation and numerous other EM fields. All things equal, even a moderate increase in the latter could produce a wave of illness/fatalities.

This speculation amounts to ‘making cases’ without all factors known and included. For example, China has some of the worst air in the world, and Wuhan the worst of that. Moreover, telecom/WiFi radiation synergizes with toxins, and each worsens the effects of the other. For example, heavy metals.

“5G” opponents are loathe to face up to the inescapable lethality of 2G-4G, preferring to rely on “tips” for reducing exposure. Telling the whole truth could create animosity and reduce the money being made off generated fear. Sound familiar?

Making cases is the very hallmark of the misguided “5G crisis” and bogus international “Stop 5G!” hysteria machines – a conglomerate of ploys and nonsense, two of the worst of which are focus on human concerns rather than ecosystem, and historically on ground antennas instead of the coming satellites. This is compounded by these opportunists not even knowing, or more likely not saying, what “5G” is.

What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”? || Geneva Telecom Antenna Map Illustrates How the “Stop 5G!” Campaign Misleads Supporters

No one, including hawkers of “5G” hysteria, knows how much of today’s ongoing ecosystem decline and overall rampant illness − that is, diseases described and named prior to the wireless telecom era − is attributable in whole or part to pre-“5G” telecom/WiFi radiation (or even the whole radiation gamut to which we expose ourselves).

If officials even know (doubtful), they’re not telling. I suggest no one knows (although policy setters might be more aware). Of the number of officials who listen, they have the misfortune of being ‘informed’ by the misguided “5G” campaign and EMF “educators”; by those who imply that we can live with 4G by “reducing exposure”; of being loathe to go against the flow; being blinded by the money of it all; and being disinclined to break their own dependencies and addiction.

But it’s almost certainly huge.

What we do know is that telecom/WiFi radiation causes inflammation, weakens immunity, disrupts brain function, breaks down the blood-brain barrier, and disrupts the endocrine system − for a few. Just the latter leads to a host of illnesses. Could chaos in the hormone system be having anything to do with increasing gender ‘differences’?

The first article linked just above contains the section History of Official Awareness.  It contains proof that governments, militaries and the wider scientific community were fully aware of the harm at least 20 years before 1G came out.


No atrocity is beneath the power structure. Its influence on governments, science, militaries, and media is a big reason why we can know so very little for certain about this outbreak. The Elite-serving wireless-industry cartel easily rivals its Pharma-Medical ‘sister.’ Their respective pathological products synergize each other.

Elite operations can have several motives at once. If this outbreak is deliberate, one of the ‘funnier’ possibilities, perfectly in tune with the psychopathy at the top of the power structure, is major distraction from other key issues, including ones gaining more attention such as the onrushing global surveillance state in the technosphere, the foundation of which, again, is wireless technology per se – “5G” included, of course.

The more we weave wireless technology’s artificial dependencies, fascinations, obsessions, addictions and illusory sense of freedom intricately into modern life, the more dominated, surveilled, catalogued, robotized and enslaved we become.

The irony in all of this, of course, and just the kind the psychopaths savor, is that programming has gotten people into dire fear of a relatively harmless virus while they embrace technology ‘infecting’ billions. It was criminally instigated and is terminally pathological. Wireless telecom/WiFi is, without remedy other than termination, one of the most devastating environmental and health threats—and threats to personal liberty—ever created.

Quitting wireless at the consumer level would be one of the the greatest blows people could strike against tyranny, and for survival, due to its terminal threat to Nature, immunity, human life, health, and liberty.

Or will we insist on ‘conveniencing’ ourselves to death?

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. – Goethe

Peter Tocci is a retired massage therapist and wellness consultant with an abiding interest in exploring ‘managed’ history, nefarious covert agendas, and mainstream/mainstream-alternative news-media dereliction, distortion and suppression.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.


“We Have No Food for You” – Insiders on Food Supply Shortages

By Ice Age Farmer

Farmers and ranchers are in fear of labor shortages resulting from border closures and quarantines promised for next 18+ months. Without labor, “We do not have food to feed you.” The DEMAND SHOCK from virus panic is MASKING a true SUPPLY SHORTAGE — buyers and grocers indicate they are unable to purchase enough food to keep their shelves stocked. Start growing food and secure your protein now.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Visit IceAgeFarmer.com and subscribe on YouTube and Bitchute.

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.


The Lancet: Study Details First Known Person-to-Person Transmission of New Coronavirus in the USA

Person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurred between two people with prolonged, unprotected exposure while the first patient was symptomatic. Despite active monitoring and testing of 372 contacts of both cases, no further transmission was detected.

New research published in The Lancet, describes in detail the first locally-transmitted case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19, in the USA, from a woman who had recently travelled to China and transmitted the infection to her husband. No further transmission was detected, despite monitoring contacts for symptoms and testing all those who developed fever, cough, or shortness of breath, as well as a sample of asymptomatic healthcare professionals who had come into contact with the patients.

On January 23, 2020, Illinois reported the state’s first laboratory-confirmed case (index case) of COVID-19 in a woman in her 60s who returned from Wuhan, China in mid-January, 2020. Subsequently, the first evidence of secondary transmission in the USA was reported on January 30, when her husband, who had not travelled outside the USA but had frequent, close contact with his wife since her return, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Public health authorities conducted an intensive epidemiologic investigation of the two confirmed cases. This study describes the clinical and laboratory features of both patients and the assessment and monitoring of several hundred individuals with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

In total, 372 individuals were identified as potential contacts–347 of these people were actively monitored after confirmation of exposure to the woman or her husband on or after the day of symptom onset (including 152 community contacts and 195 healthcare professionals). There were 25 people that had insufficient contact information to complete active monitoring. A convenience sample of 32 asymptomatic healthcare personnel contacts were also tested.

These 347 contacts underwent active symptom monitoring for 14 days following their last exposure. Of these, 43 contacts who developed fever, cough, or shortness of breath were isolated and tested for SARS-CoV-2, as well as asymptomatic healthcare professionals. All 75 individuals tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

On December 25, 2019, the female patient travelled to Wuhan where she visited a hospitalised relative and other family members with undiagnosed respiratory illness. On her return to the USA on January 13, 2020, she experienced six days of mild fever, fatigue, and cough before being hospitalised with pneumonia and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (figure 1). Prior to hospitalisation she was living with her husband who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic cough. These conditions made it difficult to determine the timing of his symptom onset related to COVID-19. Eight days after his wife was admitted to hospital, the husband was also hospitalised with worsening shortness of breath and coughing up blood, and also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Both patients recovered and were discharged to home isolation, which was lifted 33 days after the woman returned from Wuhan, following two negative tests for SARS-CoV-2 taken 24 hours apart.

“This report suggests that person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 might be most likely to occur through unprotected, prolonged exposure to an individual with symptomatic COVID-19”, says Dr Jennifer Layden, Chief Medical Officer of the Chicago Department of Public Health, USA, who co-led the research. “Our experience of limited transmission of SARS-CoV-2 differs from Wuhan where transmission has been reported to occur across the wider community and among healthcare professionals, and from experiences of other similar coronaviruses. Nevertheless, healthcare facilities should rapidly triage and isolate individuals suspected of having COVID-19, and notify infection prevention services and local health departments for support in testing, management, and containment efforts.” [1]

The authors emphasise that individuals who think they might have been exposed to COVID-19 and experiencing a fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms consistent with COVID-19 should call their healthcare provider before seeking help so that appropriate preventive actions can be taken.

“Although further detailed reports of contact investigations of COVID-19 cases could improve our understanding of the transmissibility of this novel virus, the absence of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals supports US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations around appropriate infection control”, explains co-lead author Dr Isaac Ghinai from the Illinois Department of Public Health, USA. [1]

Co-lead author, Dr Tristan McPherson from the Chicago Department of Public Health, USA adds: “Without using appropriate facemasks or other personal protective equipment, individuals living in the same household as, or providing care in a non-healthcare setting for, a person with symptomatic COVID-19 are likely to be at high risk of infection. Current CDC recommendations for individuals with high-risk exposures to remain quarantined with no public activities might be effective in reducing onward person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” [1]

The researchers acknowledge that these data are preliminary and note several limitations, including that the report describes only one known transmission event, therefore the findings may not be generalisable or representative of broader transmission patterns. They also point out that this investigation might not have identified all individuals with potential exposure to COVID-19 as it was dependent on the couples’ recall of the places they visited, the people they met, and the time of symptom onset. Finally, the investigation into these cases took place prior to updated CDC guidance on classifying exposure risk among contacts of patients with COVID-19. For example, updated guidance suggests that a sore throat should be included as a possible symptom of COVID-19 when evaluating healthcare workers, and indicates that a single PCR test, as used in all the contact tracing in this study, might not be sufficient to definitively rule out infection over a 14-day incubation period, and as a result some cases of COVID-19 might not have been detected.


The Lancet

Journal article

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.


First Study Identifies Mortality Risk Factors Associated with Coronavirus in Wuhan

Being of an older age, showing signs of sepsis, and having blood clotting issues when admitted to hospital are key risk factors associated with higher risk of death from the new coronavirus (COVID-19), according to a new observational study of 191 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from two hospitals in Wuhan, China, published in The Lancet.

Specifically, being of an older age, having a high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and having d-dimer greater than 1 μg/L are the factors that could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage.

The new study is the first time researchers have examined risk factors associated with severe disease and death in hospitalised adults who have either died or been discharged from hospital. In the study of 191 patients, 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. The authors note that interpretation of their findings might be limited by the study’s sample size.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In addition, the authors present new data on viral shedding, which indicate that the median duration of viral shedding was 20 days in survivors (ranging from 8 to 37 days), and the virus was detectable until death in the 54 non-survivors.

While prolonged viral shedding suggests that patients may still be capable of spreading COVID-19, the authors caution that the duration of viral shedding is influenced by disease severity, and note that all patients in the study were hospitalised, two-thirds of whom had severe or critical illness. Moreover, the estimated duration of viral shedding was limited by the low frequency of respiratory specimen collection and the lack of measurable genetic material detection in samples.

“The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explains co-lead author Professor Bin Cao from the China-Japan Friendship Hospital and Capital Medical University, China. [1]

He continues: “We recommend that negative tests for COVID-19 should be required before patients are discharged from hospital. In severe influenza, delayed viral treatment extends how long the virus is shed, and together these factors put infected patients at risk of dying. Similarly, effective antiviral treatment may improve outcomes in COVID-19, although we did not observe shortening of viral shedding duration after antiviral treatment in our study.” [1]

According to co-author Dr Zhibo Liu from Jinyintan Hospital, China: “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of non-invasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients. Poorer outcomes in older people may be due, in part, to the age-related weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation that could promote viral replication and more prolonged responses to inflammation, causing lasting damage to the heart, brain, and other organs.” [1]

For the first time, the study describes the complete picture of the progression of the COVID-19. The median duration of fever was about 12 days in survivors, which was similar in non-survivors. But the cough may last for a long time–45% of survivors still had cough on discharge. In survivors, dyspnoea (shortness of breath) would cease after about 13 days, but would last until death in non-survivors. The study also illustrates the time of the occurrence of different complications such as sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute cardiac injury, acute kidney injury and the secondary infection.

The new analysis includes all adults (aged 18 or older) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital after December 29, 2019, who had been discharged or died by January 31, 2020. These were the two designated hospitals for transferring patients with severe COVID-19 from across Wuhan up until February 1, 2020.

During the study, the researchers compared clinical records, treatment data, laboratory results, and demographic data between survivors who had been discharged from hospital and non-survivors. They looked at the clinical course of symptoms, viral shedding, and changes in laboratory findings during hospitalisation (eg, blood examinations, chest x-rays, and CT scans; see table 1 for full list), and used mathematical modelling to examine risk factors associated with dying in hospital.

On average, patients were middle-aged (median age 56 years), most were men (62%, 119 patients), and around half had underlying chronic conditions (48%, 91 patients)–the most common being high blood pressure (30%, 58 patients) and diabetes (19%, 36 patients; table 1). From illness onset, the median time to discharge was 22 days, and the average time to death was 18.5 days.

Compared with survivors, patients who died were more likely to be older (average age 69 years vs 52 years), and have a higher score on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) indicating sepsis, and elevated blood levels of the d-dimer protein (a marker for coagulation) on admission to hospital (table 1 and 3).

Additionally, lower lymphocyte (a type of white blood cell) count, elevated levels of Interleukin 6 (IL-6, a biomarker for inflammation and chronic disease), and increased high-sensitivity troponin I concentrations (a marker of heart attack), were more common in severe COVID-19 illness (figure 2 and table 3).

The frequency of complications such as respiratory failure (98%, 53/54 non-survivors vs 36%, 50/137 survivors), sepsis (100%, 54/54 vs 42%, 58/137), and secondary infections (50%, 27/54 vs 1%, 1/137) were also higher in those who died than survivors (table 2).

The authors note several limitations of the study, including that due to excluding patients still in hospital as of Jan 31, 2020, and thus relatively more severe disease at an earlier stage, the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19. They also point out that not all laboratory tests (eg, d-dimer test) were done in all patients, so their exact role in predicting in-hospital death might be underestimated. Finally, a lack of effective antivirals, inadequate adherence to standard supportive therapy, and high doses of corticosteroids, as well as the transfer of some patients to hospital late in their illness, might have also contributed to the poor outcomes in some patients.

The Lancet
Journal Article

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTubeTwitter and Facebook.


The Media Vilifies Preppers and Those Stocking Up as “Selfish Hoarders” While Potential Quarantines Loom

By Daisy Luther

With the Covid-19 virus popping up across the country, people who are preppers are adding a few last-minute things to their stockpiles. Those who aren’t preppers are starting from scratch to get what they think they might need to handle a potential quarantine at home.

While most of the folks on this website would read this and think, “Of course they are,” there are a few who think, “What a bunch of selfish people, hoarding supplies instead of only taking a little and leaving the rest for other people.”  Often the people with this mindset are those “other people” who failed to prepare and who are upset that they missed their window of opportunity to get the necessary supplies.

But the media and government certainly aren’t helping paint those getting prepared in a good light with headlines about “panic buying” and “hoarding.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

An article on USA Today starts out:

Keep calm and stop hoarding. The spread of coronavirus in the U.S. won’t wipe out our toilet paper supply. Or supplies of hand sanitizer, bottled water and ramen.

That is, unless the frenzied stampedes for hand sanitizer and bottled water continue at their current pace. (source)

The article goes on to use phrases like “impulsive buying binges,” “air of aggressive competition,” “stripping store shelves of toilet paper,” and “the crush of humanity” at Costco.

The entire article dismisses stocking up as ridiculous and even irresponsible, blaming shoppers for causing shortages.

Experts say not to worry and to stop “hoarding.”

The USA Today article blithely reports:

Supply chain experts say to stop worrying about hoarding basic necessities beyond having on hand the recommended 14-day emergency supply of food and necessities.

Perishable food such as fruits and vegetables are unlikely to be limited in the short term. Supplies of imported frozen meat and fish are more at risk but were already curbed by trade sanctions.

Packaged goods such as cereal and toothpaste and dry goods won’t be affected in the near term, either. For items that are now in shorter supply, such as hand sanitizer, plenty of substitutes exist such as soap. Some people are even making their own…

…Even with images of all those empty shelves flooding social media feeds, supply chain experts urged people to stop, well, freaking out.

“We don’t have a shortage of toilet paper in this country. We have plenty of toilet paper to go around,” said Per Hong, a senior partner in the strategic operations practice at Kearney, a global management consultancy. “Those supplies will be fully restocked and my ability to go to the store to get those supplies isn’t going to go away anytime soon.” (source)

I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable facing a possible lockdown like the one in China with only a 14-day supply of food and necessities. And if what’s happened in Italy is anything to go by, your ability to pop out to the store to get more toilet paper absolutely could go away sometime soon.

An article on Los Angeles News Today continues in the same vein with its own experts chiming in.

Los Angeles County health director Dr. Barbara Ferrer said residents should be prepared just as they should always be for a natural disaster or other emergency.

“That means having some water in your house and some food and your medications that last for a few days,” Ferrer said. “You don’t need to rush out and buy out weeks and weeks worth of supplies, but you (do) need to have what we always ask you to have — enough supplies in your house to get through a few days.” (source)

So, according to them, you only need to be prepared for a few days. No biggie.

Stocking up is occurring around the world.

Wise people around the world are gathering up supplies. According to the Nielsen consumer market research agency, the spread of the coronavirus has folks everywhere “actively stockpiling emergency supplies.”

“They’re also starting to think beyond emergency items, such as basic foodstuffs, including canned goods, flour, sugar and bottled water,” according to Nielsen. “Concerns are having a ripple effect into non-food essentials as well. In the U.S., sales of supplements, fruit snacks and first aid kits, for example, are all on the rise.”

The agency noted “significant spikes” in hoarding of emergency supplies in China, the United States and Italy, “where consumers are rushing to build what are being labeled ‘pandemic pantries.”(source)

Of course, what they call hoarding, I’d call preparing for the worst.

Did you notice a word being repeatedly used?

The word “hoarding” is being repeatedly used throughout news reports. They’re already working to paint preppers as bad and selfish people. They’re already vilifying those who hurry out to fill any gaps in their supplies. They’re making it seem like a mental illness to get prepared for what could potentially be a long stretch of time at home with only the supplies you have on hand.

This is a frequent trick of propagandists everywhere. Repeat a word often enough and suddenly everyone begins using it. Everyone begins to believe that the people labeled with an ugly word are terrible, selfish, and threats to decency.

A friend of mine wrote about an article she had read:

There’s a single quote that sticks out to me:
“The government ended up subsidizing masks so that every family could have them after people decided to hoard them like they were bottled water in a storm.”
Do you see what happened there? Those who prepared ahead of time are being vilified. This theme is being repeated over and over again if you start reading what the experts are writing. History tells us that those who are prepared are either hailed the heroes (when they have enough for everyone) or the villains (when they have enough for themselves).
This is a recurring theme. Those who prepare are demonized while those who do not are portrayed as victims of the “hoarders.”

Keep listening because you’re going to hear words like “hoarding” and “selfish” a lot more often as this situation continues to evolve.

State governments and the CDC are at odds

State health officials in places like Hawaii and Minnesota have recommended that residents get prepared for what could be a bumpy ride. Residents of those states are paying attention and stocking up.

The CDC (irresponsibly) couldn’t disagree more. (You know, the same CDC that’s been sending out a faulty Covid-19 test all this time.) They are literally telling people not to stock up.

CDC Director Robert Redfield on Thursday told a U.S. congressional hearing that there was no need for healthy Americans to stock up on any supplies.

“We should have one unified message,” said Robyn Gershon, a clinical professor of epidemiology at New York University. “When there’s an absence of a good, strong and reassuring official voice, people will get more upset and start doing this magical thinking.” (source)

There, there. Don’t worry. The government will save you. Go order a pizza and don’t worry your silly little head about some virus.

Many see preparation as selfishness.

I’ve gotten comments on my own website and also in the group that I run on Facebook that preparedness is a “selfish” endeavor. And it’s always in the comments that you find out how people really feel, often using MSM talking points as their guides.

There was this rather naive comment on a mainstream article.

The thing I have with INDIVIDUAL preppers is that why not leave it in the store? Why don’t people see the grocery store as a prepper’s storage unit?

Prepping is inherently selfish IMO. (source)

Someone who is no longer in my Facebook group told us.

You people are part of the problem. You go out and hoard things when it wouldn’t hurt you to leave some stuff on the shelf for other people. If there aren’t enough supplies for everyone, it is selfish for you to only think of your family. What about everyone else’s family? Oh right, you only care about yourself.

A commenter on my own website said:

What a bunch of selfish jerks you all are. You don’t need 10 packages of toilet paper at a time. What about the other people who can’t afford ten packs of toilet paper?

The author of an article about being in quarantine finds those stocking up to be selfish, too, which is kind of mind-boggling when you not this author is in the position in which we all worry about finding ourselves.

 I was sorely disappointed by the amount of items that were out of stock after Singaporeans rushed to buy a whole plethora of goods (including instant noodles and toilet paper) when DORSCON Orange happened.

Given such uncertain times, I can empathise with the panic. But I couldn’t help but feel that this hoarding mentality is really selfish.

Because this means that a good portion of people–those on their weekly grocery runs or others like myself looking to get groceries delivered as I am unable to leave the house–cannot get their hands on essentials. (source)

Watch closely. You will see the word “selfish” getting thrown around right up there with “hoarding.”

These people are wrong.

Currently, thousands of people in the United States are spending weeks at home under self-quarantine. I’ll bet if you asked them, there are probably all sorts of things they wish they had on hand right now, and this is even with the ability to order things that can be delivered to their doorsteps. What would happen if all of us within a region faced the type of lockdown happening in northern Italy where there are potential criminal penalties for being out unnecessarily? Wouldn’t you then wish you had made that last-minute run to the store?

Stocking up is the responsible thing to do. It means that your family will not be dependent on government services. It means that nobody has to run out in the middle of a pandemic because there’s not any Tylenol and somebody has a fever. It means you don’t have to risk infection in order to have food for your children.

Stocking up to care for yourself means that you won’t be a drain on those limited government resources being dispensed and there will be more for people who did not prepare. It means you don’t need to order deliveries, causing some other person to risk their own health bringing supplies to you after things get bad.

Stocking up is practical. Whether you’ve done it over a period of years, as most of us have, or whether you’re topping up now (which I’m doing since I’ve been traveling for quite some time and I want to make sure my daughter’s place is well-supplied), taking the steps you need to be prepared is the height of personal responsibility.

There’s one really good mainstream article on Scientific American that talks about the wisdom of stocking up. Aside from that, the mainstream is studded with the usual mockery toward the self-reliant.

Panic buying vs. Prepping

Some folks have noted that what is going on right now as shelves get emptied across the country is not prepping – it’s panic buying. While there’s a little bit of truth to that, I’d still rather see people in the stores getting what they need than waiting for a handout.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve hit the stores myself to replenish a stockpile that my youngest daughter has been using. I’m certainly not panicking but I’d be a fool not to fill in some gaps.

Whether you’ve had your supplies sitting there for a year or you just picked them up over the previous week, I commend you for making the effort to get prepared for what could possibly be a lengthy period of quarantine.

Is it better to do this far in advance? Sure. Is it better to do this at the last minute than not at all? Also, sure. For those who have waited longer than might be ideal, check out this guide for panic preppers and this guide that offers substitutes when the merchandise at the store is picked over.

The media will try to make us look bad…again.

Regardless of how the Covid-19 outbreak plays out in the United States, rest assured that those who prepared will be painted with a dark brush by the media. This is one of those situations in which OpSec is of primary importance. You don’t want your unprepared neighbor to know you’re doing just fine with your canned goods and dried fruit after they failed to go to the store.

Our first responsibility is always, without fail, to our own families.

Don’t let the mainstream media try and tell you otherwise.

Article source: The Organic Prepper

Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, voluntaryism, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper. She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, PreppersDailyNews.com. Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find her on FacebookPinterest, and Twitter.

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.


“How Do I Pay for This?”: Shocking Cost of Mandatory Coronavirus Testing is Bad for Everyone

By Jake Johnson

Natural Blaze Editor’s Note: This article is posted purely as an alert to those who may not be aware of these costs; all other opinions expressed or implied remain with the author and Common Dreams, where this article first appeared.

Public health advocates, experts, and others are demanding that the federal government cover coronavirus testing and all related costs after several reports detailed how Americans in recent weeks have been saddled with exorbitant bills following medical evaluations.

Sarah Kliff of the New York Times reported Saturday that Pennsylvania native Frank Wucinski “found a pile of medical bills” totaling $3,918 waiting for him and his three-year-old daughter after they were released from government-mandated quarantine at Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, California.

“My question is why are we being charged for these stays, if they were mandatory and we had no choice in the matter?” asked Wucinski, who was evacuated by the U.S. government last month from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.

“I assumed it was all being paid for,” Wucinski told the Times. “We didn’t have a choice. When the bills showed up, it was just a pit in my stomach, like, ‘How do I pay for this?’”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing, according to Business Insider. “But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof,” Business Insider noted. “A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or conditions.”

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told the Times that “the most important rule of public health is to gain the cooperation of the population.”

“There are legal, moral, and public health reasons not to charge the patients,” Gostin said.

In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that “the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598 for taking them to the hospital.”

“An additional $90 in charges came from radiologists who read the patients’ X-ray scans and do not work for the hospital,” Kliff noted.

The CDC declined to respond when Kliff asked whether the federal government would cover the costs for patients like the Wucinskis.

The Intercept’s Robert Mackey wrote last Friday that the Wucinskis’ situation spotlights “how the American government’s response to a public health emergency, like trying to contain a potential coronavirus epidemic, could be handicapped by relying on a system built around private hospitals and for-profit health insurance providers.”

Last week, the Miami Herald reported that Osmel Martinez Azcue “received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270” after he visited a local hospital fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China.

“He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room,” according to the Herald. “Nurses in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff members told him he’d need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first.”

Azcue tested positive for the flu and was discharged. “Azcue’s experience shows the potential cost of testing for a disease that epidemiologists fear may develop into a public health crisis in the U.S.,” the Herald noted.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, highlighted Azcue’s case in a tweet last Friday.

The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. surged by more than two dozen over the weekend, bringing the total to 89 as the Trump administration continues to publicly downplay the severity of the outbreak.

Dr. Matt McCarthy, a staff physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, said in an appearance on CNBC‘s “Squawk Box” Monday morning that testing for the coronavirus is still not widely available.

“Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing patients,” McCarthy said. “I still do not have a rapid diagnostic test available to me.”

“I’m here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, I don’t have it at my finger tips,” added McCarthy. “I still have to make my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88 cases in the United States. There are going to be hundreds by middle of week. There’s going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing issue.”

By Jake Johnson | CommonDreams.org | Creative Commons

Article sourced from The Mind Unleashed.

Top Photo credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Teresa J. Cleveland

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.


Scientists Infect Monkeys With Coronavirus in Search of a Cure for COVID-19

By John Vibes

While many people around the world have just recently become familiar with the term “coronavirus,” it is a classification that describes a number of different illnesses which range in severity from the common cold, to the newly discovered COVID-19 novel coronavirus that has dominated international headlines over the past month.

Researchers around the world are taking different approaches to develop a possible cure or vaccine for the illness as it continues to quickly spread across the planet.

A controversial approach taken by scientists at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) was detailed in a study published earlier this month in the journal PNAS.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In the study, 18 rhesus macaque monkeys were intentionally infected with the MERS-CoV coronavirus, also known as the Middle East respiratory syndrome. MERS is one of the most deadly strains of coronavirus, and has been known to lead to pneumonia, fever and even organ failure. However, human-to-human transmission is far less common with the MERS strain than we have seen with the new COVID-19 strain, so it is far less contagious.

Researchers treated the infected monkeys with an experimental vaccine called remdesivir, which has been shown to be effective for multiple different coronavirus strains.

The researchers found that the experimental drug was also effective at treating the monkeys in their study that were infected with MERS. This has led the team to conclude that this drug could be effective at treating the new COVID-19 coronavirus strain.

The conclusion of the study stated that:

Taken together, the data presented here on the efficacy of remdesivir in prophylactic and therapeutic treatment regimens, the difficulty of coronaviruses to acquire resistance to remdesivir , and the availability of human safety data warrant testing of the efficacy of remdesivir treatment in the context of a MERS clinical trial. Our results, together with replication inhibition by remdesivir of a wide range of coronaviruses in vitro and in vivo, may further indicate utility of remdesivir against the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV emerging from Wuhan, China.

The monkeys who took part in the experiment were euthanized shortly after the study was completed.

By John Vibes | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.


CDC Begins Testing Americans for the Coronavirus—But How?

By Jon Rappoport

As my readers know, I’ve been presenting evidence AGAINST the idea that the China “epidemic” is caused by a new coronavirus. (archive here)

Of course, the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control are relentlessly pushing the idea that: this is a spreading epidemic, and it is caused by COVID-19, a new human coronavirus.

Now, the US Centers for Disease Control is rolling out a program to test Americans (e.g., travelers who have been to China). As time passes, the program will likely pull larger numbers of Americans into that net.

The CDC program immediately raises two problems: why bother testing for a virus if it isn’t really causing human disease; and what kind of test is being done?

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In this article, I’m focusing on the type of test, and whether it’s accurate, even if you assume the coronavirus is causing disease.

Reading through CDC literature (see also here), I believe the two most prevalent US testing methods are: antibody, and PCR.

Antibody tests are notorious for cross-reactions. This means factors in no way relevant to a given virus can make the test read positive. In that case, the patient would be falsely told he “has the coronavirus.” But it gets worse. Traditionally, antibody tests reading positive were taken as a good sign for the patient: his immune system had contacted a germ and defeated it. Then, starting in 1984, the science was turned upside down: a positive test was, astoundingly, taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.

The PCR test (which requires excellent technicians who will not make any number of possible mistakes) takes a tissue sample from a patient which might contain a tiny virus particle(s) much too small to be observed—and blows it up many times, so it can be seen. However, the test says nothing reliable about HOW MUCH virus is in the patient’s body. Why is that important? Because millions and millions of replicating virus in the body are necessary to even begin talking about actual illness. A positive PCR test, nevertheless, will be taken to mean the patient “has the epidemic disease.” —An even deeper issue: where is the PRIOR PROOF that the PCR is testing for a virus that actually causes disease?

The prospect of these two tests being done on Americans is not comforting, to say the least. People will be roped into believing they are “epidemic cases,” and therefore need to be isolated, and treated with highly toxic antiviral drugs.

In the event they become ill, from the drugs, they’ll be told “the coronavirus is doing the damage.” In some cases, this will result in even further dosing with the same drugs, at higher levels—a disaster.

A very small percentage of doctors are aware of the profound shortcomings of these two diagnostic tests. Most of them will shrug off their doubts and perform the tests anyway, because refusal would endanger their careers and medical licenses.

This is the sordid drama now unfolding in the American landscape.

It’s not just America. The same tests are being done all over the world.

(To join Jon’s email list, click here.)

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.


Report Accuses China of “Burning Bodies” to Cover Up Coronavirus Death Toll as Emergency Declared

By Matt Agorist

Over the past several days, the coronavirus crisis has escalated dramatically. On Thursday, the World Health Organization declared a global public health emergency. Then Thursday night, U.S. officials issued a “do not travel” advisory to China. All of this is unfolding as the death toll more than doubled since Monday and China is accused of covering it up by “burning bodies in secret.”

The WHO’s declaration — officially called a Public Health Emergency of International Concern — serves notice to all United Nations member states that the world’s top health advisory body rates the situation as serious. Countries can now decide whether to close their borders, cancel flights, screen people arriving at airports or take other measures. It appears that the U.S. is taking partial action based on this recommendation.

Before we go on, it is important to note that TFTP is not attempting to fear monger about this outbreak. We are only presenting facts drawn on from multiple sources. Originally, the coronavirus hype appeared to be just that. It looked like another promoted illness pushed by the media to incite hysteria to drive traffic to their organizations. But things have changed dramatically over the past several days.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The latest Hubei figures take the total death toll for China to at least 212. China’s National Health Commission is expected to release new national figures later on Friday, according to Reuters. If we compare that to the death toll on Monday, it has more than doubled, giving cause for concern.

For those who may be unaware, there are multiple coronaviruses. According to health experts, most humans will encounter a coronavirus in their lifetime which causes respiratory infections which are typically mild including the common cold. However, what we are seeing now, with Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), appears to be much different and also appears to be spreading almost exponentially. 

Infographic: Confirmed Coronavirus Cases | Statista

The reaction from China alone should raise serious eyebrows. In response to the outbreak in China, cities with a combined population over 57 million people including Wuhan — which is reportedly ground zero for the virus — and 15 cities in the surrounding Hubei province were placed on full or partial lockdown, involving the termination of all urban public transport and outward transport by train, air and long-distance buses. They have become ghost towns.

Unconfirmed videos have been flooding social media allegedly showing people collapsing in lines at hospitals waiting for care. And reports of mass arrests and incarceration for people spreading “misinformation” in China have increased.

Many of those who have been arrested are reportedly doctors. It is important to note that although the Chinese government is referring to these social media posts as hoaxes or misinformation, they also take this approach with factual information on a regular basis.

Also, this week, a report surfaced which accused China of deliberately concealing the death toll by “burning bodies in secret” before they are attributed to the coronavirus.

As the NZ Herald reported this week:

Doubts have been raised about the official death toll, however, with claims Chinese authorities have been cremating bodies in secret.

Chinese-language news outlet Initium interviewed people working at local cremation centers in Wuhan, who said bodies were being sent directly from hospitals without being properly identified and added to the official record.

“So there are reasons to remain skeptical about what China has been sharing with the world because while they have been more transparent about certain things related to the virus, they continue to be sketchy and unreliable in other aspects,” said DW News East Asia correspondent William Yang.

According to Reuters, there have been nearly 100 confirmed cases of the virus in 18 other countries as well. What’s more, the CDC reported on Thursday that the first human-to-human transmission of the deadly Wuhan coronavirus has occurred in the U.S.

The good news is that, according to the NY Times, the disease appears to be spreading far slower in the US and people who have not had close contact with someone who recently traveled to China are unlikely to get infected.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project, where this article first appeared. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.