Columbia University Goes Batty for China’s Coronavirus Response

In the Spring/Summer 2020 edition of Columbia University’s eponymous print magazine, the cover story – What We Have Learned from the Pandemic (So Far) – the Manhattan-based ivy league school strangely touted the fact that its faculty members helped mold China’s response to the coronavirus.

On the third page of the eight-page spread, written by “The Editors of Columbia Magazine” the article states:

In late January, when most Americans were hearing about the novel coronavirus for the first time, the Columbia epidemiologist W. Ian Lipkin was in Beijing, advising the Chinese government on its response … After meeting with health and science ministers, fellow epidemiologists, and physicians working on the front lines, Lipkin delivered a series of recommendations to senior Chinese leaders.

– Columbia Magazine, “What We Have Learned from the Pandemic (So Far),” Spring/Summer 2020 Edition

Lipkin, according to the piece, “endorsed” Chinese efforts to lock down Wuhan and “urged them to close hundreds of live-animal markets like the one at the center of the outbreak.”

Well, well, well.

So, is this piece meant to inform us that Columbia, which by the University’s own admission was involved in early stages of coronavirus response in China, was also involved in the virus’ suppression from the world dialogue until it became a known and feared medical entity in mid-February? By some reports, the virus was first detected in China November 2019. If Columbia was involved from the beginning, why was knowledge of the “novel coronavirus” delayed in reaching global ears until two months after its first instance?

The beginnings of COVID-19 are dark and shadowy; stories run rampant of brave Chinese doctors who had the courage to speak out against the suppression of information and were subsequently arrested or made to “disappear.”

Even The New York Times ran a story about the late Dr. Li Wenliang. In January, he issued a warning about a new virus in an online chatroom to his medical school classmates. Dr. Wenliang would later tragically die of the virus.

The Wall Street Journal echoed China’s serious virus misgivings in a scathing critique of early Chinese response to COVID-19. “China’s errors, dating back to the very first patients, were compounded by political leaders who dragged their feet to inform the public of the risks and to take decisive control measures,” write authors Jeremy Page, Wenxin Fan and Natasha Khan.

We do know that as the virus first spread in China, the Chinese government quarantined the entire city of Wuhan, which has a population of about 11 million people. The quarantine was extreme; people were basically forced into their apartments and prohibited from leaving.

Yet, even as the quarantine kept Wuhan residents isolated, restricted from traveling anywhere in China, there was no such quarantine in place when it came to international travel. Flights from Wuhan to destinations in Europe, the United States and other countries were allowed to continue business as usual during this quarantine in Wuhan. Why would Chinese citizens be protected from the virus’ spread but not the international community? This dichotomous lock-down/not lock-down continued throughout January and February. We all know what happened next …

But the precarious evidence stacking up against China doesn’t end there; it’s widely known that viral research was going on at not one but two Wuhan medical labs. Institutions in the United States such as Harvard University and the University of Texas actively participated in the research at these Wuhan laboratories as did the NIH. And now, by their own admission, we know Columbia University was involved, too.

However, Columbia’s statement in the newly published cover story that the virus originated in the “ wet market” in Wuhan has been widely debunked by American intelligence agencies. Earlier this month, Forbes published a story stating the reasons COVID-19 most likely originated in one of the Wuhan labs.

Why in the world would a prestigious institution like Columbia University disclose in print that they were even involved with this tyrannical Chinese communist government? It must be a case of cognitive dissonance; there’s no other reason to explain why Columbia would be proud of associating its historic reputation with the way the Wuhan virus was handled in China. 

COVID-19

Let’s Talk about the UV Index and COVID-19

There’s a very interesting relationship between the UV index in a particular area and the mortality rate per million as it concerns COVID-19.

The CDC and NIH have not spoken about this as far as I know (or as far as an exhaustive internet search will tell me). When both organizations speak about their wildly inaccurate projections for this virus they only talk about mitigation efforts.

So far, there has been no real explanation as to why states like New York are seeing such different death rates from California, Florida and Texas. For more than a month, New York has practiced the most stringent mitigation efforts; in fact, once it was determined the virus could be transmitted by tiny droplets in the air, everyone was advised to wear a face mask. (Try entering a grocery store in Manhattan without one and you’ll realize how rigorously this measure has been followed.)

Did mandatory mask-wearing cause a drop in the virus’ progression? Who knows. What we do know is that New York remains at the epicenter of deaths resulting from COVID-19 in the United States.

As of today, New York has the highest mortality rate of 550 people per million, while California is at 20 deaths per million people. Similarly, Florida, which had a huge influx of Northerners – some presumably infected – stands at 28 deaths per million.

Elsewhere in the world, Singapore has a mortality rate of only two people per million, which is one of the lowest mortality rates worldwide. Now here’s where it gets interesting: In general, Singapore has a very high UV index but reached an extraordinary peak of 15 in February.

Brazil, as another example, kept its economy going. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil resisted an economic shutdown and death rates for COVID-19 in Brazil’s largest cities like Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo never approached New York City’s mortality level.

Now, excuse the bright and sunny colors for a decidedly sober subject but here’s a simple representation of UV Index from low to high, showing that 15, as Singapore clocked, is basically off the charts:

OK, back to our UV discussion. Many studies have shown that UV radiation at a certain level can indeed kill influenza-like viruses, of which the coronavirus would be contained within that category. The Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) published the findings of a study conducted several years ago that showed the effectiveness of UV in killing viruses, especially airborne viruses. In the report, titled Can UV Light Fight the Spread of Influenza?, researchers said, “continuous low doses of far ultraviolet C (far-UVC) can kill airborne flu viruses without harming human tissues.”

Referencing the study, Dr. Michael Grosso, chief medical officer at Huntington Hospital in Huntington, N.Y., also told WebMD:

“The prospect of reducing the transmission of influenza and other respiratory viruses using far-UV radiation is very exciting.”

The CDC and thee NIH have enormous resources at their disposal. Between the two organizations, they boast more than 30,000 employees and 10,000+ CDC employees according to Forbes earn a collective $1.1 billion annually yet as far as I know, they never speak about or have further researched the relationship between the virus and Ultraviolet radiation. If their models took UV into consideration, maybe the curves would look completely different and be far more accurate. All they seem to care about is mitigation but mitigation as a predictive determinant of virus spread has proven time and time again to be unreliable.

Graphs showing the UV levels for various states during February and March are easy to find (and I’ll post a few below). With just a cursory glance, you can see there is a very, very obvious correlation between mortality rates and the level of UV radiation in various countries and states.

Invariably, the higher the UV index, the lower the mortality rate per million. Not only did the CDC mislead President Trump and caused the greatest economic shutdown in the world’s history but they also exhibited (and continue to exhibit) a level of incompetence that is simply mind-blowing.

If this relationship between UV levels and COVID-19 mortality holds up, it’s quite reasonable to think the virus will fade rapidly as the index goes up in May and June as summer approaches.

Perhaps the correlation was unintentionally overlooked or else deliberately overlooked but either way, it’s a crime.

Remember, the world relies on the WHO and the CDC and the Imperial College of London for most of the statistics provided during a pandemic. All three failed the world. But there is still an opportunity to right the wrongs. These facts should be taken into consideration as governments determine the states that should open with minimal risk to the general population. In addition, if this is true, the relationship should be used when creating future models of viral outbreaks to make sure they’re more accurate than the fake-news models we’ve been told to accept as truth. The only truth I see is in the cold, hard numbers, not in the rhetoric or in the irresponsibly tossed-around numbers – 200,000 deaths? UV index and its connection to viral spread is the very essence of the politics of duh.

Dr. Fauci

The Insidious Dr. Fauci

Yesterday on CNN, Dr. Fauci was saying that President Trump didn’t listen to him in mid-February about social distancing and had he listened, could’ve saved more lives. An interesting twist of ideas, an easy way out, whatever you want to call this latest line of “insights,” the facts don’t support the fiction.

Dr. Fauci is on tape February 29 saying there is nothing to worry about. When asked if Americans should change their habits – not go to the mall, avoid the gym – Dr. Fauci told Today.com reporters:

“No, right now at this moment there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis.”

– Dr. Anthony Fauci, Feb. 29, 2020 on Today.com

Watch the full interview here:

https://www.today.com/video/dr-fauci-on-coronavirus-fears-no-need-to-change-lifestyle-yet-79684677616

But this latest Fauci fabrication is just part of an entire ideology of subterfuge, diverting attention away from his own wrongdoings and false predictions.

Dr. Fauci, while quick to criticize Trump, is also just as quick to defend the World Heath Organization (WHO) when they totally accepted all of China’s bogus data and wildly misleading claims in January and February that there was no human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus or the statistics China offered that seemingly showed low infection rates and mortality rates compared with Western nations.

In addition, China claimed all cases abruptly ceased in March, almost like a magical on-off switch had been toggled and the coronavirus flew away, an insidious bat disappearing into the dark night. Again, not true. But according to Chinese authorities, the curve of the Chinese brand of this virus didn’t flatten; it just dropped off like the precipice of a steep cliff. This chart is the purported trajectory of the virus in China via worldometers.info:

No flattening of the curve here, no gradual lessening. So, is the Chinese reporting of the COVID-19 cases true? Well, we can look elsewhere for corroboration. There is no comparable curve in any other affected country that even remotely looks like this strange graph.

But back to our “Trump could’ve saved more lives” hero in all this, Dr. Fauci, who is oddly quiet about the origin of the virus itself. Why isn’t he demanding a CDC team travel to Wuhan, China and investigate what actually happened there? He certainly can make demands of our own President.

Checking the virology lab in Wuhan, which at one point the National Institutes of Health (NIH) helped fund, is imperative. Dr. Fauci always defends the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) but the statistics that organization produced have been horribly wrong, even when factoring in mitigation and social distancing measures. Dr. Fauci was also originally quiet about the China travel ban but later, in hindsight, praised it. His vocal cords seemed to gain particular strength, however, when announcing the predicted death tolls in America. On March 29, he told CNN’s State of the Union, “I would say between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths” then revised that number to say “it could be more like 60,000” on April 9.

While we don’t know the reason behind the good doctor’s erratic and downright wrong predictions that led to a total and probably catastrophic economic shutdown, there’s one thing we can surmise: He is obviously not to be trusted.

Dr. Fauci referred to the economic shutdown as “inconvenient.” (Although the lack of convenience can’t be applied to him; this lifelong bureaucrat’s income has not been affected.) So, while he collects his paycheck, millions upon millions of Americans will suffer because of the “inconvenient” shutdown. The consequences of putting our economy on halt will be far worse and longer lasting than this virus.

Boris Johnson Hospital Stay

Boris Johnson: Return from the Abyss

The good news was just announced that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is on the mend and was released from the hospital after a seven-day stay, which included three days in the intensive care unit.

Upon leaving the hospital, he published a short video message, thanking (by name) a list of doctors and nurses who cared for him, citing them as “the reason in the end my body did start to get enough oxygen.”

Continue reading “Boris Johnson: Return from the Abyss”