In this article published by the CNBC last October 8, 2020, reports on the results of the study conducted by the University College London (UCL). According to the research, 86.1% of those who tested positive for the virus did not report "core symptoms" associated with COVID-19. The researchers concluded: "COVID-19 symptoms are poor markers of SARS-CoV-2".
Editor's Note: While browsing the internet today, we came across a meme which said, "COVID-19 is so deadly you need a test to know that you are sick". This article is an echo of that meme, and is a testament to the stubborn dedication of some so-called experts to push for the mainstream coronavirus narrative when all the science is already pointing to the opposite.
Let us remember that no other epidemic in the past was determined by the RT-PCR [see The danger of over-reliance on RT-PCR tests to get an idea on how false positives can decrease reliability of the test and how these errors were managed in previous epidemics]. Symptoms were always present, and the success and failure of an intervention were measured against deaths and the need for critical care.
If we are to look at the findings of the UCL study using the lens of basic immunology, then we can reframe it in several ways. First, we will need to look at the cycle thresholds used for the study because that will determine whether the viral load of the "infected" are actually active or not [to understand this statement read, New York Times: More experts questioning RT-PCR testing]. This is the only way to determine how much of the 86.1% who are infected are true positives. Second, we must remember an earlier study which showed that some parts of UK are already nearing herd immunity [see Study: Some parts of UK are nearing herd immunity]. If all 86.1% are true positives, and they are all asymptomatic, then we should celebrate because it is an indication of a collective immunity that will protect the vulnerable, and prevent deadly outbreaks in the future.
Lastly, there is already a number of evidence showing that asymptomatic people are not as infectious as those who are symptomatic. The statement "...little is known about what proportion of infectious people are asymptomatic and potential 'silent transmitters'" is incorrect because decades of research has shown us that there are markers to help us determine infectiousness.
The obsession in controlling the spread of the novel coronavirus is not only misplaced. It is also useless, especially since we now know that the illness does not affect a majority of the population, and that there are a specific group of people we should be protecting. Experts at UCL who authored the study, as well as governments that still subscribe to the eroding narrative of a "deadly COVID-19" are wasting time, resources, and sanity.
Over 80% of people with coronavirus didn't have key symptoms, UK study finds
So-called "silent spreaders" of the coronavirus could be more common than previously thought, with a U.K. study finding more than two thirds of people testing positive for the virus were asymptomatic.
Click the button below if you wish to read the article offline.