Why Is Coronavirus News Still So Inaccurate?

“A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is putting on its shoes”

The list of sensational headlines based on shoddy research just continues to grow. Whether by commission, omission or plain old ignorance, our media is failing us – it’s not probing as critically and deeply as it should to ensure the information it brings us is valid.

Among several examples in today’s video, Chris scorches recent reports that covid-19 could not have been developed in a lab – reports that rely heavily on an authority who just happens to have years of experience collaborating with Wuhan scientists working with coronaviruses (including bats), BUT THIS WASN’T DISCLOSED.

Our big frustration here is that the reports we’re having to devote time to debunking in our daily videos shouldn’t be getting the air time they are this far into the coronavirus crisis.

Why are there still so many inaccuracies in today's news? Collectively, the media should have sharpened its game in its pandemic reporting by now. It should have seasoned vetting processes in place by this time.

Especially when the stakes of being wrong are remain so high.

Just another reason to say: It didn’t have to be this way.

Oh well, we’ll continue these daily critical thinking-based updates for as long as their needed. Looks likes that’s going to be for a while…

Don’t forget to get your free download of Peak Prosperity’s book Prosper!. Given its relevance to preparing for any kind of crisis, pandemic or otherwise, Chris and Adam are now making it available to the world for free:



This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/why-is-coronavirus-news-still-so-inaccurate/


I agree! Thanks for linking.

This guy is a piece of work… Wouldnt let this Dr within a mile of my loved ones. He should have his license revoked for this display… And , I think he is criminally reckless and negligent as well.

Wanted: Volunteers for a Martyr experience to test COVID-19 therapy
One of the criticisms of Dr Didier Raoult is that IHU Méditerranée Infection did not do proper testing before using their treatment on patients testing positive COVID-19.
Although I can’t answer for the doctor, I mention two of the points that he has raised justifying this “conduct”.

  1. Out of sheer urgency you use the elements at hand to heal the sick. Hydroxychloroquine has been used and tested for many years - its inconveniences are well known. This is not an experimental drug. Azithromycin is the treatment of reference, according to Dr Raoult, meaning that it is widely prescribed for pulmonary infections.
  2. If you have a treatment which works for well over 94% of your patients - even if the sample, or on-going study group is small - how do you justify doing a “double blind test” when you know that the results of the placebo group will be significantly inferior. Here one can say that this is your opinion, prove it. That leaves the doctor with a dilemma - Do I knowingly condemn some of these volunteers to death or infirmities, or do I just carry on treating real patients as best I can rather than treating people in some “inhuman” way (I do not mean cruel, but rather in a way that does not respect that they are human beings just like me and not some type of number suited for a study). To this point IHU Méditérranée Infection published on March 22 2020 a document signed by six of its professors, including Dr Raoult. https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/epidemie-a-coronavirus-covid-19/
    The last paragraph concludes (my translation) " We think that it is immoral to not include systematically in clinical therapeutic studies of COVID-19 in France, the association (HCQ and AZ)."
    This may seem at odds with proving that the results found in their studies are “objective”.
    What they are arguing is that by their Hippocratic oath of doctors of medicine, they cannot in good conscience, not allow their patients benefit from the best “prise en charge” - care and “diagnostic” of an illness.
    Separately Dr Raoult has said in an interview - he compares his region Bouches du Rhone which includes Marseille with another region similar in size and population density, Lyon Rhone. The idea here is to see without doing a study with a control group, how do the two regions compare? Knowing that this is very inexact - not everyone treats this infection in an identical way in the two regions.
    And here is the result that LCI - the CNN of French television - gives, or should I say does not give. As they answer by a rhetorical question, "Why is it that the Insee does not publish the results for Coronavirus for les Bouches du Rhone? "
    This is somewhat stale information as it dates March 30th. They give the reason for the omission of the Marseille - a cyber attack. Since then there is some data which measures the increase of deaths for each département. https://www.insee.fr/fr/information/4470857
    Scrolling down you get for Marseille, Bouches du Rhône plus 19.8% deaths for 1 March to April 13th; Lyon, Rhône plus 33.7% same period. Paris and its surrounding areas are at much higher levels.
    Suffice to say that the results from IHU Méditerranée Infection have been very good.
    The results aren’t so good for Lyon: 1226 deaths from patients hospitalized - after that the devil is in the details. I would have to find elsewhere how many patients have been treated in total.
    If you do bit of “back of the cigarette package calculation”: 14 deaths at IHU Marseille for 3130 treated for at least 3 days - compared to 1226 deaths Lyon - at the CFR Marseille you would need to treat 274,098 patients to get to the same number of deaths.
    So far we have had 162,100 cases for all of France. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/
    I would conclude that the Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques INSEE, has seen that the results from les Bouches du Rhone do not fit into the statistics given for the rest of the country - so they left them out. What a shame if the reason for the anomaly would improve the results of the whole country if universally applied!
    Now who (and you Tedros how about you?) would like to sign up for the COVID-19 Blind Study?
    PS The principal argument against the HCQ+AZ treatment study is that their patients are not of comparable sickness. This is true because of the manner in which the treatment works, if taken early it drops the viral load, so that for most patients treated - a hospital stay becomes unnecessary. I would hope that that should be the desired result.
    If HCQ+AZ drops the viral load from early prescription.
    That a low viral load takes the patient out of danger from complications or death
    If sufficient quantities of medication exist for the population as a whole, it then follows that this treatment would allow the population to function freely again - aided by the other factors of constraint to the propagation of the virus being maintained.

Its nice to hear from a person grounded in a dose of reality. And yet still have some humor (perhaps humility as well ) and sensibility.

I always thought this was a good idea. I am sure there are people ( without family ties ) that would be willing to be heroes.
One group that I think is best to target for this is the US military./ When I served it was well established that you are expendable. And they are… I think they should double or quadruple the life insurance and I am sure many service men would volunteer , there are other monetary incentives that could be given as well… But certainly things like full scholarships, guaranteed admission to public universities. etc. for service members and familes… Home loans that are completely forgiven etc…
Another group that would be a good target is prisoners… they are all going to get this anyway… let them participate in research and experiments for some cut sentencing or amnesty…

I keep trying to remind myself why people need to be policed and told what to do. Oh yeah , they are monkeys.
The truth is this situation of balance between economy and lockdown or control of virus transmission would not have to be made if everyone were smart. The solution would be self-rectifying. Basically, its simple, people need money they go work and go produce, when sickness becomes too bad and risk to grave, they shelter. Very simple. it balances itself… Even the nay sayers , and those who think this has a small cfr , will shelter in place when enough people they know become permanently disabled or die. And if the economy is dire, even those that shelter in place will step out to work. But as I keep saying, there is no accounting for stupidity. I wish everyone had a head, solutions would be self-evident.

During the weekend there was a huge serological test done on 527 staffers at a large hospital in Stockholm. This was supposed to be a random group of staff that has not worked with covid19 patients. You can argue about the sample - staff at hospitals would be more exposed to covid19 even if they aren’t working with those patients directly, but on the other hand they would also be the best at “social distancing” and washing their hands. The research team of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm says the test is as close to 100% as you can come, will have to wait for the study to be fully published for it, this is really early information.
20% of them had antibodies. We have 2,377,081 people in “Stockholm Län”. So extrapolated on all of Stockholm, that would mean 475,416 have had covid19. We’ve had 1,237 fatalities in Stockholm as of yesterday (Monday 27/4). This would, if accurate, mean a IFR of 0.26%. And that’s in the entire region of Stockholm, not just the city.
Update: Had to change the numbers around to take the entire Stockholm Region into account since “deaths” is reported for the entire region.

Just one thought I haven’t seen you cover, which I’d love to see explored more publicly than I could do…
What is the upper bound on how many cases we can confirm in a day? Similarly, what is the maximum amount of deaths that can be documented in a day? (I pay more attention to the latter statistic, since I figure some diligence in reporting deaths is more guaranteed than diligence in reporting cases.) With hospitals overcrowding, and scarcity of resources and personnel, this number surely exists. Perhaps the current “flattening” we’re seeing, with the ups and downs determined by availability of workers, is not just limited on weekends. Perhaps the true numbers are growing ever higher and we just can’t keep up with the documentation and data entry. A trend I look to for evidence of this is how erratic the data is, which has been increasing over time.
To add some concreteness to this, I’m located in New York City. I suspected the death count was higher than reported, before documentation caught up, just by listening to sirens out my window. It took a while to notice this disconnect, and I’d say it became prevalent around April 16. Since then, the data online has not made sense in comparison to what I see around me. I also have many friends in Mexico, where the government is far less organized. When I look at their data, it is erratic already even though they’re about a month behind us in documented daily deaths.

Again, a great video, however, that was not the Netherlands but another nordic country. The giveaway is this: no red cyclepaths, and hardly any bikes.
The first video below is about Amsterdam, foreigners are crazy about the cycling infra, according to the Dutch it is not the best example of cycling infrastructure ?. These are just examples, but red cyclepaths are the standard throughout the Netherlands.
There is another takeaway: simple people can stand up and change a society (last video). Like the powerful and rich, simple people can also use a crisis to their benefit! Plus it shows that with proper laws, regulations and infrastructure, risks can be reduced, and that some “interventions” do not adress the cause, but the symptom. For example: helmets are not encouraged (they work counterproductive…) but laws, regulations and cyclepaths protect the cyclist. Compare this to the current debate: a complete lockdown could be avoided, if masks, and some rules would be implemented: the flood needs to be contained.


Thanks for your reply Nordic. You had me chuckling - effectively like Gary Larson the bear - the idea of being a martyr is kind of a you first idea. They even had a study for that in Psychology 101: Prisoner’s dilemma.
But joking aside, that is exactly the Catch 22 situation we are in. We do not have a therapy (proven). We can’t prove it without serious risk to the placebo group. TPTB do not seem interested in success - as a results based study does not impress them. And we are waiting for some progress to be shown in testing - please refer to the first point.
I would say that with each passing day we become ever so slightly more dependent on the hand that feeds us. Until we break free, but that will not happen without some proven therapy. I have the distinct feeling that someone changed the rules of the game when I wasn’t paying attention.

Coronavirus: UK failed to stockpile crucial PPE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52440641

“Ideological Rigidity” - DDGoat (iirc) comment on last friday.
great summarization of our world . looks a lot like corruption, easy to point to conspiracy, and often is, but a whole big bunch of this, occam’s razor suggests, IR
thank you Chris, Adam, and all

Not a dull moment in this podcast.
Over the years, I’ve dealt with a personal addictive relationship to a variety of substances, alcohol, cigarettes, addictive foods and caffeine. Different addictions present different problems.
Individual results vary, but, for me, nicotine was a long, nasty recovery road. I’ll take my chances with Covid-19, rather than reintroducing nicotine into my life.
At the end of this podcast, Chris talks about maximizing the immune system and brings up Quercetin again. I haven’t been taking Quercetin yet and did some research a few days ago. I found this.

Quercetin is the most common bioflavonoid in the human diet. According to a research review published in the journal Nutrients in March 2016, it makes up 75 percent of the total flavonol intake among adults in the U.S. Flavonols, a class of bioflavonoids, are found in purple-hued fruits, such as blueberries and blackberries. These compounds exhibit antioxidant activity — the ability to neutralize or destroy unstable molecules, including free radicals, that can damage your cells. Quercetin is found only in plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts and seeds. If you eat a plant-based diet, you're probably already consuming a fair amount of quercetin every day. Some of the most commonly consumed quercetin foods include apples, onions, green peppers, red leaf lettuce, asparagus, broccoli, grapes, beans and tomatoes. Black and green teas are also good sources.
Overall, the science on supplements is mixed, at best. I always attempt to get vitamins, minerals, flavonoids and antioxidants from food, where possible, rather than supplements. https://www.livestrong.com/article/301326-foods-with-the-highest-content-of-quercetin/

Of course, if you “know” your treatment works, then you are not going see the point of tests with a randomised control group. But the point is, lots of people think they know, when they don’t.
The purpose of testing is to establish whether a treatment “works well for 94%” rather than assuming that before you start.
This “martyrs” argument strikes me as emotionally charged special pleading. As I understand it, studies can have protocols to monitor progress throughout the study, and abandon the treatment of one of the cohorts if the results are glaringly detrimental. That applies to both the treatment and the placebo - is that what happened to the CQ cohort in one of the Brazilian studies? But typically the results aren’t glaringly obvious, and need to be followed through to the end.
I accept there is a difference between fast moving clinical responses and careful research, and clinicians need to share strategies and successes as they emerge. But testing is crucial to ensuring that we focus on treatments that work, rather than showing initial promise.

…from Derek Lowe’s In The Pipeline blog: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/04/27/anti-il-6-for-coronavirus-patients-does-it-work-or-not

Grover sent me a link to an article from the UK’s Society for Applied Microbiology that presents facts from numerous laboratory studies on the properties of silver nanoparticles. I’m a landscaper, not a scientist, so many of the technical explanations are a smidge over my head. But the gist is clear enough. And it agrees with my own long experience with silver as a powerful anti-microbial agent. It fills one’s immunological “terrain” with battalions of ally assassins. It has many other significant benefits as well.
I do hope some will look into this and consider incorporating ionic or colloidal silver into their health regimen. The benefits are numerous, the antiviral properties are very impressive, and the risks are quite low. Certainly lower than those of virtually any pharmaceutical preparation. I mean, everything including water is toxic if you take too much. I would wager that none of the people suffering with Covid-19 were taking a regular course of silver before the onset of symptoms.
Thanks again to Grover for the link.

The martyrs argument
Have you looked at the results from IHU Méditerrannée Infection that they update every day?
The six professors could not in good conscience do a results based study. They chose to treat human beings.
You are entitled to your opinion, but to do a proper test - please spell out your criteria.
Indonesia did a small test:
https://peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/hydroxychloroquine-vs-the-globalist-deep-state/page/14/#post-561401 link
I have long since forgotten things like p value, but Chris did mention that a very low p value means that the results are unlikely to be a fluke. If the link works you can see that the treatment worked 100% for 6 patients; that after 3 days of treatment 83% of the viral load was “gone”. Think about the difference between that result and the control group where 1 in 16 had a 6.3% drop in the viral load after 3 days. Think about for each passing day this virus is wrecking havoc in your body. Well I think you might - at least - I hope you would consider - the danger to someone’s long-term health.
No I am not emotionally charged about the martryr aspect - but if you have to have people prove to someone like yourself that this therapy works - my question is simple.
Normally in a clinical test if I was to participate - my condition should be such that if I was in the “do nothing group” my end result would not include death.
Granted we are trying to prove that HCQ+AZ works but at the risk of someone’s life?
Do you call that emotional?
Here is a video of a “survivor”. One of the first victims in France.

Guys, my hubby is showing symptoms and I was wondering where i can get a script for HCQ. 3 doctors have declined due to not being “safe”. Anyone know where I can get one? We are on day 3 and although he tested, we can’t get results for 4 more days (ugh)!! Taking HCQ with the assumption he is positive should be okay right? Does anyone have a doc we can call that would prescribe? thx