by Sayer Ji
A recent article published in the Wall Street Journal titled,
"New Data Suggest the Coronavirus Isn't as Deadly as We Thought,"
confirms what we, and many who have been
the mainstream narrative on COVID
have been saying since the lockdowns began:
fatality statistics have been dramatically
due to the vast submerged iceberg of asymptomatic or mild cases
that were never accounted for within the official statistics
used as justification to shut down the entire country.
Ironically, even Dr. Fauci himself raised these concerns in his
recent NEJM editorial on the topic, where he estimates that
may be 10x lower than official
Add to this the fact that the
US Gov. Health Statistics Agency
do not require objective validation of COVID-19 deaths, i.e.,
virus testing is required, only "suspicion" that a person's death
was caused by coronavirus to be labeled as such on a death
...and you have a perfect storm of unsubstantiated
hysteria, which for those who have been paying close attention, has
played perfectly into the hands of the
emerging medical police state and
World Order (NWO) global governance agenda:
WSJ report opens up as follows:
"The Covid-19 shutdowns have been based on the premise that the
disease would kill more than two million Americans absent
drastic actions to slow its spread.
That model assumed case fatality rates - the share of infected
people who die from the disease - of 1% to 3%. The World Health
Organization's estimated case-fatality rate was 3.4%."
However, the WSJ article goes on to explain how a preliminary study
introduced by a team of Stanford researchers titled, "COVID-19
Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California,"
found that approximately 50 to 85 times more people have been
infected by COVID-19 than official testing statistics have revealed,
based on a recent sampling of blood antibodies for
the virus in a cohort of 3,330 people living in Santa Clara County,
HERE to view the entire study.
There are at least two ways to interpret this data.
First, given that testing kits for COVID-19 antibodies may not be
accurate enough to distinguish the so-called Wuhan coronavirus 2019
(COVID-19) from naturally occurring background coronavirus strains,
of which there are several dozen known to circulate regularly within
human communities, the test may have been picking up the natural
virome of the population, creating what are known as "false
Another possibility is that
somehow this Wuhan virus did, in fact,
spread throughout the Santa Clara county at an extremely rapid rate,
surreptitiously, but that the virus is actually no worse
other coronavirus, which causes the common cold, or expresses itself
asymptomatically in healthy individuals who are naturally immune to
experiencing morbidity or mortality from it.
If true, this would indicate the catastrophizing of the medical
community and media has no basis in science.
Either way, the dominant narrative that exposure equates to a near
death experience, requiring immediate quarantine and/or forced
medication or future mandatory vaccination when it becomes
available, is decimated.
At the least, the lockdown of most of the country's population, and
the majority of the developed world, would not be justified given
the widespread prevalence and relative harmlessness of the virus
revealed in this study.
offers this interpretation:
preliminary results - the research will now undergo peer review
- show that between 2.5% and 4.2% of county residents are
estimated to have antibodies against the virus.
That translates into 48,000 to 81,000 infections, 50 to 85 times
as high as the number of known cases.
That may sound scary, but it's great news.
It suggests that the large majority of people who contract
Covid-19 recover without ever knowing they were infected, and
that the U.S. infection fatality rate may be more than an order
of magnitude lower than authorities had assumed.
Based on this sero-prevalence data, the authors estimate that in
Santa Clara County the true infection fatality rate is somewhere
in the range of 0.12% to 0.2% - far closer to seasonal
influenza than to the original, case-based estimates.
policy makers were aware from the outset that the Covid-19 death
toll would be closer to that of seasonal flu than the millions
of American deaths predicted by early models dependent on inputs
that now look inaccurate, would they have risked tens of
millions of jobs and livelihoods?
The science to
support better modeling and decision making is rapidly becoming
available. One hopes that it will inform better policy
It is undeniable that the decision to not immediately (early
March) do these kind of large representative studies by WHO and
its national counterparts is proving increasingly poor. It would
have guided better decision making. Data is still poor, but
every data set like this that comes back is the same: mortality
3-5x worse than flu...
That means: dangerous! But not exactly "lets shrink the world
economy by 40-50% for a few months and pay with 25% of GDP in
new debt" - dangerous.
Politicians are now
pot committed to the shutdown.
That's not a healthy
development, especially given a likely 2nd wave.
If, in fact, this new study is correct, the justification for
shutting down most of the social and economic activity in the United
States is hereby completely refuted.
Clearly, the "science is not
And given the profound, adverse socioeconomic, and psychobiological
impacts associated with assuming the worst as concerns COVID-19, it
is time to take a stand and assert our right to maintain
Constitutionally protected liberties, open back up our schools,
churches, parks, and enable people to return to the jobs and
If this resonates with you, take action today by contacting your
mayor and governor at the Stand for Health Freedom advocacy portal:
For those looking
for a deeper dive, take a look at the new platform
COVID, where clinicians, researchers, and health experts from
around the world interrogate the mainstream narrative around the
Learn more about
the manipulation of COVID-19 death statistics by watching James
Corbett's video on the topic: