Coronavirus 6.1 - Part 1 of 4: What we need, why we can't have it, what we must do, and dangers

hi welcome back my name is rich Roberts I'm a medical doctor and the doctor biophysics I was educated and trained at Penn and Harvard respectively I was a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry for 24 years and this is my sixth video on coronavirus there's a lot to tell you so I'm going to end up breaking it up into pieces but you can just continue from one piece to the other what I want to talk about today are regarding the corona virus in the United States what we need why we can't have it what we have to do and what the dangers are along the way I hope to impart some information to you about corporate management business economics and politics along the way so here we go to beat this corona virus what we need is we need everyone to stay inside across the entire world for at least two months and we also need everyone in the United States to get anybody tested the antibody test is needed because if we could get everyone tested to see if they have the antibodies to corona virus it would give us a very good idea of how extensive the infection has been thus far so for example if we find that only 2% of the United States has been infected by this virus so far then that lets us know that if we've lost one hundred and six thousand people so far then we could be looking at 50 times that or five million people being lost alternatively if we find out that 99% of the people have already been affected by corona virus that we could say you know forget the masks unless you're an absolutely well-known to be high risk individual you'll just stay quarantine but everyone else just tear open there's a there this is going to come to the first like life lesson in these in this video there's a group of doctors in Cali in Stanford California who came out when they're about 40,000 deaths and say they tested about 330 people for the antibodies almost every single person had Kranti coronavirus antibodies and that says to them everyone has been infected therefore this is no worse than the flu they've been about 40,000 deaths so far at that point it might be 50,000 but the fact is on a normal flu season we're not talking about the pandemic of 1918 you're looking at somewhere between 15,000 to 69 thousand people dying in the United States in a year and the majority of those deaths that happened in the elderly and people who are very sick so this gets us to the first life lesson and that is I use this by the way when I was running our corporation if you get data that doesn't seem to make sense just common sense with what you see going around you need to think is there something wrong with that data you should always question data anyway I mean I've had people throughout my life quote me this fact that fact how come how could you think this is true when this is true and it turns out the facts are quoting I'm not facts at all they're just wrong so when these doctors in Stanford went on the internet they got 5 million hits because everybody wants to believe this is just the flu when they went on and they said they tested 330 people plus or minus you'll learn as a CEO you can you can just conceptually understand something if you're off by 5 or 10% it doesn't change this the the take away message so they test about 330 people every single one of them almost every one of them has been affected with coronavirus that means that everyone's been infected and the idea that we have the the idea that we have a 40,000 deaths at that at this point that will be the end of it now now if you just use your brain a little you say okay I've lived through a lot of flu seasons I've never seen a flu season where they have refrigerated tractor trailers attached to hospitals to hold all the dead bodies you would say I've never seen a flu season where so many doctors and nurses have died on treating people on the front lines as a matter of fact in our Orthodox Jewish community I know three medical doctors who have died from corona virus already and there's uh others that have been very very sick and one thank god looks like he's going to make it but it was very very close so when people tell you things in life that just don't seem to jive at all with reality you need to just be very careful about believing what they say now now is I tell you something very interesting when you get to the absolute most advanced levels of physics it becomes what you call counterintuitive in physics they say this is counterintuitive in other words things actually function or seem to function on an atomic level in ways that our universe doesn't seem to function in the world that we live in even though our world that we live in is made of elements of from that atomic world that's known as counterintuitive but okay whether that's right or that's wrong we have the equations that that's another story but in your life and in your life when people tell you something and it just doesn't make sense you know here you're going to invest with me and we're gonna we're gonna buy this store and we're gonna start a business there together okay great great so give me $40,000 and I'll go buy the story that whoa wait a second I'll send the money to the lawyer and the lawyer is the one who will release the money when we actually do the purchase no just put it into my account you could trust me you've always whoa wait a second that doesn't make sense why won't you let me put it in the lawyers account it doesn't make sense when things don't make sense you need to question them so so as much as anti-vaxxer types or people who want to deny the coronavirus will try to latch on to such an idea we all know people are but right now a hundred and six thousand people have died and we know therefore that the data from that California study was flawed now in medical science one of the things that we call a peer review which means that when a medical doctor or scientist does research and writes it up as a paper that paper is sent before a board of other doctors who try to challenge it and one of the things that doctors will challenge is did you did you have in the population that you did this study do you have skewed results for example let's say they do a study they say well in Japan there were very few heart attacks before we introduced our Western style of food and they started eating lots of meat now in Japan there are tons of heart attacks so clearly meat caused the heart attacks now that may be true or may not be true let me ask you in your yet a thousand people who didn't eat meat and a thousand people who did eat meat and you saw the meat eaters are the ones who mostly got the heart attacks now do you control in your study for smoking maybe 99 percent of the people who are the meat eaters also smoked and maybe only 1 percent of the non-meat eaters smoked did you control for age did you control for exercise did you control for obesity so these are the questions that happen when when information in Medical Sciences is peer-reviewed you have other doctors that go in and know the area scientifically and they say this is looks like a very solid result or it's an interesting result we need to reproduce it but you're going to have to control for this factor of that factor this goes across virtually every single medical study in medical science that you will ever see so for the Stanford doctors who are these 300 some people that they tested well they happen to be standing in a mall during the outbreak during the this epidemic and taking blood samples of people walking in the mall well these might be the people that are the most viable these might be people that already already had been sick because clearly actually almost told them did IV antibodies sold them had already been infected and now they felt this it was safe for them because they've already been infected they got over it now they're out and walking around and you have what's called a very skewed population so what we really need is we need to test everybody for antibodies the trouble is we can't do it because it's extremely a resource intensive I saw the Prime Minister of Great Britain saying about a week ago that they're really gearing up and they're going to be able to test about 3 million anybody tests within within three months so I saw the Prime Minister of Great Britain said that there's a certain large number of antibody tests there can be able to test the public with within the next three months but if you look up the population of Great Britain and the number of tests he's talking about he's saying that within three months to be able to test only 10% of the population it's really not going to help much at all now in New York State and New York City during the pandemic which which is among them the most hard-hit of all the cities the United States and states in the United States they did anybody tests sampling around the population hopefully they did very very good control to make sure they were getting a good proper representative sampling and what they found is somewhere between New York City to to the state somewhere around 15 percent City to five percent statewide have been infected already because they have antibodies to karna virus now this is very bad news assuming this is why this is an assumption assuming that people who get infected develop antibodies this means that you're looking at somewhere around seven to ten times the number of people who died in in New York State could still die in New York State if the virus is allowed to spread everywhere and across the rest of the country meaning from the coast inward or from the northeast also southward there hasn't been so much exposure and so many infections yet so that means that the population at general is really exposed potentially to potentially several million people dying from this virus alternatively you might there might also be the case instead that in maybe the virus has swept through nursing homes where this where there's the the most exposed population the this is the very Elva elderly population and the number of people left to get infected that would actually die from the virus is much less we don't know we just don't have those numbers yet but that's why it would be great to test everybody with the antibody test it's not going to happen but that's why it would be great to do it I want to make two other points about the antibody test one is the anybody tests are not 100% too accurate what's this no it's important to know what this is let's say it's 90 nothing but there's something up all false positive and false negative I'm not going to go into that right now but let's say the test is 99% accurate meaning 99% of the time if the test tells someone that they have antibodies that means that they really had the disease they had this infection and they fought it off and they should be protected not 100% guaranteed but they should be protected the trouble is 1% of those people are going to be told that they have antibodies and they don't and they really don't the test was a false positive out of a million people 1% is 10,000 people that means you could have a million potentially exposed people who are told go ahead no problem you have antibodies and yet out of them 10,000 have never been exposed to this virus and 10,000 could die that's another problem with the antibody test there are other issues as to what the level of antibodies need to be but generally when someone has had an infection assuming that the virus doesn't change each year this something called antigenic drift it's not not important to know like but like the flu does you have to get a new flu shot each year because something about the way it looks when a molecular level changes so far the kernel virus has not been doing that it's been having some changes called mutagenic changes but none that have occurred in the and the thing that the vaccines or the antibodies would go after so so that's good news but there will be some cases where the antibody levels are not sufficient to protect the person in general in general you know if I had antibodies I would be thrilled at that point on there's a personal note I did get antibody tested about two weeks ago and I'm negative I do not have antibodies which is not surprising so I've been a pretty strict horn team another thing I want to mention and this is not I don't think this is necessarily consistent with medical science the medical science thinking there are a lot of people who have been exposed to this virus clearly exposed highly exposed living with someone who has them they're people who clearly have had the virus and and they've tested negative for the antibodies afterwards now for the people that have clearly been sick with coronavirus and then they might have in their mind they might have been diagnosed positive by the nasal swab which looks for the virus itself not the antibodies that your body makes to attack the virus looks with the virus itself they tested they were found to have the virus in their nasal passages so assuming the test was accurate not a false positive they really had the virus if someone got sick I know several cases where they don't have antibodies they've been tested repeatedly they don't have antibodies now that is a standard part of medicine where we know certain people have very strong what's called innate immunity which are the immune cells that are already in a sense going around in your body and ready to attack new things and they just their innate immunity is so good that it was able to kill the corona virus before could it could take hold and then you have to develop antibodies against it and memory cells and a whole lot of other stuff so my traditional medical thinking is likely that those people have an innate immunity but there's something else that I'm I suspect is going on when you see so many children children for the most part just don't get this virus they just don't they don't get it and what it looks to me like it looks to me like this is not the immune system and I don't have any proof of this this is not fact but it looks to me like there is a and in a chemical nature an intrinsic chemistry of certain people that the virus just won't grow on for example if I tell you I threw a match or no pile of leaves would a catch fire well it depends if it had just rained a massive rain and there's leaves word I've just been taken off the tree there were green leaves and there's water all over them the match would just go out alternatively if those leaves were totally dry inside and out you know it would catch like a bonfire it looks to me and and we know we the whole idea of Hachiko hydroxychloroquine and zinc is that we know in the laboratory setting in cell cultures that where there's a lot of zinc inside cells the coronavirus will not grow it could be and well so by the way we know that zinc levels decrease from from childhood until elderly which does correlate with the fact that the older people get the more likely they are to get ill or to add no end or to die from coronavirus this is not proof I'll say three two more times this is not proof this is not proof but it does appear to me and if I wait might not be zinc maybe it's some other chemical I don't know something that's lost went from childhood to a - to the senior years of life but it does look to me like the virus just doesn't take in children now what I'm saying you gonna say oh I heard give us a few people a few children have died from an inflammatory disease called Kawasaki disease yes that's right if I'm talking about if I'm if I'm saying applies to 99.9 percent of the children that's what the observation seems to be and I just suspect that it's not an immune function I suspect it's a chemical a status whether that chemical is zinc or something else I don't know