As a warm-up to Carl’s appearance at the Covid Inquiry next week. Tom takes on the role of chief inquisitor, asking questions about CH’s expertise and the role of testing in the Pandemic. As usual, comments are appreciated. Day 13 Covid Inqiury Timetable
Please subscribe to this excellent fact based and informative podcast to hear common sense evidence based information by Prof Carl Heneghan which help to inform your own health decisions
Prof Heneghan has good answers, but I very much fear he will be asked the wrong questions. So far,those asking the questions seem to have already made up their minds that they are looking to blame someone, anyone, for not acting fast enough in implementing restrictions and tests, rather than whether those tests or restrictions have any scientific evidence of efficacy. I hope and pray that Carl can help the inquiry carry out its work in an unbiased - evidence based -manner!!
If there hadn't been any testing, would we have ever seen this 'PHEIC' pandemic?
It's astonishing, all the testing of people without symptoms, with supposed 'positive' tests being used to quarantine, aka imprison, people who weren't even sick!
Testing, social distancing...it's all a scam - when is someone in the scientific/medical establishment effectively going to call this out for what it is - the biggest crime in history!
Via the rubbish testing, people's free movement and association was stolen from them.
People were denied contact with sick and elderly loved ones...humanity was denied.
This so grotesque.
Who did this to us? This destruction of society. This is what must be exposed now...
Go back to the beginning and look at the timeline - what was the justification for the mass population testing around the world, and the 'vaccine solution' - against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious threat to most people...
Lay people were onto this from the beginning, see for example my BMJ rapid responses:
Thanks for this episode which confirms so much that a feared was true. Your calm careful approach is much appreciated.
But I do worry that, by getting distracted by detail and analogy, your important points do not come over clearly.
I think you confirmed that if you are found to be PCR+ve more that 8 days after symptom onset you are unlikely to still be infectious. This is more relevant if your test was +ve at more that 28 cycles.
I think it follows that if PCR+ve but you never had any symptoms your viral load is probably low and you are unlikely to be infectious.
In my opinion, it's this last point which is crucial to understanding the futility of our pandemic response.
Many people I know, who were +ve (with a high cycle threshold), self-isolated, and didn't attend work, believing they were infectious even though they never suffered any symptoms.
-How familiar are the people in the hearing with medical jargon? Not saying you should dumb down at all, but do they know when you talk about CT as in cycle threshold?
- regarding testing. The emphasis you put on interpretation of a test result in the context of the individual is crucial.
Testing was used as a ‘screening’-test. Normally ‘screening’ is followed up with further investigation. In SARS-Cov2 the minute you tested positive you were regarded as a ‘biohazard’ and in my view this was completely wrong for 2 reasons, aside from the issue of false positive tests and the risks associated from an asymptomatic positive person.
First of all the first message should have been ‘if ill stay at home’ and this message was not as strong as it should have been. Secondly, could you argue that people carrying a low viral load may have helped the development of herd immunity if they had just lived life as normal? But then again the low viral load may not have led to immunity?
As ever it is complicated.
Do you know time and date when you have to give evidence?
Please subscribe to this excellent fact based and informative podcast to hear common sense evidence based information by Prof Carl Heneghan which help to inform your own health decisions
Prof Heneghan has good answers, but I very much fear he will be asked the wrong questions. So far,those asking the questions seem to have already made up their minds that they are looking to blame someone, anyone, for not acting fast enough in implementing restrictions and tests, rather than whether those tests or restrictions have any scientific evidence of efficacy. I hope and pray that Carl can help the inquiry carry out its work in an unbiased - evidence based -manner!!
If there hadn't been any testing, would we have ever seen this 'PHEIC' pandemic?
It's astonishing, all the testing of people without symptoms, with supposed 'positive' tests being used to quarantine, aka imprison, people who weren't even sick!
Testing, social distancing...it's all a scam - when is someone in the scientific/medical establishment effectively going to call this out for what it is - the biggest crime in history!
Via the rubbish testing, people's free movement and association was stolen from them.
People were denied contact with sick and elderly loved ones...humanity was denied.
This so grotesque.
Who did this to us? This destruction of society. This is what must be exposed now...
Go back to the beginning and look at the timeline - what was the justification for the mass population testing around the world, and the 'vaccine solution' - against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious threat to most people...
Lay people were onto this from the beginning, see for example my BMJ rapid responses:
- Is it ethical to impeded access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2, 25 March 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
- Looking at Sweden, COVID-19 and vitamin D... 13 July 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2475/rr-12
- Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly? 5 August 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l108/rr-4
- Why do we need a vaccine for Covid-19? 1 September 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-9
- Re: Covid-19 vaccines...or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines? Clarification needed, 21 September 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-14
- SARS-CoV-2 virus - disproportionate and ill-targeted response, 5 October 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3511/rr-0
- Covid-19 - "much to gain, by taking vitamin D supplements..." 5 October 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3790/rr-0
- Five years imprisonment and/or a $66,600 fine for refusing coronavirus vaccination? 30 October 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258/rr-17
- Who are the members of SAGE? There must be transparency and accountability for coronavirus policy, 6 November 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4235/rr-1
- Coronavirus mass testing - a gross waste of money and resources, 27 November 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4460/rr-2
- Liberal democracies being turned upside down to 'protect health services', 18 December 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4847/rr-16
- Is it ethical to include children in the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials? 5 February 2021: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86/rr-2
Responce
Thanks for this episode which confirms so much that a feared was true. Your calm careful approach is much appreciated.
But I do worry that, by getting distracted by detail and analogy, your important points do not come over clearly.
I think you confirmed that if you are found to be PCR+ve more that 8 days after symptom onset you are unlikely to still be infectious. This is more relevant if your test was +ve at more that 28 cycles.
I think it follows that if PCR+ve but you never had any symptoms your viral load is probably low and you are unlikely to be infectious.
In my opinion, it's this last point which is crucial to understanding the futility of our pandemic response.
Many people I know, who were +ve (with a high cycle threshold), self-isolated, and didn't attend work, believing they were infectious even though they never suffered any symptoms.
I listened to your warm up session.
I have a few comments.
-How familiar are the people in the hearing with medical jargon? Not saying you should dumb down at all, but do they know when you talk about CT as in cycle threshold?
- regarding testing. The emphasis you put on interpretation of a test result in the context of the individual is crucial.
Testing was used as a ‘screening’-test. Normally ‘screening’ is followed up with further investigation. In SARS-Cov2 the minute you tested positive you were regarded as a ‘biohazard’ and in my view this was completely wrong for 2 reasons, aside from the issue of false positive tests and the risks associated from an asymptomatic positive person.
First of all the first message should have been ‘if ill stay at home’ and this message was not as strong as it should have been. Secondly, could you argue that people carrying a low viral load may have helped the development of herd immunity if they had just lived life as normal? But then again the low viral load may not have led to immunity?
As ever it is complicated.
Do you know time and date when you have to give evidence?