v.2 – revised. Continuing with this sensitive topic. It’s a very dangerous time because this is just a scam that’s being used to introduce biological dictatorship. Peoples’ heads have been messed with in a big way. This isn’t very interesting and it isn’t a hobby. I’m only doing this because I want to have a future for myself and everyone else. Those who don’t catch on now are very angry and contemptuous, but they will need to catch up later. I don’t blame them so much. The media has brainwashed all of us for a long time. I would like people to take the information in the article I’m focusing on, pick out the relevant documents and explain these issues to their political representatives–to Ontario MPPs for example–and to everyone they know.
First, in Ontario, in every facility with an outbreak, every resident with even just one symptom is defined as being a ‘probable’ COVID-19 case. This applies whether these residents had an inconclusive or negative viral-RNA test result – or even weren’t tested at all.
The two documents cited:
1. Case Definition – Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) (May 11, 2020)
A. Probable Case
A person (who has not had a laboratory test) with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 (see footnote 8) AND:
a.Traveled to an affected area (including inside of Canada, see footnote 9) in the 14 days prior to symptom onset; OR
b. Close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 (see footnote 2); OR
c. Lived in or worked in a facility known to be experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19 (e.g., long-term care, prison) OR
B. A person with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 (see footnote 8)AND In whom laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is inconclusive (see footnotes 4, 5)
Based on the evolving situation with COVID-19 there is no longer a Presumptive Confirmed Casede finition for surveillance purposes
C. Confirmed Case
A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection using a validated assay, consisting of positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT; e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing) on at least one specific genome target. Laboratory confirmation is performed at reference laboratories (e.g., The National Microbiology Laboratory or Public Health Ontario Laboratory) or non-reference laboratories (e.g., hospital or community laboratories). ( see footnote 7)
Footnote 1 indicates that they decided that the incubation period from 14 days to 5 days, so they admit they had that wrong, but they still want to go with the 14 days–for consistency! They don’t want to start correcting mistakes! Seriously, the 14 days keeps people spinning their wheels longer and hobbles the economy longer. I think that’s the idea, because the World Economic Forum announced the Great Reset. Not everybody is “essential” any longer so what difference does it make if you are sitting around another 9 days extra, right, while your world collapses?? Same footnote in the March 30 document below.
The median incubation period of COVID-19 is 5 days. Allowing for variability and recall error and to establish consistency with the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 case definition, exposure history based on the prior 14 days is recommended at this time.
(Footnote 2 refers to Ministry guidance on cases and contacts of COVID-19 which may be useful for understanding contact tracing).
Footnote 3 is significant:
There is evidence documenting COVID-19 presenting as a co-infection with other pathogens. At this time, the identification of one causative agent should not exclude COVID-19.
Footnote 6 is interesting:
Laboratory tests are evolving for this emerging pathogen [I wonder if this is a new expression], and laboratory testing recommendations will change accordingly as new assays are developed and validated.
2. Case Definition – Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) (March 30/April 1, 2020)
This document is older, it’s very similar with some differences.
Footnote 11 is significant:
Under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, clinicians who suspect COVID-19 (i.e., are ordering testing for COVID-19), are required to report the individual to their local public health unit.
Questions: (Research the Act). Was this ever done in the past? Notice the emphasis on reporting rather than on treatment. In some cases, apparently there were people who were getting very sick. In most cases, the symptoms were/are very mild–we are just told to worry about it through the media. That’s a new state of affairs in human history–that people who aren’t very sick at all–most of them–turn themselves in to the medical “authorities” who report them to people who want to know all their contacts and might order them quarantined. If they were very sick, and presumably some sick people managed to get to the hospitals despite the terror campaign that ordered everyone to stay home, the emphasis would be on treating them, right? Hopefully. It says “clinician” (“A health professional, such as a physician, psychologist, or nurse, who is directly involved in patient care”). Is this reporting only for COVID-19? Is this going to be done again in the future with other illnesses? Does it violate privacy laws or existing privacy principles? Does anybody care about privacy and freedom? I think many do. If not for ourselves, maybe for future generations? We are very naive to go along with this scam. I’m fine with treating sick people, but human beings should not be set up as God to bow and scrape to. This is the real threat. We are in real trouble. We have other things to worry about besides this delusion but those pushing it insist and they manipulate the public to be part of this insistence.
Continuing with the article:
Second, the cause of death of everyone who had been diagnosed with a SARS-CoV-2 infection is recorded as being COVID-19. This is a dictate of the World Health Organization and is followed throughout North America, Europe and elsewhere.
Note: that is explained by the list at the end of the WHO document. This link explains:
COVID-19 (novel COronaVIirus Disease-2019) is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus
This document describes certification and classification (coding) of deaths related to COVID-19. The primary goal is to identify all deaths due to COVID-19.
2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.
So these instructions are clearly designed to elevate the number of deaths attributed to COVID.
3.GUIDELINESFOR CERTIFYING COVID-19 AS A CAUSE OF DEATH
. . .
A- RECORDING COVID-19 ON THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF CAUSE OF DEATH
COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.
The use of official terminology, COVID-19, should be used for all certification of this cause of death. As there are many types of coronaviruses, it is recommended not to use “coronavirus” in place of COVID-19. This helps to reduce uncertainty for the classification or coding and to correctly monitor these deaths.
I wonder how doctors can be certain about attributing the cause of death to a particular virus. What was done in the past? When they counted influenza deaths (in recent years–I didn’t see that collected in the 2008 top leading causes of death statistics), was there any certainty to that? I wonder if they have now elevated something invisible and which requires special equipment and expensive tests (that probably never got done in the past) ahead of what is visible and provable.
There were always coronaviruses apparently mixed in with influenza viruses, so I bet they never made any distinction–they just called it “flu”–according to Dr. Wodarg.
To be continued: Part 6