Bombshell Report: Involving Covid, and The CDC

0
223
CDC

Yet another Bombshell report has revealed that through a combination of governmental incompetence at the CDC and the inability of the World Health Organization’s members to work together with consistent values and data sets the “Science” that the likes of Dr. Fauci keep urging us to follow was badly flawed.

In a stunning new expose, the New York Times has revealed that the “less than 10%” figure for outdoor COVID19 infection provided by the Centers for Disease Control last month “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews said. That statistic caught fire in the mainstream media almost immediately and dominated the “masking” conversation. Except there’s a pretty big problem… It’s basically bulls***.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times wrote,

“In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.”

He continued, “Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.” What this eventually boils down to is a breakdown in communications between the CDC and medical authorities in Singapore… Wait, Singapore? Yup. Oh it gets waaaay crazier from here.

How Are Singapore And The CDC Numbers Connected?

This gets seriously pedantic and complicated so we’ll take this in broad strokes. But here is the bombshell that The New York Times expose throws out there: “In one study, 95 of 10,926 worldwide instances of transmission are classified as outdoors; all 95 are from Singapore construction sites. In another study, four of 103 instances are classified as outdoors; again, all four are from Singapore construction sites.”

  • The Singaporean records don’t differentiate “outdoor” infection from “indoor” infection.
  • The two biggest construction projects in Singapore (where these results came from) were already, mostly complete. Meaning the vast majority of work was being done…(Wait for it!!!) INDOORS.
  • So how did this happen? How did the “outdoor” infections get “misclassified”. Oh you’re going to love this…. they GUESSED. THEY ASSUMED!
  • According to Leonhardt, “When academic researchers began collecting Covid data from around the world, many chose to define outdoors spaces very broadly. They deemed almost any setting that was a mix of outdoors and indoors to be outdoors.”

“We had to settle on one classification for building sites,” Quentin Leclerc, a French researcher and co-author of one of the papers analyzing COVID infection rates in Singapore, said “and ultimately decided on a conservative outdoor definition.” Apparently, a second paper, published in the Journal of Infection and Public Health, counted only: “mass accommodation and residential facilities.” as being “indoors”, hotels and homes… that’s it. They defined: “workplace, health care, education, social events, travel, catering, leisure and shopping.” as ALWAYS being outdoors.. no matter what.

Mask Policies and Lockdowns Were Based on “Science” Which Was Based on Stupid Assumptions. Full Stop.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here