Extremely high lethality rate due to complications associated with the viral respiratory infection COVID-19 is one of the main arguments coming from the coronavirus scammers today. In my “Great coronavirus hoax” article, I have shown that the World Health Organisation data on the viral respiratory infection COVID-19 are pointless. In this article, I want to clarify and develop this idea.
Let us see into the matter of how the concept of lethality is applicable to a viral respiratory infection. Is it scientific? To find this out, let us use the video of the academic council of the Far Eastern Federal University of Vladivostok from March 17, 2020.
First 48 minutes of this video are dedicated to the lecture of Michail Shelkanov, Ph.D. – a virologist and epidemiologist. The lecture is dedicated to the threat of the spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in Russia, as well as to the means of fighting this hazard. The most interesting part of the video is from 48th to 54th minute, when the lecturer answers the first question from the audience.
The speaker states the following as a confirmed fact – the virus is harmless in all respects (which I have talked about in my article on the coronavirus scam).
Shelkanov states that, in the 21st century, the humankind has faced significantly far more dangerous viral respiratory infections than COVID-19 in terms of virulence, contagiousness associated with it, and lethality (lethality in this case means the correlation of the number of deaths from given infection to the total number of cases). All of the three indicators show that COVID-19 not only cannot be considered a record holder, but on the contrary, is at the very bottom of the viral respiratory infections’ pathogens.
It ought to be said, however, that discussing the lethality of viral respiratory infections does not make any sense. Without clarification, this concept is pseudoscientific. It has not even been defined within the framework of the given academic council! This was pointed out in one of the questions from the audience, noting that the real number of viral respiratory infection cases is usually 10-20 times higher than the number of registered cases. That is, the calculation of the percentage of cases which led to death is done not from the total number of cases, but only from those cases when sickness has developed into a grave enough condition. The reality is – the lethality rate of influenza and coronavirus is but a fraction of a percent. Moreover, speaking of all cases, it is even less – a fraction of a thousand! (Therefore, one can safely say that the speaker had not carried out the critical analysis of the speculations on the death causality around the globe and the analysis of the criticism surrounding the testing for coronavirus!).
Furthermore, there is NO CLARITY in terms of how this so-called “staring severity” (let us use this definition for our purposes) is defined! From the question of the speaker’s colleague, it is clear, however, that this “starting severity” is not something self-evident. According to the speaker, the “starting severity” is determined speculatively since influenza and coronaviruses are not considered lethal diseases. The “starting severity” is a technical (approximate) term that needs clarification. With this in mind, the questions of lethality from viral respiratory infection are controversial and had no right to be thrown into public discussion without a clear definition of all conditions and circumstances in which the deceased patients were counted!
The fact is that the influenza’s and other viral respiratory infections’ lethality depends on what kind of cases, mild, moderate or severe, we are considering. In reality, whatever we take into consideration will always be just the tip of the iceberg, since the majority of cases of any given viral respiratory infection are never registered.
The same applies to the viral respiratory infection COVID-19 as well. Not mentioning this matter and manipulating the term “lethality” is pure deception. Alas, during this academic council no one has defined which part of the sick cases (mild, moderate or severe) was used in order to calculate the lethality of influenza and other viral respiratory infections.
According to the speaker, the definite characteristic of SARS-CoV-2 is that it may cause quick inflammation of the lower part of the lungs. This, Shelkanov states, may require medical intervention, including intensive care. Unfortunately, this statement is pseudoscientific, since it does not have any informative value and triggers a wide variety of assumptions. This may be avoided by clarifying the word “may” with reference to existing standards and epidemic thresholds, that is, to concrete numbers. The speaker has not brought any scientific numbers and facts in support of this “definite characteristic” of COVID-19. He did not provide any data on how many of the total amount of patients, who tested positive for COVID-19, on average, have complications in the form of quick inflammation of the lower part of the lungs. He never answered any questions regarding epidemic thresholds and references to all the previous human experience. What kind of epidemiologist is this!
The speaker claims that all the fuss is due to “the healthare system possibly getting overburdened” and that this problem may be solved. How exactly it may be solved, Shelkanov did not mention, but simply referred to China’s experience. Shelkanov did not criticize the clear imitation of frantic activity, forged diagnostics, lethality causes and other lies of his Chinese colleagues. This shows his bias and readiness to accept any scam of the authorities regarding “anti-virus measures.”
That’s why the speaker and those who were asking questions avoided any substantial conversation about the quarantine measures. What kind of substantial debates can we expect from this so-called academic council, if the main speaker did not even try to make any comparisons of the scale of the seasonal coronavirus infection of 2019-2020 with relevant outbreaks in the past. Therefore the current quarantine measures are not a medical decision, especially since the entire population has been locked up!
This report has only given room for political speculations, instead of removing them – this is the essence of the prostitute nature of bourgeois doctors. There was no harsh criticism of the quarantine measures implemented in Russia, no matter how ridiculous, pseudoscientific and controversial they were. The council did not comment on lies and speculations regarding the causes of death of patients with SARS-CoV-2. Nothing was said about the reliability of testing for COVID-19.
The speaker merely scolded the hype around COVID-19 in the media and did not comment at all on the global shutdown and mass terror against hundreds of millions of people.
It should be noted that, according to the speaker, all information provided by him during this academic council had already been known since January 7, 2020. That means that the conclusions made in the article about the corona hoax were absolutely correct!
***
Strangely enough, in contrast to the general spirit of the meeting and to the answers to the audience’s questions, some participants – the chairman included – were wearing medical masks. Even though they knew perfectly well that these masks do not trap a respiratory virus. It was just for show. Oh well, what else could be expected from this sort of “academic council”.
Igor, of the Marxist club “Leningradets”
