Health, Fitness,Dite plan, health tips,athletic club,crunch fitness,fitness studio,lose weight,fitness world,mens health,aerobic,personal trainer,lifetime fitness,nutrition,workout,fitness first,weight loss,how to lose weight,exercise,24 hour fitness,
A video said to have been filmed in Shijiazhuang, China, showed people walking with a waddle as they left a hospital, presumably after having received a new anal swab test for COVID-19. The Shijiazhuang Internet Report Centre said the video was fake, and it's since been taken down, but not before millions of people viewed it.1
While the image of people waddling like penguins after an anal swab might be an exaggeration, what's not fake is the anal swab test for COVID-19. Released in Beijing, the test is said to be a more accurate method for detecting the virus.
According to Forbes, Li Tongzeng, deputy director of the respiratory and infectious diseases department at Beijing You An Hospital, cited research that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, survives longer in the anus and feces than in the respiratory tract. Due to this, an anal swab may be able to more accurately detect mild or asymptomatic cases than a nose or throat test.2
While the tests are said to be only for "high-risk cases," they've reportedly been given to unsuspecting individuals, including travelers arriving in Beijing, those in quarantine centers and even 1,000 children and teachers who were exposed to the virus.3
In a poll on Chinese social media site Weibo, 80% who responded said they "could not accept" anal swab testing for COVID-19.4 While the test can be performed from a stool sample submitted by the patient, if that's not possible the test involves inserting a cotton-tipped swab one to two inches into the rectum.
"If we add anal swab testing, it can raise our rate of identifying infected patients," Tongzeng was reported as saying on state-run news channel CCTV. "But of course, considering that collecting anal swabs is not as convenient as throat swabs, at the moment only key groups such as those in quarantine receive both."5
One Chinese study published in Future Medicine in August 2020 reported that, in some patients, anal swabs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while the virus was not detected in throat swabs or sputum swabs. They concluded, "Anal swabs might be the optimal specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection to evaluate the hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients,"6 although the study was limited in that it involved only four patients.
Another study conducted by researchers at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may be shed through the gastrointestinal tract via feces. They analyzed literature to determine if the virus may persist in stool even after a negative nasopharyngeal test.7 In a review of 12 studies, they found 107 cases in which a positive rectal, anal or stool SARS-CoV-2 test was positive after a nasopharyngeal test was negative.8
"Therefore," they noted, "there is some evidence of the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in the body secretion in convalescing COVID-19 patients. It is noteworthy that a significant proportion of these patients are within the pediatric age group."9
In a BMJ rapid response article, Dr. Arturo Tozzi, a pediatrician with the University of North Texas, suggested fecal excretion of SARS-CoV-2 may persist for one to 11 days after excretion in sputum in 23% to 82% of adults. He suggested rectal swabs could be used to test patients with COVID-19 symptoms or known COVID-19 exposure who test negative via throat or sputum tests. He further stated:10
"Indeed, the available data suggest that some patients test positive on rectal swabs in the very first days of COVID-19 onset (Lescure et al., 2020).11
To make a few examples, in a review article, Tian et al. (2020)12 reported fecal PCR positivity 2‐5 days after sputum in in 36%‐53% of patients, while Xiao et al (2020)13 found that 39/73 hospitalized patients had viral RNA in their feces from 1 to 12 days. Therefore, the occurrence of oro-fecal route points towards the usefulness of rectal swabs at the very onset of the disease to confirm, or even diagnose, COVID-19."
Time will tell whether anal swabs become more popular for COVID-19 testing in China and around the world. For now, it's still generating snickers among European Commission spokespeople, but when asked by a journalist whether anal swabs could be implemented for EU-wide COVID testing, a spokesperson said they would "follow the science."14
European Commission spokesperson for health, food safety and transport Stefan De Keersmaecker said, "We will go where the science takes us. So, if science takes us to the butt, we will consider this. But of course I don't think I can add a lot on this … We indeed rely heavily … on the input from scientists, and so we leave it to the scientific world to see what are the best approaches."15
There are critics of the anal testing, as well. Forbes reported that Yang Zhanqiu, a pathology expert from Wuhan University, told China's Global Times that nose and throat swabs were most efficient, adding, "There have been cases concerning the coronavirus testing positive in a patient's excrement, but no evidence has suggested it had been transmitted through one's digestive system."16
Dr. Amesh A. Adalja, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Maryland, also raised concerns about the nature of the test, telling Health that not only is it unknown whether anal swabs are useful for detecting contagious cases but, "I also worry that such messages may discourage people from getting tested. For most purposes, including screening asymptomatic individuals, nasal or saliva samples are sufficient."17
Submitting stool samples would be one way of getting around the unpleasantness of the test, as stool samples are already collected for a variety of other medical tests, according to Joanne Santini, professor of microbiology at University College London. She told Insider that anal swabs are "the obvious thing to do." According to Insider:18
"Santini explained that the virus attaches to the human body using a receptor called ACE2, and there are many ACE2 receptors in the gut. The viral load — the amount of virus shedded — can also be higher in the feces, especially if someone is suffering with gastrointestinal problems caused by coronavirus. And viral shedding can last for longer in the feces than in sputum.
'Even though a common way of being infected is through respiration, I think there must be some infection happening through the gut via the mouth,' she said. 'There is evidence that SARS-CoV-2 in feces is infectious, just like other viruses, such as norovirus and other coronaviruses.'"
It remains to be seen whether anal COVID-19 tests will catch on, but as it stands positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests for COVID-19 are plagued with problems. The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.19
Inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most, laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive" and being ordered to take off work and self-isolate for two weeks.
The higher the cycle threshold (CT) — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. While any CT over 35 is deemed scientifically unjustifiable,20,21 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend running PCR tests at a CT of 40.22
A test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.23,24,25 When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you clearly end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we're really dealing with is a "casedemic"26,27 — an epidemic of false positives.
The WHO updated its testing guidance January 20, 2021, to admit that that a positive PCR test alone does not equal infection, and that the "PCR threshold (CT) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient's viral load." Therefore, in cases where the patient's symptoms do not correspond to the result of the test, i.e., they're asymptomatic but test positive, they should be retested using the same or different test.
They also noted that the PCR test should only be used as an "aid" in diagnosis and not be relied upon by itself. Diagnosis must also include the observation of clinical symptoms. So, to get a diagnosis of COVID-19, you now need two positive tests if symptoms are absent, and a doctor's judgment-call on whether symptoms appear consistent with a diagnosis of COVID-19.
However, it's uncertain how many labs will adopt this advice to make their tests more accurate. The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by a November 20, 2020, study in Nature Communications,28 which found no viable virus in PCR-positive cases. The study evaluated data from 9,865,404 residents of Wuhan, China, who had undergone PCR testing between May 14 and June 1, 2020.
A total of 300 tested positive but had no symptoms. Of the 34,424 people with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive a second time. Yet, when they did virus cultures on these 407 individuals who had tested positive (either for the first or second time), no live virus was found in any of them.
It's unknown whether an anal swab may prove to be any different, but it's unlikely that most people will willingly submit to an anal swab over a nasal or throat test. Further, many are now questioning whether the faulty PCR test was rolled out on purpose in an effort to crash the global economy and provide cover for the implementation of what's known as the Great Reset.
“The New Normal” documentary by Happen.network investigates speculation that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned — or at least is being exploited — by a group of tech elite who are dictating policy to governments globally in order to push a totalitarian agenda.
There are many moving parts involved, from bad data that are inflating COVID-19 mortality rates to problems with PCR tests that are leading to very high false positive rates. A falsely inflated death rate drives more fear among the population, while a misleadingly high number of cases can be used as justification for more business closures and lockdowns.
All of this serves to further the ultimate agenda to “build back better” and “reset” the world to a “new normal.” At the root of the agenda, however, is a significant economic and power shift that only a minority of people are aware of, being driven by the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The First Industrial Revolution, which took place in the early to mid-1800s, brought in the use of steam power throughout the world. The Second Industrial Revolution took place from the late 19th to early 20th centuries, and involved progress in steel, electric and automobile industries. 1
The Third Industrial Revolution, according to Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), “used electronics and information technology to automate production,” whereas the Fourth Industrial Revolution, he says, has already begun and “is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.”2
It’s the further emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and integration with humans. In August 2020, for one example, Elon Musk revealed a company he founded called Neuralink, which involves a surgically implanted microchip that’s connected to your brain and synced with AI, with the goal of one day allowing humans to control artificial limbs or even engage in telepathy. Musk described it as "a Fitbit in your skull with tiny wires."3
While some have heralded the innovation, others described it as a cyborg — the merging of a human and a machine. The video features Kai-Fu Lee, who wrote the book “AI Super-Powers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order.”
A former executive at Google China, he believes there will be a rapid displacement of jobs as robots replace workers, and in the next 10 years, so many jobs will be replaced that people will need to find happiness without working. Amazon has also stated that fully automated shipping warehouses, in which robots will replace humans fulfilling orders, may be just 10 years away.4
As part of their Jobs Reset Summit, WEF also stated that 50% of all employees will require reskilling by 2025, “as the ‘double-disruption’ of the economic impacts of the pandemic and increasing automation transforming jobs takes hold.”5 WEF claims that 85 million jobs may be eliminated by 2025, while 97 million more may be created to address “the new division of labor between humans, machines and algorithms.”
But the reality is that only a fraction of people would likely find work in this AI-driven world, which would necessitate the introduction of a universal basic income.
This may initially sound like a good thing, but when your ability to earn an independent income is destroyed, you become dependent on, and at the mercy of, the elite that are in control of that income and the resources surrounding it. Universal debt forgiveness may also emerge — in return for the forfeiture of all rights to private ownership going forward. As for as its effects on people, Schwab wrote:6
“The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships.
It is already changing our health and leading to a ‘quantified’ self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation. The list is endless because it is bound only by our imagination.”
In June 2019, the U.K. released a white paper announcing it had established a partnership with WEF “to shape the global governance of technological innovation.” In their policy paper, “Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” it’s stated:7
“Technological breakthroughs in areas from artificial intelligence to biotechnologies are now heralding a Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the power to reshape almost every sector in every country. Our Industrial Strategy positions the UK to make the most of this global transformation.”
Politicians, business leaders and even the royal family are among those who have recently begun calling for society to “build back better.” This slogan is part of the larger "Great Reset" campaign, as Time magazine published on their cover in November 2020.8 Time’s owner and co-chair,9 Marc Benioff, is a member of WEF’s board of trustees as well as an inaugural chair of their Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The very purpose of “building back better” is to do away with what was once “normal” and replace it with something different. According to WEF, this entails “reinventing capitalism”10 and replacing it with a “stakeholder economy.”
Also known as stakeholder capitalism, Forbes described stakeholder economy as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.”11
The idea of stakeholder capitalism has been around since at least 1932, and was also endorsed by nearly 200 CEOs of large corporations in August 2019.12 However, it is now being accelerated as part of The Great Reset. As the documentary noted, WEF made predictions about the world in 2030 via a social media post. Among them:
U.K.’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new policies also fall in line with WEF objectives. This includes a ban on petrol and diesel cars by 2030, blocking vehicle access to side roads and new pay-per-mile taxes that could make driving very expensive. It’s almost as if the U.K. is attempting to remove ownership of cars.
Autonomous driving may be the next scenario, which again sounds like a good thing on the surface, but ultimately serves to take away autonomy. AI will be so much better at driving than people, the documentary explains, that eventually most people will be afraid to drive. Soon after that, humans won’t be allowed to drive at all.
Yuval Noah Harari, a professor in the department of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, warned of the dangers of AI, such that technology might disrupt human society and the very meaning of human life in numerous ways.13 Data colonialism and digital dictatorship are very real possibilities, as is the division of the world into wealthy elites and others, who end up as “exploited data colonies.”
Unprecedented inequality will emerge, as a “useless class is created”— “useless not from the viewpoint of their friends and family,” Harari says, “but useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system. And this useless class will be separated by an ever-growing gap from the ever more powerful elite.”
An AI arms race is already underway between the U.S. and China, and most other countries will be left behind, disrupting global balance. According to Harari:14
“Just think what will happen to developing economies once it is cheaper to produce textiles or cars in California than in Mexico?
And what will happen to politics in your country in twenty years, when somebody in San Francisco or Beijing knows the entire medical and personal history of every politician, every judge and every journalist in your country, including all their sexual escapades, all their mental weaknesses and all their corrupt dealings?
Will it still be an independent country or will it become a data-colony? When you have enough data you don't need to send soldiers in order to control a country.”
The Rockefeller Foundation and Bill Gates are also supporters of The Great Reset.15 In 2010, The Rockefeller Foundation released a report titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” which uses scenario planning to explore ways that technology and growth/development and government might play out over the coming decades. One of the scenarios they detailed was a pandemic with some eerie similarities to COVID-19:16
“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly.
Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.
The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and of office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.”
As the pandemic continues, “national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.”
The increased authoritarian control and oversight of citizens continued even after the pandemic ended, and was welcomed at first in exchange for “greater safety and stability.”
In December 2020, the Rockefeller Foundation released “Taking Back Control: A Resetting of America’s Response to COVID-19.”17 Among its advice is ramping up COVID-19 testing, including in schoolchildren — a problematic scenario not only due to its exorbitant cost ($42.5 billion in the U.S. for February to June 2021) but also because of false positives that will arise from the flawed COVID-19 tests.
Could this be a way to intentionally boost infection rates in order to justify more lockdowns — and further economic destruction of the poor and middle class?
If there were a covert plan for a global takeover, the COVID-19 pandemic presents the perfect scenario for its success. First, a problem is created — coronavirus is released and a global pandemic is declared. Next, a reaction is created — namely, fear. This is ramped up and lockdowns ensue, forcing businesses to close and economies to be destroyed.
The final stage is when the “solution” is created — in this case, the masses of unemployed people could receive a universal basic income that’s credited onto digital IDs backed by Gates’ Microsoft and the Rockefellers, which are implanted into your hand. Smart cities ensue, along with 24/7 surveillance. This is made possible by the rollout of 5G networks, an essential “upgrade” in performance for digitizing society, surveillance and data harvesting.
There are signs of resistance throughout the world, however, including the Police for Freedom March, which took place in November 2020 in Spain to protest the violation of citizens’ freedoms and protect civil liberties.18 The World Freedom Alliance, formed in Stockholm, Sweden, in November 2020, also aims to promote worldwide freedom.19
In these times of uncertainty, some have compared it to living in a fog of war — a fog of COVID war. Yet, seeing through the fog is the first step to victory.
