Schlagwort-Archive: science

Wie sicher ist eigentlich „sicher“? Staatlich verordnetes Russisches Roulette für Fortgeschrittene. Eine Analyse und ein Merkblatt. #covid19 #impfpflicht #gesundheit

Anmerkung: Die wissenschaftlichen Artikel in diesem Beitrag werden Basis für meine private Stellungnahme bezüglich dem zur Begutachtung eingebrachten österreichischen COVID-19-Impfpflichtgesetz – COVID-19-IG (2173/A) sein. Für Anmerkungen, Hinweise und evtl. Korrekturen bin ich offen und dankbar.

zum Herunterladen – siehe Erklärung im folgenden Beitrag:
Merkblatt Risiko Preprint v1 2021 (PDF)
Merkblatt Risiko Preprint v1 2021 (JPG).

Stellungnahme erbeten! Schließlich ist das gelebte Demokratie!

Wir erleben gegenwärtig einen Glaubenskonflikt. Illusion und Wahn – genährt durch Desinformation falscher Propheten – stehen Fakten und gesundem Menschenverstand gegenüber. Die Frage ist, wer hat die Wahrheit auf seiner Seite? Die Mehrheitsmeinung ist freilich kein Garant für die Richtigkeit einer These oder Behauptung. Das wusste bereits der erste Experimentalphysiker vor über 200 Jahren.

Die [all-]gemeinsten Meinungen und was jedermann für ausgemacht hält, verdient oft am meisten untersucht zu werden.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-99)
Wie sicher ist eigentlich „sicher“? Staatlich verordnetes Russisches Roulette für Fortgeschrittene. Eine Analyse und ein Merkblatt. #covid19 #impfpflicht #gesundheit weiterlesen

The one Problem with #covid19: Where is the proof?

I try to make it as brief as possible. The so-called pandemic of Corona (Covid-19) has scientific and logical flaws. As I will show, there is no way that scientists in Wuhan were able to make a case for a new flu like illness and a specific virus as underlying cause. Therefor all the testing is meaningless and could only serve a political purpose. There you have it.

So, what now? It seems Elon Musk destroyed the covid-19 test narrative with one tweet.

TLTR#1: It’s not possible to diagnose a patient with Corona (Covid-19) without a test. So how did the Chinese scientists in Wuhan prove that the newly found virus caused a „specific“ illness when we now know that there are healthy persons who tested positive for the virus? It’s not enough to show that the „virus“ grew in a Petri dish. First, it’s not possible to isolate a virus and second of all, in the unnatural process to „grow a virus“, there are a lot of chemicals and toxic ingredients involved. This doesn’t tell us how „this very virus“ would behave in a living organism or why there are „asymptomatic“ cases out there, and it doesn’t fulfill Koch’s Postulates

TLTR#2: The Chinese virologists couldn’t use a RT-PCR-test to find some mysterious „new virus“. They needed the RNA sequence of that very virus in order to find it in the sample („matrix“). Where did they get this crucial information? My guess is from the lab in Wuhan, courtesy of CDC.

TLTR#3: The germ theory is flawed and should be scientifically questioned before corrupt politicians and bought media can prolong the fear of „contagious killer viruses“ indefinitely and call that „The New Normal“. Next stop in this episode of the twilight zone: The centralized „health pass“ for the whole world.

By the way, this Christmas is cancelled, of course.

***

Excellent talk between Dr. Andy Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan regarding the problems with germ theory and the myth about contagion.

update November 2020

International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICLS):External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results“.

update November 2020

„It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive“. Conclusion of this Oxford University paper: The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher. See also a Portuguese Court ruling, mentioning this scientific paper.

update November 2020

John Hopkins University Newsletter„one can hardly say that Covid-19 deaths are concerning“ „not only has Covid-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths“. 

Rubikon German article regarding the scientific fallacies of Covid19 research in detail [English translation]

Editor of The Lancet on a Symposium in 2015: „The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, ‚poor methods get results‘.“

The one Problem with #covid19: Where is the proof? weiterlesen