Herd Immunity Ratio

As an intellectual exercise let’s think of an imaginary state, “State A.” Our fictional State A is devastated that 100 of its citizens are infected with Covid-19. For this exercise, we accept that these 100 citizens are representative of State A‘s demography, classes, ethnicities and so on. Apparently, State A’s nightmare is just the beginning because out of its 100 Covid-19 carriers, not one survives the next three weeks.

Let’s now imagine another case, we will call “State B.” State B is similar to state A in terms of its size, population, geography, climate, culture, ethnicity, nutrition, etc. In State B 100 citizens also tested positive for Covid-19. Following the experience of State A, State B braces itself for the possibility that all its infected citizens may perish but then for reasons that are not yet clear to us, no one in state B dies. And if this is not different enough, hardly any of the 100 develop any symptoms.

The crude difference between State A and B may tell us something about the herd immunity in States A and B. It is easy to detect that the ratio created by the number of fatalities (F) divided by the number of those infected (I) is an indication of the level of immunity or ‘herd immunity’ in a given region or a state.

State A: F/I = 100/100=1
State B: F/I = 0/100=0

State A’s immunity ratio equals 1. This means that anyone who contracts the virus in State A will likely die. In state B, on the other hand, one is likely to survive the virus. In fact, they may, without knowing it, have already survived.

But let us now consider some more realistic cases. In “State C,” again, a state similar to A and B, out of 100 who tested Covid-19 positive, 10 people died within the next few weeks.

State C: F/I=10/100=0.1

The herd immunity ratio in State C is 0.1. In terms of herd immunity, State C is far better off than State A as a virally infected subject may benefit from a 0.9 chance to survive. But State C’s situation is not as good as in State B where no one is expected to die as the F/I ratio in State B is O. We can see that the smaller the F/I ratio is, the greater is the herd immunity in a given state or a region.

But let us look at another realistic case. In “State D” out of 100 patients only 1 died within a few weeks.

State D: F/I=1/100=0.01.

This means that in State D the herd immunity is close to perfect. Someone who contracts the Covid-19 virus has only a remote chance that he will lose his life. In other words, the survival rate is 0.99

State C and D are not completely imaginary cases. The F/I ratio in State C is a good representation of the numbers we saw in Northern Italy, NYC, Spain, UK and other vulnerable regions that have suffered heavily in the last few weeks. The ratio in State D is very similar to South Korea and Israel. Though many people are identified with Covid-19 in these two states alone, very few have died.

Such a methodical search for herd immunity ratio may help to identify the survival rate in different states, regions and cities. It may help us to determine policy; to decide who, what and how to lockdown or maybe not to lockdown at all. It can also help to locate the origin and the spreaders of the disease as we have a good reason to believe that the regions with the most immunity to a given viral infection have likely experienced the disease in the past and have developed some form of resistance.

In reality, this model is problematic for many reasons and can hardly be applied. As things stand (in reality), we are comparing data that was collected under different circumstances and using various procedures designed with completely different strategies and philosophies. Both Israel and South Korea, for instance, conducted testing on mass scale and hence, identified many more carriers. More crucially both Israel and S. Korea made a huge effort to identify super spreaders and applied strict isolation measures to those spreaders and those who were infected by them. Britain, USA and Italy on the other hand conducted limited testing and have generally tested those who developed symptoms or were suspected of being infected.

But there is a far greater problem with the above herd immunity ratio model. It assumes that we know what we are dealing with i.e., an infectious viral situation, while the evidence may point otherwise.

The Radioactive Clock

It has become clear that the health crisis we are facing isn’t consistent with anything we are familiar with. Those who predicted a colossally genocidal plague weren’t necessarily stupid or duplicitous. They assumed that they knew the root cause of the current crisis. They applied recognized models and algorithms associated with viral pandemics. They ended up eating their words, not because their models were wrong but because they applied their models to the wrong event. While no one can deny the alarming exponential growth of the disease, it is the unusual ‘premature’ curve-flattening point and then the rapid decline of infections which no one explained. In fact, some still prefer to deny it.

Many of us remember that our so-called ‘experts’ initially tended to accuse China of ‘hiding the real figures’ as no one could believe that the virus, all of a sudden, pretty much ran out of steam. Some also claimed that Iran was faking its figures to make its regime look better. Then came South Korea and the scientific community started to admit that despite its initial rapid exponential growth, for an unexplained reason, the ‘virus’ seems to run out of energy in an unpredictable fashion: the curve straightens out almost abruptly and starts to drop soon after, almost literally disappearing to the point where even a country as enormous as China passes days without diagnosing a single new Covid-19 carrier.

When Italy experienced its Corona carnage, every health ‘expert’ predicted that when the ‘virus’ slipped out of the rich Lombardy region and made it to the poor south, we would see real genocide. That didn’t happen.

We have also started to notice that lockdowns have not necessarily saved the situation and that adopting relatively light ‘lockdown’ measures doesn’t translate into a total disaster as Sweden has managed to prove. The ‘virus,’ appears to stop spreading according to its own terms rather than the terms we impose upon it.

Thinking about the anomalies to do with the virus in analytical mathematical terms, as opposed to seeing the virus in biological or medical terms, has made me believe that a paradigm shift may be inevitable. We seem to have been applying the wrong kind of science to a phenomenon that is not really clear to us. This may explain what led a British ‘scientist’ to reach a ludicrous and farfetched estimate that Britain could be heading towards an astronomic death figure of 510.000. Following the same flawed algorithm, Anthony Fauci advised the American president that America could see two million dead. Both scientists were wrong by a factor of 25-40 times. Such a mistake in scientific prediction should be unforgivable considering the damage it inflicted on the world’s economy and its future. One might say that the good news is that our governments are finally listening to scientists, the tragedy, however, is that they are listening to the most idiotic scientists around.

I ask because just three years ago the USA experienced one of its most severe influenza outbreaks in recent memory. I am talking about the 2017-18 influenza that according to The American Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was associated with “45 million illnesses, 21 million medical visits, 810,000 hospitalizations.” By September 2018 CNN announced that as many as 80.000 were dead for reasons associated with the outbreak.

The number of flu cases that year in the USA alone was about 18 times higher than the current number of Novel Coronavirus cases worldwide (2.5 million so far). The number of hospitalized American patients was more than 4 times higher than those who have been hospitalised in the USA with Coronavirus symptoms (200.000 to date). The fatalities/hospitalized ratio that year was around 0.1, about the same ratio we saw in Northern Italy last month. And if all of that isn’t enough, the number of American fatalities in 2017-18 was more than three times the deaths currently associated with Covid-19.

In case the above has yet to provoke your suspicious grey cells, maybe looking into the age groups of the 2017-18 USA influenza’s victims will do the job. In the 2017-18 influenza, death rates were highest in the over-65 age group. The CDC reports that “people 65 years and older accounted for approximately 58% of reported influenza-associated hospitalizations.” But the story gets even more interesting. In the 2017-18 flu season the second most affected group was those aged 50 to 64. This is actually very unusual for influenza, as normally the second highest death rate occurs in children, from birth through age 4. Contagion-Infectious Disease Today reported in June 2018 that the “ferociousness of the 17-18 flu season overall, combined with above-average impacts on younger baby boomers, made 2017-2018 one for the record books.”

In September 2018 CNN reported that: “Overall, the United States experienced one of the most severe flu seasons in recent decades.” At this stage, I hope it won’t surprise you to find out that pneumonia was the primary fatal complication associated with the 2017 outbreak.

The following may sound like a description of the current Novel Coronavirus pandemic: “The season began with an increase of illness in November; high activity occurred during January and February, and then illness continued through the end of March.” You guessed right, this is not the description of the current global Corona pandemic but actually how CNN described the outbreak of influenza in America in September 2018.

Does it take a genius to figure out that the American 2017-18 influenza outbreak was pretty ‘similar’ to the current Novel Coronavirus epidemic?

The first question that comes to mind is why didn’t America lock itself down amidst its catastrophic 2017-18 influenza as it has now? One may wonder why the CDC didn’t react to the ‘severity’ of the outbreak that was at least three times as lethal as the current Novel Coronavirus health crisis? But, even more disturbing is the fact that despite the severity of the 2017 flu outbreak and its deadly impact, the enormous number of hospitalisations and the infectious rate, the World Health Organisation (WHO) didn’t see the need to alert the world or to close the planet for business as it did this year. Peculiarly, the WHO didn’t even bother to tag the American outbreak as an epidemic or pandemic. It was just an ordinary ‘influenza.’

This makes me wonder, whether it is possible that what we now consider as ‘novel’ Coronavirus isn’t a novel event after all? If this is the case, how is it possible that America failed to respond to a lethal virus that attacked almost 11% of its population and left 80.000 dead? Was it silenced or is it a story of total dysfunctionality on every possible level?

Those who know something about pandemics and, by now, I am not convinced that Anthony Fauci or the WHO fall into this category, tell us that global pandemics in recent decades came in three waves. The first wave is often severe, the second wave is catastrophic and the third wave is relatively light. I wonder whether it is possible that this stage of the corona crisis is actually the second wave rather than a ‘new event’? If this is the case, the first wave was hidden from us by those who claim to be our guardians who defend our planet from viral attacks.

If this scenario is correct, President Trump can save his energy. Trying to shake off his responsibility by putting the blame on China with the hope that the Chinese may decide to build the wall instead of the Mexicans, is not going to work. The American government may want to invest its energy eliminating some of the widely available information about the American 2017-18 Influenza outbreak.

The current corona virus is certainly a global financial disaster but the Black Plague it isn’t. However, it has been very effective in making us all aware of the danger in modern virology affairs and the possible impact of bioweapons and viral engineering. If there is any significance to the present crisis, it is because the government’s reaction ought to be an immediate criminal investigation. Questions must be raised with the WHO. Where were you in 2018? Why didn’t you warn the world? What prevented you from tagging the American influenza outbreak as a pandemic or epidemic? Was it the $400 million the WHO receives annually from the USA government or maybe it has something to do with the WHO’s intimate relationship with the American pharmaceutical industry.

I began by asking whether amnesia is a Covid-19 symptom. The answer is a categorical NO. In 2017-18 America was subject to an alarming health situation far more dangerous than the current coronavirus. But not many in America knew about it. It wasn’t a news item. It is not that we forgot, we never knew. We lived through it despite the fact that it was far more severe than the current crisis. And the next necessary question is who decided to make the current crisis into a phantasmic apocalyptic narrative and why? Soon we will know the answer as it clearly backfired.

In 2002 Arnold S. Relman, a professor of medicine at Harvard University commented that: “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country [USA] are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

Those who are interested in the notion of truth and its pursuit recognize what led Professor Relman to blow the whistle on his profession and its standards. His observation can be applied to almost every academic and research domain. Rather than seeking the truth, what our universities and research institutes do most often is to bend an ‘image of truthfulness’ and an ‘illusion of scientific discourse’ to fit with the interests of those who are powerful enough to dictate their views. We do it to our past (history) and to physics, chemistry, biology, political science, legal studies and most other contemporary scholarly domains.

Yet, although truth is evasive and the subject of relentless assault by those who are supposed to be its guardians, truth survives. Miraculously it manifests a unique and undeniable trait: truth always unveils itself.

Not many living scientists have been subject to as much public hounding as professor Peter Duesberg. Some have come close to accusing the scientist of mass killing. And yet it was Duesberg who, well ahead of most, noted that medical science had gradually become compromised and treacherous in its ethos.

Whether we like to admit it or not, Peter Duesberg predicted the current institutional turmoil to do with Novel Coronavirus and the dangerous conjunction between those who mimic the image of ‘scientific thinking,’ and the pharmaceutical industry and other oligarchs who see financial opportunity in human suffering.

Duesberg is known to many as the ‘HIV Denier.’ In the 1980s, while he was a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, he came to the conclusion that the human immune deficiency virus (HIV) is a harmless passenger virus* and had little to do with the AIDS condition.

I do not have an opinion, nor am I qualified to comment on Duesberg’s scientific theories. Yet, it was Duesberg’s work that alerted many critical minds, including mine, to the disturbing fact that medical science had lost its way. Perhaps to some it is more disturbing that in the long run, it has become clear that whether Dueseberg’s science was right or wrong, the gist of his argument has been adopted by most of us, including those who deny the validity of his science.

Duesberg’s research led him to believe that it wasn’t HIV that caused AIDS, instead he thought it was the lifestyle choices within the male gay community at the time that made this community so vulnerable. He referred primarily to illicit drug use and profligate sexual interactions. He practically blamed the victims, but when the victims made the necessary changes in lifestyle, AIDS somehow became ‘less infectious.’

Duesberg was a romantic 19th century style scientist, he understood the essence of scientific thinking in general and of medical science in particular. He observed that AIDS patients were dying of a variety of diseases that were related to the failure of the immune system, however, the ill only became ‘AIDS victims’ once diagnosed as ‘HIV positive.’ Duesberg smelled a rat already in the 1980s. He grasped that we had accumulated numbers rather than thinking about the problem scientifically. He identified the corrosive role of the pharmaceutical industry and the dangerous impact of world health institutions. Now at the peak of the Corona crisis, many of us can hardly manage to bear the stink of that rat that grew exponentially into a rotten dinosaur.

The medical discipline is traditionally defined as the science of dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention and treatment of disease. Forms of Medical Science have appeared in many different cultures and variations, but throughout, the science is primarily committed to maintaining health and to identifying symptoms and defining a course of treatment.

There are two crucial parts to medicine, 1.the diagnosis – the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms. 2. The course of action. We understand that Western medicine existed successfully before we possessed the means to conduct forensic ‘viral tests’ whether for HIV or Covid 19. In 1917, at the time of the Spanish Flu, patients were diagnosed as carriers of the disease without the help of ‘bio-labs’ and forensic tests. The same applies to malaria, pneumonia, different cancers and so on. They were then treated according to the knowledge and means available.

It should be embarrassing to admit that four month after the outbreak of the contemporary health crisis, and over a century after the Spanish Flu, medical science and the public health authorities haven’t progressed much. They probably have less of an understanding of the philosophy at the core of their profession. We see governments desperate to put their hands on ventilators and CV19 tests just to find out that ventilators are actually deadly and the tests do not really work. In fact, we learn, just a bit too late, that putting patients on their belly often achieves better results than a ventilator. As in the case of AIDS we insist upon reducing a difficult situation involving a manifold of symptoms and complex implications into a Covid-19 ‘binary test.’

Duesberg didn’t deny that young males were dying in large numbers from a score of infectious diseases in the 1980s. What he doubted was whether it was all caused by a single mysterious virus. He believed, and with reason, that the human experience and human health are complex and cannot be reduced into binary reasoning or a single factor. Duesburg, like Relman a decade and a half later, realised that medical science in the West has been compromised. Instead of the maintenance of health and diagnosis and treatment of disease, it has committed itself to the maintenance of the pharmaceutical industry and other satellite institutions associated with that corrupt universe.

Peter Duesberg wasn’t the first to point at the collapse of the medical scientific ethos. Notably, the Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger realised in the early days of the 20th century that medical science was about to lose its bond with a holistic understanding of the human as an organism and was destined to morph into “a matter of drugs, a mere administration of chemicals.” It seems likely Duesberg would have found common ground with Weininger.

Some Americans were upset in the last few days by the fact that many fatalities in NYC were added to the Corona victims’ list despite the fact that they never tested positive. I hold the opposite view. Medical science can operate perfectly well without Covid-19 tests. In Britain we trust members of the general public to diagnose themselves as Covid-19 carriers and to self -isolate accordingly. If a Brit can diagnose himself as a carrier of a lethal virus without a test, we should assume that an educated American medical professional can do the same for a patient.

In this interview I elabore together with Jason Liosatos on the prospects of a Corona paradigm shift, escalating the crisis into a criminal investigation. Is it a bio-lab accident, or may be a bio-weapon mutating into a mass killer? Who should investigate the possible culprit(s)? I offer some basic mathematical tools that could help to track down and identify the possible origin of the virus. If you regard yourself as a critical being you may enjoy this conversation.

We have recently heard from frontline medical physicians that the current global health crisis is something they have not been trained to deal with nor do they fully understand the spectrum of symptoms they encounter in hospitals and emergency centres. Earlier this week, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, an emergency physician affiliated with Maimonides Medical Center (Brooklyn), posted two insightful videos urging health practitioners to accept that COVID-19 does not cause any form of pneumonia. Instead, the virus causes a condition of oxygen deprivation, and ventilators as they are currently being used, may cause more harm than good for some patients.

What Dr. Kyle-Sidell suggests is a paradigm change in the perception of the current endemic. Kyle-Sidell is not alone, the few doctors who allow themselves to discuss the situation in a critical manner admit that medical science is perplexed by the virus.

One would assume that if the virus at the centre of the current epidemic was an unsavoury present from ‘mother nature’ we would be able to trace its evolution. We likely would have seen the gradual appearance of some of the new symptoms that have caught our medical establishment unprepared. It doesn’t seem this happened. In the view of many medical practitioners the new disease is in a category of its own. It is a novelty.

This means that it is possible that the Corona virus wasn’t created by nature but by creatures who believe themselves to be greater than nature.

In light of the above, I offer my paradigm change, one that is probably more radical than what Dr. Kyle-Sidell may have had in mind.

Since we do not know its provenance, we should treat the current epidemic as a potentially criminal act as well as a medical event. We must begin the search for the perpetrators who may be at the centre of this possible crime of global genocidal proportions.

While medical diagnosis is defined by:

1. a determination of the nature of the cause of a disease.
2. a concise technical description of the cause, nature, and/or manifestations of the symptoms.

Criminal investigations are primarily engaged with the human element. The criminal investigator seeks to ascertain the methods, motives, and identities of criminals, the identity of victims and may also search for and interrogate witnesses to the crime.

Treating the Corona virus as a crime would mean searching for possible offenders: individuals, institutions, or states that may have created the lethal virus as part of a research program or more directly, as an agent of biological warfare.

Law enforcement agencies often allocate dozens of investigators, officers, detectives and agents to untangle a single homicide. One would expect that following the deaths of tens of thousands around the globe, every police force, government and intelligence agency would join forces in the attempt to identify the possible culprit(s) at the root of the coronavirus crisis. We may be dealing with a negligent or criminal event on a massive scale.

While scientists and medical experts find it difficult to explain exactly how Covid-19 operates or how it came about, a few critical voices within the scientific community and the dissident media have pointed to alternative explanations that seem more explanatory than anything conventional medical thought has so far offered.

Some claim that G5 radiation is at the core of the new epidemic. I do not have any intention nor am in any position to comment on the topic, however, considering the scale of death we are dealing with, a criminal investigation may have to look closely into such a possibility: identifying the danger, identifying the possible motive and spotting the financial benefactors as well as beneficiaries.

A number of scientists have commented that laboratories and research centres have been engaged in the study of corona viruses and experimented with models that resemble the current virus. Specifically, some have pointed to a North Carolina laboratory that experimented with the viruses extracted from bats in 2015.

Back in 2015 USA Today published extensive research relating to the ongoing safety issues in biological laboratories in America and elsewhere. “Vials of bioterror bacteria have gone missing. Lab mice infected with deadly viruses have escaped, and wild rodents have been found making nests with research waste. Cattle infected in a university’s vaccine experiments were repeatedly sent to slaughter and their meat sold for human consumption. Gear meant to protect lab workers from lethal viruses such as Ebola and bird flu has failed, repeatedly.” The American outlet revealed that “hundreds of lab mistakes, safety violations and near-miss incidents have occurred in biological laboratories coast to coast in recent years, putting scientists, their colleagues and sometimes even the public at risk.” Naturally, safety failures in biological laboratories aren’t just an American problem. “A small, deadly outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in China in 2004 was traced to lab workers at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing. In 2007, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease among cattle in England that required herds to be slaughtered was blamed on leaking drainage pipes at a nearby research complex.”

In 2014 the US National Institute of Health removed its funding of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving the influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Gain-of-function involves activating mutations to change the gene product to enhance its effect or so that its normal actions are superseded by a different and abnormal function. Apparently, the National Institute of Health’s moratorium ended on Dec. 19, 2017 when the US announced that it would resume funding American gain-of-function experiments involving these viruses. This means that since 2017 some American laboratories have been experimenting with Corona viruses; creating mutants with the financial support of the government.

Treating the Corona virus outbreak as a crime ought to include a visit by the FBI to the office of the National Institute of Health and a careful review of all the files related to American laboratories conducting GOF experiments with Coronavirus. This investigative procedure must be exercised in every region and country in the world that has engaged in GOF experiments.

As soon as the Corona virus became the new disaster, Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, was quick to point to China’s biowarfare program as a possible originator of the virus.

By now, with the exception of President Trump and his Pompeo character, not many are convinced that Covid-19 is a Chinese Virus (as Trump refers to it when he wants to annoy progressives). A criminal investigation would have to examine Chinese as well as Russian, British, French, German, etc. laboratories and their safety records. It should also verify whether Dany Shoham had any evidence for his assertion regarding China or whether he was attempting to divert attention from another possible suspect in this Corona affair.

Israel, with its extensive biological warfare laboratories and WMD facilities must also be subject to thorough scrutiny.