Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Was SARS-CoV-2 or Pneumonia the primary cause of respiratory Covid-19 deaths?

Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:15 am
Posted by JJJimmyJimJames
Southern States
Member since May 2020
18496 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:15 am


Summary

We have investigated the pneumonia hypothesis: that a proportion of covid-19 deaths, those with associated respiratory symptoms (rather than deaths coded as covid-19 because of a positive PCR test, that are absent symptoms), were caused by bacterial pneumonia, and that bacterial pneumonia was the primary, not the secondary, infection.

Our argument in favour of the hypothesis is:

Conflating pneumonia & covid-19 repeats an official longstanding tactic of conflating the attribution of influenza and pneumonia. The reduction in the public’s perceived threat of flu may have prompted the pharmaceutical industry to attempt a rebranding of the threat along with a new suite of marketable products to respond to that threat.

We investigated the hypothesis that a proportion of covid-19 deaths, those with associated respiratory symptoms (rather than deaths coded as covid-19 because of a positive PCR test, that are absent symptoms), were caused by bacterial pneumonia, and that maybe bacterial pneumonia was the primary, not the secondary, infection.

Does pre-existing exposure to bacterial pneumonia lead to a higher propensity to acquire a viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2? And we suggest that SARS-Cov-2 infection may mask or be secondary to pneumonia infection and not necessarily the other way around, in whichSARS-CoV-2 is assumed to lead to bacterial pneumonia as a secondary infection.

Given this the actual burden of risk to hospitalized patients may not have been SARS-CoV-2 (or other viruses) at all but bacterial pneumonia.

High rates of ventilator induced pneumonia are confounded by changes in protocols, delays in admission, and overuse of ventilation etc. and estimates of rates of attribution to SARS-CoV-2 cannot therefore be relied upon. Respiratory deaths in hospitals may therefore have been caused by bacterial pneumonia but wrongly attributed to SARS-CoV-2.

The pattern of spread of SARS-CoV-2 in spring 2020, and the geographical concentration of the SARS-CoV-2 mortality toll is not what one would expect from a spreading respiratory virus. It is highly localised in specific geographically distant regions and cities. It is a pin-point pandemic.

Under modern sanitary conditions large scale pneumonia outbreaks in highly concentrated areas are unlikely to occur naturally. We must look elsewhere for explanations, including the possibility of human agency.

Given that rates of pneumonia deaths in 2020 were similar to those seen in previous years, changes in ventilation policy and practices coupled with new PCR testing, would be enough to cause the pin-point pandemic effect.

The central question is therefore: Was SARS-CoV-2 a bystander or decoy virus and were bacterial pneumonia deaths mistakenly or intentionally used as proof that SARS-CoV-2 was a deadly respiratory pathogen?

Events are akin to a scene from an Agatha Christie novel where SARS-CoV-2, a bystander used as a decoy, is guilty of the crime, with ventilation as the accomplice, but the actual criminal, who has got off scot-free, is in fact bacterial pneumonia. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 has been framed.

Introduction

After three years of research, we find ourselves as akin to the role of the “eccentric, amateur, or semi-professional detective” in a whodunnit detective thriller, trying to identify the pathogen that caused the respiratory deaths in hospitals that were attributed to Covid-19. Was the culprit, that is, the primary cause, a new novel, deadly virus called SARS-CoV-2, secondary bacterial pneumonia, brought on by exposure to one or both above?

In a series of previous posts, we have looked at what happened with flu (the latest post is here), finding that there was a collective and systemic failure in (if not manipulation of) flu surveillance and flu death reporting systems. We also found that deaths from influenza/ pneumonia continued during 2020 and, in the UK and USA, were reported at levels similar to previous years, proving that influenza/pneumonia did not actually disappear as a cause of death, despite the appearance of SARS-CoV-2.

This investigation looks at bacterial pneumonia specifically and presents the ‘pneumonia hypothesis’ that a proportion of Covid-19 deaths - namely those with associated respiratory symptoms (rather than deaths coded as covid-19 because of a positive PCR test, that are absent symptoms) – were caused by pneumonia, and that pneumonia was the primary, not the secondary, infection.

This hypothesis is important because it challenges what the true causative agent behind the ‘pandemic’ was – a bacterium or a virus, both or neither? It also brings into question how the agent was spread, and challenges how and if it was appropriately treated. Ultimately, we ask: do we really know what happened and is there a risk we have everything wrong or back to front?
Posted by JJJimmyJimJames
Southern States
Member since May 2020
18496 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:18 am to
CRACKS in the communism

A follow-up on pneumonia story
Something interesting to ponder concerning the pneumo vaxes and COVID-19 reports in VAERS


JESSICA ROSE
SEP 1, 2023


Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil
Whodunnit? {unabridged}
A whodunnit (a colloquial elision of "Who [has] done it?") is a complex plot-driven variety of detective fiction in which the puzzle regarding who committed the crime is the main focus. The reader or viewer is provided with clues to the case, from which the identity of the perpetrator may be deduced before the story provides the revelation itself at its…

Martin Neil, Jessica Hockett, Jonathan Engler, and Norman Fenton Norman, Martin, Jonathan and Jessica point to a study by Lewnard et al that looked at the interaction between bacterial pneumonia and SARS-CoV-2 whereby they investigated whether vaccination against pneumonia reduced the risk of COVID-19. They found that it did and significantly so!

As the authors point out in their article above, why wouldn’t these products have been endorsed as measures against COVID-19 in that case? This study was published in May 2022. The pneumonia vaccines were already on the market right? FDA approved. Many types. Easy peasy. Offer peeps these products to reduce COVID-19 risk. Why not. You’re recommending RunDeathIsNear, I mean Remdesivir, so why not an FDA-approved product shown to reduce risk.

The pneumonia vaccines in their study included two products: pneumococcal vaccination (13-valent conjugate vaccine [PCV13] and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine [PPSV23]).

I decided, like I always do, to see what’s going on in VAERS. In this case, I looked with regard to adverse event (AE) reports of COVID-19 in the context of any and all vaccines against pneumonia for 2021-2023. I found something interesting.

It’s been well-known to me (and anyone looking) for years now that the number reported AE in VAERS in the context of the COVID-19 products is COVID-19. But what’s the story with the pneumonia vaccines?

The reported AEs in the context of vaccines aimed at pneumonia in VAERS are in the context of 4 products that I will list verbatim from the VAERS variable VAX_NAME: ‘PNC’, ‘PNC10’, ‘PNC13’ and ‘PPV’.

The names are different in VAERS as in the literature, so I checked the manufacturing names against the brand names1 and found out that PNC10 = synflorix2 = PCV10 and PNC13 = prevnar133 = PCV13. PPV = pneumovax and PPSV23 = pneumovax 234, so I assume these are the same. As for PNC alone, this could refer to any of valencies of the pneumococcal vaccines. I am not sure. For the purposes of this investigation, it doesn’t matter since there are no reports in VAERS in the context of COVID-19 as a symptom for this product.


Now I am not saying that we can really conclude anything here, but it is interesting that considering it has been shown that the pneumococcal vaccines reduce COVID-19 risk and that these products were not deployed during the COVID-19 war to fight COVID-19, that there are very few reports of COVID-19 associated with them. Maybe, just maybe, these products work to stave off ‘COVID-19’? I wonder.

As previously mentioned, COVID-19 is the number 1 reported AE in the context of the COVID-19 products so this is in stark and statistically significant (p <= 0.000001) contrast to the above. In fact 15% of the AE reports in the context of both the mono- and bivalent products are COVID-19, and this is opposed to 0.73% in the context of the pneumonia vaccines.

Now, I am not saying that the pneumonia vaccines should have been pushed - basically because I know nothing about them yet - but I am wondering is why they weren’t pushed. Why were the COVID-19 products, those safe and effective EUA products, those experimental transfecting products, pushed so hard onto the public? Why were regular antibiotics not prescribed? Why do we call the Spanish flu the Spanish flu? Why the insistence, even today, to get injected with this novel technology - the modified mRNA platform - that has clearly been shown to have negative efficacy in the context of ‘COVID-19’?

They don’t work.

(N.B. I am NOT promoting the pneumonia products! I am simply being a rebel bitch and forcing answers to questions that have no answers. :) )

Maybe COVID-19 is pneumonia.
Posted by Paddyshack
Land of the Free
Member since Sep 2015
10972 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:18 am to
quote:

Pneumonia

A LOT of people died from pneumonia.

Also, the flu appeared to be eradicated once COVID hit.
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
68464 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:19 am to
Neither; it was the gazillion other issues the people had
Posted by BestBanker
Member since Nov 2011
18910 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:23 am to



This post was edited on 9/8/23 at 5:09 pm
Posted by Purple Spoon
Hoth
Member since Feb 2005
20165 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 10:33 am to
Take elderly or overweight individuals, put them flat on their back in a hospital bed for three weeks and then wonder why they crash with pulmonary embolisms and their chest fills up with shite.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
125131 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 11:14 am to
quote:

In a series of previous posts, we have looked at what happened with flu (the latest post is here), finding that there was a collective and systemic failure in (if not manipulation of) flu surveillance and flu death reporting systems. We also found that deaths from influenza/ pneumonia continued during 2020 and, in the UK and USA, were reported at levels similar to previous years, proving that influenza/pneumonia did not actually disappear as a cause of death, despite the appearance of SARS-CoV-2.


Do you have a link to this post?

Public health surveillance reports do not support this. I’m open to them having been manipulated.
Posted by JJJimmyJimJames
Southern States
Member since May 2020
18496 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 11:23 am to
LINK

there is a link there to the other piece
Posted by LSUA 75
Colfax,La.
Member since Jan 2019
4628 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 12:20 pm to
I don’t doubt the pneumonia hypothesis.People would wear the same nasty masks for days,maybe weeks on end.
I would allege cloth masks played a big factor.Collect moisture and people fiddling with them with their nasty fingers and wearing the same ones over and over.

When I was in ICU and had to wear one for certain patients we changed them daily.

An old guy in Sunday School had a N-95 that was all wrinkled up,took it off and set it down inside up.Had tobacco juice stains.
Posted by JJJimmyJimJames
Southern States
Member since May 2020
18496 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 2:10 pm to
LINK
the link to the other article is in this article
Posted by GI Jerm
D.C.
Member since Apr 2010
183 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 3:55 pm to
Ventilators and remdesevir was the number one cause of death.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39157 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 4:03 pm to
quote:

Now, I am not saying that the pneumonia vaccines should have been pushed - basically because I know nothing about them yet - but I am wondering is why they weren’t pushed.


Clearly.

quote:

(N.B. I am NOT promoting the pneumonia products! I am simply being a rebel bitch and forcing answers to questions that have no answers. :) )



Lol. She's misunderstanding things that she doesn't understand to begin with. Muh rebel bitch!
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39157 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 4:07 pm to
quote:

The central question is therefore: Was SARS-CoV-2 a bystander or decoy virus and were bacterial pneumonia deaths mistakenly or intentionally used as proof that SARS-CoV-2 was a deadly respiratory pathogen?


Again, these people don't understand anything and just say stupid things over and over.

Posted by JJJimmyJimJames
Southern States
Member since May 2020
18496 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 4:20 pm to
quote:

Again, these people don't understand anything and just say stupid things over and over.

well,, I believe it to be a good thing for people BESIDES doctors to comment with all the FCKRY doctors have been about

and the pathetic performance of doctors specifically with covid as well as with doctors in general. A conversation from only doctors is not productive. They have not been clear now going on over two+ years with NO answers. Let statisticians and VAERS experts comment.

as for you in particular, crazy4lsu, I would question every trace of your behavior after observing some of your foul NON-professional behaviors - frankly, proof that doctors can be foolish charlatans and can lack professional motive.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39157 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 4:58 pm to
quote:

as for you in particular, crazy4lsu, I would question every trace of your behavior after observing some of your foul NON-professional behaviors


Making chuds angry is professional behavior.
Posted by Hognutz
Member since Sep 2018
2566 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 5:35 pm to
As I understand it, SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated directly from an infected person.

Cell cultures themselves create a cytopathic effect and then assumes the cause, a virus, without verifying the assumed cause exists to begin with.

The steps of the scientific method include:

-Observe a natural phenomenon.
-Suggest hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
-Select independent variable (the presumed cause).
-Select dependent variable/s (the observed effect/s).
-Control the variables.
-Test/experiment.
-Analyse the observation/data.
-Validate/invalidate hypothesis.
Posted by Timeoday
Easter Island
Member since Aug 2020
17370 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 5:40 pm to
Outstanding. I do remember the "flu" was non-existent during that time.

Heck, I remember reading when growing up about a flu called the "Hong Kong" flu. This time around they quickly, I mean very quickly, got away from "CHINA VIRUS" and moved on to covid 19.
Posted by DMAN1968
Member since Apr 2019
12574 posts
Posted on 9/2/23 at 8:52 pm to
All I can say is that people who died of Covid presented very differently than people who I have seen die of pneumonia...especially at the beginning of this crap. The two look nothing alike.

*Anecdotal evidence from someone who has been working in healthcare for 30+ years.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram