By Mike Adams,

New CDC data confirm that the Wuhan coronavirus poses almost zero death risk in people below the age of 50 (see details below). At the same time, these data also confirm the virus remains extremely dangerous to people over the age of 70, and the CDC estimates that 1 in 18 elderly people who contract the virus (i.e. are “infected”) end up being killed by it.

Meanwhile, the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for people 50 – 69 years is 1 in 200, making it far deadlier than the seasonal flu for individuals in that group.

But for people aged 20 – 49 years, the IFR drops to just 1 in 5000. This means that for every 5,000 people who are infected within this age group, one fatality is expected.

Those below the age of 20 have an even lower fatality rate: About 1 in 33,000.

In summary, the risk of death from the coronavirus in people under the age of 50 is extremely small, and approaching zero.

These numbers are based on the CDC’s new data released at the following link, using “Scenario 5” which is labeled, “Current Best Estimate.”

CDC data confirm the danger to elderly people while simultaneously showing how little risk there is to younger Americans

What’s especially notable in these CDC data is how they simultaneously confirm three very important things:

1) Yes, the coronavirus was killing a very high percentage of infected people as it was sweeping through nursing homes where mostly elderly people were present. During its peak in early-to-mid April of this year, we calculated the virus was killing 1 in 10 people who showed symptoms. This is very similar to the CDC’s current data for the 70+ age group, where the virus is currently killing 1 in 18 people who are infected, while 40% of infections are asymptomatic. This means 10.8 people out of the 18 are symptomatic, which is nearly identical to our calculated number of 1 in 10. Notably, the early deaths in America were happening almost exclusively among the elderly, which is one reason why the death rate was initially so high.

2) Now that we have more detailed demographic data, we know that the Wuhan coronavirus is nearly harmless to college-aged young adults, which means that running strict covid-19 lockdowns and social distancing mandates on college campuses is non-scientific and a complete waste of time and energy. All college lockdowns should be immediately ended.

3) We also know that among typical working-aged Americans in the 20 – 49 group, there is such a low risk of death that locking down workplaces and sending everyone home is another useless endeavor. It means the corporate lockdowns are rooted in junk science, not real risks.

Based on these data, it’s also safe for most people to vote in person

These data show that it’s also perfectly safe for most people to vote in person. Only those who are 60+ would likely face any significant risk of death from contracting a covid-19 infection. Yet the Democrats claim the existence of coronavirus “cases” (i.e. infections) demands that everybody vote by mail, opening up all sorts of opportunities for Democrats to cheat and rig elections nationwide through ballot stuffing, selective ballot destruction, ballot harvesting and other nefarious methods.

Most importantly, these data show that coronavirus “cases” are meaningless if detected in someone who isn’t sick. The left-wing media continues to try to terrorize the nation by claiming tens of thousands of new “cases” each day, but these cases are almost universally non-significant in that the patients demonstrate no symptoms and no sickness. Furthermore, the tests being used to diagnose such “cases” are extremely unreliable and likely rooted in predominantly false positives.

In fact, in a truly shocking development that has not been reported by the fake news media, the former Chief Science Officer of Pfizer is now claiming the entire “second wave” of the pandemic is being faked through the use of unreliable mass testing that’s producing mostly false positives.

You can watch him say these things in this extraordinary interview:

The bottom line? Unless you’re over the age of 60 or so, the coronavirus poses very little risk to you. The lockdown reactions toward the virus are wildly exaggerated and medically unnecessary. While precautions should be taken for those who are elderly and therefore more vulnerable to risks of death, younger Americans don’t need vaccines, masks, social distancing or lockdowns. What they need is to get their lives back.

Open the schools, the cities, the churches, the restaurants and the movie theaters. End the mask mandates and recommend vitamin D, zinc, quercetin and licorice root herbs. Legalize hydroxychloroquine nationwide and we can end this entire pandemic for the vast majority of the population.



Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website and Orphanage

Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.


  1. Here’s a small part of a report, published on Oct. 19 2010. By the RIVM, the Dutch Rijks Instituut Volksgezondheid en Milieu. In English: National Institute for Health and Environment. A conclusion of the research is: “intranasal inocculation (larger droplets) leads to about 20 times lower infectivity than when the virus was delivered in an inhaled aerosol.” Aerosols remain in unventilated rooms and indoor spaces for a long time, containing a virus. Outdoors, infectivity is hardly present, due to constant ventilation by wind. Air-pollution, temperature and ventilation, in indoor spaces with many people present, are all affecting the probability of infection. Think of care homes for the elderly.

    (Quote) “High infectivity and pathogenicity of influenza A virus via aerosol and droplet transmission
    Peter F M Teunis 1, Nicole Brienen, Mirjam E E Kretzschmar
    Affiliations expand
    PMID: 21352792 DOI: 10.1016/j.epidem.2010.10.001

    Influenza virus may be transmitted through the respiratory route by inhalation of an aerosol of non-sedimenting droplets, or by deposition of sedimenting droplets in the upper respiratory tract. Whichever of these is the predominant route for infection with influenza virus has been a subject of continuing debate, resulting in detailed studies of aerosol versus droplet exposure. A decisive knowledge gap preventing a satisfying conclusion is the absence of a well-defined human dose-response model for influenza virus. This study uses a hierarchical approach generalizing over twelve human challenge studies collected in a literature search.

    A distinction is made between aerosol and intranasal inoculation. The results indicate high infectivity via either route, but intranasal inoculation leads to about 20 times lower infectivity than when the virus is delivered in an inhalable aerosol. A scenario study characterizing exposure to airborne virus near a coughing infected person in a room with little ventilation demonstrates that with these dose-response models the probabilities of infection by either aerosol or sedimenting droplets are approximately equal. Droplet transmission results in a slightly higher illness risk due to the higher doses involved. Establishing a dose-response model for influenza provides a firm basis for studies of interventions reducing exposure to different classes of infectious particles. More studies are needed to clarify the role of different modes of transmission in other settings.

    Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.”(end of quote).


    • Hello Robert Rasmussen. Maybe I’m missing a point, when I read your comment. Are you questioning because of the name “Wuhan-virus”? as if China only should be informed? Isn’t this about the COVID-19 pandemic that is raging all over the globe?

  2. This is about the PCR test, invented by Kary Mullis in 1985, now used to diagnose COVID-19 in people, be it with symptoms or without symptoms. In The Netherlands, fierce debates are going on about this test’s inadequacy, the false positives that lead to incorrect counting of cases. The nose of Prime Minister Mark Rutte alias Pinoccio grows longer to counteract critique and accusations. A court case is in the making, and steps, taken to make that happen are well taken so far.

    I wanted to know about the nature of the test, this is what I’ve found this evening:
    “The Test and the Numbers are Grossly Inaccurate

    The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is currently the most commonly used COVID-19 test both in the US and globally. PCR was invented by Kary Mullis in 1985 but it was not invented with the purpose of detecting disease, it’s primary intended applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics. It is a needle in a haystack technology that can be extremely deceptive in the diagnosis of infectious diseases and the inventor himself argued against using PCR as a diagnostic tool for infections.

    “I’m sceptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine,” warns Dr David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.

    The PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons “because of the increased likelihood of false-positive results.” In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you’re testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives.

    But the numbers aren’t just skewed by false positives, they are also skewed by how many people are offered the test and what condition they are in. For example, during the first few weeks of the ‘pandemic’ tests were scarce. As they became more widely available of course the number of infections accounted for increased as well, and false-positive results further increased those numbers”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here