Almost a year after the first Covid-19 case was reported in Wuhan City, China and caused an unprecedented global panic, a group of scientists made the first crucial breakthrough by determining that the virus is not spread by a-symptomatic transmission.
This groundbreaking finding of the study, performed by 19 scientists from China, the UK and Australia in which almost 10 million people participated, change the entire protocol regarding preventative measures to curb the spreading of the virus - including mask-wearing, lockdowns and social distancing.
The first human cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19, subsequently named SARS-CoV-2 were first reported by officials in Wuhan City, China, in December 2019.
WUHAN, China, December 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) –
A study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan, China, found that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 did not occur at all, thus undermining the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people.
Published in November in the scientific journal Nature Communications, the paper was compiled by 19 scientists, mainly from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, but also from scientific institutions across China as well as in the U.K. and Australia. It focused on the residents of Wuhan, ground zero for COVID-19, where 9,899,828 people took part in a screening program between May 14 and June 1, which provided clear results as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.
Asymptomatic transmission has been the underlying justification of lockdowns enforced all across the world. The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still states that the virus “can be spread by people who do not have symptoms.” In fact, the CDC claimed that asymptomatic people “are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of transmissions.”
U.K. Health Secretary Matt Hancock also promoted this message, explaining that the concept of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 led to the U.K. advocating masks and referring to the “problem of asymptomatic transmission.”
However, the new study in Nature Communications, titled “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China,” debunked the concept of asymptomatic transmission.
It stated that out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Contact tracing was then carried out and of those 300, no cases of COVID-19 were detected in any of them. “A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.”
Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for two weeks, and after the fortnight, the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”
Further evidence showed that “virus cultures” in the positive and repositive asymptomatic cases were all negative, “indicating no ‘viable virus' in positive cases detected in this study.”
Ages of those found to be asymptomatic ranged between 10 and 89, with the asymptomatic positive rate being “lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below” and highest rate found among people older than 60.
The study also made the realization that due to a weakening of the virus itself, “newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases.”
These results are not without precedent. In June, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, shed doubt upon asymptomatic transmission. Speaking at a press conference, Van Kerkhove explained, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
She then repeated the words “It’s very rare,” but despite her word choice of “rare,” Van Kerkhove could not point to a single case of asymptomatic transmission, noting that numerous reports “were not finding secondary transmission onward.”
Her comments went against the predominant narrative justifying lockdowns, and at the time the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) highlighted that “she undermined the last bit of rationale there could be for lockdowns, mandated masks, social distancing regulation, and the entire apparatus of compulsion and coercion under which we’ve lived for three months.”
Swift to act, the WHO performed a U-turn, and the next day Van Kerkhove then declared that asymptomatic transmission was a “really complex question … We don’t actually have that answer yet.”
“I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies,” she added.
However, the new Wuhan study seems to present solid, scientific evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not just rare but nonexistent. Given that it found “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the study raises important questions about lockdowns.
Commenting on the study, The Conservative Tree House noted that “all of the current lockdown regulations, mask wearing requirements and social distancing rules/decrees are based on a complete fallacy of false assumptions.” The evidence presented in the study shows that “‘very rare’ actually means ‘never’ asymptomatic spread just doesn’t happen – EVER.”
Such a large scientific study of 10 million people should not be overlooked, Jeffrey Tucker argued in the AIER, as it should be “huge news,” paving the way “to open up everything immediately.” Yet media reports have been virtually nonexistent and “ignored,” a fact that Tucker explained: “The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage.”
The recent findings should enable society to reopen once more, according to the AIER. Without asymptomatic transmission, “the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns,” life should resume and “we could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others.”
“We keep hearing about how we should follow the science,” Tucker added. “The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.”
He closed his commentary with the question: “With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: Who is making decisions and why?"
No Covid-19 cases
Amazing how quickly the COVID-19 phenomenon paralyzed and bankrupted the economy for most small and medium-sized businesses and forced everybody indoors to work "online" from home . . . while the stock markets clearly show which two industries are enjoying the biggest boom in history since Wuhan cried COVID!
The telecommunication and pharmaceutical tycoons will not allow ANYTHING to kill or curb this magic money-spinning bug that kick-started the global implementation of the new PR buzz words - "New Normal, Internet of Things, New World Order, Fourth Industrial Revolution, Pandemic, Social Distancing, Covi-pass, Vaccination."
Covid is here to stay and so-called "new waves" and outbreaks will continuously justify more lockdowns, economic crashes and political unrest until at least 50% of the world population has been bankrupted and vaccinated and so demoralized that they will welcome the New World Order and Economic Reset . . .
Big Pharma unscathed by Covid-19 crisis as market caps soar in Q2 2020
Big Tech’s Investments Surge Amid The Pandemic. Here’s Where They’re Placing Bets
THIS is MY generation's legacy to our children and future generations?
People who STILL believe one or other instant vaccine hastily manufactured by "caring philanthropists" will "end the pandemic" so that life will return to "normal", have some serious thinking and research to do.
BIG bucks in vaccines
Pharmaceutical companies pay up to $10 billion in "penalties" for illegal activities ranging from price fixing to suppressing lethal side effects and fraudulent representation of research data . . . and they are legally protected against all claims regarding vaccine injuries or fatalities.
The efficiency and safety of these instant Covid vaccines that are now tested on humans are so sketchy, questionable and prematurely promoted that it is an insult to science (and humanity) to even consider mandatory vaccinations. Scientists admit they do not even know whether a vaccine is the right route to pursue against Covid and whether it will have any long-term benefit - never mind the potential harmful side-effects it can have?
In Denmark, thousands of people took to the streets in mass protest gatherings to successfully stop new legislation for mandatory vaccination.
A law in Denmark that would have given authorities the power to forcibly inject people with a coronavirus vaccine has been abandoned after nine days of public protests.
The ‘epidemic law’ would have handed the Danish government the power to enact mandatory quarantine measures against anyone infected with a dangerous disease, but it was the part about vaccinations that caused the biggest uproar.
The Council of the District of Columbia City on Tuesday passed the dangerous and predatory bill B23-0171 which permits children 11 years old and older to consent to vaccines on their own without parental knowledge or consent.
The bill also requires insurance companies, vaccine providers and schools to conceal the fact that the child has been vaccinated from the parent. And it sets up these young children to be targets of bullying and coercion to be vaccinated behind their parents backs.
As pharmaceutical firms gear up for mass vaccinations and treatments for COVID-19, based on this research, is there anything we should be looking out for?
Absolutely. Firms with high historical incidences of illegal activity are more likely to engage in the fraudulent representation of research data, the suppression of negative side-effects, and the false marketing of their products. It is very much related to COVID-19 research in that a firm with a history of misconduct would have a higher probability of lying about the efficacy of their vaccines or therapeutic treatments.
Are penalties just part of doing business?
It is only part of doing business if one believes that illegal activity is a legitimate business strategy. Otherwise, it is an indication of poor governance and leadership. Further, research I have done with Belk College colleagues Ted Amato (Economics) and Dean Jennifer Troyer (Economics) provides evidence that links illegal activity with reduced drug innovation. In other words, cheating is a substitute for innovation.
The billions of dollars in penalties – nearly $10 billion in the case of GlaxoSmithKlein – could instead have been spent on research and development.
What can government regulators learn from your research?
Aggressive oversight and enforcement are vital to ensure that pharmaceuticals are safely utilized and that pricing is consistent with federal regulations. In particular, to deter such behavior, it will be important to act on 2015 guidance from the Department of Justice, which requires that executives, and not just shareholders, be held liable for corporate misconduct. In addition, providing consistent and strong incentives for whistle-blowers is essential. Finally, there is ample room for additional regulation to better protect Americans from false or misleading information regarding drug efficacy and overpricing.
Since prescription drugs are critical to the health of citizens, should big pharmaceuticals be held to a higher standard?
All large pharmaceutical companies pledge to improve human welfare. Yet, the majority use marketing and pricing strategies that harm patient welfare to improve their bottom lines. Because of this hypocrisy, the pharmaceutical industry consistently ranks at the bottom among Gallup’s U.S. industry reputation rankings.
Unfortunately, the trials' results were announced via press releases, leaving many scientific uncertainties that will dictate how the vaccines will affect the course of the pandemic. Little safety data are available. How well the vaccines work in older people or those with underlying conditions and their efficacy in preventing severe disease are still unclear. Peer-reviewed publication should resolve these issues, but other questions will not be answerable for some time. For one, the duration of protection is unknown and will have a huge bearing on the practicalities and logistics of immunisation (will boosters be needed? How often?).
Covid vaccine makes Moderma CEO overnight a billionaire