- Chicken Little and Covid 1984by djeckert
Not yet exceptional. When the exceptional rating is reached this is highlighted
Ask questions, and NEVER stop- Liberty or death
Chicken Little and Covid 1984 by djeckert

One of my favorite quotes is :
" Statistics can confess to anything if you torture the Data long enough." Is this what may be going on here, in regards to the Corona virus?

I have put forth the working theory that maybe as many as half or even more, of the people in the Western world have already been exposed to the Corona virus, ( since around November of last year) and are probably already, usually harmless "carriers".
The more I look at the data, the more I am convinced of this being the truthful paradigm in regards to this virus.

The only statistic that could convince me otherwise, would be one that shows us exactly how many people in a population have been tested for Covid, and then what percentage of those tested, have then tested positive. This is a statistic that I have never found, and it's one that I propose we may never find, and one that they don't want us to even know. ( After all, in such dire and chaotic times, why would keeping track of such a thing even matter?, they might deceptively propose. Hmmmmm...) If anyone out there has any info or stats that reflect or report that seemingly missing, yet crucial data, I'd be greatly appreciative.

For starters to make my case further, why does the medical establishment insist upon not testing the "asymptomatic" carriers? People that are ... CARRIERS!... Hmmmm... immediately, someone's instincts SHOULD say , "Say WHAT?"

And why do we continue to hear stories of doctors giving up on testing , because it's "everywhere in their community" ? Or, " a lost cause" they say. Hmmmm....

But, I started to look closely at the published statistics in regards to the virus outbreak in Italy.

Firstly, according to the last report I saw, there are 74 thousand plus confirmed cases of the virus in Italy. Now with Italy being a population of 60.48 million people, that is only .122 percent of it's total population reportedly infected. That is about one eighth of one percent of the population...stay tuned.

Also, Italy's published statistical data* shows the annual deathrate per 1 thousand people, last year as being anywhere between 10.4 to 14.3 deaths, depending upon the region. Mathematically this translates to between 1772 and 2369 deaths per day. ( Did you get that ? Per day! ) Now I also heard it from a few sources that I trust , that Italy is reporting any death of a person who tests positive for having ever been exposed to this Corona virus ( by having antibodies to it) , and who dies , is reported as having died from the Corona virus. ( Whether or not the virus was really responsible) This would certainly include any number of people who would have, statistically, died anyways. Of course this includes many of the elderly and the immuno- compromised that we keep hearing about. But HERE is where some serious statistical anamolies glaringly scream out , " NOW WAIT A MINUTE, HERE!" It has been reported, last I heard, that it was in fact the elderly and the people with underlying conditions that have died, in ALL but three of these Italians. (At an average age of 79) But NOW, remember , a mere .122 percent of the general population has been confirmed as carriers. We all know that the sickly and the elderly are famously known to rub elbows with thousands of people everyday, going out into public and crowded spaces, and whooping it up at soccer (football) games, and ...NOT! So, where ARE these actually quite sheltered people becoming exposed to this "very rare" virus? ( Rare according to their own admitted statistics) Well, maybe it's NOT so rare and maybe it's everywhere. Hmmmm.....stay tuned.


The CDC just reported that in the United States , this past flu season saw a huge spike in the number of deaths. This past winter seeing 80,000 flu deaths, rather than the expected 38 thousand. Is this "spike" more evidence of the virus already being here, as of last winter ? Hmmmmm.....

The more people they test, the more people are reported to have the virus. What does that really mean?
That statistic would certainly be the case in my proposed paradigm , as well as in the establishment's pandemic paradigm... But stay tuned.

Here's even more, question raising and eyebrow raising findings. From the following article by the Guardian:
( I'm not at all, a person who pours over scores and scores of the fact that I wandered onto this particular "flawed" , or quite deceptive, yet telling article, tells me that this kind of info is everywhere for people who have the ability to see through the bull and just use plain old logic and reason. This is what is really needed in these times to defeat this panic "trance" induced by the minions of "the fallen one".

In this article , the title exlaims:

"Scientists say mass tests in Italian town have halted Covid-19 there"

Since when does mere testing end a pandemic? But a thorough testing of a single population could be hugely educational for us in regards to how a virus spreads... But, stay tuned.

Then it says:

"A scientific study, rolled out by the University of Padua, with the help of the Veneto Region and the Red Cross, consisted of testing all 3,300 inhabitants of the town, including asymptomatic people. The goal was to study the natural history of the virus, the transmission dynamics and the categories at risk."

Did you notice? It was a "scientific study" . In such a study, the data should be solid. Or at least if you are reporting, using a scientific study, you should report numbers that should be exact...stay tuned.

The article then claims,

"When the study began, on 6 March, there were at least 90 infected in Vo For days now, there have been no new cases"

Did you catch that? There were, "at least 90" , NOT 90, but at least 90. Did they test everyone or not? Why do they say " at least 90""? could that include 200? 300? 1500?, All 3200? If they don't have a solid number, then how would they know if there were new cases or not? Why not tell us that solid number? Suddenly , this reporting upon a "scientific study" becomes very dubious...but stay tuned.

It then goes on,

"The research allowed for the identification of at least six asymptomatic people who tested positive for Covid-19. ''If these people had not been discovered," said the researchers, they would probably have unknowingly infected other inhabitants."

"Probably have unknowingly infected"? There's some science there. ( Irony) But more importantly, again notice the use of the words "the research allowed for the identification of at least 6 asymptomatic people" again, why the words "at least" ? Is this a scientific study or not? If they tested everybody (Which they claim they did) , then wouldn't they know the EXACT number? Oh, but one might say, ( and I think this particular deceptive report is banking on this) "Well, saying 'at least ', accounts for the spreading nature of a slowly incubating virus . But is that at all scientific? Science relies upon hard numbers. Is this use of the term " at least" , a very crafty way of avoiding telling us that , "maybe almost everybody has been infected"? ...but stay tuned.

Then, it says,

"We were able to contain the outbreak here, because we identified and eliminated the 'submerged' infections and isolated them," Andrea Crisanti, an infections expert at Imperial College London, who took part in the Box project, told the Financial Times. "That is what makes the difference."

How exactly did they isolate them? and exactly how many of these " submerged infections" were there? That seems a straight forward question. And how many of the whole group , EXACTLY, we're able to continue to be testing negative? Another straight forward question that requires answers that don't include the words " at least", attached to the data.

Then the report tell us,

"The researchers explained they had tested the inhabitants twice and that the study led to the discovery of the decisive role in the spread of the coronavirus epidemic of asymptomatic people."

Now here is where a person really has to learn how to read between the lines of what is said and what is not said.

This report states that, "this study led to the discovery of the
decisive role of the Coronavirus epidemic of asymptomatic people". OK. then why only run the test two times? TWO times , is a "decisive discovery"? When only "at least 6" people in the group were asymptomatically contagious and "at least 90" ( of the 3200 studied ) were tested as positive. ( And contagious) How in the Hell is running two tests in a group , going to give any definitive answers about the spread of the virus? Wouldn't a much more "decisive study" include constantly testing the negatively tested people ( more than twice) to see for REAL how the virus is spreading? Is this REALLY their way of really saying , without " really saying", that "we didn't keep testing because everybody ( hence , "at least 90", as they said ) were already testing positive and are carriers." Hmmmm.....stay tuned.

The article concludes with ,

"The percentage of infected people, even if asymptomatic, in the population is very high," wrote Sergio Romagnani, professor of clinical immunology at the University of Florence, in a letter to the authorities. "The isolation of asymptomatics is essential to be able to control the spread of the virus and the severity of the disease."

No truer statement is included in this story. " The percentage of infected people, even if asymptomatic, is very high" ....hmmmm ..
sounds a LOT like what I have been telling y'all all along. " A very high percentage" , to my view would mean, what exactly? Why would the reporting on a scientific study say " very high" rather than give the actual number? Could it be that "very high" means 50 percent or more? It sure seems like that could explain how the elderly and vulnerable, shut-ins who aren't exactly rubbing elbows with the masses, can be getting exposed to the supposed, 1 eighth of one percent of the Italians , who are "confirmed" to be carriers.

What exactly is afoot here?

Is it even more important that we seriously look into the idea that this virus is more of an economic weapon and a Liberty weapon, than it is a biological one. This Virus SHOULD be called Covid 1984, for obvious reasons.



© Copyright 2011 djeckert All rights reserved.
djeckert has granted, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.

Be sure to go online at to comment on this.
© 2014, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Statement