After almost a year of #fraudulent non-clinical Case Definition by the WHO & their member states (aka the world), you’d think they’d reflect, look at the evidence, and adjust… fat chance!👇🏼
The WHO and ECDC have recently updated their COVID-19 Case Definition – 16th Dec and 3rd Dec respectively.
🤞🏼I was hoping for a shift towards traditional and honest clinical case definition – clinical confirmation of a unique cluster of robust signs and symptoms, and confirmed biologically with a suitable test where viral load is high.
What I’ve described above is how ALL other disease states are diagnosed.
No such luck. 🤔
Instead, they just clarify the you CANNOT use the LFD Rapid Tests to define a Confirmed Case?
🤦🏻♂️ Why? Because the more error-prone über sensitive PCR test is considered the gold standard. What a joke…
🤯 OH, and Suspected and Probable COVID Cases NEED symptoms, but Confirmed Cases don’t! WTAF?!
A GREAT EXAMPLE:
👩🏼⚕️ Dr. Clare Craig made a great point recently. We could easily roll out total population screening of lung cancer and and breast cancer, but we don’t – for a very good reason.
The False Positives come at a HUGE cost, and these screening technologies are riddled with false positives. Just like testing for COVID-19 by using PCR Testing.
😬 The cost of cancer screening False Positives is unnecessary psychological turmoil, declines in health as a result, expense, and generally wasting a lot of effort.
So, we have specific criteria for screening lung and breast cancer, with age being one of the biggies. It’s not that you can’t get breast/lung cancer earlier in life, it’s that the False Positives cause more harm than it’s worth in groups where the risk is significantly lower.
WHY, WHY, WHY?!:
‼️ Now, reflect on the #covid situation. The False Positives come with a much greater cost – economic destruction, public neuroticism, countrywide mental health decline, fuelling ineffective public policy, societal destruction, worsening health service, and declining public health.
🤯 There is a VERY SIMPLE solution. And yet, a year in, WHO & co have zero interest in honestly defining the disease state COVID-19.
❓If you haven’t already, you really should start to ask WHY?
🥱 And please don’t say Asymptomatic transmission, as there is no robust proof that this phenomenon has any material impact on respiratory virus transmission.
In actual fact, there is robust evidence to prove the opposite – Asymptomatic Transmission is NOT observed when the scientific method if followed.
❓Again, I ask… WHY?
Why can we not be honest in Case reporting?
Take a look at the bottom statement in the graphic.
👍🏼 Across all guidance iterations from WHO, CDC, ECDC etc from mid April onwards, they suggest that the death results from a “clinically compatible illness”.
🤔 That is reassuring, but then you think about the growing body of “COVID Symptoms” that grow because of False Positives driving up symptom association to COVID.
The guidance from WHO Death Certification states that all COVID-19 deaths must have COVID-19 as the underlying cause, and not any other conditions.
🙄 This seems backwards to me, because it is precisely the co morbidities that cause COVID severity and death.
We can see that the guidance is being largely followed in England & Wales, as 85-90% of all COVID deaths reported by ONS have COVID-19 listed as the underlying cause.
❓The question is, how many of the COVID-positive deaths included a progression from COVID-19 Symptoms, to Pneumonia or other forms of severe Respiratory Distress, that then lead to ARDS or or Organ failure?
⚠️ What we do know is that there are large number of COVID-related deaths WITHOUT Pneumonia (20K+) – and that really doesn’t sit well given this being a Respiratory Disease.
The above graphic is from the latest WHO Case Definition infographic. This plus the full document, the ECDC case definition, and past iterations are listed in the comment below 👇🏼
Enjoyed the read?