Month: July 2020

Sharing from Universal Access to Kindy SA regarding the fast tracked implementation of the discriminatory No Jab No Play laws:
Friday 19th of June 2020 – 7 weeks out from the implementation date of SA NJNPlay policy.

Today we have heard from Early Learning Centre’s who received a hastily put together Communication from SA Government regarding the roll out of NJNPlay (link attached). The basic document advises that from Friday August 7th 2020 children will need to provide their formal immunisation status from the National Immunisation Register (NIR) stating they are “up to date” in order to enrol in or continue attendance at an early childhood service.

The document offers two links at the bottom: FAQs for Educators and FAQs for parents.
Both are redundant. The link for educators goes to the outdated phase 1 information. The link for parents goes to a non-existent webpage.

It is deplorable that this policy is being fast-tracked for roll out when UAKSA have confirmed with the Government’s public health team that it was intended for implementation at the start of the school year 2021.

SA Government: Premier Stevan Marshall, Minister for Health and Wellbeing Stephen Wade MLC and Minister for Education John Gardner MP are all culpable for the serious failure to prepare educators, families and children for the detrimental impact awaiting children who do not meet the “up to date” standards.

Currently 5% of children are not up to date with their vaccinations at 5 years of age. That means 1 in 20 children face being expelled from kindergarten on August 7th (week 3 of term 3). That’s only 7 weeks away and as it stands:
• NO information has been sent directly to families with children who do not meet the immunisation requirements advising of the new requirements and penalties,
• NO information has been provided to public kindergartens
• No ‘FAQs’ information is available to help parents and educators understand the policy, rationale and penalties.
• NO information has been provided by the Department for Education on how essential quality preschool education will be offered to unvaccinated children/what alternatives there will be
• NO information has been provided by the Department for Education on the importance of complying with the NJNPlay policy in order to access early childhood education and what the detrimental impact will be on children for non-compliance,
• NO information has been provided by SA Government on how to support unvaccinated children through their sudden expulsion from kindergarten in Term 3, the disruption of their routine and social role/identity and the erosion of their first experience and foundation for learning and education.

As the Government acknowledged in their own ‘Discussion Paper’ for NJNPlay, there will remain children who will not meet the vaccination requirements following the implementation of the policy. Do these ‘unvaccinated children’ not matter?

UAKSA call for immediate public accountability of this lack of preparation and an explanation of why Stephen Wade MLC has insisted the policy be rolled out immediately when the intended date was January 2021. What has spurred this callous move that will have such a detrimental impact on up to 1 in 20 children??

On behalf of unvaccinated children, families, educators and the South Australian public UAKSA request that SA Government returns the roll out date of NJNPlay to January 2021, the intended date. This will allow more time to prepare families and educators and will avoid the unnecessary negative and detrimental impacts on children already at kindy this year.

Steven Marshall
Stephen Wade MLC
John Gardner MP
Chris Picton MP

Dave Rasnick has had exchanges with David Crowe about this, and concurs, “To my knowledge, they have not yet purified this virus.”

In a previous interview I did with him a few weeks ago, he said this, about PCR tests and the fallacies of thinking less is more, or smaller is better, or more “sensitive” means more accurate:

“It’s like fingerprints.  With PCR you’re only looking at a small number of nucleotide.  You’re looking at a tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint.  When you have regular human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation.  There are parts that are common to almost all fingerprints, and it’s those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up.  They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus. They will still show up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold.”

“The primers are what you know. We already know the strings of RNA for the Corona family, the regions that are stable. That’s at one end. Then you look at the other end of the region, for all Corona viruses. The Chinese decided that there was a region in those stable areas that was unique to their Corona virus. You do PCR to see if that is true. If it is truly unique it would work. But they’re using the SARS test because they don’t really have one for the new virus.”

“SARS isn’t the virus that stopped the world,” I offer.

“That’s right.”

“PCR for diagnosis is a big problem,” he continues. “When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”

Crowe described a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case. “She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”

“Now why was she important? Well there was only one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they thought it was. But secondly, she had the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right? So, four people in his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those symptoms without the virus, then you, you’ve got to say, well, why couldn’t everybody else’s symptoms be explained by whatever she had? I mean, maybe they, they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick, but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus. But because three out of the four, tested positive, then they were, they were all considered infected and out of the same paper.

Another interesting thing is that they did a lot of tests. The first person in the list of people tested, he was positive on three out of 11 tests. So again, they took nose and throat samples and you know, different methods and all this kind of stuff. And they got 11 separate tests and only three were positive. And of course, all you need to be considered infected is one positive test. They could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then you’re infected. So, a positive test is meaningful. A negative test. It’s like, eh. Not so much.”

I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

Our conversation went in many different directions and I plan to publish the entire audio interview. I asked David what he thought was happening here, at the most core level.

“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing,” he said. “I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.”

“I just want to identify who sponsored that simulation conference, 6 weeks before the first news broke out of Wuhan,” I interjected. “It was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Johns Hopkins Center For Health Security, and the World Economic Forum. Incidentally, all the stats, projections and modeling you see in the media are coming out of Johns Hopkins.”

(Update June 2021 – Tom: I later learned this was untrue. Although their names were at the masthead as sponsors they never paid a penny. It was wholly funded by Open Philanthropy who got the money from Facebook.)

I went looking to verify the authenticity of the data in this meme and was blown away by the article I found. You will find it a fascinating read!

COVID-19 Herd Immunity Is Much Closer Than Antibody Tests Suggest, Say 2 New Studies

The prevalence of immunity to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 may be much higher than previous research suggests according to an intriguing new study by researchers associated with Karolinska Institute in Sweden. In addition, a new German study by researchers associated with the University Hospital Tübingen in Germany reports that people who have been previously infected with versions of the coronavirus that cause the common cold also have some immunity to the COVID-19 virus. If these reports stand up to further scrutiny, it would be very good news because they suggest that the pandemic could be over sooner and ultimately be less lethal than feared.

First, a few caveats: Both studies are based on small sample sizes and neither have yet been vetted by peer review.

In the Swedish study, researchers not only checked 200 participants for the presence of immunological proteins called antibodies produced in response to COVID-19 infections, but also for T-cells which are another virus-fighting component of the immune system. Detecting and evaluating T-cells is a bit trickier than measuring antibodies.

The Karolinska researchers, according to the accompanying press release, “performed immunological analyses of samples from over 200 people, many of whom had mild or no symptoms of COVID-19.” The study tested COVID-19 patients, exposed asymptomatic family members, healthy blood donors who gave blood during 2020, and a 2019 donor control group.

“One interesting observation was that it wasn’t just individuals with verified COVID-19 who showed T-cell immunity but also many of their exposed asymptomatic family members,” said Karolinska researcher Soo Aleman. “Moreover, roughly 30 per cent of the blood donors who’d given blood in May 2020 had COVID-19-specific T cells, a figure that’s much higher than previous antibody tests have shown.”

“Our results indicate that roughly twice as many people have developed T-cell immunity compared with those who we can detect antibodies in,” noted Karolinska Center for Infectious Medicine researcher Marcus Buggert.

Study co-author Hans-Gustaf Ljunggren told The Telegraph that if the study’s findings are replicated, they would apply to any country. London, for instance, might have about 30 percent immunity and New York above 40 percent. If so, some parts of the U.S. are much closer to herd immunity than population-wide antibody testing currently suggests.

Herd immunity is the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease that results if a sufficiently high proportion of a population is immune to the illness. Some people are still susceptible, but they are surrounded by immune individuals who serve as a barrier, preventing the microbes from reaching them. Epidemiologists typically estimate that the COVID-19 threshold for herd immunity is around 60 to 70 percent.

Still the Swedish researchers caution, “It remains to be determined if a robust memory T cell response in the absence of detectable circulating antibodies can protect against [the virus].”

In a second study, German researchers analyzed blood samples of 365 people, of which 180 had had COVID-19 and 185 had not. When they exposed the blood samples to the COVID-19 coronavirus, they found, as expected, that blood from those who had had the illness produced a substantial immune response. More significantly, they also found that 81 percent of the subjects who had never had COVID-19 also produced a T-cell immune reaction, reports The Science Times. If the German study’s results prove out, that would suggest that earlier common cold coronavirus infections may provide about eight in 10 people some degree of immune protection from the COVID-19 virus.

The findings in both of these studies are potentially very good news with respect to public health and the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s hoping that future replications will validate them.