2020 Studies

January 21 – Chinese scientists from the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai release a paper indicating the COVID-19 has nearly identical S-proteins, or “spike” proteins, as the SARS virus, making it much more capable of infiltrating human cells and giving it a higher ability to spread. S proteins basically “unlock” the cell and allow viruses to get in and do harm to the body through genetic replication. In other words, this looks more like genetic recombination rather than a naturally occurring illness that jumped species (also see this interesting info on biological weapons).

January 24 – The Lancet publishes a study casting doubt on the origin of the coronavirus being a Chinese food market saying “Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies” (click here for an article about the study). The major findings that put into question claims by the Chinese government the virus originated in a seafood market are 1) The first patient to show symptoms on Dec. 1 had no contact with the seafood market 2) No link was found between the first patient and later cases 3) On Dec. 10, three more cases were reported, two of which had no connection to the market 4) No one sells bats at the seafood market and no bats were found there, and 5) 14 of the 41 cases the WHO were informed about on Dec. 31 had no exposure to the seafood market.

January 27 – Indian researchers produce a study indicating that while comparing this coronavirus to SARS, 4 additional genetic sequences had been “inserted,” all of which can be found in the genetic sequences of HIV. Three of these four genetic sequences can be found only in three known diseases: HIV, a bat coronavirus discovered by Shi Zhengli, and COVID-19. To have COVID-19 be able to attack the body in a way that is similar to how the HIV virus attacks the body would drastically increase its lethality. Zhengli objected to the findings in the report by the Indian researchers and it was withdrawn days later (can still be read with the above link). China’s “Bat Woman,” as she is known, had supposedly sequenced the genes of the coronavirus in just three days, but her findings were suppressed even though this information could potentially help with the creation of a treatment. She has since remained muzzled by the Chinese government. Could there have been an accident while trying to develop an HIV vaccine?

January 30 – The Lancet publishes another study analyzing 99 confirmed cases of patients who have contracted the coronavirus. 51% of these cases had no contact with the seafood market being sold as the origin of the outbreak.

February 3 – A study is published online revealing the Wuhan coronavirus is closely related to two other viruses (CoVZC45 and CoVZXC21) sampled in bats from Zhoushan by the People’s Liberation Army. The study states there is an 89.1% nucleotide similarity with CoVZC45, and they “even exhibit 100% amino acid similarity in the nsp7 and E proteins.” These bat coronaviruses, or Zhoushan viruses, are nearly identical to this new coronavirus and were originally discovered by military researchers in Nanjing in 2018. Having a 100% amino acid similarity means this virus is not something that occurred naturally via genetic mutation and then jumped species, but instead was created in a lab through a reverse-engineering process. The same study also indicates “The major differences in the sequence of the S gene of 2019-nCoV are the three short insertions in the N-terminal domain as well as changes in four out of five of the key residues in the receptor-binding motif compared with the sequence of SARS-CoV… Whether the insertions in the N-terminal domain of the S protein of 2019-nCoV confer sialic-acid-binding activity as it does in MERS-CoV needs to be further studied. The close phylogenetic relationship to RaTG13 provides evidence that 2019-nCoV may have originated in bats.” The bats from Zhoushan? Either way, there were no bats at the Huanan seafood market.

April 14 – A study is published in Science suggesting some social distancing measures may have to remain in place until 2022.

May 21 – The New England Journal of Medicine publishes a study stating, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic… It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals.” Not sure about you, but I’ve had about enough of these people and the nonsense they spew on a regular basis.

May 23 – “[A] new study from scientists in the United States suggests… a significant majority of the population may already have some level of immunity to the coronavirus, a possible explanation for why so many individuals seem to experience few to no symptoms from the disease.” Researchers believe the immune response observed in uninfected blood samples could be generated by the body’s response to the coronavirus that causes the common cold.   

May 24 – “Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky has completed a scientific study, currently undergoing peer review… which found COVID-19 was uniquely adapted for transmission to humans, far more than any other animal, including bats.” During his interview with Sky News, Petrovsky stated the theory this virus escaped from a lab is something that is not out of the realm of possibility, and should be investigated. “In other words COVID-19 could have been created from that recombination event in an animal host or it could have occurred in a cell-culture experiment.” He also stated the reason many scientists are willing to believe the bogus wet market origin theory is because any admission this problem originated from a lab could have the potential to drastically alter how virus research is done moving forward. The 15-minute interview is included with the article link.

June 4 – Renown medical journal, The Lancet, retracts the paper that caused a global halt on hydroxychloroquine research. The retraction came after serious ethical questions were raised about the US company Surgisphere, and their unwillingness to provide the data they used in the study for additional analysis. The editor of The Lancet said, “This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.” Also see this and thisUpdate (9/2/20): The quote I included in this entry (as well as other language that was used in the original article) is no longer contained in the official retraction. It seems as if the Ministry of Truth had it altered for political reasons, and to hide the fact “research misconduct” is exactly what took place. The updated retraction now reads, “We always aspire to perform our research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources.” Unbelievable! The original quote, as well as other language used in the original article, is still included in the Guardian article linked above.

June 26 – Public Health England publishes a study on the efficacy of masks and I’m sad to say that mask cult members everywhere will be disappointed with the findings as the study concluded, “Compared with no masks, surgical masks were not associated with decreased risk for clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness, or laboratory-confirmed viral illness in household contacts when masks were worn by household contacts, index cases, or both.”

June 30 – A study is published from Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC showing hydroxychloroquine was associated with a 50% reduction in the mortality rate for patients with the Wuhan flu. The study analyzed the results of 6,493 patients.

July 1 – A peer-reviewed study is published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases showing, “In the multivariable Cox regression model of mortality using the group receiving neither hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin as the reference, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone decreased the mortality hazard ratio by 66% (p < 0.001), and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin decreased the mortality hazard ratio by 71% (p < 0.001).” So, how many people do you think died needlessly from COVID because Orange Man Bad? For an article about the study see this.

July 2 – A new study finds hydroxychloroquine significantly increased the survival rate for patients fighting COVID-19. “A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said Thursday their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die. Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System, said 26% of those not given hydroxychloroquine died, compared to 13% of those who got the drug.” XiNN couldn’t just report the findings, however, as the second half of the linked article is dedicated to downplaying them. The MSM is obsessed with bashing this drug simply because President Trump touted it.

July 7 – A study is published on the ScienceDirect website about “pathogenic priming” resulting from COVID infection, and perhaps a future vaccine. It’s a little technical, but an interesting read. Here’s an excerpt: “In SARS, a type of ‘priming’ of the immune system was observed during animal studies of SARS spike protein-based vaccines leading to increased morbidity and mortality in vaccinated animals who were subsequently exposed to wild SARS virus. The problem, highlighted in two studies, became obvious following post-vaccination challenge with the SARS virus found that recombinant SARS spike-protein-based vaccines not only failed to provide protection from SARS-CoV infection, but also that the mice experienced increased immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates in their lungs. Similarly, found that ferrets previously vaccinated against SARS-CoV also developed a strong inflammatory response in liver tissue (hepatitis). Both studies suspected a ‘cellular immune response’ …These types of unfortunate outcomes are sometimes referred to as ‘immune enhancement;’ however, this nearly euphemistic phrase fails to convey the increased risk of illness and death due to prior exposure to the SARS spike protein. For this reason, I refer to the concept as ‘pathogen priming;’ the peptides with pathogenic potential therefore are referred to as ‘putative pathogenic priming peptides.’” I find these findings to be very disturbing. Widespread use of a vaccine that causes this “priming” could set the stage for mass deaths if exposure occurs after receiving it, or if and when another coronavirus is released (or occurs naturally). This is also very similar to the concept of “virus interference,” which also causes people to become more susceptible to respiratory illnesses like COVID (see October 10).

August 21 – The Twerp co-authors a paper published in the scientific journal Cell. One of the “conclusions” made is that we have now entered a “pandemic era” and we will be facing a cascade of new infectious diseases in the near future. The paper is not only meant to frighten readers by claiming the situation we currently face is something we should all expect to continue in perpetuity, but it justifies lockdowns “as the only weapon against uncontrolled spread.” Here’s the deal: We have allowed various governors and mayors to abuse us by going along with lockdowns, mask mandates and other senseless measures supposedly put in place for our own good. Based on everything I’ve observed, it’s clear this whole pandemic has been about globalists reclaiming control of the governments around the world that have seen a huge swing towards nationalism/populism. And now that the social controllers have us right where they want us, they plan on continuing their terror campaign through the use of inaccurate and exaggerated statistics, and potentially the release of additional viruses going forward. This is not about public health, it is about control – getting people to accept things they would not have before the virus and transforming western societies into places that will one day closely resemble China. Period.

August 24 – A large hydroxychloroquine study out of Belgium is published on the Science Direct website showing HCQ was associated with a 30% decrease in mortality among coronavirus patients. The study assessed results from 8,075 patients.

August 25 – A study done on “hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of outpatients with mildly symptomatic COVID-19” is published. The conclusions section reads: “In this retrospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infected non-hospitalized patients hydroxychloroquine exposure was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent hospitalization. Additional exploration of hydroxychloroquine in this mildly symptomatic outpatient population is warranted.” What’s the hold up, Dr. Fauci? … Another fairly large hydroxychloroquine study, this one out of Italy, is published on the European Journal of Internal Medicine website again showing HCQ was associated with a 30% decrease in mortality for coronavirus patients. The study assessed results from 3,451 patients.

September 4 – The results of a new study conducted by researchers at UCLA and Stanford reveal COVID is 10 times less deadly than it was originally believed to be. One of the tidbits from the findings is for an average 50-64 year old, the chance of dying from the disease is 1 in 19.1M. The study also said contracting, being hospitalized, or even dying from COVID is “an extremely rare event.” Researchers believe people are vastly overestimating their chances of falling prey to the disease and public perception is severely misplaced. This is likely due to our dishonest and awful mainstream leftist news media and their desire to hype the virus for political purposes.

October 15 – A recent study published in the British Journal of Medicine found the closing of schools will likely cause more COVID deaths in the long run because it hindered the development of herd immunity in young and healthy populations. It reads in part, “School closures and isolation of younger people would increase the total number of deaths, albeit postponed to a second and subsequent waves.” Also see this.

November 18 – Denmark publishes a somewhat large study about the effectiveness of masks in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. “A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%).” While the study is inconclusive, it shows there is no statistically significant relationship between wearing a mask and avoiding the coronavirus. After reading this article about the study, I emailed the doctor who wrote it to commend him on his fair piece. He got back to me a couple of hours later and said he was embarrassed by what some of his colleagues were saying about masks and agreed the issue had become too political. Unfortunately, after looking at some of his other work, I determined he’s not as open-minded about other things as he is about the wearing of masks. But hey, nobody’s got all the answers – not even New York Educator!

November 23 – A new study shows the nasal spray Xlear, which is a combination of grapefruit extract and xylitol, kills and/or deactivates SARS-CoV-2. Also see this. I’d bet dollars to donuts that Dr. Fauci, the man who represents science itself, will never mention this study or promote a product now proven to protect people from COVID. Thankfully, in the information age, we all have the tools we need to help ourselves.

December 1 – The BMJ publishes the results of a study out of China that screened 10 million Wuhan residents for the rona and found out of the 300 asymptomatic cases they detected, none of them were infectious. Since these findings are not conducive to hysteria, however, the study makes sure to tell readers “The researchers said that their findings did not show that the virus couldn’t be passed on by asymptomatic carriers, and they didn’t suggest that their findings were generalisable.” So don’t believe the findings?

December 14 – The Journal of the American Medical Association publishes a study called, “Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” The study analyzed the results of 54 other studies with a cumulative total of 77, 758 participants. It found while the secondary attack rate for COVID (16.6%) is far higher than both SARS (7.5%) or MERS (4.7%), the rate of asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread was indistinguishable from zero.