Dr. Michael Yeadon is a respiratory health professional and former Pfizer vice president. He recently said that he believes that “half or even ‘almost all’ of tests for COVID are false positives.”
Nikitas3.com has been talking about ‘false positives’ for months when nobody else would. A ‘false positive’ happens when a person is tested for the virus and shows a positive result even though the person is shown to be negative in further tests.
After Elon Musk publicized tests that he took recently showing two positive and two negative tests one right after the other by the same nurse, it proved the case.
Yet almost nobody is even tested a second time and thus every positive test is reported as an infection and we are supposed to be frightened.
Even people who are truly positive generally show no symptoms of the virus, or mild symptoms. And even if a patient shows more serious symptoms, the likelihood of that patient dying is very small unless the patient is elderly and already sick. President Trump caught the virus and recovered within two days at age 74.
If you listen to China virus news in the Fake News media, there is never any analysis of the figures, like about false positives. In fact Dr. Yeadon was banned from YouTube for his claim.
Here’s an example: On the same day that a radio station reported that virus cases were spiking in New York state, it also reported that New York state had the fourth lowest infection rate in the country. This type of dichotomy is going on all over country and all over the Fake News media. And here is how to analyze it:
Imagine that it is March 2020 at the beginning of the pandemic. Imagine that 1,000 tests are given and that 100 are positive. That is a 10% positive rate. Then imagine five months later that 5,000 tests are given (since there has been more and more testing as time has passed) and 200 are positive. That is a 4% positive rate.
Obviously a 4% rate is vastly better than a 10% rate. But the media would ignore the better rate and point to the larger number of positive cases – 200 versus 100 – and say that the virus is getting worse when in fact it is getting much better in this example.
This shows how the numbers can be manipulated and this is how the media deceive us over and over by refusing to analyze the numbers.
Dr. Yeadon’s claim that “half or even ‘almost all’ of tests for COVID are false positives” sounds like it could very well be true. And if this is true, it would totally change the way we think about the virus. But the media and Democrats do not want the truth and they want us all terrified of the virus and so they will never do any reporting about false positives.
It gets even weirder. There recently was a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the safest place for kids to escape the virus is in school since young kids are the least susceptible to the virus. Breitbart News reported:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield said Thursday that schools should not be closed during the coronavirus pandemic as they are a safe place for children.
“The truth is for kids K–12, one of the safest places they can be, from our perspective, is to remain in school,” Redfield said during a press briefing at the White House with the coronavirus task force led by Vice President Mike Pence.
In school? Yes, that’s right, and this comes after the health fanatics have been telling us for months that we must keep the schools closed. So once again we have the “experts” showing that they know nothing at all and have no common sense.
In New York state and New York City, there allegedly is a new wave of virus positives after some of the most stringent lockdown tactics in the country. Yet we were told that the lockdowns between March and now were going to stop the virus.
But they didn’t stop it because lockdowns don’t work. We were told last March that we needed to quarantine ourselves for “two weeks to flatten curve”. Remember that? But it is now 8 months later and the curve apparently is not flattened and we are seeing new lockdowns.
This virus is being grossly mis-reported by the media to instill fear and control us. Nikitas3.com believes that the virus death numbers are being exaggerated by a factor of 3, that the current reported number of deaths around 252,000 is probably just 80,000 or less and that most of that 80,000 are elderly people who were sick and dying anyway.
Statistically 2.8 million people die in America every year exclusive of the virus. And we can assume that many of the elderly and sick who have died from the virus would have died anyway, and thus they are not really virus deaths at all but natural deaths and should not be counted as virus deaths. But they still are counted that way to frighten us.
We have had great leadership from president Trump on the China virus. We should have it under control in a few months since there are already three companies with vaccines. Thank you, president Trump.
Frightening Fact about Windmills
Nikitas3.com has been doing numerical analyses about the economy and about energy. I recently calculated that America would need 3.5 MILLION giant windmills – each as tall as a 40 story building – to provide enough electricity to run the country on wind power.
That is roughly one windmill on every square mile of land or water whether that be a city, a farm field, a suburb, a lake, a desert, a mountaintop, etc.
Just to give you an example of how disastrous that would be, it would mean that Lake Michigan – one of the Great Lakes that sits between Michigan and Wisconsin – would need 20,000 giant windmills across its surface.
Thus if you went boating on Lake Michigan, you would be spending all of your time dodging these giant windmills on every square mile of the lake.
It is frightening to think about, but that is the future that environmentalists have planned for us. Worst of all, it means total destruction of the environment.
Democrats Attack the Oil Industry
Democrats and their ‘greenie’ allies want to eliminate the oil industry. You may think that they could never do this, but they are going to do it unless we act.
They want to do it gradually by blocking all new oil-related infrastructure and practices like refineries, pipelines and ‘fracking’ to get the oil out of the ground easily.
The first thing that would happen is that the price of gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil would go up, maybe to $4 or $5 or $8 a gallon. This would happen since the ‘green’ plan is to squeeze production so that the price goes up and up and up through scarcity. This is how the ‘greenies’ want to get us to use less – by making these fuels more expensive.
But this would be devastating for Americans and for the economy, particularly for the poor. But environmentalists don’t care.
Now look at this excerpt from The Washington Examiner that would probably apply if Biden becomes president:
Large U.S. banks can’t restrict specific industries from access to lending and other financial services, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said in a proposed rule Friday, a response to outcry from Republican lawmakers that banks were declining to support (oil) companies.
Under the proposed rule, big banks must allow fair access for banking services to all companies. A large bank can decide to deny services only based on an “objective” risk-based assessment of the individual person or company, the proposal says.
While the proposed rule applies more broadly than just energy companies, it appears to be in direct response to complaints from Republicans that big U.S. banks have been pulling out of financing fossil fuel projects, including coal and oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. The proposal directly references a letter Alaska Republican lawmakers sent the office in June arguing that banks such as Citigroup, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo were refusing to invest in new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic in moves that were “overtly political” and “unfairly” targeting the industry.
In its proposal, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said banks are “unequipped” to balance risks such as climate change that are “unrelated” to financial exposure, arguing that is squarely under the authority of Congress and federal energy and environment regulators.
George W. Bush’s EPA chief thinks Biden will revert agency to pre-Trump era
“It is one thing for a bank not to lend to oil companies because it lacks the expertise to value or manage the associated collateral risks,” the proposal reads. “It is another for a bank to make that decision because it believes the United States should abide by the standards set in an international climate treaty.”
The office noted, following the Alaska lawmakers’ letter, that it asked large banks to explain their decision to refuse investments in Arctic oil and gas drilling. The banks told regulators that they had decided to leave several portions of the energy industry, including coal mining and coal-fired power.
The proposal appears to be a last-ditch effort by the Trump administration to keep banks from pulling back money from the fossil fuel industry. If the proposal isn’t finalized by Jan. 20, President-elect Joe Biden could, and likely would, easily drop it.
Biden is expected to take a much more aggressive stance on climate finance, including likely requiring companies to disclose their financial risks to climate change effects and incorporating pricing of such risks into financial regulations.
This is close to becoming reality if Biden becomes president. Yet this is all based on “junk science”. There is no “climate change” as the ‘greenies’ are describing it. The climate has been changing naturally for thousands of years and has been both much hotter and much colder than today for long periods of hundreds of years.
And for the government to say that banks must “disclose their financial risks to climate change effects” is frightening. This means that banks would be pressured into the most extreme risk assessments imaginable using numbers drawn up by environmentalists that have no connection to reality. This is how the environmentalists work – through fearmongering and bureaucracy – with their media friends piling on.
Biden is also pledging to expand federal procurement by an additional $400 billion over four years including buying technologies like electric vehicles.
This is total nonsense. Electric vehicles are a disaster for the environment. They cost much more than the same non-electric models. Nikitas3.com recently saw an electric Hyundai for $39,000. It was the same interior size as a Toyota Corolla, which sells for $23,000. Do you want to pay that much for a small car?
Electric cars use much more energy per mile than gasoline-powered cars. Why? Because electricity is a highly ‘refined’ resource and it is a law of physics that “it consumes energy to refine energy”.
Electric cars rely on expensive and heavy batteries, which are very bad for the environment to produce. Electric cars also have very limited driving ranges and can lose half of their power in frigid weather.
Electric cars were first introduced in 1895. They never survived in the marketplace because they were impractical. They would never survive today without massive government subsidies.
Elon Musk’s Tesla car company has taken $5 billion in federal government subsidies since 2003 and has earned a profit in only two quarters since then. And that profit was made possibly only by the fact that every Tesla sold is also subsidized directly by taxpayers.
In 2019, General Motors closed three production plants in Michigan and Ohio and laid off 15,000 workers. One of the reasons that they did this was because GM lost billions on the production of their electric car, the Chevy Volt. This car was forced on GM by the environmentalists and the government. Its production has since been abandoned.