I've picked up on another technique the CDC uses. They often publish their own papers at their own site. The Red Cross antibody study, The USS Teddy Roosevelt antibody study and the "study" that showed the novel coronavirus didn't begin to "spread" in America until "latter January" 2020 are three examples of this. They write their own du…
I've picked up on another technique the CDC uses. They often publish their own papers at their own site. The Red Cross antibody study, The USS Teddy Roosevelt antibody study and the "study" that showed the novel coronavirus didn't begin to "spread" in America until "latter January" 2020 are three examples of this. They write their own dubious studies with their own dubious conclusions (and none of these papers are "peer reviewed.") And everyone just accepts these conclusions as the gospel truth. If you've read as many of these papers as I have, you pick up on all the important facts that aren't included in these papers.
I'd bet most of Steve's readers aren't familiar with the key findings of the USS Teddy Roosevelt antibody study. Here they are:
1) At least sixty (60) percent of the crew had been infected by this virus by early April (based on positive antibody results). Previously, PCR results had suggested maybe 20 percent had been infected. Sixty percent is about 3,000 crew members. Only one crew member died (and he was 44). This means the infection fatality rate among crew members under the age of 44 was ... 0.0000 percent. The virus posed zero mortality risk to healthy younger people.
2) Also, from info in the report, I'm able to state with high confidence that at least two crew members almost certainly came on board the ship with the virus. Significantly, the ship didn't leave San Diego until January 17, 2020. That means the virus was already spreading in San Diego before January 17th. In another CDC "paper," the CDC said they'd found "no indications" of any American who'd contracted the virus before ... January 19. From their own damn study, they have strong evidence this was wrong (a lie).
If they'd tested more sailors (not just 382 crew members) for antibodies, they would have had even more possible "early spread" candidates .... so they intentionally limited the number of sailors they tested for antibodies ... IMO to conceal evidence of early spread.
For example, that Red Cross antibody study doesn't mention WHEN the vials of blood were actually tested for antibodies. It also doesn't tell readers how many donors were "positive" for the IgM antibody. That's the antigen that shows "recent" infections. Significantly, a negative IgM result and positive IgG results ... means those people were infected at least one month before they donated their blood. Both the Red Cross paper and the Roosevelt antibody study don't answer why those who tested positive (and could be "early" cases) weren't interviewed by CDC officials. I don't understand why only 382 sailors gave blood for that antibody study. There were 4,850 sailors on that ship. It's what authors don't tell readers that's important. Maybe if the articles were "peer reviewed" someone would have asked these common-sense questions? The mainstream press clearly isn't going to ask any important questions.
It's worse than that - how could they test for a virus using PCR which is not a test in any way whatsoever? THere is a video on Yoo Toob (or was several months ago) of Karey Mullis, inventor of PCR process addressing an audience shortly before covid came out. Someone asks him a question about the PCR "test". He looks very perplexed and explains that it was never meant to be a test, it's a process used to obtain more info on DNA strands. That is all. They use it on things like dinosaur bones to obtain more info about their DNA. It's called paleobiology which one could say Mr. Mullis created that new field. Anyway, he also says if you try to use it as a test, you can make anything look like a positive result so it should never be used for a test. The video is about 4 min. long. Mullis own the Nobel prize in 1993 IIRC for creating the PCR process. Sadly, Mullis died just a few months before covid came out. Hmm...
The antibody tests have never gotten enough attention imo. I think they can be manipulated as well and probably were to conceal evidence of early spread. But if someone does test positive for antibodies, they almost certainly did have Covid at an earlier date. The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives." To which I say: ALL of them? Even those people who got multiple positive tests from different assays? Did the tests suddenly get better? If the tests produce "false positives" do they also produce "false negatives" from time to time? If they do, that 2.03 prevalence result from the Red Cross antibody study might be the lowest possible percentage. If there were more false negatives than positives, there were MORE than 2.03 percent of people who had been infected by November 2019.
I would like to know, whose decision was it to stick that dangerous, demeaning swab so far up the nose? How did that become the required way to administer the test? The answer is, I think, very important and gets to the heart of the conspiracy. I think it was a test to see just how far the sheep would let them go in violating their bodily autonomy.
BINGO!!! Exactly - because from what I've read there is ethylene oxide in it, which causes cancer. Also, shoving a swab so far up the nose can damage the blood brain barrier. If E.O. is able to breach the blood brain barrier - can you say brain cancer? Here is why E.O. is not good to put up the nose close to your brain, from the OSHA website:
Back in Aug. 2020, my husband was rushed to hospital and was very, very ill. They tested him at least several times for covid, several of which were swabs. My husband has always had a very sharp brain, remembers EVERYTHING and had a head full of knowledge gained from 55 yrs research into virology/immunology and other branches of biological sciences. When he came home, he was a changed man and his brain has been going downhill ever since. I don't know if it's from the swab or maybe had had some kind of stroke and we may never know the answer to that. But he never consented to the swabs because he knew the PCR "test" is not any kind of test, it's a process to gather knowledge about DNA strands/sequences. It is used on dinosaur bones for example to gather info on their DNA to learn more about them. There is a video on Yoo Toob of Kerry Mullis, inventor of PCR process saying it should never be used as a test because it doesn't test for anything. He did also say that you can get a false positive result for anything if used as a test. My point is this - how much brain damage might the ethylene oxide on those swabs have caused to untold numbers of people?
They speculate/proclaim that the tests are picking up cousins of the novel coronavirus. So someone who tests positive is "cross-reactive." It was another virus that made them sick. That's the other thing they don't talk about. These people not only tested positive for Covid antibodies, they also had all the Covid symptoms months before their tests. And they hadn't been sick after that. They also disparage antibody results that are producing high numbers of positives as being "junk" tests - not reliable. Personally, I trust the "junk" tests more than the tests the government uses and authorizes. I saw you just subscribed. You can read my stories on "How they Conceal Early Spread" and "Antibody Evidence of Early Spread in One Document." I'd value you your opinions. Is my evidence more credible than that of the experts? Thanks for the subscription!
Thank you for this information Bill - I sent your substack sub info to my husband, a virologist of many yrs who worked in Public Health for state of PA. He will read over your 2 articles and the explanations you posted about evidence of of test results. He's a better person to look over the science than I am. I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher and help him with his research is all. He can answer any questions you might have. He will probably answer them on your substack column. Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else.
Why does it matter WHEN those archived units of Red Cross blood were actually tested for antibodies? Because if those units of blood were tested before mid-March 2020, that would mean officials KNEW that 2.03 percent of Americans in three states already had antibody-evidence of prior infection. 2.03 percent of the national population is 6.6 million infected Americans - by the end of November 2019! With this knowledge, would it really make sense to lock down society and turn the world upside down to "slow" or "stop" the "spread" of this virus .. in mid-March 2020? The virus, according to this antibody study, had been spreading in America at least since early November - for probably at least four months before the lockdowns ... This is called a "lie of omission." Or a ... "cover-up."
It may have been spreading longer than since early Nov. 2019. Back in 2015 winter, husband and I both got a very strange flu. We were sick for about a month and it really affected our lungs, which hurt. Not bad enough to go to hospital but we were in very good health at the time. We wondered if it was pneumonia. When covid came out we wondered if that's what we got in 2015. When covid first came out it was called coronavirus. My husband is virologist/immunologist with 55 yrs research behind him who worked for Public Health in PA. He said coronavirus is one form of the common cold. It's in medical references going back as far as 1970s.
The more I research and think about this topic, the farther I push back the possible start date. Redfield, the former CDC director, has recently stated several times (including before a Congressional Committee) that the first cases were in August or September 2019. Of course, he didn't say that when he was CDC director. Investigating the real dates of early spread would get us closer to learning who was responsible for this virus being released on the world in the first place. So I get why all early spread investigations have been squelched/blocked.
I like the way you think, Bill, you cover all the bases. I'm wondering - are you a scientist of some sort such as a virologist? Or just a smart guy who uses his head and is very thorough? Just wondering.
Thank you, Mr. Grogan. I'm a struggling freelance journalist whose last science class was 11th grade chemistry in 1982! I got interested in "early spread" because I think myself, my two kids and 20 percent of my town probably had the virus by the end of January 2020. It bugs me (no pun intended) that the obvious never becomes the obvious. I DO trust the anecdotes ... not the experts!
I'm very happy to find out that there are journalists like you still out there!!! btw, my dad was a journalist in WW2, covering the war. I also trust the anecdotes, it used to be that anecdotal evidence was one of the best, if not the best ways to determine accurate science. Also it was considered highly valuable in a court of law. Can you point me to any articles or websites where you articles appear? I'd love to read your articles, you're so thorough and you think outside the box. btw, I'm not a Mr. I'm an old lady LOL. Literally EVERYONE online makes that mistake and assumes I'm a Mr. - which btw, I've never been :)
I've had several articles published at The Brownstone Institute website. I think that's the best site for contrarian Covid journalism these days (except Steve's site).
Here's the story that got me started on "early spread" investigations. It was published by UncoverDC.com. It took me a month to find ONE publication that would even publish it!
I"ve read from several reliable sources that 98 to 99% of peer reviewed articles are corrupt. This comes from several reliable sources, wish I could remember exactly where but it was from reputable researchers. Those who peer review can be bribed/threatened. Before peer reviewing, scientists could write up their experiences and the court of public opinion could hold sway. With peer review, the public is basically told what to think. Most scientists are pretty honest in my experience with huge respect for the field of science and take their work very seriously. You'd have alot more honesty in research papers IMO if the scientists were left alone to just write their own papers without corrup peer reviewers.
You make an excellent point and I’m intrigued by the idea of what an alternative paper publishing method could be. I like your idea of clarity on the peer review process, since this is so misunderstood by so many people.
I wonder if a searchable platform like Substack would work for publishing nonfiction works as separate from opinion or fiction. The ability to sort based on topic or follow an individual or group would be great as would allowing comments to be easily available for criticism of the work. The authors could have the option of responding to the comments or amending the work with changes being tracked like a standard word document. Not sure how it could be made to discourage junk science or corruption though.
1,000 LIKES for you, Soraya! What a great idea, have non-fiction section on Substack - it could be just for scientists who have submitted articles for people to read and learn about their work. They could also charge, just like writers on Substack now do, $5 a month or so and independent scientists could fund their work that way. If I found a scientist whose work I admired, for example, I could support him with any amount of $ per month and be able to read all his articles, thereby getting to know alot more about him and his work. Scientists would have sponsors so to speak. One of the things my scientist husband has pointed out is that there are no more independent scientists, they are dependent on universities (who are almost all woke libs with no real science) or govt agencies, who are mostl if not all, corrupt. This way, any independent scientist pursuing free energy for example, could do their own research from their garage and still have money to live on and continue their research. I do believe you've hit on an EXCELLENT idea, thank you, Soraya!!!!
Those papers written by the "CDC Response Team" are very influential and important. I think they write them just to control some narrative. Nobody picks them apart. We have a few people trying to be watchdogs or genuine skeptics, but they are ignored. They've covered all their bases to conceal the truth or disseminate the message they want to spread.
EXACTLY! And many of those who peer review aren't scientists, nor do they know any science. In fact, I've heard more than one scientist/doctor say "Fauci doesn't know any science." And he's the one who is pretty much driving the whole bus - off the cliff I might add. There is some group that is controlling the narrative in the field of science IMO. Also, there have been more than 200 scientists in the field of biology/medicine that have been murdered. This was the figure in about 2008 or 2010 from a journalist who was covering the suspicious deaths of these scientists. She stopped writing about it in about 2010 when her life was threatened. She's the wife of a well-known doctor who does alot of research.
I've picked up on another technique the CDC uses. They often publish their own papers at their own site. The Red Cross antibody study, The USS Teddy Roosevelt antibody study and the "study" that showed the novel coronavirus didn't begin to "spread" in America until "latter January" 2020 are three examples of this. They write their own dubious studies with their own dubious conclusions (and none of these papers are "peer reviewed.") And everyone just accepts these conclusions as the gospel truth. If you've read as many of these papers as I have, you pick up on all the important facts that aren't included in these papers.
I'd bet most of Steve's readers aren't familiar with the key findings of the USS Teddy Roosevelt antibody study. Here they are:
1) At least sixty (60) percent of the crew had been infected by this virus by early April (based on positive antibody results). Previously, PCR results had suggested maybe 20 percent had been infected. Sixty percent is about 3,000 crew members. Only one crew member died (and he was 44). This means the infection fatality rate among crew members under the age of 44 was ... 0.0000 percent. The virus posed zero mortality risk to healthy younger people.
2) Also, from info in the report, I'm able to state with high confidence that at least two crew members almost certainly came on board the ship with the virus. Significantly, the ship didn't leave San Diego until January 17, 2020. That means the virus was already spreading in San Diego before January 17th. In another CDC "paper," the CDC said they'd found "no indications" of any American who'd contracted the virus before ... January 19. From their own damn study, they have strong evidence this was wrong (a lie).
If they'd tested more sailors (not just 382 crew members) for antibodies, they would have had even more possible "early spread" candidates .... so they intentionally limited the number of sailors they tested for antibodies ... IMO to conceal evidence of early spread.
For example, that Red Cross antibody study doesn't mention WHEN the vials of blood were actually tested for antibodies. It also doesn't tell readers how many donors were "positive" for the IgM antibody. That's the antigen that shows "recent" infections. Significantly, a negative IgM result and positive IgG results ... means those people were infected at least one month before they donated their blood. Both the Red Cross paper and the Roosevelt antibody study don't answer why those who tested positive (and could be "early" cases) weren't interviewed by CDC officials. I don't understand why only 382 sailors gave blood for that antibody study. There were 4,850 sailors on that ship. It's what authors don't tell readers that's important. Maybe if the articles were "peer reviewed" someone would have asked these common-sense questions? The mainstream press clearly isn't going to ask any important questions.
Yes, and how could they have tested for a virus that they never truly identified?
It's worse than that - how could they test for a virus using PCR which is not a test in any way whatsoever? THere is a video on Yoo Toob (or was several months ago) of Karey Mullis, inventor of PCR process addressing an audience shortly before covid came out. Someone asks him a question about the PCR "test". He looks very perplexed and explains that it was never meant to be a test, it's a process used to obtain more info on DNA strands. That is all. They use it on things like dinosaur bones to obtain more info about their DNA. It's called paleobiology which one could say Mr. Mullis created that new field. Anyway, he also says if you try to use it as a test, you can make anything look like a positive result so it should never be used for a test. The video is about 4 min. long. Mullis own the Nobel prize in 1993 IIRC for creating the PCR process. Sadly, Mullis died just a few months before covid came out. Hmm...
The antibody tests have never gotten enough attention imo. I think they can be manipulated as well and probably were to conceal evidence of early spread. But if someone does test positive for antibodies, they almost certainly did have Covid at an earlier date. The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives." To which I say: ALL of them? Even those people who got multiple positive tests from different assays? Did the tests suddenly get better? If the tests produce "false positives" do they also produce "false negatives" from time to time? If they do, that 2.03 prevalence result from the Red Cross antibody study might be the lowest possible percentage. If there were more false negatives than positives, there were MORE than 2.03 percent of people who had been infected by November 2019.
I would like to know, whose decision was it to stick that dangerous, demeaning swab so far up the nose? How did that become the required way to administer the test? The answer is, I think, very important and gets to the heart of the conspiracy. I think it was a test to see just how far the sheep would let them go in violating their bodily autonomy.
BINGO!!! Exactly - because from what I've read there is ethylene oxide in it, which causes cancer. Also, shoving a swab so far up the nose can damage the blood brain barrier. If E.O. is able to breach the blood brain barrier - can you say brain cancer? Here is why E.O. is not good to put up the nose close to your brain, from the OSHA website:
https://www.osha.gov/ethylene-oxide
Back in Aug. 2020, my husband was rushed to hospital and was very, very ill. They tested him at least several times for covid, several of which were swabs. My husband has always had a very sharp brain, remembers EVERYTHING and had a head full of knowledge gained from 55 yrs research into virology/immunology and other branches of biological sciences. When he came home, he was a changed man and his brain has been going downhill ever since. I don't know if it's from the swab or maybe had had some kind of stroke and we may never know the answer to that. But he never consented to the swabs because he knew the PCR "test" is not any kind of test, it's a process to gather knowledge about DNA strands/sequences. It is used on dinosaur bones for example to gather info on their DNA to learn more about them. There is a video on Yoo Toob of Kerry Mullis, inventor of PCR process saying it should never be used as a test because it doesn't test for anything. He did also say that you can get a false positive result for anything if used as a test. My point is this - how much brain damage might the ethylene oxide on those swabs have caused to untold numbers of people?
"The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives."
Do they have evidence of that? Can they explain how or why the false positives occur?
They speculate/proclaim that the tests are picking up cousins of the novel coronavirus. So someone who tests positive is "cross-reactive." It was another virus that made them sick. That's the other thing they don't talk about. These people not only tested positive for Covid antibodies, they also had all the Covid symptoms months before their tests. And they hadn't been sick after that. They also disparage antibody results that are producing high numbers of positives as being "junk" tests - not reliable. Personally, I trust the "junk" tests more than the tests the government uses and authorizes. I saw you just subscribed. You can read my stories on "How they Conceal Early Spread" and "Antibody Evidence of Early Spread in One Document." I'd value you your opinions. Is my evidence more credible than that of the experts? Thanks for the subscription!
Thank you for this information Bill - I sent your substack sub info to my husband, a virologist of many yrs who worked in Public Health for state of PA. He will read over your 2 articles and the explanations you posted about evidence of of test results. He's a better person to look over the science than I am. I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher and help him with his research is all. He can answer any questions you might have. He will probably answer them on your substack column. Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you very much. What a great resource - a researcher and a virologist.
Thank you! I'm happy to help a "struggling journalist" especially one who seems to want so badly to get to the truth.
I'm working so hard so that I might reach readers just like you and your husband!
Why does it matter WHEN those archived units of Red Cross blood were actually tested for antibodies? Because if those units of blood were tested before mid-March 2020, that would mean officials KNEW that 2.03 percent of Americans in three states already had antibody-evidence of prior infection. 2.03 percent of the national population is 6.6 million infected Americans - by the end of November 2019! With this knowledge, would it really make sense to lock down society and turn the world upside down to "slow" or "stop" the "spread" of this virus .. in mid-March 2020? The virus, according to this antibody study, had been spreading in America at least since early November - for probably at least four months before the lockdowns ... This is called a "lie of omission." Or a ... "cover-up."
It may have been spreading longer than since early Nov. 2019. Back in 2015 winter, husband and I both got a very strange flu. We were sick for about a month and it really affected our lungs, which hurt. Not bad enough to go to hospital but we were in very good health at the time. We wondered if it was pneumonia. When covid came out we wondered if that's what we got in 2015. When covid first came out it was called coronavirus. My husband is virologist/immunologist with 55 yrs research behind him who worked for Public Health in PA. He said coronavirus is one form of the common cold. It's in medical references going back as far as 1970s.
The more I research and think about this topic, the farther I push back the possible start date. Redfield, the former CDC director, has recently stated several times (including before a Congressional Committee) that the first cases were in August or September 2019. Of course, he didn't say that when he was CDC director. Investigating the real dates of early spread would get us closer to learning who was responsible for this virus being released on the world in the first place. So I get why all early spread investigations have been squelched/blocked.
I like the way you think, Bill, you cover all the bases. I'm wondering - are you a scientist of some sort such as a virologist? Or just a smart guy who uses his head and is very thorough? Just wondering.
Thank you, Mr. Grogan. I'm a struggling freelance journalist whose last science class was 11th grade chemistry in 1982! I got interested in "early spread" because I think myself, my two kids and 20 percent of my town probably had the virus by the end of January 2020. It bugs me (no pun intended) that the obvious never becomes the obvious. I DO trust the anecdotes ... not the experts!
I'm very happy to find out that there are journalists like you still out there!!! btw, my dad was a journalist in WW2, covering the war. I also trust the anecdotes, it used to be that anecdotal evidence was one of the best, if not the best ways to determine accurate science. Also it was considered highly valuable in a court of law. Can you point me to any articles or websites where you articles appear? I'd love to read your articles, you're so thorough and you think outside the box. btw, I'm not a Mr. I'm an old lady LOL. Literally EVERYONE online makes that mistake and assumes I'm a Mr. - which btw, I've never been :)
Sorry, Ms. Grogan! Thanks for the nice words.
Here's my Substack site. You can subscribe for free.
https://billricejr.substack.com
I've had several articles published at The Brownstone Institute website. I think that's the best site for contrarian Covid journalism these days (except Steve's site).
Here's the story that got me started on "early spread" investigations. It was published by UncoverDC.com. It took me a month to find ONE publication that would even publish it!
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/06/25/an-alabama-man-nearly-died-from-covid-19-the-first-week-in-january/
Thank you for this, I subbed to your substack and will be looking for you on the internet. Best of luck!
I"ve read from several reliable sources that 98 to 99% of peer reviewed articles are corrupt. This comes from several reliable sources, wish I could remember exactly where but it was from reputable researchers. Those who peer review can be bribed/threatened. Before peer reviewing, scientists could write up their experiences and the court of public opinion could hold sway. With peer review, the public is basically told what to think. Most scientists are pretty honest in my experience with huge respect for the field of science and take their work very seriously. You'd have alot more honesty in research papers IMO if the scientists were left alone to just write their own papers without corrup peer reviewers.
You make an excellent point and I’m intrigued by the idea of what an alternative paper publishing method could be. I like your idea of clarity on the peer review process, since this is so misunderstood by so many people.
I wonder if a searchable platform like Substack would work for publishing nonfiction works as separate from opinion or fiction. The ability to sort based on topic or follow an individual or group would be great as would allowing comments to be easily available for criticism of the work. The authors could have the option of responding to the comments or amending the work with changes being tracked like a standard word document. Not sure how it could be made to discourage junk science or corruption though.
1,000 LIKES for you, Soraya! What a great idea, have non-fiction section on Substack - it could be just for scientists who have submitted articles for people to read and learn about their work. They could also charge, just like writers on Substack now do, $5 a month or so and independent scientists could fund their work that way. If I found a scientist whose work I admired, for example, I could support him with any amount of $ per month and be able to read all his articles, thereby getting to know alot more about him and his work. Scientists would have sponsors so to speak. One of the things my scientist husband has pointed out is that there are no more independent scientists, they are dependent on universities (who are almost all woke libs with no real science) or govt agencies, who are mostl if not all, corrupt. This way, any independent scientist pursuing free energy for example, could do their own research from their garage and still have money to live on and continue their research. I do believe you've hit on an EXCELLENT idea, thank you, Soraya!!!!
Those papers written by the "CDC Response Team" are very influential and important. I think they write them just to control some narrative. Nobody picks them apart. We have a few people trying to be watchdogs or genuine skeptics, but they are ignored. They've covered all their bases to conceal the truth or disseminate the message they want to spread.
EXACTLY! And many of those who peer review aren't scientists, nor do they know any science. In fact, I've heard more than one scientist/doctor say "Fauci doesn't know any science." And he's the one who is pretty much driving the whole bus - off the cliff I might add. There is some group that is controlling the narrative in the field of science IMO. Also, there have been more than 200 scientists in the field of biology/medicine that have been murdered. This was the figure in about 2008 or 2010 from a journalist who was covering the suspicious deaths of these scientists. She stopped writing about it in about 2010 when her life was threatened. She's the wife of a well-known doctor who does alot of research.