CLMate

If the government really wanted to protect you, then all doctors would be supported 100% in doing their job, rather than being opposed, and doctors wouldn't have to go to court This way everyone could go on with life, and the economy would not be destroyed Vitamin D reduces mortality risk from COVID-19 by 89% the element Zinc plus ionophores take care of the rest HCQ has a 100% positive effect on COVID-19 in early treatment. By off-label use of Ivermectin: “seriously ill but 95% recovered within 5 days” The specialist: “Due to the clinical experience we have gained over the past two flu seasons, In any case, we now know that hardly anyone has to die from a corona, influenza, rhino or covid, ever again. Per day - 3 to 6 grams of Vitamin C, 4000 I.U. Vitamin D, and 50 mg Zinc, will diminish the chance that we actually get ill, in case we do get infected, to practically nil. Regardless of age, weight or additional conditions." ..

Als de overheid U echt zou willen beschermen, dan zouden alle artsen 100% gesteund worden in het uitoefenen van hun vak, in plaats van, worden tegengewerkt, en zelfs naar de rechter moeten Zo kan iedereen weer verder met leven, en de economie zou niet kapot gaan Vitamine D vermindert sterftekans bij COVID-19 met 89% het element Zink plus ionoforen zorgen voor de rest HCQ heeft 100% positief effect voor COVID-19 bij vroegbehandeling. Door offlabel gebruik Ivermectine: “zwaar ziek maar binnen 5 dagen weer 95% hersteld” De Specialist: “Door de klinische ervaring die wij de afgelopen 2 griepzeizoenen opgedaan hebben, weten wij in ieder geval dat er nagenoeg nooit meer iemand hoeft te overlijden aan griep of covid. Per dag - 3 tot 6 gram Vitamine C, 4000 I.E. Vitamine D, en 50 mg Zink, sluiten nagenoeg uit dat we daadwerkelijk ziek worden in het geval dat we besmet raken. Ongeacht leeftijd, gewicht of bijkomende aandoeningen." ..

Als niets anders meer werkt... Verdedig geweldloze Nederlanders, verdedig burgers, moeders en kinderen, Defend NL https://www.facebook.com/defend.ijmuiden

The vaccine plan was known since at least 2009 Ventura infiltrates the Bilderberg Group - a very secretive, annual meeting of elitists who gather in luxury hotels, under heavy security, and supposedly plan the strategies for world domination. The location and attendees of these secretive events are often posted online. Under cover info from the WHO, WEF, UN agenda 21, agenda 2030 https://rumble.com/vgu973-under-cover-info-from-the-who.html Rosa Koire https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rosa+koire&sp=CAM%253D https://principia-scientific.com/did-trumps-covfefe-tweet-point-to-key-in-defeating-covid19/

The Truth about Vaccines, Ty Bollinger, episode 6

Under cover info from the WHO, WEF, UN agenda 21, agenda 2030

Trump motivational video for us all 2

Trump motivational video for us all

. Bruce Lipton - Nature Nurture - The Biology of Conscious Parenting Nature, Nurture and the Power of Love DVD Bruce Lipton on Conscious Parenting: Our pre- and perinatal experiences form a biological template, which colors subsequent feelings and attitudes about ourselves, our relationships and our connection to Earth and Spirit. Awareness of this important programming mechanism can be used to prevent further harm, as well as heal the places in our hearts and minds where we ourselves have acquired limiting programs. Release Date: 2002 Run Time: 2 hours

Pieter Lakeman: ‘Door Rutte zijn duizenden overleden! Hij verdient een pak slaag van de kiezer!’ Pieter Lakeman strijdt sinds jaar en dag tegen fraude in de bankensector. Onlangs kwam hij langs bij Big Five van BNR. Daar veegde hij op wonderschone wijze de vloer aan met Mark Rutte, die hij onder meer vergeleek met een gijzelnemer. “Door het beleid van Rutte zijn er duizenden mensen overleden!” zei Lakeman ondermeer. En: “Hij verdient een pak slaag van de kiezer.” Het gebeurt niet zo vaak en dus is het des te interessanter als een uitgesproken criticus van Mark Rutte mag langskomen bij de mainstream media. Onlangs was het de beurt aan Pieter Lakeman. Deze man staat vooral bekend als strijder tegen fraude in de bankensector, en was ook de man die het faillisement van DSB Bank afdwong. Maar tegenwoordig heeft hij ook het één en ander te zeggen over de politiek. En dat is fascinerend, omdat juist hij weet hoe fraudeurs opereren. Bij BNR Nieuwradio mocht hij zijn zegje doen. Gevraagd over hoe Rutte omgaat met de toeslagenaffaire liet Lakeman werkelijk geen spaan heel van de premier. “Toen ik een paar dagen geleden Rutte op de televisie zag operen en argumenteren, dacht ik, hé: dit is gewoon een kloon van meneer Hamers.” De meneer Hamers waaraan Lakeman refereert is Ralph Hamers, voormalig topman van ING. In december 2020 besloot het Gerechtshof dat Hamers vervolgd moest worden wegens het verlenen van bijstand aan de inmiddels beruchte witwasaffaire. Dat besluit kwam mede tot stand door het harde werk van Lakeman. “[Rutte, red.] had namelijk precies dezelfde verdediging: van ja, ik ben dan wel eindverantwoordelijk, maar ik wist het allemaal niet zo, het kwam niet tot mij. Dus precies de smoesjes van Hamers. Maar één ding wordt vaak vergeten, hè? Rutte is niet alleen premier, hij is ook minister van Algemene Zaken. Al deze dingen vielen… alles valt onder hem in wezen. Maar Rutte zat ook een potje te liegen van heb ik jou daar hoor. Maar die komt er wel mee weg, vrees ik.” Wat had er dan moeten gebeuren? “Wat hij eigenlijk zou verdienen is een pak slaag van de kiezer straks. Maar dat is onwaarschijnlijk. Want om eventjes een heel vreemd punt naar voren te brengen waar ik vroeger altijd heel erg me over heb verbaas. Als mensen gegijzeld worden door iemand die ze met een geweer wekenlang of maandenlang lastigvalt, die mensen die gaan houden van zo’n gijzelnemer. De kiezers worden nu ook allemaal gegijzeld door Rutte.” Natuurlijk vond de BNR-juffie dat niet een al te plezante vergelijking, maar dat maakt het niet minder treffend. Sterker nog, dat spreekt eigenlijk alleen maar in het voordeel van Lakeman. Als je de mediakartelpropagandisten op de kast jaagt doe je het goed. “Die lockdown werd beargumenteerd met, ‘ja die ziekenhuizen kunnen het niet aan anders.’ Maar onder tien jaar Rutte is het aantal IC-bedden in Nederland gehalveerd en is het aantal verplegenden, het personeel met een derde teruggenomen. Dus het is heel simpel: Rutte is er de oorzaak van dat er te weinig ruimte is.” En dus? “Nou ja. als hij een geweten had zou hij dus duizenden mensen op zijn geweten hebben. Er zijn door Ruttes beleid duizenden mensen overleden. Maar hij staat daar een beetje vrolijk te lachen. Het is een beetje onze nationale lachebekje. Het is echt te gek voor woorden eerlijk gezegd. Maar ja, omdat hij net als die criminelen die dus hun gevangen jarenlang, wekenlang bedreigen, die van ze gaan houden, zo gaan kiezers ook van Rutte houden.” En ja, dat was ook weer tegen het zere been van de BNR-presentatrice, die toch meende te moeten opereren als Rutte-verdedigaar. Gaat dat niet veel te ver?! “Waar komt die vergelijking vandaan? Gaat best ver.” vroeg ze Lakeman. Nou, ik heb wel een idee: van het feit dat Lakeman naar de zaken kijkt, ziet wat er gebeurt, en de dingen vervolgens gewoon benoemt. Daar zou zij een voorbeeld aan moeten nemen. “Ja, dat ga ik niet ontkennen, die vergelijking gaat inderdaad ver. Maar dat baseer ik gewoon op hoe hij optreedt en hoe hij dus kennelijk ook tussen zijn oren, dus in zijn hersenpan, functioneert,” aldus Lakeman volkomen terecht. Want, inderdaad. De toeslagenaffaire, het coronavirus, de lockdown… niets maakt indruk op Rutte. Hij blijft vrolijk lachen en het ge-wel-dig naar zijn zin hebben. Daar mag Lakeman best wat van vinden. Dat doe ik óók. Wiebes maakt er ook een potje van, maar die maakt op Lakeman de indruk “dat hij nog normaal als mens functioneert. Maar die Rutte, als ik psychiater was zou ik ervan dromen om Rutte op de tafel te leggen om hem te onderzoeken. Want dat is toch een hele vreemde man. Niets interesseert hem. Het maakt hem niet uit wat er om hem heen gebeurt. Als hij maar op het pluche blijft zitten. Dat is het enige dat het interesseert. Verder is er niks wat hem boeit.” Zo. Die kan Markje in zijn sociopathische zak steken. Of hij ook dat welverdiende pak slaag van de kiezer krijgt...

Morgan Freeman on Black History Month https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRzd7SknVrQ

. Viral video shows pastor kick out mask-enforcing cops from his church: 'You Gestapo Nazi communist fascists!' NEWS The street pastor accused police of trying to intimidate the worshippers A video captured the moment a Canadian pastor drove away health officials and police trying to enforce the mask mandate at his church during a Passover service. The incident unfolded Saturday at a church in Calgary in Alberta, Canada, pastored by Artur Pawlowski. The video shows several police officers assisting a public health official inside the church as Pawlowski yells at them to get out of his church. "Immediately get out of this property! I don't want to hear anything!" yells Pawlowski. "Until you get a warrant! OUT!" he continued screaming. "Immediately go out and don't come back! I don't want to talk to you, not one word!" Pawlowski forces the officials out and chases them away while decrying what he saw as intimidation. "Do not come back you Nazi psychopaths! Unbelievable sick evil people! Intimidating people in a church during the Passover!" he says on the video. "You Gestapo Nazi communist fascists!" The video quickly went viral on Twitter with millions of views. Calgary Police released a statement on Sunday explaining their part in the action against the church and Pawlowski. "The concern was that the people in attendance were not adhering to the government's COVID-19 public health orders, which are in place to ensure everyone's safety," the police said in part. "The organizer of the gathering was uncooperative with the health inspector, and repeatedly raised his voice asking all parties to leave the premises, which they did approximately one minute after entry and in a peaceful manner," the police added. "We understand the pandemic has caused great disruption to all Calgarians in their professional and personal lives. We do not wish to disrupt anyone's holidays or religious or spiritual events, however we must support our partner agencies when called upon to help ensure everyone can safely celebrate these occasions," the statement concluded. The police indicated that no tickets were issued at the time but that "subsequent enforcement activity" is being considered. Pawlowski has been a vocal opponent of mask mandates and pandemic lockdowns. ‼️Calgary, Kanada: MUTIGER PASTOR WIRFT 6 POLIZISTEN RAUS UND BESCHIMPFT SIE ALS NAZIS (dt.UT)‼️ Göttlicher Empfang am Karfreitag 😄👍 Gegen diese Energie und Entschlossenheit, die da wirkte, hatten die Polizisten einfach keine Chance und räumten schließlich das Feld🔥 Der Pastor brüllt die Polizisten an: "Die NAZI Gestapo ist in meinem Haus nicht willkommen! Raus ihr NAZIS! Raus Gestapo! Haut ab ihr Psychopathen und kommt nicht zurück ohne Durchsuchungsbefehl. Ihr seid hier nicht erwünscht!" Wenn auch in den Worten sehr mutig aber in vieler Augen nicht unangebracht, zeigte er Courage, behielt sein Gesicht und ließ sich nicht einschüchtern. Chapeau!👏🏻

. https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/traffic/rules-of-the-road/article226013995.html Q: Federal law is the highest law, am I correct? And federal law states it is my God-given right as man to have the freedom of travel in pursuit of happiness without being governed, harassed, taxed or held from freedom of movement. It also states that as long as I’m traveling in my own vehicle that I own, and I’m not making cash profit from it, then a state-issued license is just a requirement made by the state police. It’s not required as long as I’m not harming anyone or committing a crime. A: Okay . . . Where to start? I’ll begin by saying that I sympathize for any officer that stops this driver and has to endure the ensuing encounter. Admittedly, this question is an outlier, but over the last three years of writing this column I’ve received enough of these kinds of questions to realize that there is a much bigger issue here: When someone misunderstands the law it can have real-life consequences. Sometimes a misunderstanding of the law is harmless. For example, many people think it’s illegal to drive barefoot (it’s not). You may have heard it from your driver’s ed teacher, who told you that driving barefoot gives you less control (which is usually true, unless you’re wearing flip-flops or high heels). But here’s the most far-fetched explanation I’ve encountered, quoted directly from the source of all suspect information, the internet: “A carjacker/kidnapper will force their victim to continue driving, but will take their shoes so that they can’t make a break for it. So if a cop sees a pair of people in a car and the driver is without shoes, they might assume it’s a hostage situation.” This explanation lives on the margins of reality, but there are no real consequences to believing it’s illegal to drive barefoot. You’ll just always wear shoes while driving. In contrast, believing that a driver license is a fake requirement can result in some real problems. We live in a time where you can find the answer to any possible question in seconds. And you can find the wrong answer even faster. If you’re convinced that you don’t need a driver license to legally drive on public roads, I can assure you that your next traffic stop will not go smoothly for you. I’m no constitutional law expert, but I think I can explain why some people think they don’t need a driver license, and why they’re wrong. At risk of oversimplifying things, the US Supreme Court has stated that it is “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highway . . .” The thinking goes, If the Supreme Court says it’s a right to use the highway, the state can’t require me to get a license and then grant me permission to drive, because it’s already my right. This argument relies mostly on court decisions taken out of context and obsolete legal definitions, but there are people who believe it. I’ve met some of them. Just for fun, let’s take the no-license-required argument to a logical extreme. If we start with the assumption that any person has the right to travel on any public highway as long as they are not making a profit (an important part of the argument, although ungrounded), they can use any kind of vehicle they want, and they’re not harming anyone else, what’s to stop John Travolta from landing his 747 on I-90, assuming he can find a big enough gap in traffic? (I’ll guess that John Travolta has both a driver license and a pilot’s license, but for the sake of this example let’s pretend he doesn’t.) What the believers of the no-license-required viewpoint overlook is the fact that even though the federal government doesn’t mandate a national driver license, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, has confirmed a state’s authority to establish licensing requirements for drivers. Our constitution grants us the right to travel freely, but recognizes that for the well-being of the people, we need systems in place that regulate transportation. A driver license isn’t about taxation and limiting travel; it’s a verification that the holder has at least a minimal understanding of the shared rules that keep us safe on the roads. Freedom to travel and driver license requirements are really two distinct concepts that the anti-license folks have conflated. The no-license-needed crowd will try to convince you that all you need during a traffic stop is a clearly articulated explanation to convince the police officer that all his legal training was wrong, that he’s really just a pawn of a corrupt taxation scheme, and that it’s in his best interest to just let you go. If you try that approach, good luck with that. A strong belief in an incorrect understanding of the law won’t help in court if the entire judicial system disagrees with you.

Pfizer has been accused of “bullying” Latin American governments during negotiations to acquire its Covid-19 vaccine, and the company has asked some countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases, according to an investigation by the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. In the case of one Latin American country, demands made by the pharmaceutical giant led to a three-month delay in a vaccine deal being reached. For Argentina and Brazil, no national deals were agreed to at all with Pfizer. Any hold-up in countries receiving vaccines can lead to more people contracting Covid-19 and potentially dying. Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded more than the usual indemnity against civil claims filed by citizens who suffer serious adverse events after being inoculated. They said Pfizer also insisted the governments cover the potential costs of civil cases brought as a result of Pfizer’s own acts of negligence, fraud, or malice. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs. One government health official who was present in the unnamed country’s negotiations described Pfizer’s demands as “high-level bullying” and said the government felt like it was being “held to ransom” in order to access lifesaving vaccines. Campaigners are already warning of a “vaccine apartheid” in which rich Western countries may be inoculated years before lower-income regions. Now, legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power. “Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries,” said Lawrence Gostin, a law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “[This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing.” Protection against liability shouldn’t be used as “the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of desperate countries with a desperate population,” he added. Pfizer, which partnered with BioNTech, a German biotech, to make the vaccine, has been in talks with more than 100 countries and international bodies, and has supply agreements with nine countries in Latin America and the Caribbean: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay. The terms of those deals are unknown. Pfizer declined to comment on the allegations about its demands in negotiations, citing “ongoing negotiations which are private and confidential.” The company told the Bureau in a statement: “Pfizer and BioNTech are firmly committed to working with governments and other relevant stakeholders to ensure equitable and affordable access to our COVID-19 vaccine for people around the world.” The company said that in addition to the nine Latin American countries with which it has struck supply agreements, it has “allocated doses to low- and lower-middle-income countries at a not-for-profit price, including an advance purchase agreement with COVAX to provide up to 40 million doses in 2021.” COVAX is a global initiative to pool purchasing power and ensure vaccine access for low-income countries. “We are committed to supporting efforts aimed at providing developing countries with the same access to vaccines as the rest of the world,” Pfizer said. Most governments are offering indemnity — exemption from legal liability — to the vaccine manufacturers they are buying from. This means that a citizen who suffers an adverse event after being vaccinated can file a claim against the manufacturer and, if successful, the government would pay the compensation. In some countries people can also apply for compensation through specific structures without going to court. This is fairly typical for vaccines administered in a pandemic. In many cases, adverse events are so rare that they do not show up in clinical trials and only become apparent once hundreds of thousands of people have received the vaccine (a 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine, for example, was eventually linked to narcolepsy). Because manufacturers have developed vaccines quickly and because they protect everyone in society, governments often agree to cover the cost of compensation. However, the government officials from Argentina and the unnamed country who spoke to the Bureau said Pfizer’s demands went beyond those of other vaccine companies, and beyond those of COVAX, which is also requiring its member countries to indemnify manufacturers. This presents an additional burden for some countries because it means having to hire specialist lawyers, and sometimes pass complex new legislation, so manufacturers’ liabilities can be waived. ‘An extreme demand’ Pfizer asked for an additional indemnity from civil cases, meaning that the company would not be held liable for rare adverse effects or for its own acts of negligence, fraud or malice. This includes those linked to company practices — say, if Pfizer sent the wrong vaccine or made errors during manufacturing. “Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices,” said Gostin. “Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.” Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, said Pfizer and other manufacturers have received government funding to research and develop the vaccines and are now pushing the potential costs of adverse effects back on to governments, including those in low- and middle-income countries. (Pfizer’s partner, BioNTech, was given $445 million by the German government to develop a vaccine and the U.S. government agreed in July to preorder 100 million doses for nearly $2 billion, before the vaccine had even entered Phase 3 trials. Pfizer expects to make sales of $15 billion worth of vaccines in 2021.) In Eccleston-Turner’s opinion, it looks like Pfizer “is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.” Related: Covid-19 vaccination rates follow the money in states with the biggest wealth gaps, analysis shows The Bureau spoke to officials from two countries, who all described how meetings with Pfizer began promisingly but quickly turned sour, and reviewed a report by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The Argentinian Ministry of Health began negotiating with the company in June and President Alberto Fernández held a meeting with the company’s general manager for Argentina the following month. During subsequent meetings Pfizer asked to be indemnified against the cost of any future civil claims, said an official from the president’s office. Although this had never been done before, the country’s Congress passed a new law in October allowing for it. However, Pfizer was not happy with the phrasing of the legislation, according to the official, who declined to be identified because the negotiations were confidential. The government believed Pfizer should be liable for any acts of negligence or malice. Pfizer, said the official, disagreed. The government did offer to amend the existing law to make it clear “negligence” meant problems in the distribution and delivery of the vaccines. But Pfizer was still not satisfied. It asked the government to amend the legislation through a new decree; Fernández refused. “Argentina could compensate for the vaccine’s adverse effects, but not if Pfizer makes a mistake,” said the official, who has detailed knowledge of the negotiations. “For example, what would happen if Pfizer unintentionally interrupted the vaccine’s cold chain [of -70 Celsius during transport and storage] … and a citizen wants to sue them? It would not be fair for Argentina to pay for a Pfizer error.” The official said talks soon became tense and complicated: “Instead of giving in on some points, Pfizer demanded more and more.” In addition to the changes sought in the new law, it asked Argentina to take out international insurance to pay for potential future cases against the company (countries were also asked by vaccine makers and the WHO to do this during the H1N1 outbreak). In late December, Pfizer made another unexpected request: that the government put up sovereign assets — which might include federal bank reserves, embassy buildings, or military bases — as collateral. “We offered to pay millions of doses in advance, we accepted this international insurance, but the last request was unusual: Pfizer demanded that the sovereign assets of Argentina also be part of the legal support,” the official said. “It was an extreme demand that I had only heard when the foreign debt had to be negotiated, but both in that case and in this one, we rejected it immediately.” The failed negotiations mean Argentinian citizens, unlike those in neighboring countries, do not have access to Pfizer’s vaccine, leaving them with Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine, AstraZeneca’s vaccine, and those delivered through COVAX. The government is also negotiating to acquire vaccines from Moderna, Sinopharm, and CanSino. “Pfizer misbehaved with Argentina,” said Ginés González Garcia, Argentina’s former minister of health. “Its intolerance with us was tremendous.”

. Two Bakersfield doctors cite their testing data to urge reopening Before COVID-19 was even detected in the United States, Dan Erickson, a former emergency room physician who now co-owns Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, bought as many tests for the virus as he could. He knew it would be here eventually and wanted to be ready to test those who needed and wanted it. Now, after testing thousands of people, he and his business partner, physician Artin Massihi, say they have enough data to draw some conclusions about COVID-19. Their message: COVID-19 is more ubiquitous and less deadly than we think. It's similar to influenza and we should therefore reopen society and stop treating the situation like the lethal menace it was initially thought to be. "Two months ago we didn't know this so I'm bringing it to light now," Erickson said Wednesday at a news conference held at his Coffee Road urgent care. Kern County Public Health Services Spokeswoman Michelle Corson and an epidemiologist contacted by The Californian said they didn't agree with the doctors' recommendation to end social distancing and immediately start reopening society. "This is a many-headed hydra. It’s really unfortunate to boil this all down to it’s just flu," said Andrew Noymer, associate professor of public health at UC Irvine. "There’s no flu season that looks anything like New York does right now." 'Similar to flu' Accelerated urgent care has done 5,213 COVID-19 tests at its five Bakersfield locations, Erickson said — which is more than half the 9,197 tests done so far in Kern County. Of those, 340 were positive, according to Erickson. If that percentage of positive cases were assumed to represent the entire population of Kern County, which is roughly 900,000, it would mean about 58,000 people in Kern have had the virus, far more than the nearly 700 official confirmed, Erickson said. That many cases would "indicate there is a widespread (COVID-19) infection, similar to flu," Erickson said. And if we don't shutdown the country for flu, should we keep doing it for coronavirus? "It’s about looking at trends and saying we’re not seeing what they've been talking about for the past six to eight weeks," said Massihi, referring to predictions that up to 100,000 Americans could die of the virus and hospitals would become swamped with patients. "We’ve crippled the economy. There’s a lot of domestic issues going on. Is social isolation warranted for the healthy?" Using the same calculation, Erickson estimates 12 percent of the population statewide, or some 4.7 million Californians, have already had COVID-19. With about 1,400 deaths so far in California, that puts the statewide death rate at about .03 percent, he said. "Does that (low death rate) necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down medical systems? Does that necessitate being out of work?" Erickson asked. Nationwide, about 42,000 people have died of coronavirus as of Wednesday. Between 30,000 and 60,000 die of flu annually, Erickson said, citing CDC data. The secondary effects of the shutdown are considerable, too, he said. They include a dramatic decrease in volumes at hospitals and even Erickson's urgent care practice, where staff are mostly testing patients for COVID-19 these days. The Californian has reported that hospital volumes are significantly decreased in recent weeks as elective surgeries have been canceled and many people are staying home for fear of contracting COVID-19, which is in turn causing financial strain for healthcare facilities. Erickson wondered what could happen when the economy reopens and people begin flooding into hospitals that have reduced their staffs. He said local leaders and colleagues of his here and across the country are reporting increased incidents of child molestation and domestic violence while people are at home, and suicides are also spiking. He also noted a contradiction between allowing people to shop at Costco and Home Depot but not allowing them to go to church. "If you're going to dance on someone's constitutional rights you better have a good reason, you better have a really good reason, not just a theory," he said. "The data is showing us it's time to lift (the stay-at-home orders) so if we don't lift, what is the reason?" Noymer of UC Irvine disagreed with the doctors' premise that COVID-19 is as widespread as Erickson and Massihi think, saying the idea that nearly 5 million Californians have had the virus is a gross overestimate. The people tested in California were not a random sample; they were mostly people who were symptomatic, Noymer said. Therefore, extrapolating the positive test rate across the entire population of the state is not an accurate way to arrive at how widespread the virus is. And even if 12 percent of the state has had the virus, that still leaves 88 percent vulnerable to it, Noymer said. "They’re advancing factual inaccuracies and playing off the esoteric nature of the mortality stats to make a case that the economy should be reopened," Noymer said. "I agree it should be reopened, but it should be opened deliberately, bit by bit, and informed by science. Not informed by a misreading of the mortality." But people will have different ideas on how to balance the economic costs of trying to stem the pandemic. "Like many other things in society, we’re going to have to come to a consensus about how we allocate resources," Noymer said. Corson said she disagreed with any assertion that we should abandon social distancing and stay-at-home orders. The county continues to adhere to Gov. Gavin Newsom's orders in order to mitigate illness and deaths from the virus and the impact it could have on the local healthcare systems, she said. "We completely understand how eager everyone is to get back to our lives, but right now protecting our health is our number one priority and this is not the time to let up," Corson said. "I want to strongly reiterate this is the time to stay vigilant and stay at home and practice social distancing."

DR. CARRIE MADEJ HAS SOME URGENT INFORMATION ON COVID VACCINE ( DUTCH SUBTILES! )