Yes, please
No, thanks
What People Are Commenting
donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

CDC ‘Church’ & German Scholar on Virus



The Birth of a CDC ‘Church’


Dear TIA,

I want to thank you for your continued work and fidelity to Catholic truth during these terrible times. Your voice is truly a blessing from our Holy Queen. I owe you so much already, but now I truly wonder how I could cope without you.

I completely agree with you and the articles you have posted about these horrific current events.

How true it is, I believe, in your recent article by Cosme Beccar Varela, that what we are witnessing is an open confession of heresy and apostasy by the clergy. To my great sadness, this also includes all the traditional priests that I know of where I live. I never thought I would see the scenes I have just witnessed in God’s House, and by priests who are supposedly traditionalists. Could they really be this devoid of faith?

Where I live, the Governor has not yet attempted to shut down religious services, but has actually exempted them from the house arrest order, shutdowns, and various CDC demands. I already knew the priests would immediately capitulate to the temporal power if ordered, because they all announced weeks ago they would automatically obey the government's dictates regarding religious services, whatever they were.

Now, however, even though they are exempted, they are actually doing it voluntarily. They say they are still offering the traditional Latin Mass and public prayer, but the reality seems very different.

I have just had the extreme disgust and anger to witness the very priests of the Church, without even the excuse of a government order, place “security guards” at the doors to prevent more than a mere ten people from being present. When I asked the “security guard” why they were doing this, since they were exempt, I received no answer.

Holy water was gone, the normal procession and even normal distribution of palms for Palm Sunday was eliminated. They actually modified the liturgy! According to the CDC rules! Apparently, the CDC determines the liturgy now, not the Church. A large chapel was practically empty. People were crowding the entrance hall but unable to enter, because of the cowardly lack of faith of these priests. Is it truly a public Mass if only ten may enter? It is even still Catholic if it implicitly denies God’s infinite power and the superiority of the spiritual power?

I know many people might tell me to be grateful and happy I can still go somewhere to receive the Sacraments. Well, I honestly would rather the government forced the closure of the churches, than witness such an abomination of desolation in God’s House. I would much rather the priests be forced to close the church, or even be jailed, than watch their open heresy and apostasy. It would be better for their souls, not to mention their flock.

Which brings me to the main reason I wanted to write you. I want to warn people to beware of these priests, and not to let them lead you into their heresy unwittingly.

At both places where I live that offer the Latin Mass, the priests have the perfidy to instruct people they have a “moral obligation” to obey the temporal power over the spiritual. In one instance, even urging their faithful to sign a damnable “thank you” letter to the government that endorses the power of the government over the Church and their new CDC approved liturgy! God forbid anyone should do that, and profess such a heresy. I may as well sign away my soul.

I lack any influence and I am not sure how I could, or if I should, issue a public warning to other Catholics. I thought perhaps you may want to use your voice to do so. I pray that faithful Catholics may not be deceived, and not blindly obey and follow their “traditional” priests. I can only think of the words of Our Lord, that when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the pit.

As for me, I am not sure I can attend another one of these “government” Masses with a CDC liturgy. How can it possibly be pleasing to Our Lord? Is it not similar to the “patriotic church” in China? I can hardly bear it, it fills me with such pain, sorrow, and anger. I hardly know what to do, but I hope Our Lady and my Guardian Angel will guide me.

Please pray for me… while I have never met you in person, I would be honored to be counted among your friends. A few days ago I tried to send you a donation, which I hope you received.

Save me, O Lord, for there is now no saint: truths are decayed from among the children of men.

God have mercy on us! Immaculate Heart of Mary, save us!

     In Maria,

     J.K.

______________________



German Scholar Questions Angela Merkel on Covid-19


TIA,

First, thank you for publishing my previous article with a link to my web page. We certainly are in challenging times.

Here is an interesting published by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz that was released in German as a video and subsequently translated to English. It asks 5 basic questions and warns us of the risk of collective national suicide if we continue to behave in an irrational way towards this virus.

     Nich Fluh

German Infectiologist Decimates Covid-19 Doomsday Cult
in Open Letter to Merkel


Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, released a now viral video in which he calmly explains why nationwide lockdowns are collective suicide


Dear Chancellor,

As Emeritus of the Johannes-Gutenberg-University in Mainz and longtime director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology, I feel obliged to critically question the far-reaching restrictions on public life that we are currently taking on ourselves in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

It is expressly not my intention to play down the dangers of the virus or to spread a political message. However, I feel it is my duty to make a scientific contribution to putting the current data and facts into perspective – and, in addition, to ask questions that are in danger of being lost in the heated debate.

The reason for my concern lies above all in the truly unforeseeable socio-economic consequences of the drastic containment measures which are currently being applied in large parts of Europe and which are also already being practiced on a large scale in Germany.

My wish is to discuss critically – and with the necessary foresight – the advantages and disadvantages of restricting public life and the resulting long-term effects.

To this end, I am confronted with five questions which have not been answered sufficiently so far, but which are indispensable for a balanced analysis.

I would like to ask you to comment quickly and, at the same time, appeal to the Federal Government to develop strategies that effectively protect risk groups without restricting public life across the board and sow the seeds for an even more intensive polarization of society than is already taking place.

     With the utmost respect,

     Prof. Dr. Med. Sucharit Bhakdi

* * *


1. Statistics

In infectiology – founded by Robert Koch himself – a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases.

In other words, a new infection – as measured by the COVID-19 test – does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that 5% of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened.

My question:

Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients – i.e. people who develop symptoms?

2. Dangerousness

A number of coronaviruses have been circulating for a long time – largely unnoticed by the media. If it should turn out that the COVID-19 virus should not be ascribed a significantly higher potential risk than the already circulating corona viruses, all countermeasures would obviously become unnecessary.

The internationally recognized International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents will soon publish a paper that addresses exactly this question. Preliminary results of the study can already be seen today and lead to the conclusion that the new virus is NOT different from traditional corona viruses in terms of dangerousness. The authors express this in the title of their paper “SARS-CoV-2: Fear versus Data.”

My question:

How does the current workload of intensive care units with patients with diagnosed COVID-19 compare to other coronavirus infections, and to what extent will this data be taken into account in further decision-making by the federal government? In addition: Has the above study been taken into account in the planning so far? Here too, of course, “diagnosed” means that the virus plays a decisive role in the patient’s state of illness, and not that previous illnesses play a greater role.

3. Dissemination

According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, not even the much-cited Robert Koch Institute knows exactly how much is tested for COVID-19. It is a fact, however, that a rapid increase in the number of cases has recently been observed in Germany as the volume of tests increases.

It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the virus has already spread unnoticed in the healthy population. This would have two consequences: firstly, it would mean that the official death rate – on 26 March 2020, for example, there were 206 deaths from around 37,300 infections, or 0.55% – is too high; and secondly, it would mean that it would hardly be possible to prevent the virus from spreading in the healthy population.

My question:

Has there already been a random sample of the healthy general population to validate the real spread of the virus, or is this planned in the near future?

4. Mortality

The fear of a rise in the death rate in Germany (currently 0.55%) is currently the subject of particularly intense media attention. Many people are worried that it could shoot up like in Italy (10%) and Spain (7%) if action is not taken in time.

At the same time, the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death – regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines: “In addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated, with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate. Occasionally, four-linked causal chains must also be stated.”

At present there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus.

My question:

Has Germany simply followed this trend of a COVID-19 general suspicion? And: is it intended to continue this categorization uncritically as in other countries? How, then, is a distinction to be made between genuine corona-related deaths and accidental virus presence at the time of death?

5. Comparability

The appalling situation in Italy is repeatedly used as a reference scenario. However, the true role of the virus in that country is completely unclear for many reasons – not only because points 3 and 4 above also apply there, but also because exceptional external factors exist which make these regions particularly vulnerable.

One of these factors is the increased air pollution in the north of Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to over 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in the 13 largest cities in Italy alone. The situation has not changed significantly since then. Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution greatly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in very young and elderly people.

Moreover, 27.4% of the particularly vulnerable population in this country [Italy] live with young people, and in Spain as many as 33.5%. In Germany, the figure is only 7%. In addition, according to Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, head of the Department of Management in Health Care at the TU Berlin, Germany is significantly better equipped than Italy in terms of intensive care units – by a factor of about 2.5.

My question:

What efforts are being made to make the population aware of these elementary differences and to make people understand that scenarios like those in Italy or Spain are not realistic here?


Posted April 7, 2020
______________________


The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA

Related Works of Interest




Volume I
A_Offend1.gif - 23346 Bytes

Volume II
Animus Injuriandi II

Volume III


Volume IV


Volume V
Animus Injuriandi II

Volume VI
destructio dei

Volume VII
fumus satanae

Volume VIII
creatio

Volume IX
volume 10

Volume X
ecclesia

Volume XI
A_hp.gif - 30629 Bytes

Special Edition