CDC Latest Confession: Almost No One Infected Died From COVID19!
The CDC last week released the latest survival rate figures from COVID19 and, as usual, complete silence from the mainstream media? The reason? Astonishingly LOW numbers of people dying from this pandemic.
The US government’s official survival rates (i.e., IF infected) for Covid19 are as follows:
0-19 99.997 percent
20-49 99.98 percent
50-69 99.5 percent
70+ 94.6 percent
Read the latest CDC update here: www.cdc.gov
Now keep in mind that the virus has never been isolated and replicated to create a ‘gold standard’ – no scientist, no university, no lab claims to have been the first to do so. COVID19 thus does not pass Koch’s Postulates so it’s existence cannot be considered irrefutable.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Richard Wakefield
| #
“Now keep in mind that the virus has never been isolated and replicated to create a ‘gold standard’ – no scientist, no university, no lab claims to have been the first to do so.”
Out right lie.
The RNA sequence is in GenBank. It’s phylogenetic pathway mapped.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z
Reply
paul
| #
No virus has, skip the crap and stop quoting fraudulent science.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Explain the Nature paper naming the virus based on it’s RNA sequence. Explain how that sequence is in GenBank.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Richard, Please learn what the word ‘Phylogenetics’ actually means. It is increasingly obvious you are intellectually challenged or simply too lazy to properly read the paper you cited. Because if you had you would have seen the authors admit they offer merely an “assessment” and no ‘gold standard.’ Read the first sentence in the 4th para. which states: “Here, we present an assessment of the genetic relatedness of the newly identified human coronavirus.” It only addresses “nomenclature” (the naming of the supposed new virus) and the authors concede there is “yet limited epidemiological and clinical data for SARS-CoV-2.” (para. 15, first sentence). Either stop your lying nonsense or we will ban you.
Reply
Tom O
| #
Those ARE remarkable recovery rates, John, and RW’s jump on this article actually is to take away from those incredible numbers and misdirect our attention. 94.6% recovery rate for the “most vulnerable members” of our population really is incredibly good news! And the recovery rate for under 70 is incredible, to me. I was under the impression from all the crying and screaming that it was much worse than that.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
How can you have a recovery from a virus that doesnt exist…
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
John,
Don’t ban him, please.
It’s important to have comments from the RW’s of the world. He actually inspires me to read his (numerous) sources.
Your riposte to his comment is a case in point. A critical assessment of his view by quoting from the article itself to refute his argument.
One of the reasons I love PSI is because, if you make a dumbass comment, someone will not only challenge it, but also show you why you are wrong.
RW always incites lots of comments. Can’t be bad for site engagement 🙂
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Finn, Fair point, well made. Thanks.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
My specialty at university was evolution, including courses on molecular phylogenetics.
Fig 2 of that paper shows a phylogenetic tree BASED ON GENE SEQUENCE. of the virus. Guess you didnt see that,
Isolating the genes of the virus from patients.
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.13.2000305
https://mra.asm.org/content/9/11/e00169-20/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50569
More on the virus using it’s genetics to see it’s origin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
Reply
QuestionDominantFraud
| #
You studied evolution, and took courses on phylogenetics. Specialised. Almost an expert.
So they found similar gene sequences in a “Chinese tourist visiting Rome and an Italian”. And pretend they represent the “whole genome” of an imagined virus. Not much evidence there.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Published in science journals. You have evidence they are wrong, go publish yourself.
Curly
| #
the troll Ricky and his insipid comments are back
Thought you said you were leaving a few weeks back Dick?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
“Fakery exposed”
https://principia-scientific.org/international-pharmaceuticals-expert-exposes-pandemic-fakery/
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Why would Nature Magazine allow a paper naming a virus that doesnt exist????
Reply
Dudley
| #
When John Maddox, former editor of Nature, was once asked “How much of what you print is wrong?” his reply was “Most of it”, or was it “All of it?”
Reply
judy Ryan
| #
I’m confused Richard. Why don’t you think ‘this’ virus doesn’t exist. Haven’t you ever had a cold.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
1) this is not a cold virus. Completely wrong taxon.
2) the virus exists. It’s RNA has been sequenced and is in GenBank. It’s position, based on it’s RNA sequencing, on a phylogenetic tree (cludogram) has been established, and hence its name.
Reply
judy Ryan
| #
Here s some further reading for you Richard. Good luck in your search for truth.
https://www.cebm.net/evidence-synthesis/transmission-dynamics-of-covid-19/
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Richard, Smells like an appeal to authority. Hardly scientific!
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Oh, so now you decide to reject ALL published science?????
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Where do I say that? You are deranged.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
I post a Nature paper naming the virus, your reply is: “Smells like an appeal to authority. Hardly scientific!”
So the most prodigious science journal on the planet is “hardly scientific?”
Reply
geran
| #
Richard, Nature Rag was corrupted long ago. The rag has little interest in science. Their agenda appears to be promoting pseudoscience.
John O'Sullivan
| #
Richard, Does naming my unicorn ‘Bob’ make him real?
John O'Sullivan
| #
Richard, you have such a poor grasp of reality. The CDC choose to fiddle the numbers from death certificates and name anyone who is believed to have died WITH the supposed virus as dying FROM the virus. Even those who die from gunshot wounds and car crashes get on the list! Don’t you comprehend fraud?
Reply