Banking on COVID-19

July 30, 2020, the National Law Review (NLR) published an article entitled, “Coronavirus Innovation Guideposts on the Eve of the COVID-19 Pandemic” where they documented applications for patents pertaining to “all things” COVID-19, e.g. “innovations related to the prevention, treatment, diagnosis, protection from or alleviation of symptoms of COVID-19”. 

It appears the greatest number of applications were submitted in 2019, the year before the world was officially notified by the WHO and the Chinese communist government that the virus had jumped species and was inadvertently released by the Wuhan Lab.

The news seemingly came as a surprise to the United States, even though the National Institute of Health (NIH), Fauci’s employer, was funding the gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Lab, which was enhancing the pathogenicity/transmissibility of the virus; a fancy way of saying helping the virus to infect humans. 

On April 7, 2020, White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, had trouble getting the words out when trying to explain how and why the United States was calculating COVID deaths differently from the rest of the world, making any comparisons impossible.  She later estimated that the total number of COVID deaths in the United States were inflated by 25%.

It seems the CDC made a decision to count every death as a “COVID death” if the patient was COVID “positive” at the time of death.  Didn’t matter if the patient was sick or not.  The explanation floating around was that because COVID pays more, the additional reimbursement could be used by our healthcare infrastructure to shore up their resources (staffing, ICU rooms, respirators, ventilators, etc.) to handle the influx of COVID patients, for which they were unprepared.  

Unprepared, in spite of the fact that the governors of each state were told to expect a coronavirus pandemic and what it was going to take to handle their respective populations two years before it happened.  The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation reminded them, yet again, during a mock-up of the pandemic they called Event 201 the previous fall.  Of course, it was supposedly all theoretical.  (Well, not to Bill Gates who started talking about it in 2018 but that’s another story.)

Interestingly, the states that were least prepared (by choice), were quick to blame the federal government for the lack of critical staffing and supplies, even though 100% of the responsibility is/was theirs.  They knew.   And yet they now want the federal government, i.e. taxpayers, to help offset their losses due to their own poor planning (or lack of caring).  Hence, the “it’s Trump’s fault,” rhetoric.   

So to regroup, let’s say a man dies from injuries sustained in a car accident.  He is counted as a “COVID death” if he tested positive for COVID when admitted to the ER.  He then becomes a COVID death.  In the beginning, even the presumption of COVID, i.e. the patient looked like s/he might have it, was enough, because the test kits the CDC handed out didn’t work.  

Because the CDC test kits didn’t work, new test kits, approved by the FDA for emergency use, appeared on the market literally overnight.  “Since the declaration of a public health emergency on February 4, 2020, the FDA authorized the emergency use of about one hundred (100) SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID19) molecular diagnostic tests for use under certain conditions; thirty-seven (37) molecular laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 that meet specified criteria for eligibility under the umbrella emergency use authorization; two (2) antigen diagnostic tests; twenty-five (25) serology/antibody tests. . .”

Unfortunately, these new test kits, themselves, were never tested and are pumping out an alarming number of false positives.   And it is these grossly inflated numbers that were and are being used to provide justification for closing our businesses and forcing us indoors.  So, yeah.  That happened.   

Then, mid June of this year, 54 NIH scientists either resigned or were fired from the NIH for failing to disclose their relationship to the Chinese government.  Trump found out and put a stop to the funding of the Wuhan Lab.  From that point forward, Fauci was noticeably absent from the White House press conferences, pretending to be mystified when Congress asked him why.  He “didn’t know why”.  Indeed.    

COVID-19 is shaping up to be like those reality shows we see on TV where a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant until she goes into labor, only their stories are far more believable. 

Bottom line:  The would-be money makers knew a pandemic was coming.  As it turns out, they were banking on it, as the following article demonstrates.

Think this kind of thing can’t happen?  Well, it did.

Mrs. Monomakhos
(AKA George’s wife and Healthcare Consultant for 40+ years)



  1. What are the chances that some of these recent patent holders were connected with the Wuhan lab research?

  2. Folks, coronaviruses are a group of viruses (some types of the common Cold are included in this grouping), that have been well known to experts since at least the 1960s. Just since the year 2000, we have had two serious outbreaks with SARS-1 and MERS. Why the authors of this blog continue to find i t suspicious that there was research being conducted, patents being filed, conferences hosted, etc is completely beyond me at this point.

    • I agree completely. Now if only that table would show us which month those patent applications took place i.e. December when we knew this virus was dangerous in China. Let’s remember why this virus is called COVID19 and not COVID20! 
      Also SARS and MERS are related to this virus. This is why governments in East Asia, like Taiwan and Singapore were ready for a new virus to come out of China.
      People, pharmaceutical companies can still make a massive profit even if the virus was contained in China. The world is much bigger than America.

      • Correct, by January 1st the Wuhan seafood market was already shut down (it having been identified as the likely culprit of the outbreak at the end of December), and two weeks later the Lancet was already publishing the first papers covering the subject in some depth. That is, there is of course nothing suspicious in there being a spike in research and legal activity related to novel coronaviruses at the tail end of 2019. Oh well… Perhaps the bigger disappointment with this post, is the sophistry surrounding the supposed mass “upcoding”, without any reference to the the fact that mortality year-on-year has spiked nearly in the same measure as the reported number of deaths from this new disease. Such a simple, and straightforward point really. If people were just dying for “routine” reasons, but money-grubbing healthcare professionals were sneakily upcoding their deaths, then logic would dictate that the same number of people would have died this year as did last year. This is clearly not the case, and it is not difficult to ascertain this for oneself without having to rely on my words here.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          You’re making a lot of assumptions, Reader:

          1) What proof do you have that all the applications in 2019 were after the virus escaped the lab? Please provide.

          2) Sophistry implies the intent to deceive. Tell me specifically what I misrepresented.

          3) No one suggested “money-grubbing healthcare professionals were sneakily upcoding their deaths”. It was a decision that was made across the board.

          4) You said: “. . . logic would dictate that the same number of people would have died this year as did last year.” What’s different about this year from last year is the addition of COVID as a cause of death, whether or not the person actually died of COVID. Death certificates support multiple ICD-10s so deaths attributed to the normal causes of death, e.g. heart disease, stroke, cancer, suicide, etc. will continue to be represented. – Before you decide “the mortality year-on-year has spiked nearly in the same measure as the reported number of deaths from this new disease” why don’t you wait until you actually see the data?

  3. cynthia curran says

    Well, if we speak our minds on the corona virus, or the protests, or the green movement. We can be censured by twitter or facebook. I have had two accounts disabled on facebook.

  4. Antiochene Son says

    All I know is that on my way home from church one Sunday in late Feb/early March, I passed a military semi-truck, some other vehicles, and probably a dozen soldiers in fatigues milling about in a strip mall parking lot near my church.
    The nearest base to me is at least 4 hours away, and I don’t live near a convenient freeway that they could have just pulled over from. I still wonder what they were doing there. 

  5. M. Stankovich says

    The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics has provided specific guidelines for coding COVID-19 related deaths since February. While the guidance has been updated nearly every month since February, it is substantially the same directives. It can be found here:
    There are also iPhone/iPad/Android apps, “Cause of Death Reference Guide” distributed by the CDC, which are both interesting & instructive. Read about them here:
    These guidelines are very specific, and have never instructed practitioners that, if a person dies of a peripheral accident, circumstance, or condition unrelated or not exacerbated by COVID-19 (i.e. the patient, even with underlying conditions, would not have died without exacerbation by COVID-19), and is also found to be infected with COVID-19, COVID-19 should be coded as the immediate cause of death on the death certificate. The suggestion that healthcare professionals are “boosting” cases – and for profit no less – is absolutely unsubstantiated and untrue (and the Medicare “Merit-Based Incentive Payment System,” described in the Federal Register on 4/06/20, is intended for “a clinician[s], organizations and other relevant stakeholders [identified] as improving clinical practice or care delivery,” not to illegally perpetrate fraud). If COVID-19 is co-morbid with underlying disorders (e.g. someone with lifetime COPD, known to be exacerbated by COVID-19, dies from COVID-19-related pneumonia, COVID-19 is coded as the cause of death – COPD does not cause pneumonia.) In the presence of co-morbid conditions, it is only coded as the cause of death if it exacerbates the underlying condition. The “immediate cause of death” is the condition that “directly preceded and led to, say, cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest in the decedent.”
    This idea that death certificates are misrepresenting and/or inflating non-qualifying deaths to reflect deaths from COVID-19 has been refuted in a statement issued by an extensive list of prominent medical examiners in US cities and counties. Marc Lipsitch, Professor of Epidemiology at Harvard University told a local news “Fact Check” segment that, “There are going to be some people who die of something else, happen to have COVID and get tested, and get counted as COVID deaths but would die anyway. It would be wrong to say that number is zero. However, given current testing shortages and protocols, the number of such cases will be small. A greater issue is errors in the other direction — deaths caused by COVID that are not counted as such” because of the lack of testing, and because people infected with COVID-19, but not diagnosed, can die, for example, from a heart attack or stroke brought about by direct exacerbation of viral infection. COVID-19 is known to exacerbate a frightening number of co-morbid conditions presented by patients at high risk (e.g. cardiac, pulmonary, liver & kidney function to name a few).
    When Dr. Deborah Birx made a comment in April that, “If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death,” she later clarified that, “If someone who goes into the hospital to be treated for the virus also had a pre-existing condition that eventually caused the individual to die, that would be counted as a Covid-19 death.” The well-recognized and well-respected spokesman for the National Association of Medical Examiners, Michael Baden, MD, recently appeared on Fox News to comment that it is reasonable to include the death of someone infected with the virus, who also had other co-morbid conditions, in the COVID-19 death count:
    “In the normal course, autopsies would then determine whether the person died of the effects of the COVID virus, whether the person had a brain tumor or brain hemorrhage for example that might be unrelated to it, and what the relative significance of both the infection and the pre-existing disease is. In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. You will include in those numbers some people who did have a pre-existing condition that would have caused death anyway, but that’s probably a small number.” There is a theory that a significant number of individuals who died of the seasonal flu have been counted as deaths attributable to COVID-19 without testing. As Dr. Baden notes, coding guidelines indicate that when specific test result are unavailable, a clinician should use their best judgement in determining whether COVID-19 was a factor in the death of a patient. While this may seem to imply complete subjectivity on the part of primary clinicians, there are significant differences between symptoms and the course of illness between seasonal flu and COVID-19: onset of symptoms after infection are generally a day with seasonal flu, but can extend as long as 14-days with COVID-19; the ability to shed the virus while asymptomatic can extend from 2-5 days with with COVID-19; and Respiratory Distress Syndrome and complete organ failure are not generally associated with seasonal flu. I can tell you from experience that patients presenting with COVID-19 who need hospitalization & progress to breathing management, and ultimately to a ventilator, are unmistakable.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      With regard to the National Association of Medical Examiners, you said Michael Baden, MD. made the following statement: “It is reasonable to include the death of someone infected with the virus, who also had other co-morbid conditions, in the COVID-19 death count: “In the normal course, autopsies would then determine . . .”

      I realize regulations vary by state, but autopsies would not typically be done on COVID patients. Nor would it be feasible in a pandemic.

      It is the death certificates that are used to determine the number of COVID deaths.

      Please look at the attached and see where it says: “When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death [“a,” as in there could be several in a sequence] on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19.” The instructions go on to say: “COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death.

      Herein, lies the problem. In a COVID positive patient, COVID is on the Cause of Death Certificate, meaning is was a contributing factor simply because the patient tested positive.

      I’m sure it is in different spots for different patients, but it’s on there 100% of the time, as Dr. Birx acknowledged: “If someone dies with COVID-19 (on the certificate somewhere/anywhere), we are counting that as a COVID-19 death . . . If someone who goes into the hospital to be treated for the virus also had a pre-existing condition that eventually caused the individual to die, that would be counted as a Covid-19 death.”

      So it’s not completely up to the clinical judgment of anyone. This is the way it is done in practice which according to Birx is different than any other country has chosen to do it, making comparisons impossible. Plus, we have untested equipment telling clinicians their patients are COVID positive when they may not be.

      • This will be remembered as one of the greatest, most costly, hoaxes in human history.  From early on, people who looked at deaths per exposure from around the world, myself included, were saying that this is basically a slightly more potent cousin of the flu and that all of the bs is political, save for the wisdom of quarantining those most at risk (the aged, etc.).  As more testing was done and numbers came in, that turned out to be the case.
        So why was it hyped in the first place?  My theory is that the Demsheviks and the MSM saw an opportunity.  Probably a few of the more clever hacks were brainstorming and noticed that the President had cut off ingress from China as a preventative.  At that time, though, most people were dismissive of the Kungflu’s potential, as was the President.  Some Demshevik/media hacks looked at that scene and decided it could be exploited through alarmism – the perfect storm at the perfect time.
        The MSM/Dems decided to work against the president’s instincts and hype the faux danger of the virus 24/7.  Anti-Trump, progressive forces in politics and the scientific community dutifully got on board.  They could see a hustle developing as well as anyone. 
        All that would have been necessary to burst the bubble early on would have been to show, simultaneously on the TV screen, the total Covid deaths during 2020 vs. the total flu deaths.  Perspective would have broken the spell.  But they were intent on casting that spell.
        Projections were cooked up of millions of deaths in the US alone.  
        All of this was done assuming Trump would be stubborn in his reluctance to pull out all the stops against the virus.  But, from their perspective, it didn’t matter.  If he resisted, he could be blamed for everything bad that happened.  If he played along, he could be blamed just as well and if they could stretch it out til the election, they could walk away with the presidency through the vote by mail ballot stuffing scheme they are still unhatching as we speak.
        But, then there were the riots.  And the absurdity of it all was on display because no one was bitching at the rioters for ignoring social distancing, etc.  Any fool could see it was a scam at that point.  
        Now it seems to be breaking too soon.  More MSM outlets are reporting that the Emperor virus is naked and its slowly wearing off.  Even Dr. Fauci is saying its perfectly safe to go out and vote now.  Soon the rest of it will fade but there should be relentless accountability about how it originated and was propagated.  Really there should be a CovidGate investigation after the SpyGate investigation has moved into the indictment phase in Trump’s second term.  That seems likely if Trump is re-elected due to the sheer staggering amount of money that has been lost and lives that have been disrupted due to the hoax.  
        People should hang for this.
        The Democratic Party is the focus of evil in the modern world.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Could be, my friend. Your instincts are usually pretty good.

          I think Gates is planning to take over Soros’ role playing puppeteer. He knew his tenure with his polio initiative was coming to a close when all those kids started getting sick from the vaccine (OPV). I wrote a piece on it for George last March and came under heavy fire for it. The truth wins out in the end.

          So Gates is shifting his focus to COVID but that stubborn virus just wouldn’t jump species fast enough and, well, he wasn’t getting the hero’s welcome anymore because of the polio thing. He’s got to save the world, “dontch-ya know” (like I come from WI, which I don’t). I think there’s a name for it . . . Munchausen syndrome by proxy, or something. Anyway, the truth will win out and we’ll all be wiser for it.

          What I bet you didn’t know was the-powers-that-be are actually talking about using the OPV (yep, the same one responsible for the outbreak of vaccine-induced polio) to treat COVID! I kid you not.,

  6. Johann Sebastian says

    Nearly 3,000,000 COVID deaths are projected worldwide by year-end. While social justice warriors on one side and freedom fighters on the other duke it out and obsess over election logistics, China has successfully carried out a massive biological attack that, if allowed to progress, may well dwarf the death toll in all WWII concentration camps combined.

  7. Fr. David Hovik says

    From a friend of mine who is a retired Family Practice MD:
    Reassuring return to campus Covid testing results-this table shows the top schools for positive PCR tests, therefore considered Covid positive (doesn’t tell whether they are contagious). Total 11,000 cases, and no hospitalizations. More evidence that we have moved into an alarmist casedemic-the pandemic is over. Unfortunately, nobody told the governors. Stop just harping on positive cases, it is ICU admissions and deaths that are the critical stats at this point.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Father David, you are being logical with a premise that assumes politics is, in general, rational. If that was ever the case, it stopped being that with the creation and marketing of identity politics. The COVID restrictions are political.  Therefore irrational and aimed at one thing power. Politics is now solely about obtaining and maintaining power so that one’s enemy can be destroyed.  The rest is manipulation.  Only by eschewing power but still declaring the truth in the face of all the evil will anything possibly change. 
      We are not managers. We have to eschew that temptation to power.  We have totally failed to govern in all proper capacities and ways.  Total, absolute failure. Not just the Democrats and socialists but all of us personally and corporately have failed.  Even the option of not voting is an admission of and participation in our total failure. Instead we have fallen prey to all of the passions and mistake those for virtues if “managed” properly. Christians most of all.  
      Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner!
      Repentance personally and corporately is our only hope. Our Bishops and priests should be calling us all to repentance from sin and having services of repentance. Not the made up guilts that are nothing more than passions packaged for political consumption but real, substantial sins.  
      Consumption used to be a disease of the lungs that curtailed and stopped breathing. It is still a sin against the Holy Spirit. But how do we repent of that?☦️☦️☦️
      I do not ask that rhetorically.

    • Sharine Borslien says

      Fr. David Hovik: I agree with you that “case-demic” is accurate. The term defines the hype as driven by the increasing number of people testing (and re-testing, as is being forced in schools and hospitals, for example), whose results are labeled “positive,” regardless of the fact the the RT-PCR test cannot and does not test for infection, contagious or not. The test identifies a genetic marker on R/DNA, then amplifies it millions of times in order to try to correctly label it as a particular virus.
      The term “case-demic” unfortunately does not clearly define the fact that viruses exist always in the human body, and their job is to remove toxins. When a person becomes ill with a “virus,” it is because their body is already toxic; the virus then becomes activated to clean up the toxins and move the waste product to the most effective organ “outlet,” be it the skin, lungs, liver, elimination system, etc. “Viruses” do not transmit to one another, as numerous, proper clinical studies have shown with conclusive evidence. We have been lied to about “germ theory” by the greedy bastards who sought to profit from and have effectively capitalized on this evil theory, the Rockefellers.
      In my current understanding, a more accurate description of what we have thought of as “viral transmission” is resonant confluence; that is, people in same/similar environments do and often think alike, and get same/similar results.
      For example, during the summer months in the US, people are typically physically active, spending time outdoors and enjoying companionship under the sun and stars, more so than in the other seasons. Fall comes, kids return to government indoctrination camps (GICs) where they sit on their little butts for hours a day, being forced to learn mostly useless drivel under fluorescent lights, and often eating what amounts to fried garbage. Parents get stressed out during this time, running their children around to school and extra-curricular activities, while also trying to maintain their jobs and lifestyles. Fun BBQs with fresh fruits and homemade potato salads turns into take-out from a fast-food joint (whether McDonald’s or Pizza Hut or Chili’s) or worse, processed meats from delis and freezers. The kids do GIC homework while the parents do chores. Before bed, everyone turns on EMF emitting devices to watch mind-numbing “entertainment” or play video games, snacking on junk food. The stress and EMFs produce excessive amounts of cortisol. Multiply this by millions of families doing the same/similar, and we end up with toxic overload, and the virus helpers are forced to activate and clean up the mess, making the person “sick,” which is actually the body forcing detox.
      Some thoughts based on my research! 

    • M. Stankovich says

      . . . upwards of 15% of these 11,000 young, healthy, and exceptionally fit college athletes who submitted to a diagnostic MRI, were found to have myocarditis – an inflammation of the cardiac muscle ordinarily caused by a viral infection – that can cause “an electrically unstable condition which favours the development of atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias or conduction defects [disturbances of the normal rhythm] ,” meaning cardiac arrhythmias, sudden cardiac arrest, and ultimately death. What is extraordinary is the fact that this condition is generally absent from this class of athlete, but when it is, it is the cause of up to 25% of sudden cardiac death in athletes [There is an excellent article by Martin Halle & Michael Schindler, “Myocarditis in athletes,” in the current edition of Oxford University’s, Textbook of Sports Cardiology, published in 2019]. Of concern is that their myocarditis has persisted 30 or more days after they no longer tested positive for COVID-19, and no is sure how long it will persist; only 50% of cases of myocarditis in athletes resolve spontaneously. It would be interesting to see the exact number of these 11,00 athletes who actually received an MRI scan. In any case, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommend “refraining completely from exercise during the acute phase, and no competitive and amateur leisure-time sports activity for six months after probable or proven myocarditis.” . . . it is rare that an athlete with myocarditis is hospitalized. I would also note that, as the COVID-19 Resource Center at Johns Hopkins University reported 90,000 newly diagnosed cases yesterday; we shockingly close to 190,000 deaths; and people are flocking to beaches and parties on this long holiday weekend, (at least from what I’ve seen on the news) disregarding masks and social distancing, in approximately 2-4 weeks, we will see just how much the pandemic is over.

      • Gail Sheppard says

        Actually those totals were only for India, where interestingly, Bill Gates, et. al are testing the new vaccine.

        Yesterday’s data (9/6/2020)
        NEW CASES: 90,632
        DEATHS: 1,065
        The first case of COVID-19 in India was reported 219 days ago on 1/29/2020. Yesterday, the country reported 90,632 new confirmed cases and 1,065 deaths.

        • M. Stankovich says

          Pardon me, I was looking at a CDC Bulletin of the total of the past 7-days at 292,055, and what I recalled later was the “90,000.” Apparently I am no longer in awe of these astonishing data.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            If you could provide the link, that would be helpful. I wasn’t aware the CDC put out any bulletins by day. Only provisional totals by week.

            • M. Stankovich says
              • Gail Sheppard says

                A CDC URL always begins with

                Https://covid.cdc is not the CDC.

                The CDC uses a graphic from this other URL on one of their screens with a man sitting at his computer showing the same big bright map you see on the non-CDC screen suggesting they are somehow linked. Not surprisingly, the same map and data has been circulating all over Twitter.

                The CDC does not publish numbers by day, only by week and even then, they add the following caveat:

                “. . . National provisional counts include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia that have been received and coded as of the date specified. It is important to note that it can take several weeks for death records to be submitted to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), processed, coded, and tabulated. Therefore, the data shown on this page may be incomplete, and will likely not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for the more recent time periods.

                Very curious. Who is this other tracker that has numbers from the previous day and why do they say they’re the CDC when their URL is different? Is this some kind of app, I wonder?

                • LSV Serious Callers Only says

                  The first link is a CDC link, it ends with A CDC link will end with, it doesn’t have to start with Things before the just subdomains.
                  Note that if you enter:
                  It redirects you to the URL.

                • Actually the positioning of “covid” in front of doesn’t make a difference here, Gail. Many websites follow the same format for important pages (maybe it just makes it easier for people to remember than the long addresses which follow a forward slash. 

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    Thanks, Dan. Interestingly, I couldn’t find anything to do with daily COVID totals when I used the search function on the CDC site. Nothing comes up for (within the regular CDC site) either.

                    When you refer to the site on FB, the graphic doesn’t pop up like it does with the CDC. All you see is a grey box. It is not the CDC. The CDC site is more of a tree-like structure. It’s heavy on words and lite on graphics. The other site is different.

                    It’s hard to understand why the CDC would warn you on it’s major site about the lag in reporting where you can only drill down to the week and then see on this new “COVID CDC” site daily totals in large colorful letters taking up a good portion of the screen.

                    The look and feel of the CDC screen, as you probably know, are not what one would call flashy. They’re very wordy and aside from the tables, don’t do a whole lot with graphics. The other site has a different feel.

                    You can’t link to the other site from the CDC site either.

                    Frankly, there are other URLS with “” in them. Take a look at the following. It’s says CDC in the URL, but it’s clearly not CDC: It’s from Saudi Arabia.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  If this site is not CDC – or at least sourced from an official US government source approved by the General Services Administration – they could not use the .gov domain. Second, how could they be allowed to display the official header banner of the Centers for Disease Control if it is not CDC?
                  Electronic Code of Federal Regulations []
                  Subpart B—Registration
                  §102-173.30 Who may register in the dot-gov domain?
                  Registration in the dot-gov domain is available to official governmental organizations in the United States including Federal, State, and local governments, and Native Sovereign Nations.
                  §102-173.35 Who authorizes domain names?
                  Domain names must be authorized by the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the requesting or sponsoring governmental organization. For Federal departments and agencies, the General Services Administration (GSA) will accept authorization from the CIO of the department or agency. For independent Federal government agencies, boards, and commissions, GSA will accept authorization from the highest-ranking Information Technology Official. For State and local governments, GSA will accept authorization from appropriate State or local officials, see §102-173.40.
                  §102-173.95 Are there any restrictions on the use of the dot-gov domain name?
                  The General Services Administration approves domain names for a specific term of time, generally two years unless otherwise stated, and under conditions of use. General conditions of registration and are posted at the registration Web site at and may be modified over time. Organizations that operate web sites that are not in compliance with the conditions of use may have their domain name terminated.

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    Thank you, Michael. Really appreciate this information. Explains a lot.

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    Did you see I posted in a comment to Dan? It’s got the “” in there so it must fall under the §102-173.30 heading. So would a Saudi Arabia site be an “official governmental organizations in the United States including Federal, State, and local governments, and Native Sovereign Nations.” I am so not getting this.

                    • Johann Sebastian says

                      Be careful if there are superfluous suffixes. Often used to mimic a legitmate website for hacking purposes. Easy to register a domain like “gov.xx” and then set up servers/subdirectories named covid19, cdc, etc.

                      “” would be the root domain name for this particular website.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      Thank you, JS. This has turned into quite an education for me.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  If you go to the CDC’s data & surveillance site there is an “FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.” The last section on the page is titled, “CDC COVID Data Tracker”:
                  “What is CDC COVOD Data Tracker?
                  “CDC COVID Data Tracker [] is a website that allows users to interact with a variety of data on COVID-19 that is updated daily. The website builds on other agency efforts – such as CDC’s new weekly COVID-19 surveillance report, COVIDView [] – to capture the impact the virus is having on the United States. CDC COVID Data Tracker presents data using visual dashboards that include interactive maps and graphs. It is being developed in phases. The first phase showcases data on U.S. COVID-19 cases and deaths as well as the social impacts of COVID-19.”
                  Click on the Tracker link and it redirects you to

                  • Gail Sheppard says

                    Thanks, Michael. So it is a different site but it pulls data from the CDC and the WHO.

                    Have you ever found daily totals on the CDC site? I wonder where they’re getting them.

                    I am concerned about something my daughter shared with me when she was here. Jessica has a roommate who is a COVID nurse at SHARP. When this whole thing started, her roommate was sent home because they didn’t have any patients. Then they started coming in and were almost always obese. Then they started seeing the patients with the comorbidities we’ve heard about. (Lots of older people of course.) Now, however, her roommate is shaken because 30 something people are coming in with nothing else wrong with them but are dying and she says they can’t figure out why. She is really shaken up by this.

                    I read recently where they have identified 6 strains of the virus. In other words, it’s not like one virus was released. Some people think this explains why a disportionate number of people were killed in Italy. The virus they got was not the virus other people got.

                    I’m interested in what you think: Do you think when Fauci et al. talked about a “second wave” they were referring to a release of another strain that could target younger people and that may be what’s coming next?

                    Another question: Why would there be 6 different strains? Do you think this was/is intended to be a biological weapon?

                    • “Why would there be 6 different strains […]”

                      It’s the law of big numbers at work, and there’s likely much more than just 6 strains – it’s just that those 6 might be more contagious/lethal, or have some other remarkable trait that made them appear on our radar. If a virus has spread to 100s of people, and is effectively dealt with within a short period of time – it may not have had a chance to mutate a sufficient number of times, or in the “right” direction to stay contagious AND become more deadly. However, if it’s now being carried by millions, or perhaps tens of millions of people, then that means that there are tens of millions of “little labs” inside which the virus has a random chance to change itself. In an individual case, the probability that through those random changes the virus will acquire a new set of genes that will make it more contagious or more deadly is infinitesimal. Multiply that by a million and you just may win the “lottery”.

                      This is why we do gain of function research, even though it may seem absolutely insane to the layman. By modeling in a safe lab environment how a coronavirus can “get out control” and become very deadly or contagious, we prepare ourselves for how to deal with this scenario when it happens out in the “wild”. Can such an engineered virus somehow escape even a very advanced facility – certainly. Should we stop conducting such research because of this risk – I would argue that absolutely we should not.

                      As regards your question regarding the “second wave” – I don’t believe, strictly speaking, that the mutations is what was meant by Dr. Fauci and other experts under this term. A general lowering of our collective guard through fatigue, or a feeling that the disease may be less dangerous than it’s made out to be due to your limited exposure in your specific geography, and the consequent resurgence of infection rates is what was meant. But to some extent a second wave of mass infection does imply a higher chance of a mutated and possibly more dangerous version of the disease appearing. These more dangerous versions can then mutate to become deadlier still, but the chances of that are rather small. Given large enough numbers, however, it’s not a question of if it will happen, but when. Incidentally, this is why bats make for such a “wonderful” reservoir of deadly coronaviruses. Their immune systems are so crazy robust, that regardless of what the viruses throw at them in way of new mutations, it doesn’t really bother the bats. Not a sneeze or a cough that could help the virus travel a little further. It wouldn’t ever bother ANYONE, really, if only people didn’t get the bright idea of trading and eating wildlife. When the coronaviruses-on-steroids get a chance to escape a bat (there may be some other animal in between), then that’s when we get in trouble.
                      P.S. Just wanted to add to Johann Sebastian’s post regarding superfluous suffixes following .gov, and the need to be wary of such links. He’s certainly right that many scammers use such misleading web addresses to fool unsuspecting people into giving up their personal info. However, in the case of the link that you provided ending in .sa, this is just a curious coincidence where Saudi Arabia uses nearly the same name for their government agency in charge of disease control and prevention. Note, the United States government owns .gov, but not, or, or, for example (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Russia). In a nutshell – if there’s a period after “.gov” – you’re dealing with something not related to the US government. If there’s a forward slash – then you’re all clear. Hope that makes it clearer. 

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      There is a large study published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology with the title “Geographic and Genomic Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Mutations” that shows the mutation rate is actually quite low (the flu is twice as high). Its low evolutionary change is believed to be due to the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was already optimized to affect human beings.

                      RE: “By modeling in a safe lab environment . . . Should we stop conducting such research because of this risk – I would argue that absolutely we should not.”

                      THESE PEOPLE CAUSED ONE OF THE WORST “ACCIDENTS” IN HISTORY. Clearly, this wasn’t a safe lab. This particular lab was in China, and what they were doing there raised flags a year before they released this plague. Columnist Josh Rogin of The Washington Post reported that U.S. embassy officials visited the Wuhan Lab back in 2018 and were so concerned, they sent two official warnings back to Washington and the safety and management weaknesses at the lab.

                      I do not agree that it’s fine to do something like this in a lab and I am not alone. I seriously doubt there will ever be funding for this kind of thing in the future, especially in China, due to the involvement of the DoJ looking more closely into the U.S. biomedical research community. I understand one researcher was pulling in over $50,000 a month from China. Of course if Biden wins, all bets are off as he thinks China is “not all that bad.”

                      If we’re going to fund any kind of research, we need to be able to trust the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the CDC) to protect us AND THE WORLD from this kind of crap. It is their mission and their obligation and they have failed miserably.

                      If they are capable of doing something this reckless, I don’t want any part of their vaccine. I’d rather get the bioengineered virus. This vaccine is going to be about as “safe” as that death lab. They have skipped the necessary testing (which was the whole point of leaking the virus the way they did in the first place, IMO) so they can release it across the board. The release of all vaccines has resulted in devastating consequences for many, many people in the past. (Go look on the CDC page that itemizes the devastating diseases unleashed by them, by way of proof.) The payout for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is 4.2 billion, so far, and they only paid 6,947 of the 21,303 petitions.

                      This vaccine, that they’re doing in months instead of the decade it normally takes to do all the testing, has gone directly into clinical trials with humans and it’s a totally new type of vaccine that injects RNA into our DNA using gene-editing technology CRISPR, which allows researchers to easily alter DNA sequences and modify gene function. God knows what they’re going to be attaching to it. They found HIV in the virus (COVID) they unleashed on us.

                      No wonder Bill Gates has often referred to the vaccine as a way of reducing the population.

                      I don’t want any part of this experiment which includes taking that vaccine.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      I don’t believe anyone is absolutely certain of the form of GoF research that was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV] except the Chinese. There is an excellent descriptive overview of the issue of GoF in a 2015 National Academy of Science publication titled “Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop,” available for download from the National Library of Medicine here
                      Of interest is the section, “Types of GoF Research,” which explains that “routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.” There are three common cartegories of GoF research: 1) GoF “research of concern” (which includes generation of a virus with properties that do not occur in nature.” I would note that viruses are being utilized to therapeutically “transport” antiviral therapy such as a vaccine – cf. Virus and Host Mechanics Support Membrane Penetration and Cell Entry ; 2) generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to, or less problematic, than those existing in nature (the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells); and 3) the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern (e.g. influenza strains found to have increased pathogenicity in mice, but not in humans).
                      All these methods are described as “a ‘proactive’ approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.” It is important to realize that “cell receptors for influenza viruses are relatively similar across different species, and this prompts a concern about possible increased transmission in humans from an influenza virus that is adapted for readier transmission in other mammals,” yet “receptor interface for coronaviruses varies more markedly across different species.” After reading any number of research studies produced directly by the WIV and their allied institutions since 2013, I am unable to determine what constituted their form of GoF research, if any. Unfortunately, the NIH – in cancelling the grant renewal with the WIV, provided no specific reason or any specific evidence whatsoever, other than to say “confidence had been lost in the security at the WIV”; this despite the fact that, after an independent investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated in a press release on 04/20/20, “The entire Intelligence Community has been consistently providing critical support to U.S. policymakers and those responding to the COVID-19 virus, which originated in China. The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified. As we do in all crises, the Community’s experts respond by surging resources and producing critical intelligence on issues vital to U.S. national security. The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”
                      All politics aside, you can conclude with near certainty that the current form of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 was not manufactured or altered (purposely “weaponized”), but is, in every sense of the word a “novel” virus, calling into question the traditional biological mechanisms by which such a virus infects humans. COVID-19 accomplishes this in a way that scientists have never seen before (you asked about viral mutation, and because of length, I’ll address it separately, including what the unique manner by which COVID-19 infects humans). SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh known coronavirus to infect humans (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, which can cause severe disease, and HKU1, NL63, OC43 and 229E which are associated with mild symptoms) [cf. Corman, VM, Muth, D., Niemeyer, D., Drosten, C., “Chapter Eight – Hosts and Sources of Endemic Human Coronaviruses,” Advances in Virus Research, Vol. 100, Kielian, M., Mettenleiter, TC, and Roossinck, MJ, eds., Elsevier Inc., 2020]. Suffice it to say for now that, in a study I have already referenced previously, “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” a comparison of sequencing of the respective genomes of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 indicate significant mutations in SARS-CoV-2 that can dramatically increase its affinity to infect the human respiratory epithelial cells through interaction with the human ACE2 receptor, which is protective of the respiratory system. “If genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.”

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      RE: “I don’t believe anyone is absolutely certain of the form of GoF research that was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV] except the Chinese.”

                      Studies funded by the NIH prove that GoF research was going on at the Wuhan Lab in two phases.

                      The first took place from 2014 to 2019, through a $3.7 million project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses. This work was largely led by Dr. Zhengli Shi, known to many as “batwoman” for her years investigating caves in search of new bat viruses.

                      The second phase began shortly after, with another $3.7 million. Unlike the first, this project included work on “gain-of-function”: research that investigates how a virus can gain the ability to infect a new type of animal.

                      RE: “All politics aside, you can conclude with near certainty that the current form of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 was not manufactured or altered (purposely “weaponized”), but is, in every sense of the word a “novel” virus, calling into question the traditional biological mechanisms by which such a virus infects humans.”

                      I don’t agree. Actually, many don’t agree.

                    • anonimus per Scorilo says

                      And it’s a totally new type of vaccine that injects RNA into our DNA using gene-editing technology CRISPR
                      One cannot inject RNA into the DNA, it has different components.
                      One can indeed inject DNA into DNA, using CRISPR, but this has nothing to do with the RNA in the Moderna vaccine.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      DNA (INOVIO) and RNA-based (Moderna) vaccines are genetic vaccines. DNA-based immunization works through the direct injection of genetic material into a living host which causes a small amount of its cells to produce the introduced gene products.


                    • It is not very useful or helpful to ever refer to ‘their’ vaccine or ‘the’ vaccine in a general sense. There are dozens, with nine already in phase three trials and eighteen in phase two. People in charge of health policy have no idea which candidates will ultimately prove to be reasonably safe and effective. Which given the stakes involved for the world is why there is an unprecedented degree of parallel development going on.

                      One cannot even refer to ‘the’ category of covid vaccine. There are candidates that use: viral vector, recombinant protein, inactivated virus, and genetic. There are more categories, but I don’t regard their candidates as being worthy of consideration at this point.

                      Covid was not ‘bio-engineered’ once, much less six times. I fear you read somebody who grabbed a few statistics out of the ‘Geographic and Genomic Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Mutations’ paper, made some inappropriate comparisons and used it to make claims that don’t actually have any scientific merit. The problem is, without a baseline level of scientific literacy in the life sciences, it is easy to be misled.

                      On the subject of covid vaccines, some useful reading:



                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      I didn’t use that term in the comment you were responding to so I’m not sure what you mean but I would think “their vaccine” would mean THE vaccine chosen to be disseminated around the world, whichever one that turns out to be. If you’re talking about Gates, it could be any number of them as he has invested money in several. Kind of like the rumor of the Rothschilds betting on both sides of a war. Someone’s got to win, right?

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      This not a criticism, but I believe that your concerns regarding mRNA vaccines are unfounded. I would suggest that you have entered an arena that is extremely complex and requires an advanced understanding of human genetics. In my opinion, sites such as The Bulletin – which employs an abundance of speculative “scenarios” and already refuted science (and if they are relying on the PBS Nightly News as a primary source, at least be analytically fair [] – do nothing but further confuse the issues at hand. As I have noted twice previously, an examination [] of the sequenced genome of SARS-CoV-2 – which has been cited an extraordinary 181 times in other research sources since it was published in March – is definitive: 1) There are no genetic similarities with other virus backbones used in any of the known reverse genetics systems for betacoronaviruses; 2) A distinct characteristic of SARS-CoV-2 – “the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein“ is “suboptimal” in comparison to SARS-CoV. strongly suggesting that it is evolutional, rather than engineered; and 3) The ability of COVID-19 to infect human cells “diminishes in tissue culture,” meaning it is much less efficient than SARS-CoV-2, further suggesting an evolutional characteristic rather than engineering. I have not seen a study that would indicate those living in the Wuhan vicinity (and I would note that the population of Wuhan is 11,000,000, which would make it the 3rd largest city in the US, begin NYC & LA) and who were first to present with COVID-19, were infected by a means other than animal-to-human-transmission, which is a reasonable conclusion:

                      “Through genomic and phylogenetic analyses, we have uncovered the genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 and shown that this novel CoV is close to bat-originated CoVs and pangolin-CoV . Thus, bats may have been the original host of SARS-CoV-2 followed by subsequent transmission to humans by pangolins. However, the unique functions of most proteins encoded by the SARS-CoV-2 genome remain unknown. The majority of recent studies have mainly focused on the SARS-CoV-2 S [spike] protein that is the target of many vaccine development strategies and has been instrumental in aiding our understanding of the mechanism of viral invasion into host cells. [Current research has shown] the structural rearrangements of the S protein following entry of the virus into the host cells, and observed that SARS-CoV-2 showed 10 – 20 fold increased affinity for ACE2 compared to SARS-CoV.” [Dong, Y., Dai, T., et al. “Coronavirus in continuous flux: from SARS-CoV to SARS-CoV-2.” Adv Sci (Weinh). 2020 Jun 24 : 2001474. doi: 10.1002/advs.202001474 – full text here:

                      The description of the initial Moderna candidate vaccine (and I certainly agree with you that the race to produce a COVID-19 by November – or even soon, for that matter – is not encouraging, particularly when the four other manufacturers have signed agreements to strictly follow the FDA protocols [cf. is found on the FDA’s Clinical Trial site [].

                      “This is a phase I, open-label, dose-ranging clinical trial in males and non-pregnant females, starting at 18 years of age, inclusive, who are in good health and meet all eligibility criteria. This clinical trial is designed to assess the safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 manufactured by ModernaTX, Inc. mRNA-1273 is a novel lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-encapsulated [cf. and [] mRNA-based vaccine that encodes for a full-length, perfusion stabilized spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. Enrollment will occur at up to 3 domestic clinical research sites. One hundred and fifty-five subjects will be enrolled into one of thirteen cohorts (10 micrograms [mcg], 25 mcg, 50 mcg, 100 mcg, or 250 mcg). Subjects will receive an intramuscular (IM) injection (0.5 milliliters [mL]) of mRNA-1273 on Days 1 and 29 in the deltoid muscle and will be followed through 12 months post second vaccination (Day 394). Follow-up visits will occur 1, 2, and 4 weeks post each vaccination (Days 8, 15, 29, 36, 43, and 57), as well as 3, 6, and 12 months post second vaccination (Days 119, 209, and 394). The primary objective is to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of a 2-dose vaccination schedule of mRNA-1273, given 28 days apart, across 5 dosages in healthy adults. The secondary objective is to evaluate the immunogenicity as measured by Immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to the SARS-CoV-2 S (spike) protein following a 2-dose vaccination schedule of mRNA-1273 at Day 57.”

                      Briefly, bear in mind that, “all the coronaviruses are positive-stranded RNA viruses with a polycistronic genome with 6–11 open reading frames, encoding several nonstructural proteins at the 5′-end plus four structural proteins (spike surface glycoprotein [S], envelope [E], matrix [M] and nucleocapsid [N]) and multiple lineage-specific accessory proteins at the 3′-end []. Secondly, they have a specific “replicative strategy which includes, as essential steps, reverse transcription of the virion RNA into linear double-stranded DNA and the subsequent integration of this DNA into the genome of the cell [] i.e. you are correct that it inserts itself into DNA. Anyone who studied “old school” genetics (like me, when dinosaurs walked the earth) remembers that, classically, RNA received its instructions from DNA. With the discovery of HIV/AIDS, retroviruses turned genetics upside-down. Nevertheless, the safety and efficacy of RNA vaccines is well established. An excellent overview – Pardi, N., Hogan, MJ, et al. “mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology.” Nat Rev Drug Discov 17, 261–279 (2018) – full text here: And as you raised the issue of safety,

                      “The use of mRNA has several beneficial features over subunit, killed and live attenuated virus, as well as DNA-based vaccines. First, safety: as mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Additionally, mRNA is degraded by normal cellular processes, and its in vivo half-life can be regulated through the use of various modifications and delivery methods. The inherent immunogenicity of the mRNA can be down-modulated to further increase the safety profile, Second, efficacy: various modifications make mRNA more stable and highly translatable. Efficient in vivo delivery can be achieved by formulating mRNA into carrier molecules, allowing rapid uptake and expression in the cytoplasm. mRNA is the minimal genetic vector; therefore, anti-vector immunity is avoided, and mRNA vaccines can be administered repeatedly. Third, production: mRNA vaccines have the potential for rapid, inexpensive and scalable manufacturing, mainly owing to the high yields of in vitro transcription reactions.”

                      “Because the manufacturing process for mRNA does not require toxic chemicals or cell cultures that could be contaminated with adventitious viruses, mRNA production avoids the common risks associated with other vaccine platforms, including live virus, viral vectors, inactivated virus and subunit protein vaccines. Furthermore, the short manufacturing time for mRNA presents few opportunities to introduce contaminating microorganisms. In vaccinated people, the theoretical risks of infection or integration of the vector into host cell DNA are not a concern for mRNA. For the above reasons, mRNA vaccines have been considered a relatively safe vaccine format.”

                      Also see

                      I say again that I completely agree with you that the traditional, established protocols to ensure both safety & efficacy in vaccine development should be scrupulously followed, I have no concern regarding the safety of mRNA vaccines.

                    • Gail Sheppard says

                      RE: “I say again that I completely agree with you that the traditional, established protocols to ensure both safety & efficacy in vaccine development should be scrupulously followed, I have no concern regarding the safety of mRNA vaccines.”

                      Then you have no confidence in these vaccines, either, because they are skipping complete phases outlined by the FDA in the Vaccine Product Approval Process, which reads in part:

                      Vaccine clinical development follows the same general pathway as for drugs and other biologics. A sponsor who wishes to begin clinical trials with a vaccine must submit an Investigational New Drug application (IND) to FDA. The IND describes the vaccine, its method of manufacture, and quality control tests for release. Also included are information about the vaccine’s safety and ability to elicit a protective immune response (immunogenicity) in animal testing, as well as the proposed clinical protocol for studies in humans.

                      Pre-marketing (pre-licensure) vaccine clinical trials are typically done in three phases, as is the case for any drug or biologic. Initial human studies, referred to as Phase 1, are safety and immunogenicity studies performed in a small number of closely monitored subjects. Phase 2 studies are dose-ranging studies and may enroll hundreds of subjects. Finally, Phase 3 trials typically enroll thousands of individuals and provide the critical documentation of effectiveness and important additional safety data required for licensing. At any stage of the clinical or animal studies, if data raise significant concerns about either safety or effectiveness, FDA may request additional information or studies, or may halt ongoing clinical studies.”

                      – You can’t do in 10 months what normally takes 10 years. They are exempt from following FDA guidelines and have skipped animal studies, going directly to clinical trials. There is nothing safe about this. (Read about the ferrets vaccinated with rMVA-S and exposed to SARS-CoV.)

                      Scientists are developing more than 100 coronavirus vaccines using a range of techniques, some of which are well-established and some of which have never been approved for medical use before.

    • Antiochene Son says

      The term “cases” itself is misleading. The proper term would be “positive tests.” the entire conversation surrounding covid is, meant to keep the hype going as long as possible, at least until November 3.
      Too bad for Biden, though, most people are sick of hearing about fear and masks. 

      • To think that “the hype” is intended to be kept up only through Nov 3 is pretty myopic, in my opinion. Countries that have no elections scheduled this year have gone to much greater lengths in managing “the hype”, as you say. The world doesn’t revolve around the United States and its elections, though it may certainly seem that way from the inside. 

  8. cynthia curran says

    There is a lot hysteria. If blacks are killed more by cops as a percentage of their population, then we have to care racism, even though there are other problems like the fact that blacks are more likely to come from fatherless homes, Yes, single mothers can do a good job, but the averages show that its better if you can have a father. Two, the left is also hysteria on other issues like the environment. There is a recent book that also address tis. The COVID thing is still less worst than influenza in 1918 if you adjust for population size. I was not a big Trump fan like George, but the recent constant protest by the left has driven me to vote for Trump in November.

  9. As usual, we have it backwards. The rest of the world, for some strange reason, gets all of their numbers from the U.S. And we screwed up those numbers. Check out this RT article written by a Brit to explain why the world freaked out. It was because we, the United States screwed up the numbers and freaked out. If this virus had just stayed in China or East Asia or not the U.S. or Europe, no one would have cared. Like the Swine Flu.
    Just FYI get out of the Fox (except Tucker who sometimes has good guests and good analysis), CNN, MSNBC American news bubble.  There is a whole world out there.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      RE: “But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake.”

      I used to think it was a mistake.

      I used to think it was a mistake when the virus escaped the Wuhan Lab.
      I thought it was a mistake when the WHO and Chinese government failed to warn the world right away.
      I thought it was mistake when Birx said all deaths in COVID positive patients were being coded as Covid deaths.
      I thought it was a mistake when all the CD test kits were bad.
      I thought it was a mistake when I learned the Wuhan Lab was doing gain-of-function research and that we were funding it through the NIH.
      I thought it was a mistake when pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for HCQ.
      I even thought it was a mistake when Bill Gates said that without a vaccine, a virus like this could kill 33M in 6 months back in 2018.

      Frankly, now, I’m not so sure anything was a mistake.

      • One thing my 60-odd years on God’s green earth has taught me is that in the realm of the doings of man very little is ever what it appears to be.

        1. Follow the money. Who stands to benefit, and not only in terms money but in any kind of gain; money, power, position, changes in status, etc.

        2. What is it the general population is being prepared for? Prepared for, or perhaps more accurately, desensitized to. House arrest, rationing, shortages especially of food but also other necessities of life, government officials overstepping their legitimate bounds, curtailing of civil rights. Well, curtailment if you’re not mostly peacefully protesting for Burn, Loot, and Murder. Or, perhaps the powers that be are interested in how long the general populace will tolerate these restrictions.

        3. Why?

        Let us all pray for forgiveness and for the discernment to find the truth amidst the lies.

      • It makes one wonder if the puppet masters wanted to kill off the non-productive, old, and weak, in society. The spirit of Hitler has returned to haunt us?
        Not to mention a test run on a new world order and how far to push society , before society pushes back. I regret to report, we are sheep lined up to be slaughtered. Worse yet! Our Church leaders will lead us first in line, with give control, and shaming those of us who question why. Again the year 2020, has given me 20/20 vision. 

      • Gail, you have a lot more trust in the competency in people than I do. Conspiracies actually require planning and organization. We both know that governments lack both. Yes, governments and businesses are opportunists (Iraq War, bailing out the banks, etc.) but personally I see very little long-term planning upon the U.S. government and businesses are by nature focused on short-term profits. We must also remember the human nature of saving face and not looking incompetent (especially when we are). I believe this is why leaders like Putin and Xi are seen as a threat. They actually do make calculated moves and think long-term.

  10. M. Stankovich says

    I disagree with [am I not allowed to say “your?] interpreting “gain-of-function research” as somehow “weaponizing” a virus to kill others, akin to developing  “chemical/ germ” warfare.
    First, I would point out that, until this pandemic, the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been respected as a world-class, Level 4 biosecure facility, certified to research the most virulent and dangerous pathogens in existence. that opened in 2015 (though the institution has been in existence considerably longer). They were the first to decode the genome of cornaviruses in general, derived from a specific strain of Chinese bats, in 2017. This was a major accomplishment. Through a number of international conferences, they presented their findings and their intention to further explore eliminating “potential pandemic pathogen (PPP),” which the NIH defines as “1) highly transmissible and likely capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in human populations; and 2) it is likely highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans.”
    The entire point of utilizing GoF technology is fairly straightforward:
    “Gain-of-function studies involving infectious agents help us understand the fundamental nature of host-pathogen interactions and can shed light on the potential for, and mechanisms of, evolution of viruses and other infectious agents to acquire certain properties. Greater insight into the biological processes that contribute to pathogenicity or transmissibility can provide a foundation for identifying and developing effective approaches to prevent or treat human or animal infections. Gain-of-function research may also enable assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, which could inform public health and preparedness efforts, including the development of effective medical countermeasures.”
    To be clear, GoF research is specifically utilized to assess, inform, and assist in preparedness. It is a defensive technique, not an offensive technique. There is no question that it is a highly dangerous process of potentiating the rapid evolution of a PPP – which is why it is only conducted in Level 4 biosecure facilities – and it always poses a significant risk should it escape. China, of course, already had a lab security breach in 2011 in relation to a form of SARS that, quite fortunately, literally burned out without a vaccine or effective therapy. On the other hand, the benefit of positive utilization could inform the entire world of the potential pandemic early enough to prepare by creating a vaccination, and so on.
    If the question is, did China “create” COVID-19 by GoF and later there was an inadvertent – or perhaps purposeful – release of what we now know to be COVID-19 as a potentiated viral escape, there is a clear answer here. In correspondence to Nature magazine’s companion publication Nature Medicine, researchers from the US (NYU, Columbia, and Tulane University) and Australia reported their decoding of COVID-19 genome, which they report contains no signs of laboratory alteration as a coronavirus. The cited article, I grant, is complex genetics, but is very informative as to the genetics of a virus and, in my opinion, worthy the read. This article has been accessed nearly 5,000,000 times. I want to be emphatic that this is not to say that what we now know as COVID-19 was not an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (factually, there is no way to to confirm or dismiss this claim unless someone admits it), but we can say that COVID-19 was not a manufactured or doctored PPP.
    I end by saying that it is both unfair and ridiculous to suggest that Anthony Fauci was complicit in the creation of COVID-19 pandemic. While it is true that Fauci assisted in securing funds being given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, 1) at the time, the Institute had worldwide respect as a research facility, and 2) the Institute received $3.7 million in assistance that included coronavirus research. Unfortunately, in this day and age, $3.7 for research does not go far (the US later gave the Institute an additional close to $7 million additional funding, but Fauci was not involved). Secondly, the scientists whose contracts were not renewed by the NIH (they were not “fired” – some resigned, while most are allowed to complete their contracts) were not even peripherally related to Fauci or viral research, and none worked on the NIH campus; the vast majority were in NIH-sponsored university positions across the country. And finally, in regard to Judy Mikovits, who has accused Anthony Fauci of being a member of a “circular cabal led by Bill Gates,” and assisted in the literal creation of COVID-19, she also claimed Fauci quashed her doctoral dissertation when she worked for him because it offered “a paradigm shift in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.” I don’t know about anyone else, but I have read her dissertation from cover to cover and she is a calculating, concpiracy-promoting deceiver. I was a resident at St. Vincent’s Medical Center in lower Manhattan, which, at the time had the largest HIV/AIDS unit in the world (and frequently visited by Dr. Fauci), aner “paradim shift” would have changed nothing.  Fauci dismissed her for fabricating data, which repeated in her next position as well. They were neither as quiet about her dismissal after investing considerable time, effort, and money unsuccessfully attempting to replicate her data – the hallmark of clinical research. That’s all you need to know.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Of course you can say the name if you have one, but no one here said the virus was “weaponized to kill to kill others, akin to developing ‘chemical/ germ’ warfare.”

      No one said the 54 NIH scientists were “fired,” either. (It was reported they were fired or they resigned and a link was provided. Please support your contention that they were allowed to fulfill their contracts. Where they were located was never discussed.)

      Finally, no one said “Anthony Fauci was complicit in the creation of COVID-19 pandemic.” Complicit means “involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.” As far as I know, no one has accused Fauci of any wrongdoing; only that he knew about the gain-of-function research and the potential for harm and wasn’t particularly forthcoming about explaining it to Congress or the American people. This is the kind of research that needs to be explained TO THE WORLD, as it has the potential of doing what it did, i.e. create a pandemic. The research was actually banned for awhile due to concerns over this precise risk. But those who wanted to develop a vaccine felt it was worth going forward anyway.

      ” Over 200 scientists signed the Cambridge Working Group declaration arguing for a cessation of experiments creating potential pandemic pathogens “until there has been a quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation, as well as comparison against safer experimental approaches”. . .The debate is focused on a subset of gain-of-function studies that manipulate deadly viruses to increase their transmissibility or virulence. “This is what happens to viruses in the wild”, explains Carrie Wolinetz, head of the NIH Office of Science Policy. “Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance”. Although none of the widely publicised mishaps of 2014 involved such work, the NIH decided to suspend funding for gain-of-function studies involving influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV. . .The likelihood of an accident leading to an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic is extremely difficult to predict, as are the probable scientific advances.”

      The entire article can be read here:

      If you want to introduce something new, Michael, you are free to do so but you are in violation of the rules of this blog if you pretend to be responding to something that was never said, as it could be construed that we allowed it. Because this site is moderated, playing “loosey-goosey” with the truth could get us sued. Plus, it’s just plain bad faith to attribute something to the blog that is untrue.

      From now on, copy and paste whatever it is you’re responding to and don’t embellish what someone says to make a point that doesn’t need to be made.

      • Gail,

        I confess to being a bit surprised at your pushback of ‘but no one here said the virus was “weaponized to kill to kill others, akin to developing ‘chemical/ germ’ warfare.”’ Some of the previous blogs on the subject of covid in recent months by you and/or George would give the casual reader an impression that this was an opinion you held.

        In ‘Where Do We Go From Here?’ there is the quote ‘We also know that it was most likely bio-engineered in ways that made it particularly lethal to certain populations’ and in Fact Checking What You’re Thinking there is the quote ‘However, it’s hard to understand why the NIH would fund a program to weaponize something in a substandard lab in a foreign country known to be hostile toward the United States.’

        I would readily concede this is not necessarily a belief you personally have, perhaps it is only George, but it is certainly a belief that has been expressed on the site.

        • Gail Sheppard says


          Thank you for using direct quotes. It makes it much easier to respond.

          IMO (yours is different), it is extremely unlikely a casual reader could walk away from anything I’ve said and conclude the objective of the research was to “kill others, akin to developing ‘chemical/germ’ warfare.” (Michael was directing his comments to me, BTW, not George.)

          The virus, itself, was not “created” by anyone. It exists in the wild. It was, however, “bio-engineered” to infect humans so work could begin on creating a vaccine.

          Whether or not it was someone’s intent to use the virus to target specific populations is anybody’s guess. If George believes that something “most likely” is the case, he’s entitled to his opinion. But again, Michael wasn’t talking to George.

          I used the word weaponized because the virus went from something innocuous to something lethal. If I said, “He weaponized his love for her when he unleashed his jealous rage”, would you immediately conclude he unleashed something “akin to developing ‘chemical/ germ’ warfare?” Probably not.

          As Mike Pompeo said, the reason a grant was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was “to protect American people from labs that aren’t up to standard.” China’s standards are considerably more lax than ours, which frankly isn’t saying much. There have been several breaches of protocol in our own labs as vials of smallpox virus were left in an NIH storeroom, the CDC sent out samples of ordinary influenza virus contaminated with H5N1, and CDC workers were feared to have been exposed to anthrax.

          That China is hostile toward the United States is simply a fact and because COVID now infects humans it certainly could be used a means of killing people.

          The “pushback” is because I am tired of being baited, just like I was when I said the WHO used a weakened live virus in the oral polio vaccine that was infecting people with vaccine-induced polio. Now, it’s all over the news.

          It takes time to respond to accusations, yet if they go unchallenged, someone might actually believe them.

          From now on, if someone makes an unsupported, inflammatory comment about something someone else said, they need to back it up with a direct quote to get published. Again, I appreciate your effort in this regard.

          • ‘It was, however, “bio-engineered” to infect humans
            so work could begin on creating a vaccine.’
            Would we need a vaccine if it hadn’t been bioengineered?
            As the old song says: “It all makes work for the working man to do.”

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Funny song!!! I’ve never heard it before.

              RE: “Would we need a vaccine if it hadn’t been bioengineered?”

              No. Had they not bioengineered the virus, no one would be sick right now. At some point in the future, maybe. But, then again, maybe not ever.

              • Gail,
                I wrote a post this morning in response to a question you had regarding new strains of Covid-19. It doesn’t seem to have posted with the updated comments. Was it trashed, or disappeared into the ether? Would just want to know. Thanks!

  11. George Michalopulos says

    Gail, you really clarified the issue if you ask me.  Better than I could.   In your answer to Flavius, you gave me additional things to ponder over (which no doubt we will soon discuss).
    Having said that, I wish to address all our readers:  Gail and I discuss the thought-pieces/columns before they are published.  Lots of cross-pollination and constructive criticism.  Sometimes, we don’t agree at the end of the day or (more likely) agree to disagree.
    COVID-19 was one of those areas in which we both agreed, disagreed and agreed-to-disagree as the panoply of this virus played itself out.  If memory serves, I was the first one to use the word “weaponized” in our private conversations.  Now I realize that that’s an inflammatory word but I didn’t necessarily use it in a NBC  (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare context, only that it was a normal bat virus that had been bioengineered to cross over to other species.  I stand by that assessment and as my own research has indicated this is indeed what happened.
    My next assertion was that it had somehow “escaped” the Wuhan lab.  To my mind via negligence.  This is not that uncommon btw.
    If I may provide anecdotal evidence as to why I believe this to be the case.  Last April, my portfolio manager told me an interesting story.  His girlfriend was in Hubei province (where Wuhan is) in October of 2019 for business.  He was face-timing her and noticed she was wearing a mask.  She told him that the Chinese government had said that “there was a new flu that they had just come into contact with and they told everybody there that they must wear masks”.  
    One day, nobody was wearing masks, the next day, everybody was wearing masks –on order of the Chinese government.  Sounds like an emergency happened, which would comport with my suspicion that this was not intentional but accidental.
    As to why this particular coronavirus was bioengineered one can only speculate.  The nefarious angle would be this was a type of NBC bioweapon; the more innocuous angle would be that it done so that a vaccine could be derived and patented for use in the future (if necessary).
    Gail has done yeoman’s work on this particular front as well, showing how patents have been developed over the past two decades on viruses by various individuals.  

  12. Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

    During my last five years on active duty as U.S. Army chaplain in the National Capital Region (2005-2010), my primary “day job” when I was not deployed downrange was the senior chaplain responsible for religious support in emergencies–both local and regional–for an operational command and then a particular Army installation in the National Capital Region. That included, among other missions, planning, preparation, and response to crises due to possible use of biological agents by terrorists and natural pandemics.
    I learned then that the key statistic related to our months-long COVID-19 crisis is the “case fatality rate” or CFR. Although President Trump himself, guided obviously by his medical / public health advisors, began mentioning the CFR a couple of months ago in his briefings and press conferences, few persons in America seem to know about the CFR and are obsessed about the daily and total numbers of deaths due to COVID-19, along with diagnosed cases and hospitalizations. Those numbers may appear daunting in isolation. However the only two that offer a genuine glimpse of the threat are the number of deaths and the number of cases of infection.
    The COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate dropped today  to 2.9%.

    [number of deaths divided by number of persons who have contracted the virus (NOT total population): 198,879 divided by 6,745,350.
    That number reflects a steady decrease for several months.
    To be sure, the mortality sum tends to lag a week or two behind the total number of cases, but the CFR trend is unmistakable: consistently downward.
    (If the denominator were the total US population–as too many in the mainstream media and other left-wingers tend to imply to the populace to instill fear as well as loathing of President Trump, the equation would yield a much lower product: 198,879 divided by 328.2 million = .0605 ! I suspect if any of us asked almost anyone else what the death “number” represents, the most likely answer would be “percentage of total population.” Perhaps that is why so many are gripped by fear and even despair.)  
    So for a direct lethal threat to such a very small percentage of the total US population, we have had to endure shutdowns, severe economic losses, school closings, selective constraints on church attendance and burials, failed small businesses, increases in emotional / mental problems (including suicides), absurd and annoying face masks, social distancing, holier-than-thou lectures and public chastisement by COVID-19 fanatics, and hypocritical selective enforcement of COVID-19 restrictions on certain segments of the population (esp. religious institutions and communities) and free passes to other segments (BLM & Antifa protesters and mobs in very large assemblies and “marches” every day and night since late May–not to mention the attendant looting, desecration of statues, harassment of dissenters and people in their homes and at public restaurants, physical destruction of large sections of many cities, violence, murders of police officers and others, and other forms of mayhem.

  13. Open letter from medical doctors and health professionals
    to all belgian authorities and all belgian media.

    “We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.”

    COVID 19 “is … not a killer virus, but a well-treatable condition.”

    • Gail Sheppard says

      This is a great article, Brendan.

      • Indeed it is. I think all politicians, doctors, medical professionals and journalists (plus as many citizens as care to be informed) should read it.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          Our bishops should read it, as it is clear that in some cases, they are woefully uninformed with regard to what we’ve learned over the last 7 months.

          Things like:

          – Although there is a small percentage of people who were hard by the virus, the vast majority of the population is and was not.

          – Mortality is higher in persons with underlying medical conditions and in those aged ≥85 years, who have exceeded the average life expectancy in this country which is 78.6 years.

          – We can now cure those who hardest hit 98% to 99.6% of the time.

          – The CDC is no longer recommending testing of asymptomatic people for possible quarantining unless they have been in close contact with a COVID patient in a confined space for more than 15 minutes.

          – Asymptomatic people are no longer considered to be a significant risk in spreading the virus.

          – Isolating the population has dramatically increased death from suicide and other reasons associated with the lockdown, as well as spiked the number of cases of domestic disputes and child abuse.

          People, Orthodox people, are losing their connection to the Church and I fear some will not find the motivation to return due to their disappointment with our leadership who seemingly preach one thing, i.e. wear masks, employ social distancing, quarantine, etc. and then publically march down a city street, shoulder to shoulder, with throngs of people who don’t (wear masks, employ social distancing, etc.), later making no effort at quarantining.

          Mixed messages during a pandemic does not seem like a good plan to me. If the bishops are in lockstep over the measures they’ve employed to protect the Church, they should be in lockstep with “walking the talk”, and if they base their directives on the recommendations of the public health authorities, they absolutely need to keep up with them as much has changed and continues to change.

  14. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab states on Sky TV
    that COVID 19 testing has accuracy rate of seven percent.
    Yes: 7%

    For this they shut the economy?