Covid19: Don't trust the statistics (or the science re the tests/the cause of the sickness) [Archive] - Page 2

shaberon

10th May 2020, 16:57

Well I was discounting China as an aberration.
Once the WHO took over the entire show, by declaring a pandemic, they basically led the narrative and decrees up until now.
It can't be a coincidence that virtually every country in the world is not only locking down their entire country but also using the exact same unique Covid language and protocols (social distancing, self-isolation, quarantine, face masks, gloves etc.).

Listen to the leaders of most countries. They are all reading from the exact same script, sometimes, literally.

What puzzles me is why countries such as Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea etc. are also following this script.

I do not really know. If it is a "World" organization that most countries voluntarily follow, then it may be a rare scene of cooperation. There are truly only a very few enemies in the world, Iran v. Israel, or Yemen v. Saudi Arabia, and otherwise, most of those appearances come to "resource management" where people, borders, etc., are merely statistics. In terms of health, they probably actually do see WHO as a valid authority. The other side is quite possibly, if you want something from IMF, obey WHO. Then you get your IMF, and obey that, or they scarf you as happened to Greece. So there is a bit of strong arm, and a whole lot of nobody really knows what they're doing, but accepts a hospital as a savior.

Afghanistan can hardly be accused of having a medical system or a central authority, so, aside from financial considerations, I do not think WHO is an enforcer, or that a doctor is in charge, except to the extent countries surrender to it. WHO (https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organization-deserves-distrust/5712347) has unsavory sources of finance, and IMF is denying, for example, Iran and Zimbabwe. The situation in Africa (https://www.globalresearch.ca/africa-imf-conditionality-covid-19-pandemic/5712057) is such that they really need to get away from it or from the dual role of IMF of "yes, money, but...".

This "lockdown" is very variable, places like Israel and Spain sound very literal about it, but I do not have police throwing everyone off the street. This is more like "interruption of normal business", which should have some other name; none of our sheriffs are likely to support anything draconian except maybe a curfew.

I wasn't suggesting they were causing their demise as far as the disease is concerned, but rather by the 'cure' they have chosen to implement.
They could easily have followed the examples of Sweden, South Korea, Belarus, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, Australia etc.

I am just not aware that Russia, Iran, etc., are shut down in a "broken" way; Iran continues to invent products and increase its exports by tons. Sweden, although not legally locked, is, voluntarily, mostly shut down, many businesses running around 20% capacity, so, they are not necessarily shining on that aspect. Mexico is facing strikes by letting people work, and the U. S. is not far from it. This is strange, since, in the population itself, there is both "let me work" and "don't make me work", and the "dont's" tend to come from places where they see co-workers die (Mexico) or just test positive (U. S.).

I have not heard of flu deaths causing people to try to avoid work.

The demise of famine that may follow on the back end of this is no joke.

Well let's expand on this.
How can you say that Covid-19 is "way more contagious" than the flu?
What basis do you have for saying this? Did the MSM tell you this?

Let's look at the raw numbers to date and the avg. flu numbers, from the WHO and CDC:

Covid-19 cases; 4,101,780
Covid-19 deaths; 280,443
Seasonal flu cases (avg); 1,000,000,000 (billion)
Seasonal flu deaths (avg); 390,000 - 650,000

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that the disease spread from one person around the world.
The questions are:
Is this a disease that is spreading from person to person?
Or are there environmental causes for the disease?
How does the flu spread around the world each year?

One thing is certain. It is not the deadly disease that everyone feared/predicted.

No, it is not that deadly, but besides Diamond Princess, look at aircraft carriers, prisons, nursing homes. They have significantly higher rates. I am not aware that populations en masse are tested for flu, and again, even with that, I could be an asymptomatic carrier and walk around hitting the vulnerable with deadly force.

If there are four million "verified" cases, the real figure is closer to twenty million. The testing thing is like chasing water downhill, it never will catch up, and seems like a waste, unless you really know how to treat your very sick positives.

One reason I think disease spreads from person to person is that I can feel it. That is why I was after first-hand experience with this, but, it is hard to get, at least for a few weeks until re-opening.

Concerning the spread, which here, is completely linear, it looks to me like we simply have about 500 hospital beds permanently assigned to the cause. No way to stop it, but, even though it is a fast spread, by the time there are new patients old ones recover, so it is self-limiting by not lasting for months or years. If we don't know the background, mechanisms, and so forth of the new disease, if we find places with patients attributed to it, the end result shows us something spread and must be at least a little bit dangerous. We have perhaps one local death outside of nursing homes, but in black communities, it is more, so again I don't think it follows arbitrary averages, but is more "hit or miss".

We also would tend not to think yearly flu starts on one person and goes around the world hitting a billion. What is it doing in the off season? Waiting? Doesn't it just go dormant, so you get ten million dormancies erupting? Likewise, coronavirus could have been in some dormant state all over the place until something--5G, air pollution, or a bird going the wrong way--gave it a green light.

I don't know that much about disease, since all of my focus would be on the immune system--this is something you actually need, so it should be promoted. We could say, categorically, the medical system tends to wipe it out. I would tend to hold with Madagascar, "drink this tea"--no scientific evidence says it cures Covid, but it does say that it is highly effective against SARS. With Tanzania's test of the test, and Madagascar's tea made from a secret ingredient that grows almost everywhere in the world and costs about three dollars for thousands of seeds, that is more or less my answer. I am not in the hospital business and would not let them treat anything besides traumatic injury, never a disease of any kind.

DaveToo

10th May 2020, 20:52

What kills this thread are those who are or who know others who are affected by this thing. It makes it difficult to discuss the topic in a sensitive manner. How can we validate our stance without calling the plight of others into question?

Good comments Ernie.
I don't think comments by others who know someone affected by CV kills this thread.

People are dying of diseases every day. They have for millennia.

The argument of course for this one, is that it is a 'special' disease.
It is alleged to be an infectious respiratory disease and therefore
must be treated differently than non-transmissible diseases; ie. it is much
more potentially dangerous.

But that argument goes out the window as soon as we compare it to other
infectious respiratory diseases such as the seasonal flu and TB.

There were more than 10 million cases of TB in 2018 resulting in 1.5 million deaths.
making it the number one cause of death from an infectious disease.

The 2018 TB numbers carry forward to the present day and so it is still the number one cause of death from an infectious disease, far greater than the flu or Covid-19.

Yet TB is not sexy. It doesn't get any respect, or wall-to-wall, 24/7 MSM news coverage.
The world doesn't go into lockdown.
The world economies don't tank each year.

Why?

Maybe, just maybe it is because more than 95% of the deaths occur in developing countries?

And Ernie it is possible to show respect and compassion for those affected by this CV disease
and at the same time call into question the testing and Draconian measures that have been put
in place around the world.

I don't see how one necessarily invalidates the other.

Deborah (ahamkara)

11th May 2020, 00:49

Hazelfern

11th May 2020, 02:54

I believe the 39% increase in Covid complications among those with flu vaccination came from a Chinese study in Wuhan. I am attempting to find the study online. Many studies have disappeared after making a quick appearance!

I agree with your conclusion. My sister became deathly ill with all the markers of covid in September 2019 after receiving the flu shot. She was hospitalized 2 x the following 2 months. Pneumonia and sepsis, reasons unknown.
She is a health care provider.

T Smith

11th May 2020, 03:35

shaberon

11th May 2020, 07:32

Yet TB is not sexy. It doesn't get any respect, or wall-to-wall, 24/7 MSM news coverage.
The world doesn't go into lockdown.
The world economies don't tank each year.

Why?

Maybe, just maybe it is because more than 95% of the deaths occur in developing countries?

That seems to be the going explanation.

In the slippery question of who is telling WHO to do what, Iran is exporting its own serological test to countries on three continents (https://en.farsnews.ir/newstext.aspx?nn=13990222000149). This is while they are unable to buy basic medicine, and the IMF will not deal with them. That is about as independent of an answer as you can get as to why are my hospitals cramming with sick people. And so instead the WHO turns around and says Iran is doing a pretty good job.

In terms of verifying whether their test is any good, or only a flimsy excuse for police authority, is beyond me.

I would find it difficult to believe there is an element of orchestration that intentionally provided Iran with a key to solve a global disaster that had been intentionally made somewhere. Whatever they have represents their own ingenuity. They are validly dealing with a noticeable death rate but, even so, they have worked up some spare hospital space, so whatever it is, is manageable.

Wuhan--using whatever they use to make their particular claim--says they have found five cases. Rather than "outbreak central", it seems to me it will be more accurate to describe it as the "discovery place", was probably already world-wide and nobody had figured out anything new was going on. Seoul, comparatively, got over sixty and closed the entertainment district. Whether tracking 3,000 people from the venues in order to test everyone is worthwhile, I am not sure, but they have the means to try and do it.

witchy1

11th May 2020, 08:47

People are dying with the disease not because of it. There is a massive push to put anything that could be C19 on a death cert. The figures quoted are utter bull****. Not only that, but because no-one had testing at the start, people were PRESUMED to have it and reported as positive. If you presented to your GP with a sore throat, that was marked positive to the authorities. Today they state that 97% have recovered from it and we have 2 new cases today - both nurses from an aged care facility.

All our cases can be traced back to tourists and subsequently passed on in large gatherings. (wedding, stag do, convention, Ruby princess disembarking etc)

NZ is coming out of lockdown on Thursday. No masks required in public. Shops are opening, schools next week and pubs in 2 weeks. No more that 10 people at any public gathering and we have to social distancing. They wont be able to police that

Given the flagrant disregard for Level 3 and 4, i cannot see this will change for Level 2. So we are pretty much back to normal. If they had they not made this decision today there would have been a huge public backlash against the Government in an election year. The Budget is due Thursday as well. Its all timing and an entire waste of time resources and money. Who is going to pay for all the extra billions being spent on the much needed economic recovery? No doubt the sucker taxpayer again. Are we heading for a recession, well i guess we will see in a week or so - my guess is probably unless the budget pulls something significant out of the hat

W

Link to NZ & Australia death certificates based on WHO requirements

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1205.0.55.001?OpenDocument

pueblo

11th May 2020, 10:05

I have read at least once about the possibility that those who received the flu shot this year had a 37% greater chance of getting COVID. Has anyone else seen anything along these lines? There was also the report of mandatory vaccinations prior to Italy’s severe outbreak...given the questionable components in any vaccine, this really raises red flags for me. Any thoughts?

I don't know anything about the source of this piece but the theory is certainly worth exploring.

Does the flu shot increase the risk for coronavirus infection?

There is evidence that influenza vaccines specifically increase the risk of coronavirus infection. Here is why, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Yes, it appears that the flu shot protects against influenza and it appears some other types of viruses as well, but it comes at a price of actually increasing the risk for coronavirus infections. That is exactly what a study that compared the respiratory virus status among 2,880 Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status demonstrated. The study concluded “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus.”

Could a new flu vaccine be partly responsible for the COVID-19 mortality rate in Italy?

In case you are not aware, the infection rate mortality rate in Italy to COVID-19 is dramatically higher. Why? Well the standard answers of an elderly population and the failure to implement social distancing soon enough just don’t explain what is happening. My colleague, Dr. Alex Vasquez, provided me with a valuable insight. In September 2019, Italy rolled out an entirely new type of influenza vaccine. This vaccine called VIQCC is different than others. Most available influenza vaccines are produced in embryonated chicken eggs. VIQCC, however, is produced from cultured animal cells rather than eggs and has more of a “boost” to the immune system as a result. VIQCC also contains four types of viruses – 2 type A viruses (H1N1 and H3N2) and 2 type B viruses.2 It looks like this “super” vaccine impacted the immune system in such a way to increase coronavirus infection through virus interference that set the stage for what happened in Italy.

https://doctormurray.com/does-the-flu-shot-increase-covid-19-risk/#

Tintin

11th May 2020, 12:41

"Global vaccination market revenue worldwide is projected to reach $59.2 billion by 2020; this number may well increase with the arrival of Covid–19.

The British Government’s investment in GAVI alongside vaccine promoter Bill Gates must, again, raise the issue of conflicts of interest. To what extent is the British Government protecting its own assets in forcing the lockdown upon its population? Vaccines are set to be a major source of income for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations, and the British Government is invested in that lucrative future."

*****

Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?

Vanessa Beeley for Off Guardian (https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/09/who-controls-the-british-government-response-to-covid-19/) May 9th, 2020

43577

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants”
Albert Camus

As Britain hurtles headlong towards neo-feudalist governance with heightened surveillance, micro-management of society and an uptick in fascistic policing of the draconian measures imposed to combat the “threat” of Covid–19, it is perhaps time to analyse the real forces behind this “new normal”.

There is now serious doubt over the correlation between lockdown and saving lives. Reality is creeping into the Covid–19 dialogue.

It is becoming apparent that people are getting sick because they are being isolated and effectively living under house arrest, condemned as “murderers” if they so much as think about breaking curfew, being snitched on by neighbours for “gathering” more than two people together in their back gardens.

The following graph was produced by UK Column and demonstrates the lack of correlation between lockdown and “saving lives”:

43578

The numbers game is acting in many instances as a smokescreen. It is impossible to rely upon “official” statistics, that vary wildly from one website to another: statistics that rely upon unreliable and sporadic testing procedures. and based upon death certificates that misrepresent the actual cause of death as Covid–19, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.

Statistics, too, that were set in stone very early on in the development stages, when the perspective was limited and compressed, before a true picture could be seen. The newly emerging statistics (https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest) are now increasingly undermining initial conclusions and pointing to the futility and negative consequences of lockdown.

1251264026274906112

It is now accepted that there is a high mortality rate among the elderly in care homes (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/uk-care-home-covid-19-deaths-may-be-five-times-government-estimate) in the UK and globally (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/italian-police-broaden-care-home-coronavirus-milan) — among the same elderly civilians who are being “asked” to sign DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate) forms.

This amounts to signing their own death warrant, should they present any of the Covid–19 symptoms. They will be neglected, isolated from their families when at their most vulnerable and left alone to die, even though it is possible that they have not contracted the virus.

1250702443723120642

Instead of offering proactive and positive suggestions that will enable our immune systems to combat the disease, the British Government is ensuring conditions that will suppress immune systems to dangerous levels and create the perfect environment for Covid–19 to flourish.

Britain has now received an estimated 1.4 million new benefit claims for welfare payments (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-benefits/uk-new-welfare-benefit-claims-soar-to-1-4-million-minister-says-idUSKCN21W0L5), “about seven times the normal level”. The government has pledged to bail out “80% of pay of workers who are temporarily laid off” but I have personally spoken to self-employed individuals who find themselves falling between the cracks that qualify them for financial support and now face an indefinite period of time without income.

These measures are being imposed in a country that, since 2012, has seen an exponential growth in child poverty to potentially sub-Victorian levels.

In March 2019 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-absolute-uk-housing-crisis-costs-austerity-conservatives-a8843381.html), the number of children living in “absolute poverty” grew by a staggering 200,000 in a twelve-month period, to a total of 3.7 million. How will this number be further impacted by lockdown?

How did we arrive at this point? Who steered the UK Government towards this questionable and alarmist lockdown policy?

The unexamined assumption is that conclusions were formed on the basis of sound epidemiological analysis and research by doctors and scientists who care about our welfare.

The reality is what we will examine in this article. Neil Ferguson, a professor at Imperial College, was responsible for the modelling of a response to Covid–19. His virtual model was recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and it passed through into policy with virtually no scrutiny.

Ferguson’s dramatic prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK became the foundation of Boris Johnson’s U-turn (https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/retired-chief-eu-epidemiologist-how-long-can-you-keep-lockdown-democracy) from herd immunity to collective quarantine.

While some understood that Ferguson later reduced his mortality calculations, he actually doubled down on his projections on Twitter (https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson/status/1243294815200124928), insisting that without drastic lockdown measures being taken, the numbers would be even higher.

Who is Neil Ferguson?

Ferguson is acting director of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (VIMC) (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/neil.ferguson), which is based at Imperial College in London. According to Ferguson’s biography on the website, “much of [his] work is applied, informing disease control policy-making by public and global health institutions.”

The professor who derailed Johnson’s semblance of “herd immunity” strategy is no stranger to controversy and is described as having a “patchy” record of modelling pandemics (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164121/Professor-predicted-500-000-Britons-die-coronavirus-accused-having-patchy-record.html) by one of his academic peers, Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University, an expert in animal diseases.

Ferguson was instrumental in the modelling of the British Government’s response to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in 2001, which Thrusfield describes as “not fit for purpose” (2006) and “seriously flawed” (2012).

Thrusfield has highlighted the limitations of Ferguson’s mathematical modelling methods, and applied the doubts he expressed over FMD to the current Covid–19 “crisis” response.

An estimated twelve million animals were slaughtered as a result of Ferguson’s 2001 initiative. The farming community was devastated by suicides and bankruptcies that irretrievably altered the landscape of British agriculture — forcing healthy smallholdings into agri-corporate mergers and empowering the EU central governance in the agricultural sector.

Insight: Slaughtered on Suspicion, a documentary made by UK Column in 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb9iaDoXJF8), provides a shocking insight into the suffering precipitated by Ferguson’s model and the “new normal” imposed upon Britain’s farming community. The following is a statement made by one of the contributors to the programme:

"12,000,000 animals [Meat & Livestock Commission statistic] were slaughtered but that did not include lambs at foot, aborted lambs, calves or piglets. Further, tens of thousands of chickens were slaughtered in the early months — on welfare grounds, apparently. 88% of all animals slaughtered had not contracted FMD
[source: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs].

Great Orton airfield was used to slaughter sheep under the “voluntary” cull: that was anything but voluntary, and farmers not participating were ruthlessly threatened. There was only one mild case of FMD recorded from the thousands of blood tests done at Great Orton
[source: DEFRA].

There was a travelator that ran from the slaughter tent at Great Orton to the graves. This ran 16 hours a day, transporting “dead” young lambs. Slaughtermen working there told me that many of the lambs were buried alive.

The man that advised Blair during this fiasco was, as many will know, Prof. Ferguson of Imperial College. He was [reportedly] sacked by DEFRA late on during the epidemic, but the damage had been done! Prof Ferguson was awarded an OBE in 2002 for his work during FMD 2001.”
[Emphasis added]

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as “mad cow disease”, increasing to 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep.

The reality is:

Since 1990, 178 people in the United Kingdom have died from vCJD, according to the National CJD Research & Surveillance Unit at the University of Edinburgh (https://med.uth.edu/blog/2017/01/05/new-research-could-lead-to-blood-test-to-detect-creutzfeldt-jakob-disease/).” [2017]

In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/30/birdflu.jamessturcke) by bird-flu or H5N1.

By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus (https://www.prb.org/avian-flu-and-influenza-pandemics/), out of 147 reported cases.

In 2009, Ferguson and his team at Imperial College advised the government (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked) that swine flu or H1N1 would probably ]kill 65,000 people in the UK

In the end, swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people in the UK.

Now, in 2020, Ferguson and Imperial College have released a report which claims that half a million Britons and 2.2 million Americans may be killed by Covid–19.

The report has still not been peer-reviewed; despite this and Ferguson’s glaring record of mathematical sensationalism, the British Government has adopted the devastating socio-economic lockdown that Ferguson has proposed.

WHY IS THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SO QUICK TO FOLLOW FERGUSON’S PLAN?
1. GAVI and Imperial College
The VIMC is hosted by the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at Imperial College. VIMC is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and by “GAVI, the vaccine alliance” (GAVI’s own title for itself).

Bill and Melinda Gates began funding Imperial College in 2006, four years before the Gates Foundation launched the Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration (GHLLDVC) (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/12/Global-Health-Leaders-Launch-Decade-of-Vaccines-Collaboration) and one year after Ferguson had demonstrated his penchant for overblown projections on mortality numbers from H5N1.

Up to the end of 2018, the Gates Foundation has sponsored Imperial College (https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donee.php?donee=Imperial+College+London) with a whopping $185 million.

That makes Gates the second-largest sponsor, beaten to the top spot on the podium by the Wellcome Trust, a British research charity which began funding (https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donee.php?donee=Imperial+College+London) Imperial College prior to Ferguson’s FMD débâcle and which, by the end of 2018, had already provided Imperial with over $400 million in funding. I will examine the Wellcome Trust’s connections in part two of this series.

43579

Wellcome trust also has a focus on global immunization programmes.

The Gates Foundation established the GHLLDVC in collaboration with the WHO, UNICEF and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The following is taken from the Gates Foundation website (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/12/Global-Health-Leaders-Launch-Decade-of-Vaccines-Collaboration):

The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.

The Collaboration’s leadership council (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/12/Global-Health-Leaders-Launch-Decade-of-Vaccines-Collaboration) at the time included the Director-General of the WHO, the Director of NIAID, the Director of UNICEF, the President of Gates Foundation Global Health, and the Chair of the African Malaria Alliance.

The steering committee included the Director of Immunisation, the UK Department of Health, and many other representatives from the WHO, UNICEF and associated organisations. It is a cluster of immunisation-focused individuals controlling the policy of world health governing bodies, who claim to be neutral.

The WHO was nominated as the “directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations system” and was set up to be responsible for “shaping the health research agenda”, among other tasks linked to the policy of global immunisation.

UNICEF, the “world’s largest provider of vaccines for developing countries” has on-the-ground access to children in over 150 territories and countries (2010).

We are already seeing the potential for some serious conflict of interest behind the Ferguson model on Covid–19, and this will become even more apparent as the connections are now made to an entire pharmaceutical complex potentially protecting its own interests over any genuine concerns for the health and welfare of global populations.

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/GAVI-partners.jpg?x73685

GAVI is funded and partnered by the same network that forms the GHLLDVC, with some noticeable additions: the World Bank and donor/implementing country governments. The Gates Foundation is a primary sponsor, but is topped by the British Government, which was instrumental in creating GAVI and is its largest donor.

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/GAVI-UK-DONOR.jpg?x73685

While many sectors of British society have seen their living standards plummet, with the elderly severely neglected, a National Health Service in decline and homelessness on the increase, the British Government, via UKAID, has pledged £1.44 billion to GAVI for 2016–2020 and will be hosting the 2020 GAVI (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-host-gavi-pledging-conference-in-2020) pledging conference, which is due to take place in June 2020 to [emphasis added]:

"...mobilise at least US$ 7.4 billion (https://www.gavi.org/investing-gavi/resource-mobilisation-process/gavis-3rd-donor-pledging-conference-june-2020) in additional resources to protect the next generation with vaccines, reduce disease inequality and create a healthier, safer and more prosperous world.”

The conference promises to bring together political leaders, civil society, public and private donors, vaccine manufacturers and governments to support GAVI, the vaccine alliance — which boasts that it has “helped vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases”.

This claim will be met with praise from the pro-vaccine lobby but concerns over the efficacy and safety of these mass vaccination programmes must be taken into account (https://www.globalresearch.ca/uncovering-the-cover-up-scientific-analysis-of-the-vaccine-autism-connection-deeply-flawed-vaccine-policies/5491987), particularly when being tested in poorer, developing countries.

Global vaccination market revenue worldwide (https://www.pharmaceuticalprocessingworld.com/global-vaccine-market-revenue-to-reach-59-2-billion-by-2020/) is projected to reach $59.2 billion by 2020; this number may well increase with the arrival of Covid–19.

The British Government’s investment in GAVI alongside vaccine promoter Bill Gates must, again, raise the issue of conflicts of interest. To what extent is the British Government protecting its own assets in forcing the lockdown upon its population? Vaccines are set to be a major source of income for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations, and the British Government is invested in that lucrative future.

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/GAVI-Bill-Gates.jpg?x73685

The GAVI replenishment conference is to be hosted by a British Government whose lockdown policy is effectively shattering the domestic economy and is collectively punishing the most vulnerable in British society.

When Bill Gates partnered with GAVI twenty years ago, he had been considering where next to focus his philanthropy and was “increasingly focusing on the power and potential of vaccines”.

It was Gates’ substantial sponsorship that launched GAVI, and ten years later Gates launched his own “vaccine decade” plan for the 2010s.

The Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) 2012–2020, endorsed by the 194 member states participating in the World Health Assembly (2012), is led by the same members of the Gates “vaccine decade” consortium, promoted by the WHO (https://www.who.int/immunization/global_vaccine_action_plan/GVAP_doc_2011_2020/en/), and brings together governments, elected officials, health professionals, academia, manufacturers, global agencies, research and development, civil society, media and the private sector — to promote global immunisation.

This is a profit-driven corporate complex harnessing the “humanitarian” sector to lend credence to the claims of philanthropy, or more realistically, philanthrocapitalism.

[continued....]

****

Yb9iaDoXJF8

Tintin

11th May 2020, 13:10

Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?
Vanessa Beeley for Off Guardian May 9th, 2020

[continued from this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1355515&viewfull=1#post1355515)]

******

2. GAVI and ID2020

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/GAVI.jpg?x73685

A glance at the partner page of the GAVI website reveals that not only is GAVI heavily invested in immunisation campaigns, it is also closely connected to the Gates, Microsoft and Rockefeller Foundation seed-funded ID2020 project (Digital Identity Alliance), which incorporates Accenture, Microsoft (Gates), Ideo-Org and Rockefeller Foundation into the GAVI alliance, all with ties to the ID2020 initiative.

ID2020 is promoting the concept that there is a need for universal biometric verification, because “to prove who you are is a fundamental and universal human right,” as asserted on the ID2020 website.

An article by journalist Kurt Nimmo for Global Research (https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-perfect-cover-for-mandatory-biometric-id/5709146) dismantles the “humanitarian” alibi for tyranny.

OffGrid Healthcare (https://eclinik.net/id2020-alliance-global-mandatory-vaccinations-biometric-id-integration/) explains:

What they really want is a fully standardized data collection and retrieval format, and cross-border sharing of identities of the entire population of the planet, in order for the stand-alone AI-powered command center to work without a hitch, and for purposes of calculating everyone’s potential contribution, and threat to the system.

Nimmo describes the potential for Covid–19 to be used as cover for mandatory biometric ID. An April article carried by Reuters confirms the suspicion that biometric ID might soon be introduced, ostensibly to “help verify those who already had the infection and ensure the vulnerable get the vaccine when it is launched”. This may sound perfectly sensible to those who are buying the government strap-lines on Covid–19 but — as Nimmo warns us — “COVID–19 is the perfect Trojan horse for a control freak state itching to not only micromanage the lives of ordinary citizens but also ferret out critics and potential adversaries and punish them as enemies of the state.”

Prashant Yadav (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-tech/biometric-ids-can-be-gamechanger-in-coronavirus-antibody-tests-vaccine-idUSL8N2BV0BI), senior fellow at the US-based Center for Global Development, has said [Emphasis added]:

"Biometric IDs can be a gamechanger. They can help governments target population segments e.g healthcare professionals or the elderly population, verify people who have received vaccination, and have a clear record."

Such statements can easily be interpreted as the harbingers of mandatory vaccination and the inclusion of biometric ID in the “humanitarian” package.

Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Technologies (https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/conspiracy/are-the-planning-id2020-as-mandatory-implants-for-all-as-the-solution-to-the-crisis/) introduces an even more sinister projection into the mix.

Armstrong talks about a digital certificate that verifies you have been vaccinated, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Microsoft, which will merge with ID2020. Covid–19 will be exploited to encourage us to accept digital implants and tracking devices that will enable authorities to keep an eye on us.

Armstrong argues that just as 9/11 conditioned us to accept X-ray booths at airports, now we will be chipped alongside our dogs and cats.

At this point, it is worth remembering that UKAID is heavily involved in GAVI, and one presumes they are on board with the digital ID2020 project.

Rob Laurence (https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-laurence-a5b50013/?originalSubdomain=uk), director at UK-based Innovate Identity, presented proposals for the future of digital identity back in June 2019 (http://www.innovateidentity.com/the-road-to-2020-the-future-for-digital-identity-in-the-uk/). The UK Government Verify scheme (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify) was identified as a fledgling version of the future of digital ID.

Laurence describes the digital ID “ecosystem” that is emerging: Oliver Dowden, Minister for Implementation at the Cabinet Office (the British Government’s co-ordinating department), will form a new Digital ID Unit to “pave the way for the government to consume digital identities from the private sector”.

Laurence describes 2020 as the “now-or-never year for government and industry to collaborate” in the creation of an “interoperable digital identity market”.

Covid19 provides the opportunity that might just fulfil these predictions.

It is no coincidence that a British start-up — Microsoft-funded Onfido (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/04/15/british-ai-startup-onfido-secures-100m-boost-tech-immunity-passports/) — has recently raised $100 million to “boost its ID technology” to enable the creation of “immunity passports” for governments “battling coronavirus”.

In December 2019, researchers at MIT created a: “microneedle platform (https://www.genengnews.com/topics/drug-discovery/quantum-dots-deliver-vaccines-and-invisibly-encode-vaccination-history-in-skin/) using fluorescent microparticles called quantum dots (QD) which can deliver vaccines and at the same time, invisibly encode vaccination history in the skin”: the QDs can be detected by specially adapted smartphones.

The “new normal” will mean we are tracked and monitored by our own communication systems to an even greater and more intrusive extent.

THE FUTURE IS BEING MODELLED — BUT NOT FOR OUR BENEFIT
In part one of this two=part series, my intention has been to raise questions over who is driving the British Government response to Covid–19. Those who have influenced the lockdown policy have very clear conflict of interest question marks over their agenda.

The scientific clique (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8188041/Ministers-accused-treating-Doomsday-scientist-like-demigod.html) influencing government decisions is one that is incorporated into a for-profit Big Pharma industrial network which will, undeniably, benefit from the measures being taken by the British Government — a government that is financially embedded in the same complex.

Why are the views of epidemiologists, doctors, scientists, analysts and health advisors who challenge the lockdown being ignored or censored by the media and by government? Why is the government not widening the circle of advisors to take into account these opposing perspectives that might bring an end to the misery that is a consequence of enforced quarantine?

Off-Guardian has recorded these views here (https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/), here (https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/17/8-more-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/) and here (https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic/). It is also worth following Swiss Propaganda Research (https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest) for regular updates on emerging analysis and statistics that you will not always find in the mainstream media.

World Economic Forum report on the psychological experiment that is the Covid19 lockdown.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/this-is-the-psychological-side-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-that-were-ignoring/?fbclid=IwAR0NgSFAkHG-2_MWR33RGrplhmcbHnpOYz1pf8UTjH0sE1pmLyPuNE-j954

Instead, the British Government is effectively endorsing the breeding of distrust in society, the erosion of public assembly, the isolation and state-sanctioned euthanasia of the elderly, the emerging police state, snitch lines, loss of dignity and livelihoods, greater dependency upon the state for survival, depression, suicide and voluntary incarceration.

An article in New York Times reports on the death toll in care homes which “reflect a global phenomenon” in a world under lockdown.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/canada/montreal-nursing-homes-coronavirus.html

The UN has issued a warning that the economic downturn could “kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020”.

Gates, the WHO, the British Government and UNICEF are focused on global immunisation for a “pandemic” that is not living up to the alarmist virtual projections sponsored by Gates and the Big Pharma complex, while children really will start to die from malnutrition, neglect and a myriad of consequence of extreme poverty generated by the “steepest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s” (IMF).

1251404445344292864?s=19

In part two, I will delve deeper into the interlocking interests of state and private corporate sectors that should not be interfering in policies which affect the welfare of British citizens.

I will reveal how the same players are influencing the media response and ensuring that their interests are given the most powerful platforms to promote their agenda.

The questions must be asked: Who is really in charge of the Covid–19 response? Who benefits most? Who will suffer most from the long term consequences?

And who will provide respite from those consequences when the “pandemic” has disappeared from view?

Originally published by UK Column. This is part one of a two-part article. We’ll be running the second part tomorrow, or you can read it here (https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown) already.

greybeard

11th May 2020, 14:39

Well Tintin
You are really giving me ammunition --I mean information to share with media believing friends
Thanks Chris

Eric J (Viking)

11th May 2020, 15:53

Interesting tid bits from WHO site

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf

Viking

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf

Gwin Ru

11th May 2020, 22:27

COVID INSANITY CONTINUES: US Has Seen No Increase in Overall Deaths in 2020 – Yet Americans Continue to Cede All God Given Rights to the State (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/covid-insanity-continues-us-seen-no-increase-overall-deaths-2020-yet-americans-continue-cede-god-given-rights-state/?__cf_chl_captcha_tk__=a3a8238ef3321dde96546660d8c6803ec07b11c6-1589235091-0-AQ9hyvTO-f9Uz3boAP5eqPkYZwKBAs35zyOrVXr2UR2luKYKBPqCfqIU0CLPD1nZT9K5wXpDWqcfsEZ1cdmRH869A6piRCOaUwgZJgzh42xfQ JzxhApPvu_82fYBtiQT4ec92mmHeJHpViBaoisq1gx1y-J-9iryZr4Aqex3jY9ZMJnUlxbPymolNMLjaFgENEI0jnfKkqAxlARNujbDYzmsXu-rGWBymzSVoRgRjlYP-SZA3s5UTBT1wPwwWECrOO_cP0KY4CL2HIsTtLb7Pw9dsWB4NNPCHhNOPrrDYKzNWWDMCNR6kzCqu8aCNSBiPISxZsQV_Z8THUbS_ N5b54XsBeImxNBSkVMpwJCXSscFUk3AD6wzG4Zh5coK8mjdLl90W3Kb1HK6lwqO7dUAQZWCg1GneK81KmdfZA7IFwRo65_m6pR5V Jp6xsGhE3Ygx036Ua2cXdD7YeoZZbPJhA1aB667SfWxp7DPwXwGpoG3LBxtq__wfphk38TW3Jk7MFkD3L8rQ8t5vo9p5bW6FwJlw i4pxK-SRMEWqo1nLkurxcNc8AXnOY-QdOfHTrVUKkSfLT4Os7FAY8S1oy6zK04qJZ-iCyafR5WpCUh_T61ubYToeokzNBfzKgc8AUbMXE2j5PNp2EcdF5SqbQ-hSmc)

By Joe Hoft (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/joehoft/) The Gateway Pundit
Published May 9, 2020 at 7:15am

https://static.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/covid-2-600x271.jpg
Americans are faced with the following choice – continue to follow the government mandated lock down while watching their life savings erode (based on faulty projections and models regarding the China coronavirus) – or get back to work.

In the movie the Matrix, the lead character, Neo, is faced with the stark reality – that we are all slaves. But Neo is given an opportunity. He is given a choice between taking a red pill or the blue pill. The red pill will allow Neo to the ability
After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, your story ends. You wake up in bed and believe whatever you want to.

You take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I’m offering is the truth.”
At the site Unconstrained Analytics (https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/the-matrix-explains-political-warfare-realities-part-1-the-red-pill-as-a-pseudoreality/), the Matrix is explained and today’s reaction to the China coronavirus as well:
Real science neither requires nor asks for assent. In contrast, pseudo-sciences, demand obedience to the narratives they propagate — even when these narratives conflict with hard science.
It’s time for America to wake up and look at the real numbers behind the China coronavirus. If we are truly experiencing a “historic” pandemic with unprecedented deaths then this should be obvious in the data. We should see our total deaths for the first four months of 2020 greatly exceed the previous years’ numbers where there was no pandemic, but this is not the case.

The CDC website indicates (https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html) U.S. death totals for 2015 through 2020 for the first four months of the year average (Jan – Apr) to be at 921,603. This year the total deaths during this period were 944,251 which is slightly more than average but slightly less than the number of deaths in 2017 (Note – to obtain below data we summed up all deaths for weeks 1 through 16 for each year from the data in the CDC website):

https://static.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/CDC-US-Deaths-Jan-Apr-15-20.jpg

We know that 99% of all COVID deaths are related to individuals with more than one other comorbidity (i.e. the individuals had cancer or some other medical condition). We also know that the majority of COVID deaths are those people over age 70.

Children are virtually free from any risk of death from the China coronavirus. Healthy individuals under the age of 65 are also at very low risk.

When looking at the data it is difficult to understand why the US (and the world for that matter) would close down their economies for this virus. The economies stayed open in 2017 and the number of deaths were greater.

Americans need to take the red pill. It’s time to wake up and see that we were lied to and continue to be lied to. The current response to the coronavirus is madness. Liberty is at stake.

Hat tip Chris

AutumnW

11th May 2020, 22:48

Gwin Ru

11th May 2020, 23:58

REVEALED! Lockdown in UK Caused Almost 10,000 Deaths – Official Medical Reports

By Drago Bosnic (https://www.fort-russ.com/author/drago-bosnic/) Fort Russ News
Last updated May 11, 2020

https://www.fort-russ.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NHS-Coronavirus.jpg

LONDON – A report has been published in the United Kingdom claiming that about 8,000 more people have died in their own homes since the start of the coronavirus lockdown than in normal times as concerns grow over the number of people who are avoiding going to the hospital.

https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/05/revealed-lockdown-in-uk-caused-almost-10000-deaths-official-medical-reports/

Of that total, 80% died of conditions unrelated to COVID-19, according to their death certificates. Doctors’ leaders have warned that fears and deprioritization of non-coronavirus patients are taking a deadly toll, The Guardian reported.

The data shows 8,196 more deaths at home in England, Wales and Scotland compared with the five-year average for this time of year, including 6,546 non-COVID deaths. It also indicates a drop in non-COVID deaths in hospitals, however, leading experts to conclude that many who would normally have been admitted to a ward are instead dying at home.

Jason Oke, a statistician with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford, said,
“This would mean fewer deaths from other causes in hospitals and more deaths from other causes at home or in care homes. It is, of course, possible that, in addition to this, COVID-19 is being missed in people who remain outside of hospital.”

“A third explanation is that people are dying of other causes that would not have happened under normal conditions – and are collateral damage of the lockdown,” he added that there was no way of knowing for sure based on the available data.
Doctors’ leaders have warned that some sick people are too scared to go to hospital and are aware that much of the usual NHS care had been suspended in the pandemic.
“These figures underline that the devastation wrought by COVID-19 spreads far beyond the immediate effects of the illness itself,” said Dr. Chaand Nagpaul, the council chair of the British Medical Association.

“While all parts of the NHS have rallied round in a bid to meet the immediate rocketing demand caused by the pandemic, more than half of doctors in a recent BMA survey have told us that this is worsening the care of non-COVID patients,” Nagpaul added.
He cited a fall in A&E visits of up to 50% and a drop by half of patients attending hospitals with heart attacks.
“Referrals from GPs are not being accepted unless for serious medical conditions and routine investigations to aid diagnosis are not available in many cases. This means many ill patients are not getting the care they so desperately need now – and crucially, risking their conditions getting worse and with some even dying as a result,” Nagpaul added.
Prof Andrew Goddard, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said excess community deaths from non-COVID causes had been seen across Europe. A report this week found that there had been about 11,600 such fatalities in Italy during its pandemic, including deaths from heart attacks and strokes, he added.
“Data from other countries has shown delayed presentation in patients with heart attacks during the pandemic, either because people don’t want to burden the health service at the current time, or because of fear of catching COVID-19. It is critical that patients who are worried they may be having a heart attack or stroke should call 999.”
The fatality figures from the Guardian analysis of the England and Wales data are based on the date of occurrence rather than on the date of registration.

The number of deaths occurring in care homes in England and Wales in the week to 24 April was 3.1 times the toll in the equivalent week over the past five years, while deaths in private homes and in hospitals were up to 1.5 times higher than typically seen in the same week.

Over the course of the past seven weeks, there were 23,583 deaths in people’s homes compared with the five-year average of 16,794. But of the extra 6,789 fatalities, just one in four were attributed to coronavirus, leaving 5,355 excess non-COVID deaths.

Similar data from Scotland – which is based on date of registration rather than date of the death occurring and is more up to date – shows a similar trend. In the seven weeks to May 3, there were 3,453 deaths in private homes and non-institutional settings in Scotland. This compares with 2,046 in a typical year. However, of the remaining deaths, just 216 were COVID-related, leaving 1,191 excess deaths.

Similarly, 32,633 deaths were recorded in care homes in England and Wales, more than twice the figure typically expected at this time of year (15,670). Of the remaining deaths, just 6,815 were COVID-19 deaths, leaving 10,148 deaths unrelated to COVID-19. While there were 597 excess deaths in Scottish care homes in the seven weeks to May 3, these are lower than the number of coronavirus-related deaths (1,195).

There have been 704 excess deaths in Northern Ireland since the first coronavirus death was registered there. However, Northern Ireland does not currently publish a five-year average of deaths. Excess deaths grew week on week in both care homes and private homes in England and Wales up until the week ending April 10, but have fallen in the two subsequent weeks for which data is available.

David Leon, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the significant numbers of non-COVID excess deaths in care homes would be down to several factors, including undiagnosed COVID-19 deaths.
“People who are dying from other conditions in care homes may be less likely to be admitted to hospital than pre-pandemic due to concerns about strain on resources,” he said, adding, “These deaths are ones that would have occurred regardless of the pandemic, but happened in care homes rather than hospitals.

“Finally, there is the concern that some of the deaths in care homes were avoidable – in that some people died because they did not get life-saving treatment in hospitals, because of a reluctance to send them for specialist medical treatment. How big this group is is unclear. It will undoubtedly be the focus of inquiry over the coming months,” he said.

shaberon

12th May 2020, 00:41

The U.S perhaps has seen no AVERAGE increase in overall deaths. This is due to lockdown efforts, so the number of deaths, due to the virus, have been mitigated by prevention.

It may prevent a few of those, but the decrease is found in other categories. The entire lifestyle change of being less mechanized has completely changed everywhere in the world in ways that are obviously much safer.

And in some places there are exceptions; when I checked, West Virginia counted forty coronavirus deaths, but their seasonal average was still over 2,000 more than compared to "normal", which is maybe a big number in a small place like that.

So if there is a caveat about death "With" this virus, then it seems we just don't know. It could legitimately be the coffin nail for all kinds of previous problems, which does not make it less dangerous, really. Perhaps it is just not that dangerous on its own until it finds favorable grounds such as organ disease or a blood problem. It is a perfectly good point that the "From" cannot be said to be all that many, but it does not seem to release concern for the other group. For example, if someone says they are allergic to peanuts, I could be legally liable if a lab can detect a peanut molecule. So then we would have a situation where, perhaps, diabetics will say I'm allergic to Covid. It may be as meaningless to me personally as any kind of food allergy, but, if it is a legitimate concern for others, then it is probably worth consideration of why or how "With" is particularly dangerous.

greybeard

13th May 2020, 15:41

Dr Yvette Lozano from Dallas, Texas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SjZAsT43MI

shaberon

13th May 2020, 16:34

Mexico City (https://en.farsnews.ir/newstext.aspx?nn=13990224000882) appears to be another place where death is under-reported and the crematories cannot keep up.

This is an odd situation where we have to contrast the fact that...something is sketchy and unknown and not as dangerous as we may be led to believe, but, there must be some places where sickness and death is a bit beyond the norm. I mean, we could toss all the statistics out the window, but it is hard to ignore an overly-large pile of bodies.

Tintin

13th May 2020, 18:12

'Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?' | Part 2

COVID–19: The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown
By Vanessa Beeley
Source: UK Column (https://www.ukcolumn.org/print/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown) - May 11th 2020
Also published in Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/10/covid19-the-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown/

(Continued from this Post #280 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1355515&viewfull=1#post1355515) and Post #281 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1355518&viewfull=1#post1355518))

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/covid-19-big-pharma.jpg?x24239

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." — Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 1948 to 1953

In Part One of Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19? [2], I began an investigation into the individuals and entities that are, effectively, driving the UK Government response to Covid–19. In Part Two, I will expand upon the Big Pharma and Artificial Intelligence (AI) links already identified and will introduce new connections that appear to have considerable bearing upon the UK Government's Covid–19 strategy. I will expand upon the Bill Gates connections to the various organisations that are advocating global immunisation.

The UK Government chief medical adviser and Chief Medical Officer for England, Chris Whitty, is saying that a return to “normal” in the short-term is “wholly unrealistic”. Whitty is telling us that the “highly disruptive” social distancing policy will be in place “for really quite a long period of time”. “Highly disruptive” is a euphemism for the devastation of the world economy and the horrifying knock-on effect — an estimated 50% of the world workforce are at risk of losing their livelihood (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/half-of-worlds-workers-at-immediate-risk-of-losing-livelihood-due-to-coronavirus).

43612
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-uk-in-talks-with-id-startups-over-immunity-passports-2020-4?r=US&IR=T

The UK Government has been promoting the concept of “immunity passports” as a means of loosening the draconian lockdown measures. It is very possible that facial recognition technology (https://video.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/95963962_607167986819197_8299399454792876032_n.mp4?_nc_cat=107&_nc_sid=985c63&efg=eyJybHIiOjMwNCwicmxhIjoxMjE3LCJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ohc=c5VS1tJd3PAAX8O3Dmz&rl=304&vabr=169&_nc_ht=video.fgdl1-3.fna&oh=4c26eafcdd78d6105850aa43e01cde8a&oe=5EBC4B6C) [5] may dictate who can exit lockdown and return to work. To get a passport, individuals must upload an image of their face to the app along with their ID (passport or driving licence). They are then tested to ascertain if they have had the virus and developed immunity. The app will then generate a QR code, which the employer will use to verify ID and immunity before allowing the employee back to work.

43613

Onfido’s track and trace app, under serious consideration by the UK Government (https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/15/onfido-the-ai-based-id-verification-platform-raises-100m-led-by-tpg/). [6]

The UK health service’s innovation agency NHSx has called for businesses and technology experts to submit their ideas for providing immunity passports [7]. Companies currently making proposals to the UK Government include Onfido (https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/onfido) [8], Yoti (https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/yoti) [9], IDnow (https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/idnow) [10], OCL, and iDenfy (https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/idenfy) [11].

These UK Government “track and trace” plans still face various obstacles — including the questionable accuracy of some of the antibody tests — but the spectre of increased surveillance and government control over the workforce, and many other aspects of civil liberty, looms undeniably on the horizon.

As I pointed out in Part One, it is no coincidence that the Oxford University (http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/research-in-conversation/entrepreneurial-academics/husayn-kassai-and-onfido) [12] start-up, Microsoft-funded facial recognition (https://onfido.com/us/) [13] firm Onfido “has recently raised $100 million (now $200m (https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/15/onfido-the-ai-based-id-verification-platform-raises-100m-led-by-tpg/) [6]) to boost its ID technology” to enable the creation of immunity passports. According to an interview with Onfido’s CEO, Husayn Kassai, the firm had previously offered a service that “automates background checks on prospective employees before they are accepted for work”; it would appear that immunity passports are a logical extension to what is, effectively, private sector spying on the workforce.

A more recent article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/03/coronavirus-health-passports-for-uk-possible-in-months) [14] proclaims: “Onfido in talks with government about systems to help Britons return to work”. Onfido, already at “pilot stage” in other countries, is claiming that its proposals could be executed within months and that the “health certificate through app technology” is “gaining traction”. Onfido claims this technology could be the linchpin of the new “normality” and key to stimulating the economy — as backed by Bill Gates/Microsoft (https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/15/onfido-the-ai-based-id-verification-platform-raises-100m-led-by-tpg/) [6] and undeniably in lock-step with ID2020’s manifesto (https://www.biometricupdate.com/202004/immunity-certificates-should-leverage-biometrics-to-alleviate-privacy-concerns-says-id2020s-executive-director) [15].

Many analysts have highlighted the danger of ID2020 being introduced under cover of the Covid–19 “crisis”:

We may indeed be just at the beginning of the implementation of ID2020 — which includes forced vaccination, population reduction and total digital control of everybody, on the way to One World Order; and global financial hegemony — Full Spectrum Dominance, as the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) likes to call it. [Peter Koenig (https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153)] [16]

The team behind the UK Government Covid–19 response
(SAGE: Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies | Source from UK Government here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups)

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/sage-diagram.jpg?x24239

My focus in Part One was largely on the role of Imperial College and Prof. Neil Ferguson in “modelling” the virus infection trajectory and influencing the UK Government response, as he has done previously, with a 100% failure rate [17] on the accuracy of his virtual predictions. My focus in Part Two is to put the spotlight on other members of the UK Government advisory committee and to reveal their connections to Big Pharma and the for-profit sector linked to the Covid–19 response.

Neil Ferguson defends lockdown policy while conveniently forgetting the failure record of his “model”
In a recent interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYjjEB3Ev8&feature=youtu.be) [18], Neil Ferguson defended his Covid–19 predictions, which now appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

Ferguson reinforced the message that Britons “cannot go completely back to normal, until we have a vaccine there will be a degree of social distancing in place” (emphasis added).

Ferguson also confirmed the UK Government's track-and-trace policy: “Longer-term social distancing will be required, not at the levels we have today, if we have contact tracing in place” (emphasis added).

With numbers not adding up to Ferguson’s alarmist projections, the subsequent lockdown of the economy, and now the UK Government's potential roll-out of mandatory vaccinations and biometric surveillance of the workforce, we could be forgiven for suspecting that the overarching agenda was always the increased surveillance and control of the majority of the population.

Ferguson H1N1 case study — Patrick Vallance — GlaxoSmithKline
At this point, I would like to go back in time to 2009 and Ferguson/Imperial College’s analysis of swine flu, H1N1: they claimed this virus would take the lives of 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, 457 people died from the virus.

In response to the threat of swine flu, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) developed the Pandemrix vaccine, with disastrous consequences (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572)[19]. An alleged sixty patients who suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine were allocated £60 million (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572) [19] in compensation by the UK Government. Most of the victims were children. As one report has it: “It was subsequently revealed that the vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause narcolepsy and cataplexy in about one in 16,000 people, and many more are expected to come forward with the symptoms.”

A later British Medical Journal (https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/glaxosmithkline-fails-to-warn-pandemic-flu-vaccine-s-alarming-safety-signal-bmj-report) [20](BMJ) report deemed that GSK and health authorities had failed to warn the public of the vaccine’s alarming “safety signal”.

The vaccine was developed by GSK and patented in September 2006. Pandemrix contained a flu strain recommended by the WHO. After reports of brain damage began to emerge, the WHO revised (https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement_Jul2011/en/) [21] their advice to urge “restricted use” for people under the age of 20. Pandemrix is no longer licensed for use, but at the time, the Gordon Brown-led Labour government had granted GSK indemnity (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-risks-research-nhs-lockdown-pandemrix-adjuvant-a9470306.html) [22]. Details of that agreement have never been made public.

From 2012 to March 2018, Sir Patrick Vallance was president of research and development at GSK. He went directly from GSK to his post as the UK Government chief scientific adviser.

1255828316096991232

While Vallance and the UK Government are favouring AstraZeneca (https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/british-government-enlists-astrazeneca-bia-for-new-pandemic-vaccine-taskforce) [24] — in partnership with Oxford University — to fast-track vaccine development [25], GSK is also in the race.

GSK is working in collaboration (https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/gsk-links-with-cepi-to-develop-a-vaccine-for-the-2019-ncov-virus) [26] with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), “aimed at helping the global effort to develop a vaccine” for Covid–19. The UK Government has invested £50 million (https://cepi.net/news_cepi/2-billion-required-to-develop-a-vaccine-against-the-covid-19-virus/) [27] in CEPI to support the rapid vaccine and immunoprophylactic development against “unknown pathogens” (also referred to as Disease X). Bill Gates was one of the original and most influential sponsors of CEPI; more details later in this article.

So, the UK Government appears to favour AstraZeneca, but Vallance and the government also appear to be subtly supporting Vallance’s former employer, GSK, despite their Pandemrix fiasco.

While Vallance was in charge of research and development at GSK, collaboration (https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/new-partnership-between-gsk-and-the-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-to-accelerate-research-into-vaccines-for-global-health-needs/) [28] with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was increased. In 2013, a new partnership between GSK and the Gates Foundation was announced: to “accelerate research into vaccines for global health needs”.

What we start to see here is the very definition of a revolving-door policy between philanthrocapitalism, Big Pharma and government agencies, all effectively working in lock-step to promote the global immunisation agenda, with massive projected profit for the Big Pharma complex and in particular for the members closely associated with Gates, the WHO, UNICEF, and world governments, as already discussed in Part One (https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one) [2]. [my emphasis - Tintin]

Scientists, epidemiologists and analysts are not speaking as one voice on Covid–19

Going back to the Ferguson interview I mentioned earlier, my observation is that Ferguson was ill at ease, appearing to defend a script rather than opening up the discussion to include other models and expert opinions that vehemently disagree (https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/retired-chief-eu-epidemiologist-how-long-can-you-keep-lockdown-democracy) [29] with his assessment.

Eminent epidemiologist and bio-statistician Prof. Knut Wittkowski (https://www.aier.org/article/stand-up-for-your-rights-says-bio-statistican-knut-m-wittkowski/) [30] has been an outspoken critic of lockdown and social distancing from the outset. In a recent interview, Perspectives on the Pandemic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Q4naYOYDw) [31], he spoke about the Ferguson model:

"It does not make any sense. I have no clue [what inspired Ferguson to make his estimates]. I don’t like to engage in conspiracy theories, so, if you have a model that give results that contradict everything else, then you contact your colleagues, you say, ‘Send me your model, let me try it, let us compare what we have, where are we in agreement and what is it that makes my model different from yours?’. This is how science works. We all make mistakes — but we don’t present the results without first double-checking."

Even Dr Anthony Fauci, Ferguson’s counterpart in the US, has also cast doubt (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/28/coronavirus-hype-biggest-political-hoax-in-history/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR3S79hdIjN4mrU3i71O0VGsyDngksPPGx664CzctEAJa1znf3WAC25OOVc) [32] on the efficacy of these models to determine government response to any given virus:

"I’ve never seen a model of the diseases I’ve dealt with where the worst case actually came out […] they always overshoot."

The fact that Ferguson ploughs on regardless — and without any reference to his appalling record and disastrous consequences for the British public — suggests that he functions largely as an outreach agent for actors with vested interests who are exploiting him to keep the Government on track with their own profit-driven Covid–19 campaigns.

The Big Pharma monopoly dictating the “new normal” in global healthcare

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/CEPI-launch.jpg?x24239

CEPI launches at the 2017 Davos meeting.

Who are CEPI? CEPI is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. CEPI was launched (https://flat.bio/story/154247/cepi-launches-3-accelerated-vaccine-development-pr/) [33] at Davos in 2017 by the governments of Norway and India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the British-based Wellcome Trust global health “charity”, and the World Economic Forum. CEPI is described as an “innovative partnership between public, private, philanthropic and civil organisations”, to which I would add governments: the coalition has received investment from the governments of Germany, Japan, Australia, the UK, Belgium and Canada. Their primary role (https://cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-announces-new-permanent-board/) [34] in relation to Covid–19 is the “development of platforms that can be used for rapid vaccine development against unknown pathogens” (2018).

Historian and author Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (https://www.globalresearch.ca/after-the-lockdown-a-global-coronavirus-vaccination-program/5706547) [35] is convinced that CEPI is “seeking a monopoly role in the vaccination business, the objective of which is a global vaccine project”. As I have previously reported, CEPI is key to the success of the Gates “vaccine decade” project, which reaches its conclusion in 2020 — coinciding with the outbreak of Covid–19. CEPI brings together the main players in biotechnology, Big Pharma and associated global health charities, governmental agencies, and university R&D to drive us towards global immunisation.

CEPI’s euphemistically named “wider community” is represented by five non-voting members or observers; these include the World Bank, which is the principal financial institution holding CEPI funds, and a representative from the WHO. Every governing body or complex that is promoting global immunisation registers the same entities as influencers and sponsors. Again and again, the conflict of interest question must be raised in relation to the Covid–19 response. [my emphasis - Tintin]

[to be continued.....]

silvanelf

13th May 2020, 21:03

shaberon

13th May 2020, 21:07

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." — Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 1948 to 1953

I did not realize that; I never paid any attention to it and just presumed that WHO was part of some derivative alphabet soup agencies from the 1960s or thereabouts. It is not just part of the core of the United Nations, but is a successor of a similar Health Organization from the League of Nations. Chisholm was vehement about the word "World".

According to Wiki, in 1934, he predicted the coming of World War II, in a Canadian Psychiatric Journal. His early specialty was mental health.

Others placed Chisholm among three prominent Humanists who early on headed important United Nations agencies: Julian Huxley of UNESCO and John Boyd-Orr of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

He apparently first became controversial for saying children should not be taught to believe in Santa Claus, the Bible, or have their parents' views imposed on them, and should become intellectually independent.

A UBC Biography (https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/9278/1/9780774814768.pdf) on him does refer to world government four times, somewhat along the lines of he thought a new system would work better. The actual quote above--erasing individuality, which completely contradicts his known stance--has no actual source (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/brock-chisholm-first-director-general-of-the-world-health-organization-quote.6792/) and appears to have been put in his mouth by the John Birch Society.

It is entirely possible that like the Huxleys, he knew the WWII script by 1934, more by being around it than doing it themselves.

The quote however looks like cointel from the usual source.

That is why I say the free press is already painted they way they like it. This is almost always the same thing, every single time you see it.

DaveToo

14th May 2020, 00:15

The U.S perhaps has seen no AVERAGE increase in overall deaths. This is due to lockdown efforts, so the number of deaths, due to the virus, have been mitigated by prevention.

Secondly, in densely populated areas that delayed lock down deaths have increased significantly. If you observe charts for those areas you will see a pronounced hockey stick pattern. These numbers offset the average decrease in overall deaths you would see in normal times, if everyone was shut in.

Sorry Autumn but I have to say this is pure and utter bull****!
You have been taken to the cleaners.
You have been had.

Thank the good Lord that we have all those brave nations and U.S. states that did NOT lock down.
Thankfully we can look to them as a 'control'.

And when we do we see absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the case or death numbers as a percent of the population, compared to those countries/states that did lock down. :thumbsup:

DaveToo

14th May 2020, 00:20

greybeard

14th May 2020, 06:29

Mare

14th May 2020, 08:57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9romNO55yo&feature=share

greybeard

14th May 2020, 09:11

I really hope this interview is correct /genuine
If so a massive act of bravery by the chief medical officer.
Is this a breakthrough where truth comes from a respected expert?
Chris
Ps on listening carefully I have to say that the heading is misleading
The chief medical officer did not say that lockdown was un necessary but I suppose he may have implied that lockdown was not necessary.
Anyway a step forward.
Last night on the BBC News Boris looked very uncomfortable in Parliament when questioned about 10K unexplained deaths in care homes -- the numbers did not add up.
Boris actually looks ill to me.
Now given that the above video is true and Boris was given those facts by the chief medical officer, its no wonder he looks ill at ease.
How is he going to get out of this one?
Who knows the media might actually get this and challenge the decision to go for lockdown.
Here is hoping
Chris

shaberon

14th May 2020, 09:28

The actual quote above--erasing individuality, which completely contradicts his known stance--has no actual source (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/brock-chisholm-first-director-general-of-the-world-health-organization-quote.6792/) and appears to have been put in his mouth by the John Birch Society.

This remark catches my attention because they are the ones who promote Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory.

What are they doing, why do they want to make this doctor look bad, by having him say something about world government there is a better chance someone else may have said?

In the 19th century, there were ideas about it called Synarchy, but mostly just ideas. No one had a federal Europe or anything like that. The actual "doing" of it seems to have come in a bit of a storm, right at the beginning of the twentieth century in the Boer War, because it forced the Fabian Society to consider foreign policy.

There was no question whether it was a capitalist war, in perfectly plain terms we use now, done by the rich for the rich and so forth. It did not have public support, but, due to Propaganda (http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/781/propaganda-public-opinion-and-the-second-south-african-boer-war), it was:

a possible jingoistic aberration on the part of Britain's citizens

And due to the spread of printing and literacy in the working class, it was:

a turning point in the use of propaganda, both by the British government and the national press, in shaping public opinion.

The British Newspaper Archive (https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2018/11/05/new-titles-5-november-2018/) has no problem telling us:

it is possible to illuminate the various propaganda mechanisms used during the course of the Second Boer War, and how these would come to be used on a much larger scale in the coming First World War.

Due to the issue of the war, the Fabian Society split; a fair number would in no way support a capitalist war. Some of these wound up leaving the group, thereby weakening that part of it. Some, however, supported British imperialism as a means of disseminating enlightened principles of governance throughout the world. The Fabians rose from "a few" to tens of thousands. British foreign investment increased, and it particularly increased in the United States.

One of the guiding hegemons was Shaw who concocted Fabianism and the Empire (https://archive.org/details/fabianismempirem00shawuoft/page/24/mode/2up) (1900) which for instance around p. 24, suggests that gold mines and armaments should eventually wind up in the hands of the "Federation of the World", but, until then, remains firmly with Empire or specifically the British one.

So what has happened here is that a political theory of world governance has made its way into policy of a structure which rapidly gains power; it has British supremacy, mind control via the press, and money connections to the U. S.

The Fabians (https://fabians.org.uk/the-link-between-ideas-and-action/) themselves proudly say:

We pioneered the idea of a United Nations.

The British Fabian Society (or, members) worked with French Synarchy so that World War II happened the way it was intended to. We could say they pioneered the idea of the U. N. and made it happen.

The creator of the British Union of Fascists Oswald Mosely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley) and his wife Cynthia were committed Fabians in the 1920s and at the start of the 1930s. So he left the Fabians and Labour Party becoming in most respects the opposite: Anti-communist; forerunner of John Birch. British Fascists include Lady Queenborough and "Occult Theocrasy".

This bears relevance to our topic inasmuch as how the UN/WHO came to be an authority.

silvanelf

14th May 2020, 10:10

The U.S perhaps has seen no AVERAGE increase in overall deaths. This is due to lockdown efforts, so the number of deaths, due to the virus, have been mitigated by prevention.

There is an average increase in overall deaths -- despite assertions to the contrary. See further below.

COVID INSANITY CONTINUES: US Has Seen No Increase in Overall Deaths in 2020 – Yet Americans Continue to Cede All God Given Rights to the State (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/covid-insanity-continues-us-seen-no-increase-overall-deaths-2020-yet-americans-continue-cede-god-given-rights-state/?__cf_chl_captcha_tk__=a3a8238ef3321dde96546660d8c6803ec07b11c6-1589235091-0-AQ9hyvTO-f9Uz3boAP5eqPkYZwKBAs35zyOrVXr2UR2luKYKBPqCfqIU0CLPD1nZT9K5wXpDWqcfsEZ1cdmRH869A6piRCOaUwgZJgzh42xfQ JzxhApPvu_82fYBtiQT4ec92mmHeJHpViBaoisq1gx1y-J-9iryZr4Aqex3jY9ZMJnUlxbPymolNMLjaFgENEI0jnfKkqAxlARNujbDYzmsXu-rGWBymzSVoRgRjlYP-SZA3s5UTBT1wPwwWECrOO_cP0KY4CL2HIsTtLb7Pw9dsWB4NNPCHhNOPrrDYKzNWWDMCNR6kzCqu8aCNSBiPISxZsQV_Z8THUbS_ N5b54XsBeImxNBSkVMpwJCXSscFUk3AD6wzG4Zh5coK8mjdLl90W3Kb1HK6lwqO7dUAQZWCg1GneK81KmdfZA7IFwRo65_m6pR5V Jp6xsGhE3Ygx036Ua2cXdD7YeoZZbPJhA1aB667SfWxp7DPwXwGpoG3LBxtq__wfphk38TW3Jk7MFkD3L8rQ8t5vo9p5bW6FwJlw i4pxK-SRMEWqo1nLkurxcNc8AXnOY-QdOfHTrVUKkSfLT4Os7FAY8S1oy6zK04qJZ-iCyafR5WpCUh_T61ubYToeokzNBfzKgc8AUbMXE2j5PNp2EcdF5SqbQ-hSmc)

By Joe Hoft (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/joehoft/) The Gateway Pundit
Published May 9, 2020 at 7:15am

[...]

It’s time for America to wake up and look at the real numbers behind the China coronavirus. If we are truly experiencing a “historic” pandemic with unprecedented deaths then this should be obvious in the data. We should see our total deaths for the first four months of 2020 greatly exceed the previous years’ numbers where there was no pandemic, but this is not the case.

An average of the total deaths for the first four months of 2020 is misleading, because the outbreak of Covid-19 in the US began in mid March. But if we consider the count of deaths from all causes in the United States on a weekly basis, then you will see an average increase in overall deaths. It's obvious that the report is still incomplete regarding the last two or three weeks.

Source; CDC
Data as of May 13, 2020

Week ending / Covid-19 Deaths / Deaths from all Causes / Percent of Expected Deaths

2/29/2020 7 57,602 100%
3/7/2020 30 57,325 99%
3/14/2020 51 55,776 97%
3/21/2020 509 55,878 98%
3/28/2020 2,817 58,926 105%
4/4/2020 8,601 66,598 119%
4/11/2020 13,783 71,784 129%
4/18/2020 13,446 66,767 123%
4/25/2020 9,775 56,914 106%
5/2/2020 4,657 40,582 75%
5/9/2020 1,182 17,410 33%
source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Gwin Ru

14th May 2020, 14:54

[...]
An average of the total deaths for the first four months of 2020 is misleading, because the outbreak of Covid-19 in the US began in mid March. But if we consider the count of deaths from all causes in the United States on a weekly basis, then you will see an average increase in overall deaths. It's obvious that the report is still incomplete regarding the last two or three weeks.
[...]See this article as a likely reason for above average death tolls:

REVEALED! Lockdown in UK Caused Almost 10,000 Deaths – Official Medical Reports (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1355626&viewfull=1#post1355626)

Tintin

14th May 2020, 15:21

Tintin

14th May 2020, 15:21

[continued from Post #290 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1355991&viewfull=1#post1355991)]

'Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?' | Part 2

COVID–19: The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown
By Vanessa Beeley
Source: UK Column (https://www.ukcolumn.org/print/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown) - May 11th 2020
Also published in Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/10/covid19-the-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown/

The UK vaccine network - cont.

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Imperial-college-vacc-funding.jpg?x67792

Under Chris Whitty’s administration — Whitty is co-lead for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) — the NIHR and UK Research and Innovation are giving another £20 million [49] to CEPI for Covid–19 vaccine development. This is in addition to the £50 million already given by the UK Government to CEPI.

“It’s Humanity versus the virus” follows World Immunisation Week (April 26th–30th)
The timing of Boris Johnson’s “humanity versus virus” conference is unlikely to be coincidental, following as it does hot on the heels of World Immunisation Week (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaccine-update-issue-307-april-2020-world-immunization-week) [50].

A document produced by Public Health England (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882827/PHE_11652_VU_307_April_2020.pdf) [51] (PHE) provides a greater insight into how hard the UK Government is promoting vaccines during the Covid–19 “crisis”. The 2020 theme is “Vaccines work for all” — coinciding with the last year of the Gates “vaccine decade” of the 2010s.

Hashtags like #CarryOnVaccinating (https://twitter.com/hashtag/carryonvaccinating) [52] are being deployed, and the “vaccines work for all” campaign will focus on “how vaccines — and the people who develop, deliver and receive them — are heroes by working to protect the health of everyone, everywhere”.

The WHO has designated 2020 the International Year of the Nurse and the Midwife. Why? Because of those professions' “crucial role as early vaccine champions for new parents and parents-to-be and life course vaccination, making sure older adults have their routine protection”. What a clever way to harness the genuinely dedicated nursing staff to promote vaccines to a huge market sector.

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Vaccine-promotion.jpg?x67792

The outsourcing of vaccine promotion continues. There are social media memes prepared earlier that can be uploaded and shared to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter by an unsuspecting public, who will thus advertise global immunity for free.

1255908325906173953

The language of the report is sinister in its behavioural nudging: [my emphasis - Tintin]

“Last year, WHO declared vaccine hesitancy among the top ten threats to global health”.

A civilian population in lockdown — desperate to stimulate the economy, to return to work and to avoid being infected with “Pandemic 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tX7qZ5lRPs&feature=youtu.be)” — will be easily gaslighted by such a lexicon into accepting anything that will address the concerns that have been imprinted into their subconscious.

The document details the need to “counter the infodemic”, i.e. expert opinion that does not comply with the Big Pharma/WHO diktats:

If you are looking for information about vaccines, be sure to consult trusted and credible sources, like your health worker, local health authorities, health institutions like NHS.UK, Public Health England, WHO or the members of the Vaccine Safety Net.

1254364437982699523

[Sub-editorial: Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) is as per his Twitter profile a former army officer, Scotland Yard detective and counter terrorism intelligence officer, international politics graduate, lawyer, broadcaster, writer. - Tintin Q]

We are, of course, already seeing this infodemic warfare in action: the YouTube CEO recently announced that YouTube would remove any video deemed to be in contravention of advice being given by the WHO. A recent statement from the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, reinforces the WHO recommendations. Guterres condemns (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_d8sNJ4o1g&feature=youtu.be) what he claims to be “a dangerous epidemic of misinformation”. Journalist and researcher Michael Swifte described the vaccine agenda as follows:

"The loving embrace of a vaccine administered by the biggest public-private partnership in history. This is what the Secretary General of the UN is promoting."

Reading through this PHE document is a veritable exercise in Behavioural Insights methodology: again, no coincidence, when one considers British expertise in “nudging” the public towards any given pre-determined agendas or decisions that benefit the ruling classes. This excellent article at UK Column (https://www.ukcolumn.org/print/article/behavioural-insights-second-team-leading-uk-governments-covid-19-response) provides a comprehensive analysis of the role played in the Covid–19 response by Behavioural Insights.

Public Health England — who are they, and how are they linked to Porton Biopharma?

According to one report (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-drug-development-to-transfer-to-new-state-owned-company), PHE exists to “protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities”. PHE is an “operationally autonomous executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC)".

In June 2018, PHE transferred (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-drug-development-to-transfer-to-new-state-owned-company) its drug development to a new state-owned company, Porton Biopharma Ltd (https://www.portonbiopharma.com/) (PBL), which is wholly owned by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Health (currently Matt Hancock). Perhaps unsurprisingly, PBL has the only UK-licensed anthrax vaccine among its portfolio. We are told that “the future success and revenue growth of PBL will provide PHE with an income dividend which will be ploughed back into the delivery of its priorities”. Once again, we see the revolving door between government agencies and private, for-profit sectors with a focus on vaccines.

Matt Hancock and UK Government commercial interests in Covid–19

1088390904858202112

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, is also owner of Porton Biopharma during his tenure; but that is not the only tie that Hancock appears to have to for-profit entities that stand to benefit from Covid–19 response strategies.

A recent report in the Byline Times (https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/22/palantir-coronavirus-contract-did-not-go-to-competitive-tender/) detailed “highly controversial contracts” which will enable British ministers and senior health officials to “mine confidential data from tens of thousands of Covid–19 hospital patients”. These contracts have allegedly been awarded to technology companies “without being put out to competitive tender, NHS has disclosed”. Microsoft is included in those companies; that is, Bill Gates is present.

Babylon Health — the NHS is not for sale (!)

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Hancock-babylon-2018.jpg?x67792

Both Hancock and Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to the Prime Minister, have questionable ties to Babylon Health (https://www.babylonhealth.com/), a prominent health tech firm implementing AI. Cummings held an undisclosed consultancy job at this healthcare venture: a firm endorsed by the government and at the top of the list to receive a National Health Service (NHS) Fund cash injection of £250 million.

According to an article in The Bureau Investigates (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-10-11/conflict-of-interest-questions-over-dominic-cummings-job-at-health-tech-firm-babylon), during 2018, Cummings “advised Babylon Health on its communications strategy and senior recruitment just months before its GP at Hand app was publicly backed by Matt Hancock.”

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary (British opposition spokesman on health), condemned (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/matt-hancock-accused-of-breaching-code-over-gp-app-endorsement) the Cummings/Hancock connection to Babylon:

"The links between Dominic Cummings in the heart of Downing Street, the health secretary and this AI health firm are increasingly murky and highly irresponsible."

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Hancock-bablyon.jpg?x67792

In case anyone is in doubt over Hancock’s enthusiasm for the Babylon GP at Hand app, it is highly advisable to read this article (https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/12/04/rachel-clarke-why-matt-hancocks-promotion-of-babylon-worries-doctors/) published at the British Medical Journal (BMJ), written by Rachel Clark, a doctor specialising in palliative medicine:

Matt Hancock loves Babylon so much he doesn’t merely use its smartphone app, GP at Hand, he gushes enthusiasm for the product at every opportunity. First, at Expo, he name-checked Babylon, among others, as one of the “world’s best HealthTech companies.” Then he gave a speech eulogising the company while literally standing beneath its logos (http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/controversy_grows_around_gp_at_hand_service_after_ministers_endorsement_1252569) inside its London HQ. Then in comments to The Telegraph he declared a breathless vision for the “revolutionary” app to be “available for all (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/12/hancock-attacks-nhs-block-progress-says-patients-should-able/)".

And, last week he featured in a double-page, Babylon-sponsored puff piece in the Evening Standard entitled “Technology can be a great fixer for the NHS.” Its centrepiece was an interview proclaiming Hancock’s ringing endorsement of Babylon: he declared GP at Hand to be “a force for good within the NHS (https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelondon/health/matt-hancock-on-ai-and-the-nhs-a3998006.html)”.

Although this detail may appear to be an excursus away from the involvement of the UK Government Covid–19 health advisory board in the promotion of global vaccine programmes, it serves as a further demonstration of the blurring of lines between commercial interests and the welfare of citizens. [my emphasis - Tintin)

1253537596342325248

This relationship is highlighted in legendary journalist John Pilger’s latest documentary The Dirty War on the NHS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHZcXrc9_wk), a film I cannot recommend highly enough for its stark portrayal of the stealth privatisation of the NHS. Babylon Health was founded by former Goldman Sachs banker Ali Parsa, who also co-founded and acted as CEO of a private healthcare company, Circle — the first private business to operate an NHS hospital. That hospital was Hinchingbrooke (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/09/circle-patients-hinchingbrooke-sick-dream-impossible), which proved to be a disastrous enterprise.

Babylon and Bill Gates
Yes, Bill Gates has a connection to Babylon, too. In March 2020, Babylon’s Rwanda-focused virtual care subsidiary, Babyl (https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/europe/babylon-inks-10-year-partnership-rwandan-government), signed a ten-year partnership with the Rwandan government (https://bereanresearch.org/the-year-rwanda-goes-purpose-driven-un-begins-biometric-registration-of-citizens/) giving every citizen over the age of 12 access to digital health consultations. The project is heavily subsidised by the Rwandan government and the Bill Gates Foundation and promises (!) to “make health care affordable” for even the poorest communities. Again, we must ask to what degree these apps are serving as surveillance instruments for government agencies.

The alleged war criminal and President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame (https://www.globalresearch.ca/rwanda-under-the-repressive-government-of-paul-kagame-washingtons-proxy-police-state/5500388), and Bill Gates proclaim: “Every vaccine (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/22/opinions/african-health-key-economic-growth-paul-kagame-bill-gates/index.html) is a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the African economy.”

Babylon and Covid–19

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Covid-care-assistant.jpg?x67792

Cue the Babylon Covid–19 Care Assistant app. The app provides a four step care programme to subscribers: information, symptom checker and live chat with healthcare experts, a care plan, and video consultation with a healthcare professional.

We are informed: “The app is free to download (https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1259222/Coronavirus-Symptom-Checker-iPhone-Android-App-UK). Using the service is free in Birmingham and London through the NHS. However, users located elsewhere will have to sign up for pay-as-you-go or annual subscriptions to the service. Annual plans start from £149. One-off consultations can cost as much as £49 each time.”

Cummings and Hancock — tag team that pushed for lockdown while promoting vaccines

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/dominic-cummings.jpg?x67792

Cummings is accused of pressuring Boris Johnson’s advisers to adopt a draconian lockdown policy to combat Covid–19. If this is true, it must raise the question, yet again, of how much the UK Government's policy is influenced by genuine medical expert opinion and how much by commercial, Big Pharma, interests and agendas — interests and agendas which are demonstrably also those of the UK Government.

Certainly, members of the scientific advisory committee “were shocked, concerned and worried for the impartiality of advice (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/attendees-of-sage-coronavirus-meetings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings)” after Cummings effectively gatecrashed the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergency (SAGE) meetings.

Just this week, Hancock warned (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1277698/Matt-Hancock-COVID19-vaccine-anti-vaxxers-coronavirus-Health-Secretary-latest-news-update) that there has been "no greater demonstration in modern history" of a need for a vaccine. Previously, in September 2019, Hancock had stated that the government was looking seriously at mandatory vaccines (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/29/government-seriously-considering-compulsory-vaccinations-matt-hancock) for state school pupils. Falling vaccination rates for children in the UK prompted Hancock to consider prohibiting self-determination among parents who do not agree with vaccination regimes.

The fact that Cummings used his influence to politicise the SAGE meetings, and that Hancock is not averse to using his influence to promote private sector businesses with links to the NHS, should alert us to the possibility that both individuals are exploiting Covid–19 to further the aims of those whom they are connected to and potentially profit from. Bill Gates takes pride of place at the heart of the advisory network that has introduced and maintained lockdown in the UK — a lockdown not to be relaxed “until a vaccine is available”.

Covid–19 is pushing us towards global health fascism

https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/vaccine.jpg?x67792

"One of the questions I get asked the most these days is when the world will be able to go back to the way things were in December before the coronavirus pandemic. My answer is always the same: when we have an almost perfect drug to treat COVID–19, or when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus." (Bill Gates — Gates Notes (https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-COVID-19-vaccine?WT.mc_id=20200430165003_COVID-19-vaccine_BG-TW&WT.tsrc=BGTW&linkId=87665522))

Covid–19 threatens an imminent “new normal” of global health tyranny and unprecedented government control and surveillance. The SAGE team was very likely derailed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XON2XeGDE6A&t=19m38s) by Cummings’ political agenda and undue influence that he brought to bear upon the committee, which should have remained impartial and science-focused.

The most influential members of the UK Government advisory team have demonstrated a blatant conflict of interest through their connections to the Bill Gates empire, but the British Government itself has invested heavily in the global immunisation concept that Gates is engineering (https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/the-gates-foundations-vaccination-activism) through all manner of public and private sector initiatives.

The WHO is the global health governing body and is heavily influenced and financed by Bill Gates. In January 2020, the WHO published its R&D blueprint (https://www.who.int/publications-detail/who-r-d-blueprint-novel-coronavirus-ncov-vaccine-prioritization-for-clinical-trials) prioritising novel Coronavirus vaccine clinical trials. The WHO's Working Group for Vaccine Prioritisation aimed in that blueprint to provide guidance and recommendations to vaccine developers and to identify candidates who could be considered for further development and evaluation.

The WHO is effectively a self-regulatory entity in charge of world health but with little public accountability, particularly where vaccines are concerned. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) (https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/communication/network/_gacvs/en/) was established by the WHO in 1999 to respond to vaccine safety issues of “potential global importance”.

Bill Gates is demanding indemnity (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/heres-why-bill-gates-wants-indemnity-are-you-willing-to-take-the-risk/) against lawsuits before he agrees to distribute vaccines. We are all being fast-tracked into a future where our medical self-determination is in serious jeopardy and where those who decide for us will, potentially, not be held accountable for any health-endangering side effects.

We have already seen the devastating consequences of mass immunisation during the H1N1 epidemic, with questionable Big Pharma transparency regarding risk, as found by those who were given a vaccination that left them brain damaged for life.

Experts in the field have warned against rushing through a Covid–19 vaccine, bearing in mind it can usually take up to fifteen years (https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-how-long-will-it-take-to-develop/) of rigorous testing prior to approval. Any attempt to compress this process must carry risks. Dr Peter Hotez, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters (https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-vaccine-quest-18-months-fauci-experts-flag-dangers-testing-2020-4?r=US&IR=T):

"I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general […] there is a risk of immune enhancement (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218)."

In 2009, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg initiated the Committee of Inquiry into the WHO's role in H1N1 ('swine flu') held by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. In this recent interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrBuv6kq6Rc&feature=youtu.be), Wodarg describes Bill Gates as “crazy” to be attempting to shortcut research and development. Wodarg also talks about the “secret contracts” between states and Big Pharma that perhaps determine the trajectory of vaccine development.

The H1N1 vaccine travesty must serve as a warning against precipitous vaccine development motivated by lockdown cabin fever, when the lockdown itself is looking more and more likely to be orchestrated to achieve precisely this outcome.

At the same time, as the possibility of compulsory vaccination is under discussion, the government intends to roll out a surveillance apparatus that will ensure forever-control over an already politically weakened workforce pushed ever deeper into financial insecurity, first by austerity measures and now by Covid–19.

It is very important to push back against the emotional triggering that is being generated by the state-aligned media and agencies. The behavioural insight experts are working hard to nudge us towards dependency on the state — but we must not surrender our individual and collective independence. We must determine the drivers behind this “crisis”, identify the causes, and deal with the symptoms without succumbing to fear or panic. It is not easy; but our futures depend upon our ability to see what is really going on and to respond accordingly.

*****

References:

Source URL: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown
Links [1] https://www.ukcolumn.org/coronavirus
[2] https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/who-controls-british-government-response-covid19-part-one
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/half-of-worlds-workers-at-immediate-risk-of-losing-livelihood-due-to-coronavirus
[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-uk-in-talks-with-id-startups-over-immunity-passports-2020-4
[5] https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3021415934619066
[6] https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/15/onfido-the-ai-based-id-verification-platform-raises-100m-led-by-tpg/
[7] https://www.biometricupdate.com/202004/uk-immunity-passport-proposals-leverage-biometric-facial-recognition
[8] https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/onfido
[9] https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/yoti
[10] https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/idnow
[11] https://www.biometricupdate.com/companies/idenfy
[12] http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/research-in-conversation/entrepreneurial-academics/husayn-kassai-and-onfido
[13] https://onfido.com/us/
[14] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/03/coronavirus-health-passports-for-uk-possible-in-months
[15] https://www.biometricupdate.com/202004/immunity-certificates-should-leverage-biometrics-to-alleviate-privacy-concerns-says-id2020s-executive-director
[16] https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153
[17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb9iaDoXJF8
[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYjjEB3Ev8&feature=youtu.be
[19] https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572
20] https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/glaxosmithkline-fails-to-warn-pandemic-flu-vaccine-s-alarming-safety-signal-bmj-report
[21] https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement_Jul2011/en/
[22] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-risks-research-nhs-lockdown-pandemrix-adjuvant-a9470306.html
[23] https://twitter.com/uksciencechief/status/1255828316096991232 [24] https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/british-government-enlists-astrazeneca-bia-for-new-pandemic-vaccine-taskforce
[25] https://www.genengnews.com/news/astrazeneca-joins-u-of-oxford-and-spinout-to-develop-covid-19-vaccine/
[26] https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/gsk-links-with-cepi-to-develop-a-vaccine-for-the-2019-ncov-virus
[27] https://cepi.net/news_cepi/2-billion-required-to-develop-a-vaccine-against-the-covid-19-virus/
[28] https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/new-partnership-between-gsk-and-the-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-to-accelerate-research-into-vaccines-for-global-healthneeds/
[29] https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/retired-chief-eu-epidemiologist-how-long-can-you-keep-lockdown-democracy
[30] https://www.aier.org/article/stand-up-for-your-rights-says-bio-statistican-knut-m-wittkowski/
[31] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Q4naYOYDw
[32] https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/28/coronavirus-hype-biggest-political-hoax-in-history/? utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR3S79hdIjN4mrU3i71O0 VGsyDngksPPGx664CzctEAJa1znf3WAC25OOVc
[33] https://flat.bio/story/154247/cepi-launches-3-accelerated-vaccine-development-pr/
[34] https://cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-announces-new-permanent-board/ [35] https://www.globalresearch.ca/after-the-lockdown-a-global-coronavirus-vaccination-program/5706547
[36] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/04/prof-chris-whitty-the-expert-we-need-in-the-coronavirus-crisis
[37] https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/global-coalition-invests-imperial-college-london-s-rna-vaccine-platform-to-fight-disease-x
[38] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/189447/tailor-made-disease-vaccines-created-million-project/
[39] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8HfTo5ofYY&t=62s
[40] https://sciencebusiness.net/news/good-progress-being-made-towards-covid-19-vaccine-says-epidemic-response-group
[41] https://www.gavi.org/news/media-room/coalition-epidemic-preparedness-innovation-turns-iffim-accelerate-funding-new
[42] https://www.gavi.org/investing/innovative-financing/iffim/
[43] https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/about
[44] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ29vgOpTQQ&t=1205s [45] https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/search?query=Bill+Gates&includeClosed=0
[46] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-its-humanity-against-the-virus
[47] https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/uk-vaccines-network
[48] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/827983/projects-currently-being-funded-by-ukvn.pdf
[49] https://www.ukri.org/news/20-million-rapid-response-for-novel-coronavirus-research/
[50] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaccine-update-issue-307-april-2020-world-immunization-week
[51] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882827/PHE_11652_VU_307_April_2020.pdf
[52] https://twitter.com/hashtag/carryonvaccinating
[53] https://twitter.com/VanessaBeeley/status/1255908325906173953 [54] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tX7qZ5lRPs&feature=youtu.be
[55] https://twitter.com/ShoebridgeC/status/1254364437982699523
[56] https://youtu.be/1_d8sNJ4o1g
[57] https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/behavioural-insights-second-team-leading-uk-governments-covid-19-response
[58] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-drug-development-to-transfer-to-new-state-owned-company
[59] http://www.portonbiopharma.com/
[60] https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1088390904858202112
[61] https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/22/palantir-coronavirus-contract-did-not-go-to-competitive-tender/
[62] https://www.babylonhealth.com/
[63] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2019-10-11/conflict-of-interest-questions-over-dominic-cummings-job-at-health-tech-firm-babylon [64] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/matt-hancock-accused-of-breaching-code-over-gp-app-endorsement
[65] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/12/04/rachel-clarke-why-matt-hancocks-promotion-of-babylon-worries-doctors/
[66] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/my-vision-for-a-more-tech-driven-nhs
[67] https://www.gponline.com/health-secretary-wants-loads-companies-follow-gp-hands-example/article/1492843
[68] http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/controversy_grows_around_gp_at_hand_service_after_ministers_endorsement_1252569
[69] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/12/hancock-attacks-nhs-block-progress-says-patients-should-able/
[70] https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelondon/health/matt-hancock-on-ai-and-the-nhs-a3998006.html
[71] https://twitter.com/johnpilger/status/1253537596342325248
[72] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHZcXrc9_wk
[73] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/09/circle-patients-hinchingbrooke-sick-dream-impossible
[74] https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/europe/babylon-inks-10-year-partnership-rwandan-government
[75] https://bereanresearch.org/the-year-rwanda-goes-purpose-driven-un-begins-biometric-registration-of-citizens/
[76] https://www.globalresearch.ca/rwanda-under-the-repressive-government-of-paul-kagame-washingtons-proxy-police-state/5500388
[77] https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/opinions/african-health-key-economic-growth-paul-kagame-bill-gates/index.html
[78] https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1259222/Coronavirus-Symptom-Checker-iPhone-Android-App-UK [79] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/attendees-of-sage-coronavirus-meetings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings
[80] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1277698/Matt-Hancock-COVID19-vaccine-anti-vaxxers-coronavirus-Health-Secretary-latest-news-update
[81] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/29/government-seriously-considering-compulsory-vaccinations-matt-hancock
[82] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-COVID-19-vaccine?WT.mc_id=20200430165003_COVID-19-vaccine_BGTW&WT.tsrc=BGTW&linkId=87665522
[83] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XON2XeGDE6A&t=19m38s [84] https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/the-gates-foundations-vaccination-activism
[85] https://www.who.int/publications-detail/who-r-d-blueprint-novel-coronavirus-ncov-vaccine-prioritization-for-clinical-trials
[86] https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/communication/network/_gacvs/en/
[87] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/heres-why-bill-gates-wants-indemnity-are-you-willing-to-take-the-risk/
[88] https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-vaccine-how-long-will-it-take-to-develop/
[89] https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-vaccine-quest-18-months-fauci-experts-flag-dangers-testing-2020-4
[90] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218
[91] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrBuv6kq6Rc&feature=youtu.be
[92] https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=COVID–19: The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharmaplayers-behind-uk-government-lockdown&via=ukcolumn
[93] https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown
[94] https://www.ukcolumn.org/print/article/covid%E2%80%9319-big-pharma-players-behind-uk-government-lockdown

silvanelf

14th May 2020, 15:28

There are many ancient edifices that must be scrutinized because it is these institutions that have lead us to where we are today. If they are not directly responsible for our current plight, they most certainly were not helpful.

We cannot expect every generation to check our facts before adding to them. We must ensure future generations have solid data with irrefutable conclusions to draw on so that their work does not teeter on a foundation of suppositions and assumptions masquerading as fact.

Although we cannot repeatedly reinvent the wheel, we can develop better ways of getting 'around'.

You got everything upside down. The requirement to check our facts before adding to them is a crucial aspect of the scientific method. On the other hand, the desire to have "irrefutable conclusions to draw on" would lead to dogma and blind faith. The basic idea of "irrefutable conclusions" is a dangerous illusion, because that's not the way science is done.

Ernie Nemeth

14th May 2020, 17:16

Tintin

14th May 2020, 17:23

Irrefutable conclusions are not facts, necessarily.

The basic idea of "irrefutable conclusions" is a dangerous illusion, because that's not the way science is done.

That is a conclusion very close to what I would offer, so what's the beef?

Science is just a best guess scenario, mostly based on the concerns of vested interests. It is a story, like history, written by those that managed to gain prominence, often undeserved. Also, we should not confuse technology with scientific advancement. This society is expert at turning small understandings into million dollar gadgets. But the philosophy of science is still in the dark ages, trying to reconcile observation with theory.

One might also add, and inspired by a recent Chris Martenson slide, the following quote from Upton Sinclair as it relates to those vested interests and the gun behind the head most likely being deployed to proponents of certain aspects of mainstream science and a kind of cowardice. Science, when done properly and thoroughly is of course a good thing, but when it starts to become as untrustworthy and corruptible as (arguably) other types of belief systems, we're in trouble, or not, depending upon how courageous (sic) we are.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

Ernie Nemeth

14th May 2020, 17:42

This is an odd situation where we have to contrast the fact that...something is sketchy and unknown and not as dangerous as we may be led to believe, but, there must be some places where sickness and death is a bit beyond the norm. I mean, we could toss all the statistics out the window, but it is hard to ignore an overly-large pile of bodies.

This image speaks for itself:

Workers bury the dead in mass grave on New York City's Hart Island amid coronavirus outbreak

following the link to the pic is this tid bit:

Borrowing from Wittgenstein’s and Drury’s ideas, this article shows that, by overlooking Wittgenstein’s message about the danger of words and the importance of the grammar and clarification of concepts, some developmentalists sometimes fall prey to the fallacy of the alchemists, the fallacy of Molière’s doctor, the fallacy of the “missing hippopotamus”, the fallacy of Van Helmont, and the fallacy of “Pickwickian senses”. As a result of these fallacies, the field of development (and psychology) is paved with ungrounded concepts, circular explanations, untenable reifications, misleading and nonsensical conclusions, and a mix-up of language-games. We suggest that to remedy this state of affairs psychologists should not ignore or overlook Wittgenstein’s message about the danger of words to bewitch our thought, and should take his conceptual or grammatical investigations, not suspiciously, but as a preliminary and indispensable step to set the stage for appropriate factual and factual investigations, and for intelligible, coherent, and meaningful theoretical presumptions.

at this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283944846_The_danger_of_words_A_Wittgensteinian_lesson_for_developmentalists
following the link to the picture brings up this tid bit:

Borrowing from Wittgenstein’s and Drury’s ideas, this article shows that, by overlooking Wittgenstein’s message about the danger of words and the importance of the grammar and clarification of concepts, some developmentalists sometimes fall prey to the fallacy of the alchemists, the fallacy of Molière’s doctor, the fallacy of the “missing hippopotamus”, the fallacy of Van Helmont, and the fallacy of “Pickwickian senses”. As a result of these fallacies, the field of development (and psychology) is paved with ungrounded concepts, circular explanations, untenable reifications, misleading and nonsensical conclusions, and a mix-up of language-games. We suggest that to remedy this state of affairs psychologists should not ignore or overlook Wittgenstein’s message about the danger of words to bewitch our thought, and should take his conceptual or grammatical investigations, not suspiciously, but as a preliminary and indispensable step to set the stage for appropriate factual and factual investigations, and for intelligible, coherent, and meaningful theoretical presumptions.

from this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283944846_The_danger_of_words_A_Wittgensteinian_lesson_for_developmentalists

https://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20200410&t=2&i=1514690819&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=2020-04-10T153014Z_15367_MRPRC241G9CWATJ_RTRMADP_0_HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS-USA-HART-ISLAND

source; https://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20200410&t=2&i=1514690819&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=2020-04-10T153014Z_15367_MRPRC241G9CWATJ_RTRMADP_0_HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS-USA-HART-ISLAND

This rattled me for a moment. Then I thought about it a little deeper. I thought, what if one of these bodies was my loved one?

You know what I realized: who the heck are these dead people, that there are no mourners present, no one that claimed the bodies, no one who wanted a memorial?

And then I thought, these must be street people that have no one. But by looking at the number of coffins, about 50, there is no way that many died without any one noticing the crews scraping them off the pavement throughout the city. Some one would have said something, no?

I can only conclude this a staged event for the mainstream media to elevate the background fear.

It is a haunting image, until you think about it a bit more.

the link to the pic is this site:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283944846_The_danger_of_words_A_Wittgensteinian_lesson_for_developmentalists

and the blurb at the top caught my eye:

Borrowing from Wittgenstein’s and Drury’s ideas, this article shows that, by overlooking Wittgenstein’s message about the danger of words and the importance of the grammar and clarification of concepts, some developmentalists sometimes fall prey to the fallacy of the alchemists, the fallacy of Molière’s doctor, the fallacy of the “missing hippopotamus”, the fallacy of Van Helmont, and the fallacy of “Pickwickian senses”. As a result of these fallacies, the field of development (and psychology) is paved with ungrounded concepts, circular explanations, untenable reifications, misleading and nonsensical conclusions, and a mix-up of language-games. We suggest that to remedy this state of affairs psychologists should not ignore or overlook Wittgenstein’s message about the danger of words to bewitch our thought, and should take his conceptual or grammatical investigations, not suspiciously, but as a preliminary and indispensable step to set the stage for appropriate factual and factual investigations, and for intelligible, coherent, and meaningful theoretical presumptions.

good find

shaberon

15th May 2020, 01:47

You know what I realized: who the heck are these dead people, that there are no mourners present, no one that claimed the bodies, no one who wanted a memorial?

And then I thought, these must be street people that have no one. But by looking at the number of coffins, about 50, there is no way that many died without any one noticing the crews scraping them off the pavement throughout the city. Some one would have said something, no?

I can only conclude this a staged event for the mainstream media to elevate the background fear.

Not quite. It's just poor people. "Unclaimed" bodies in the sense that no one bought a memorial or any kind of plot or will pay for them to be cremated.

Actual retail price of merely a cardboard box which is required for cremation = $150.

Those are not all unidentified or being hidden, they are prepared for easy access if someone needs it later.

Normal NYC behavior is 419 deaths per day with a few poor being "stored" twice weekly, nothing like this.

Just to monkey wrench some other statistic, the editor of Information Clearing House has been out for a week with pneumonia and came up covid negative.

Ernie Nemeth

15th May 2020, 15:46

Gwin Ru

16th May 2020, 21:07

Just How Inflated Are Coronavirus Death Counts, Exactly? (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/05/15/just-how-inflated-are-coronavirus-death-counts-exactly-n394897)

By Tyler O'Neil (https://pjmedia.com/columnist/tyler-o-neil) May 15, 2020 4:07 PM EST

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/o/2020/134/562b6b3e-9ba9-4d6c-a2a9-29d98ee2d61b-730x487.jpg
AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Last month, New York funeral home directors blew the whistle (https://pjmedia.com/columns/tyler-o-neil/2020/04/30/why-exactly-are-funeral-homes-falsely-writing-covid-19-on-death-certificates-n387218) about inflated coronavirus death numbers. Death certificates mark “COVID-19” as the cause of death even when the deceased hadn’t tested positive for coronavirus, much less actually died of the virus. This week, a San Diego county supervisor suggested the numbers are even more inflated.

“We’ve unfortunately had six pure, solely coronavirus deaths — six out of 3.3 million people,” County Supervisor Jim Desmond said on the radio show Armstrong & Getty Extra Large Interviews., The San Diego Union-Tribune reported (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2020-05-13/supervisor-jim-desmond-says-san-diego-has-only-had-six-pure-coronavirus-deaths). San Diego County had reported roughly 190 deaths at the time — the current number is 200.

Desmond went on to criticize California’s lockdown.
“I mean, what number are we trying to get to with those odds. I mean, it’s incredible. We want to be safe, and we can do it, but unfortunately, it’s more about control than getting the economy going again and keeping people safe,” he said.
In short, Desmond was suggesting that while COVID-19 may have contributed to the 190 deaths, most of those deaths were due in part to previous, unrelated health concerns.

Indeed, the disease has proven most deadly for people with underlying health conditions, so it stands to reason that “pure, solely coronavirus deaths” would be the minority — perhaps even just 3.2 percent of the total recorded deaths, as Desmond suggested.

As of Friday afternoon, there have been 87,218 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the U.S. If Desmond’s claim is accurate and if that 3.2 percent rate holds across the country, and discounting the death certificate inflation, that would mean there are only 2,891 “pure, solely coronavirus deaths” in the U.S.

This is a rough estimate and it would be extremely difficult to confirm. Furthermore, there is little reason to dismiss a death when coronavirus has indeed contributed to it. If someone already had a serious case of asthma, got coronavirus, and died, it would be fair to say coronavirus contributed to the death.

However, the likelihood that “pure, solely coronavirus deaths” are so low does make a difference when analyzing the pandemic in terms of years of life lost, an important measurement. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) applies a principle (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000741.htm) that “the allocation of health resources must consider not only the number of deaths by cause but also by age.” Therefore, the CDC explains that the “years of potential life lost” is a useful figure — not because the lives of young people are more important than the lives of the elderly, but because humans can only delay death, not prevent it, and beause there is a difference between a disease that kills a 20-year-old in the prime of her life and one that kills a 90-year-old who would have otherwise died a month later.

Taking this figure, James Agresti and Andrew Glen at Just Facts (https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_anxiety_lockdowns_life_destroyed_saved) compared the maximum years of life the lockdowns could possibly save and compared it to the years of life lost from the anxiety surrounding the pandemic, including lockdown anxiety. “The anxiety from reactions to Covid-19—such as business shutdowns, stay-at-home orders, media exaggerations, and legitimate concerns about the virus—will extinguish at least seven times more years of life than can possibly be saved by the lockdowns,” they concluded.

Since COVID-19 robs an average of 12 years of life (https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75/v1) from its victims, the lockdowns could save no more than 7.4 million years of life. Meanwhile, the anxiety and stress of the pandemic will cost 42.9 million Americans an average of 1.3 years of life, thus destroying 55.7 million years of life.

The coronavirus anxiety and stress cost at least 7.5 times more in terms of years of life than the lockdowns could possibly save, according to Just Facts.

If Jim Desmond is correct about the low rate of “pure, solely coronavirus deaths,” then COVID-19 may take even fewer years of life from its victims, thus bolstering the case against the lockdowns even further.

Americans would be wrong to only consider “pure, solely coronavirus deaths” in their analysis of the coronavirus pandemic. Even when COVID-19 only exacerbates a pre-existing condition and causes death that way, that death is tragic and rightly considered part of the pandemic. However, his claim raises two questions about reported deaths. If there are “pure” coronavirus deaths, are there “impure” ones? Did some people who tested positive for the virus nevertheless die of something else entirely?

There may be four types of recorded coronavirus deaths:
(1) deaths only caused by COVID-19 (roughly 3 percent),

(2) deaths in which COVID-19 ended the life of someone already struggling with health conditions,

(3) deaths from other causes but after a patient had tested positive for the virus, and

(4) deaths falsely marked “COVID-19” when there was not even a test.
Deaths of type 1 and 2 are rightly considered coronavirus deaths, while deaths of type 3 are much harder to distinguish from type 2, and deaths of type 4 are completely inflating the numbers.

Americans cannot claim there have only been 2,891 deaths from the coronavirus pandemic, but they should be skeptical about the 87,218 number. The true number of coronavirus deaths is likely to be smaller.

Related:

Why Exactly Are Funeral Homes Falsely Writing ‘COVID-19’ on Death Certificates? (https://pjmedia.com/columns/tyler-o-neil/2020/04/30/why-exactly-are-funeral-homes-falsely-writing-covid-19-on-death-certificates-n387218)

shaberon

16th May 2020, 23:09

Not quite. It's just poor people. "Unclaimed" bodies in the sense that no one bought a memorial or any kind of plot or will pay for them to be cremated.

Actual retail price of merely a cardboard box which is required for cremation = $150.

huh

I didn't know that. Sounds barbaric and a waste of space.

In Canada, as far as I know, if no one claims the body everyone is cremated (ie with our tax dollars).

It is, but, they may be retrieved for forensics related to a crime, or, a relative might come along next year and claim the remains. Because the amount is so large right now, that is why there are so many in one place, they expect to move a bunch of them later.

Usually the generic disposal in the US is pine box/city plot. I believe most if not all the crematories are private, for-profit businesses, with an inspectable level of activities that you just don't want to know about. The box is just a box, which you have to buy in addition to the cremation process, so if you don't have money, you have little control over what may happen to your body or that of someone you know.

There may be a few exceptions, but it's definitely a business in a big way.

There also seems to be a growing word that lockdown has no effect on the trajectory of the disease, in a way that is penetrating the establishment and they will be unable to avoid the repercussions of that belief, in almost a literal sense of Sweden looking more reliable than the UK. "Phase Two" of the establishment reaction with personal surveillance/tracking and various "mandatory medical items" still sounds about as useful as the Ferguson/Fauci vein of science combined with the paradoxical praxis, "a few hundred people are sick, quit working and go home; oh, a few million are sick, now everybody march this way!"

Stealthy Monk

16th May 2020, 23:44

A 3-minute excerpt from the banned documentary "Plandemic" featuring Dr Judy Mikovits, which had 1.5 million views before it was removed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzLpfpRcpzc&
Note: a link to the full documentary is in the video description.

shaberon

17th May 2020, 03:07

There keeps being a specific twist of disinformation as in post 292 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1355904&viewfull=1#post1355904) which seems to me has always made political issues less understandable.

With respect just to coronavirus, I have already seen more than once "Mainstream Media won't touch this" where I can immediately turn around and find it has.

Another view opts that the corresponding economic grim reaper came from the World Economic Forum in Davos, 2020.

There was nothing in the entire program that expressed the least bit of awareness of anything that has happened or that there is even such a thing as a virus. In fact, it was explicitly stated that although it looks like finance is about to go haywire, there is no reason to panic sell your stakes. This could perhaps be a very divergent view as happened in the Senate Intelligence Committee around the same time.

The Forum--which is something like a fifty-year tradition of Al Gore sitting around promoting stakeholder capitalism--was informed by Marc Benioff, Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Salesforce, "Capitalism as we have known it is dead. This obsession with maximising profits for shareholders alone has lead to a climate emergency."

The focus strongly remained climate change. The main driving obsession could be called "world change", as seen in the almost surreal view of an almost normal person (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/how-to-change-the-world-at-davos/) who was invited.

Right beside Benioff's quote (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/top-stories-from-the-week-in-davos-2020/) is a new Davos Manifesto, which is also not the type of message normally associated with grubby capitalists. It is as if they have realized they need to dish out better treatment in order to insure their own survival.

Note this is Al Gore's hangout. Foreign Affairs (https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2020/sessions/the-future-of-american-leadership-abroad) simply makes a showing like anyone else. This being the same as the Council on Foreign Relations and U. S. State Department.

And so it is something like two veins making one vessel, which historically had been enemies. The first is more from the Old World, Continental Europe, EU, the Pope, to the Jesuits, Anti-Masonic Party, the Whigs, Nesta Webster, appearing in Britain distinctly certainly at the time of the Boer War and subsequently British Union of Fascists, in the U. S. as General MacArthur, American Security Council, John Birch Society, Alex Jones and Jeff Rense.

Before this happened, Britain could be said to have launched Zionism with Oliver Cromwell and making the financial system as we have it with Bank of England. And so with the onset of Fabianism, again, here is something that at first was not what it turned out to be later. From them you get the London School of Economics. The leanings of the thing could be anywhere from communist to pro-Soviet. Only at this point do you really have an international power nucleus in the sense that we know it, and with the Boer War you have the first national propaganda machine designed as a simple tool to mobilize the population in support of an obviously capitalist war.

In other words, this capitalism as Davos intends to promote, is the capitalism which ran the Boer War as a prelude to the more well-known ones. More or less openly, right under their noses, nothing very murky or disputable.

It appears that there is a tiny fascist corporatist kernel which simply sits in the middle of a populist communist umbrella. It seems to have grown in the concept of Synarchy, achieved power within the Fabians/LSE, and from there, achieved international ability to manipulate world war.

The reason the post-WWII Anti-Communists in the U. S. were too late was because via the Fed, FDR, and so forth, the communistic state had already largely been achieved. This, however, does not prevent various Nazis or other fascists from being accepted in the American system.

So although there is rivalry and competition between these factions, we see them dancing around the same Maypole of capitalism. I would say it is capitalism, itself, that is trying to sell us vaccines and so forth, and that the propaganda war between the two sides is futile, since neither side is a viable option. Either one is interested in world domination with slightly different styles.

Ernie Nemeth

17th May 2020, 15:41

To address the similarity between communism and fascism:

We have been trained to see these two ideologies as existing on a sliding scale of ideologies, denoting their left and right ideologues.

Yet if one examines these two extremes, supposedly antipodes of the political spectrum, the similarities are more striking than the differences. Each is beholden to the state. One side wants to distribute wealth equitably, the other wants to leverage that wealth equability. But either way the result is a dictatorial form of government where the citizen suffers.

We are told that democracy lies somewhere in the middle, and is the only fair and equitable means to run a country 'by the people'. Yet we see that even that is but a facade for the fact that we have no power and we have no say because our leaders are not held accountable to their platform promises. So leaders in the 'free' world just have to say what the people want to hear in order to be elected and then can renege on every promise.

It should be obvious that we are not free and that we do not have a say in the trajectory of the future. We are held rapt by propaganda, unable to decipher the morass of lies and deceit that keep us hog-tied and captive. Lead by the nose like livestock.

shaberon

18th May 2020, 04:47

We are told that democracy lies somewhere in the middle, and is the only fair and equitable means to run a country 'by the people'. Yet we see that even that is but a facade for the fact that we have no power and we have no say because our leaders are not held accountable to their platform promises.

This is the daily confession. Bearers of the message should perhaps be held accountable for the deception.

Other countries are different, but, the United States was founded to prevent democracy. In general, it was viewed as "a situation where a minority can be easily oppressed".

The democracy they currently speak of, is the government that has citizen subjects. The United States was not founded to make any citizen subjects. You join it like a glee club. Then you are stuck in the populist communist glob of statutory laws and foreign allegiance to the IMF and UN.

Democracy is like a populist term for communism to enforce capitalism.

If your Constitution refers to you as a citizen or something like that, you better grab your legal dictionary and figure out what this means.

I believe the world is big enough to have a few countries where the people say "yes, government, I will be your vassal" freely and willingly. We almost have one where "you, government, are the public servant", but people have forgotten what this means.

Gemma13

18th May 2020, 10:46

Ernie Nemeth

18th May 2020, 11:44

That video above says it all, and then some!

So heartening to see such courage. Just when I was starting to despair.

greybeard

18th May 2020, 15:20

Quite a few in UK and Era are coming out with Main News Paper articles.
Videos too.
People are protesting in the parks and being arrested for it.
There is a ground swell.
Im getting optimistic.

Chris

Luke Holiday

19th May 2020, 02:23

Great article sourced by an MD/JD on how/why CV 19 deaths are being greatly exaggerated.

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnrlottjr/2020/05/16/the-us-is-dramatically-overcounting-coronavirus-deaths-n2568925

Luke Holiday

19th May 2020, 02:35

Great video featuring an Orange County board certified Family Practice Physician of 30 years discussing the many problems with California's handling/policies of the CV 19 crisis and the pushing of MSM narrative

He points out how he has been viciously attacked/threatened on social media, by collegues and even friends/neighbors for simply pointing out the obvious glaring agenda fueled discrepencies.]

He also talks about the problems he is having Prescribing hydroxychloroquine - the drug POTUS claims to be taking to prevent CV 19 symptoms. I have prosted prior on the Mechanism of action of this drug not being anti-viral but being a drug that is typically used for Malaria as it prevents the denaturing of Heme ( in Red blood cells thus allowing Oxygen to attatch. :

I believe POTUS statement of this drug's use may be a subtle/coded way of telling us the real cause: ie 5 G - as the frequencies being used have been proven to denature the Heme molecule thus causing symptoms of Hypoxia.

Video is only 20 minutes, the Doc is very articulate and easy to listen too

Blessings luke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ir6np7iCE

DaveToo

19th May 2020, 03:05

Dr Yvette Lozano from Dallas, Texas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SjZAsT43MI

Looks like they won.

https://thetexan.news/pharmacy-board-loosens-restrictions-on-hydroxychloroquine-prescriptions-reversing-course/

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy issued a new rule that no prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine could be dispensed without a diagnosis, then changed their tune.

Yes they won and we won too!

I was able to watch/save the video before Youtube removed it.

We know we are on the right track and winning when Youtube censors the truth.

It's the best barometer.

You see, Youtube, Google, WHO, the CDC etc. want as many Covid deaths as possible so their plandemic can be as effective as possible for them.

When 'rogue' doctors such this one use hydroxychloroquine to cure patients they become a thorn in their side. "How dare they mess with our CV death count!"

onawah

19th May 2020, 18:31

COVID19 Testing: What are we doing? What does it mean?
POSTED BY: VAXXTERADMIN2 05/18/2020
by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM
https://vaxxter.com/covid19-testing-what-are-we-doing-what-does-it-mean/

(Many hyperlinks in the article, not embedded here)
"In 1965, scientists identified the first human coronavirus; it was associated with the common cold. The Coronavirus family, named for their crown-like appearance, currently includes 36 viruses. Within that group, there are 4 common viruses that have been causing infection in humans for more than sixty years. In addition, three pandemic coronaviruses that can infect humans: SARS, MERS, and now, SARS-CoV-2.

As the news of deaths in China, South Korea, Italy, and Iran began to saturate every form of media 24/7, we became familiar with a new term: COVID-19. To be clear, the name of the newly identified coronavirus is SARS-CoV-2, short for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2. This virus is associated with fever, cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath, the complex of symptoms that form the diagnosis of COVID-19.

The Trump administration declared a public health emergency on January 31, 2020, then on February 2 placed a ban on the entry of most travelers who had recently been in China. On February 4, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a declaration of public health emergency and activated the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, otherwise known as the PREP Act. This nefarious legislation provides complete protection of manufacturers from liability for all products, technologies, biologics, or any vaccine developed as a medical countermeasure against COVID-19. For those nervously waiting for the vaccine to become available, be sure to understand the PREP Act before rushing to the get in line.

Calls for testing – to see if a person is or isn’t infected – began soon after the emergency was declared, but performing those tests was initially slow due to an inadequate number of test kits. As the kits became available, those developed by the CDC had a defect: The reagents reacted to the negative control sample, making the test inaccurate and the kits unusable.

In various countries, thousands of test kits purchased from China were found to be contaminated with the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. No one really knows how that happened, but theories spread like wildfire. Could the test kit infect the person being tested? Or, did it mean the test would return a false-positive result, driving up the numbers of those said to be infected so those in power could implement stronger lockdowns and accelerate the hockey-stick unemployment rates? Neither of those questions has been adequately answered.

Mandatory Testing…of what?
Authorities claim that testing is important for public health officials to assess if their mitigation efforts – “shelter in place” and “social distancing” and “wearing a mask” – are making a difference to “flatten the curve.” Officials also claim that testing is necessary to know how many persons are infected within a community and to understand the nature of how coronaviruses spread.

Are these reasons sufficient to give up our health freedom and our personal rights, being tested and shamed in public?

Despite the challenges with test kits, testing began. By the end of March 2020, more than 1 million people had been tested across the US. By May 9, the number tested had grown to over 8.7M. Testing methods include a swab of the nasal passages or by inserting a long, uncomfortable swab through the nose to scrape the back of the throat. Specimens have also been obtained bronchoalveolar lavage, from sputum, and from stool specimens.

The call for mandatory testing has been gathering steam and becoming ever more onerous. In Washington state, Governor Inslee has declared:

Individuals that refuse to cooperate with contact tracers and/or refuse testing, those individuals will not be allowed to leave their homes to purchase basic necessities such as groceries and/or prescriptions. Those persons will need to make arrangements through friends, family, or state provided ‘family support’ personnel.

But what do the results really mean?

Who Should Be Tested
On May 8, 2020, the CDC has listed specific priorities for when testing should be done. As of May 16, more than 11-million samples have been collected and more than 3700 specimens have not yet been evaluated.

High Priority

Hospitalized patients with symptoms
Healthcare facility workers, workers in living settings, and first responders with symptoms
Residents in long-term care facilities or other congregate living settings, including prisons and shelters, with symptoms
Priority

Persons with symptoms of potential COVID-19 infection, including fever, cough, shortness of breath, chills, muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, vomiting or diarrhea, and/or sore throat
Persons without symptoms who are prioritized by health departments or clinicians, for any reason, including but not limited to public health monitoring, sentinel surveillance, or screening of asymptomatic individuals according to state and local plans.
Read that last priority again: That means virtually everyone can be required to get a test.

Is that a violation of your personal rights? And, if you submit to testing, what does a “positive test” actually mean?

Types of Testing: RT-PCR
PCR, short for polymerase chain reaction, is a highly specific laboratory technique. The key to understanding PCR testing is that PCR can identify an individual specific virus within a viral family.

However, a PCR test can only be used to identify DNA viruses; the SARS-CoV2 virus is an RNA virus. Therefore, multiple steps must be taken to “magnify” the amount of genetic material in the specimen. Researchers used a method called RT-PCR, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, to specifically identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It’s a complicated process. To read more about it, go here and here.

If a nasal or a blood sample contains a tiny snip of RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, RT-PCR can identify it, leading to a high probability that the person has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

However – and this is important – a positive RT-PCR test result does not necessarily indicate a full virus is present. The virus must be fully intact to be transmitted and cause illness.

RT-PCR Testing: The Importance of Timing
Even if a person has had all the symptoms associated with a coronavirus infection or has been closely exposed to persons who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the probability of a RT-PCR test being positive decreases with the number of days past the onset of symptoms.

According to a study done by Paul Wikramaratna and others:

For a nasal swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 94% on day 0 to about 67% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 2% chance of a positive result.
For a throat swab, the percentage chance of a positive test declines from about 88% on day 0 to about 47% by day 10. By day 31, there is only a 1% chance of a positive result.
In other words, the longer the time frame between the onset of symptoms and the time a person is tested, the more likely the test will be negative.

Repeat testing of persons who have a negative test may (eventually) confirm the presence of viral RNA, but this is impractical. Additionally, repeated testing of the same person can lead to even more confusing results: The test may go from negative, to positive, then back to negative again as the immune system clears out the coronavirus infection and moves to recovery.

And what makes this testing even more confusing is that the FDA admits that “The detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR does not necessarily equate with an infectious virus.”

Let’s break that down:

You’ve had all the symptoms of COVID19, but your RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is negative.

Does that mean you’re “good to go” – you can go to work, go to school or you can travel? OR…
Does that mean your influenza-like illness was caused by some other pathogen, possibly one of the four coronaviruses that have been in circulation for 60 years? OR…
Does that mean the result is a false-negative and you still have the infection, but it isn’t detectable by current tests? OR…
Does that mean it was a sample was inadequately taken due to the faulty technique by the technician? OR…
Does that mean you have not been exposed, and you are susceptible to contracting the infection, and you need to stay in quarantine?
So, what does a “positive” test actually mean? And that’s the problem:

No one knows for sure.

Another Type of Testing: Antibodies
According to the nonprofit Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), more than 200 serologic blood tests, to test for antibodies, are either now available or in development.

There are two primary types of antibodies that are assessed for nearly any type of infection: IgM and IgG. While several new testing devices are being touted as a home test, they are not the same as a home pregnancy test or a glucometer to you’re your blood sugar. The blood spot or saliva specimen can be collected at home, must it must then be sent to a laboratory for analysis. It can take a few days – or longer – to get the results. With so many tests in the pipeline, the ability to test at home will be changing over time.

The first antibody to rise is IgM. It rises quickly after the onset of the infection and is usually a sign of an acute, or current, infection. The IgM levels diminish quickly as the infection resolves. The FDA admits they do not know how long the IgM remains present for SARS-CoV-2 as the infection is being cleared.

The interpretation of an IgG antibody is more difficult. This antibody is an indicator of a past infection. The test is often not specific enough to determine if the past infection was caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus or one of the four common coronaviruses that cause influenza-like illness.

The FDA says:

Because serology testing can yield a negative test result even if the patient is actively infected (e.g., the body has not yet developed in response to the virus) or maybe falsely positive (e.g., if the antibody indicates a past infection by a different coronavirus), this type of testing should not be used to diagnose an acute or active COVID-19 infection.

Similarly, the CDC says the following regarding antibody testing:

If you test positive:
A positive test result shows you have antibodies as a result of an infection with SARS-CoV-2, or possibly a related coronavirus.
It’s unclear if those antibodies can provide protection (immunity) against getting infected again. This means that we do not know at this time if antibodies make you immune to the virus.
If you have no symptoms, you likely do not have an active infection and no additional follow-up is needed.
It’s possible you might test positive for antibodies and you might not have or have ever had symptoms of COVID-19. This is known as having an asymptomatic infection [ie you have a healthy immune system!]
An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
If you test negative
If you test negative for antibodies, you probably did not have a previous infection. However, you could have a current infection because antibodies don’t show up for 1 to 3 weeks after infection.
Some people may take even longer to develop antibodies, and some people may not develop antibodies.
An antibody test cannot tell if you are currently sick with COVID-19.
What? Wait!

Doesn’t the vaccine industry call the IgG a “protective antibody”?
Isn’t this the marker of immunity they assess after you’ve had an infection with measles or chickenpox or mumps to determine if you are immune to future infections?
Isn’t this the marker of induced immunity they are trying to achieve by administering a vaccine?
If the FDA does not know if an IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 after recovering from the infection is protective against a future infection, then they certainly don’t know if an antibody caused by a vaccine will prevent infection either.

Doesn’t this completely eliminate the theory that antibodies afford protection and antibodies from vaccines are necessary to keep you from getting sick?

Mandatory Testing – New Job Creation
Illinois U.S. Rep. Bobby L. Rush introduced the H.R. 6666 TRACE Act on May 1. On his website, Rush said,

Until we have a vaccine to defeat this dreaded disease, contact tracing in order to understand the full breadth and depth of the spread of this virus is the only way we will be able to get out from under this.

H.R.6666 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the CDC to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing and then to trace and monitor the contacts of infected individuals. The contact tracers would be authorized to test people in their homes and as necessary, quarantine people in place.

Where do they intend to do this testing? Besides mobile units to test people in their homes, the bill identifies eight specific locations where the testing and contract tracing could occur: schools, health clinics, universities, churches, and “any other type of entity” the secretary of HHS wants to use.

The bill would allocate $100 billion in 2020 “and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues.”

But what are they looking for?

Is your test supposed to be positive – saying you’ve been exposed and you’ve possibly recovered?
Or is your test supposed to be negative, meaning, you are healthy?
Or does a completely negative test – negative RT-PCR test and no IgG antibody mean you’re susceptible to infection and you need to stay in quarantine?
The virus is rapidly mutating, which is rather typical of RNA viruses. In a study published in April 2020, researchers have discovered that the novel coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations. If your RT-PCR test is positive, does this identify exposure to the pandemic virus or exposure to one of the genetic variations? The same can be said about the vaccines under development: With each mutation, is the vaccine more likely to be all risk and no benefit when it reaches the market?

What You Can Do
Across the nation, police are being told to not apprehend criminals but instead, to arrest parents at playgrounds, to arrest lone surfers on public beaches, to fine ministers and congregation members sitting in their cars listening to a service on the radio, and to restrict movement by creating one-way sidewalks.

People have had enough. They are beginning to see the huge scam that has been perpetrated on the entire world over a viral infection with a global death rate of 1.4% (meaning, 1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover). This is far fewer deaths than a severe flu season.

We’re already starting to see the thrust to take our power back:

In Virginia, people went to the beaches en mass, ignoring social distancing and the orders of the Governor to stay home.
The central California city of Atwater has declared itself a “sanctuary city,” allowing business owners and churches to open, openly defying Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s coronavirus-related stay-at-home order.
The truth about wearing masks is starting to come out and people are voting with their feet. Retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, warns that not only do face masks fail to protect healthy people from contracting an illness, but they create serious health risks to the wearer.
While they shut us down and held us hostage in our homes, they changed our society, our lives, our world.

I am not willing to accept this is the “new normal.”
I won’t submit to testing.
I will refuse mandatory vaccination.
I will stop wearing a mask.
I will not be afraid of standing next to a friend or family member and will not obey the concept of “social distancing.”
I will understand that an asymptomatic carrier is a normal, healthy person and I will not buy into the fear that I might “catch something” from a normal, healthy person.
It’s time for Americans to resist with non-violent civil disobedience. Be brave. Be bold. Put on the full armor of God, as found in Ephesians 6:10-20 in the Bible, to stand against the world rulers of this present darkness. With God on our side, all things are possible."

onawah

19th May 2020, 19:01

The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 19, 2020
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/19/smoking-gun-proving-sars-cov-2-was-lab-created.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20200519Z1&et_cid=DM540618&et_rid=875315177

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The National Institutes of Health have in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China
Gain of function research refers to research in which pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced to make a pathogen more dangerous to humans
To gain entry into a cell, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved. Without this protein cleavage, the virus would be unable to enter
There are several enzymes that cleave spike proteins, including plasmin, which also degrades fibrin. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created, and many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots
Another protein cleaver is furin, and the presence of a furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2 is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created
Since the breakout of COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and those suspicions are only getting stronger.

As reported1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This research was backed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House pandemic response team. According to Newsweek:2

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

As noted by GM Watch,3 “Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated its assessment of the origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices.’"

Unfortunately, mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and 4 laboratories. Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.4

Mainstream media journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In his May 4, 2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,5 who has a Ph.D. in pathology, carefully details the science behind his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory manipulation. The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still existed.

What Is Gain of Function?
As explained by Martenson, gain of function research refers to research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced. In other words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease. They also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct experiments to make them transmissible to humans.

As noted by Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions naturally, there’s not a shred of evidence suggesting we’ve learned anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2. If we’re not actually learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research, then why are we doing it?

Martenson goes on to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your cells. This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering into and infecting a cell.

To gain entry, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further.

There are several enzymes that can do this job, including plasmin and furin. Plasmin, which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin — plasma protein that can cause blood clots. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created.

As explained in “Might Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?” many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots.

Martenson also cites the review paper6 “Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19 Susceptibility,” which found that COVID-19 patients who have comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness (i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of plasmin.

In other words, it’s this elevated plasmin that — at least in part — puts these people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection. In his May 6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem encountered in many COVID-19 patients. As he points out, COVID-19 is “really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder,” than a normal lung infection.wJzGqVyAtlg
Furin Cleavage Site Is the ‘Smoking Gun’
As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections. As explained by Martenson, contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific about the locations it cuts. What’s more, when arginine is present in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the efficiency of the cleavage is magnified.

This, he says, is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. An excellent, well-written article7 in Medium also addresses this finding and explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not.

In “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”8,9 Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. As reported in this paper:10

“It was found that all Spike with a SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence homology greater than 40% did not have a furin cleavage site … including Bat-CoVRaTG13 and SARS-CoV (with sequence identity as 97.4% and 78.6%, respectively).

The furin cleavage site ‘RRAR’ in SARS-CoV-2 is unique in its family, rendering by its unique insert of ‘PRRA.’ The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have evolved from MERS, HCoV-HKU1, and so on.

From the currently available sequences in databases, it is difficult for us to find the source. Perhaps there are still many evolutionary intermediate sequences waiting to be discovered."

Mutation Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2
According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 “is unique in its family” and “is unlikely to have evolved.” In other words, the virus must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a furin cleavage site, as there’s no apparent source for this virus.

Put another way, there’s no coronavirus out there that is similar enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it.

Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this in his Medium article,11 so if you prefer reading, you can review much of the same data there.

Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to humans are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it. The furin cleavage site PRRA found in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals.

furin cleavage site
The fact that this furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and an insert in his video. It is extremely unlikely that 12 new nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there was nothing before.

What About the Studies Saying It’s Natural?
Two studies heavily cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a natural mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3, 2020, Nature paper,12 which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then jumped species. However, one of the authors of this paper, Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the SARS virus, and therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research.

A second paper,13 published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers “a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome,” and discusses “scenarios by which they could have arisen.” According to this paper, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

However, even though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site (PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these 12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally. As noted by Martenson, “whole inserts are not part of the mutation pathway.”

Scientific Community Has Reason to Hide Origin
He goes on to cite several studies showing how scientists around the world have been working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more virulent. Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many years.

Martenson calls out leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020, interview with Joe Rogan, stated that “we could not have crafted a virus like this to do what it’s doing; I mean we don’t have the creative imagination or the skill set.”

Really? Published research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and “creative imagination” to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply cannot be ignorant of that fact.

Another source you may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,14 which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here. A summary of the evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under “Conclusion.”

Naturally, there must be people in the scientific community who would now want to cover up any link to such research. Would you want to be responsible for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed the world economy and put people out of work around the globe?

Would you want to be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life in prison? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:15

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

Other Experts Challenge Natural Evolution Claims
Martenson is far from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated. An April 27, 2020, GM Watch article16 features professor Stuart Newman, who also believes “genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’ history.”

According to Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which stated “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”) actually points to the exact opposite. GM Watch writes:17

“As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted,18 Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses — the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory 'escape.’’

But Professor Newman says19 that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the U.S. and China) for two decades’ …

In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman … amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild.

However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper20). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science …

The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper21 they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.’

Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.”

There Are Many Ways to Manipulate Pathogens
Those who claim the lack of “fingerprints” in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do not leave clearly identifiable traces. As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass (my interview with her will be posted May 24):22

“Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”
In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. As Martenson asserts, the presence of furin cleavage sites23 makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code wouldn’t just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation. How it got released, however, is anyone’s guess."

+ Sources and References
1, 2 Newsweek April 28, 2020
3 GM Watch May 4, 2020
4 Independent Science News May 5, 2020
5 Postcarbon.org Chris Martenson bio
6 Physiol Rev July 1, 2020; 100(3):1065-1075
7, 11 Medium April 22, 2020
8 Fairdomhub.org, chinaXiv:202002.00062
9, 23 ChinaXiv, DOI: 10.12074/202002.00062
10 ChinaXiv, DOI: 10.12074/202002.00062, Page 6 of the downloaded PDF
12 Nature February 3, 2020; 579: 270-273
13 Nature Medicine March 17, 2020; 26: 450-452
14 Project Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Emerged From a Biological Laboratory in Wuhan, China
15 S.993 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989
16, 17 GM Watch April 27, 2020
18 Live Science, Wuhan lab says there's no way coronavirus originated there
19 Twitter response from Stuart Newman April 18, 2020
20 Science September 16, 2005; 309(5742): 1864-1868
21 Virology July 5, 2006; 350(2):358-369
22 Anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com April 2, 2020

ALSO SEE:
Why a Fort Detrick Bioweapons Lab Scientist Was Murdered
Bioweapons researcher Frank Olson worked at Fort Detrick's biological warfare laboratory for years before being drugged by the Central Intelligence Agency and murdered days later. While Olson's death was staged as a suicide, it was later revealed that he was deliberately murdered after the CIA became concerned that he might reveal disturbing top-governmental operations.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/19/fort-detrick-bioweapons-lab-scientist-murdered.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20200519Z1&et_cid=DM540618&et_rid=875315177

COVID Treatment Scam - How Big Pharma Will Fleece You
The pharmaceutical industry is developing medications using taxpayer money, then turning around and selling them at exorbitant prices. This includes the antiviral remdesivir, which has shown some promise in treating COVID-19. The medication was largely developed using public funds, but stands to make biotech giant Gilead Sciences billions.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/19/covid-treatment-scam.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art3ReadMore&cid=20200519Z1&et_cid=DM540618&et_rid=875315177

Gwin Ru

19th May 2020, 19:28

COVID-19 Deaths Have Declined in the US for the 4th Consecutive Week – Johns Hopkins Data Shows (https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/05/covid-19-deaths-have-declined-in-the-us-for-the-4th-consecutive-week-johns-hopkins-data-shows/)

By Joaquin Flores (https://www.fort-russ.com/author/joaquin-flores/)
Last updated May 19, 2020

https://www.fort-russ.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/curve-750x430.png (https://i.redd.it/f2rnhxnmvry41.png)
https://preview.redd.it/qlod8atl4dz41.png?width=932&auto=webp&d15123fd (https://preview.redd.it/qlod8atl4dz41.png?width=932&auto=webp&d15123fd)

https://preview.redd.it/qlod8atl4dz41.png?width=932&auto=webp&d15123fd (https://preview.redd.it/qlod8atl4dz41.png?width=932&auto=webp&d15123fd)

(click on picture for larger size)

While deaths have continued to decline, we note that total deaths continue to rise. There are numerous ways to interpret this data, and many ideas currently float ranging from under-reportage of cases (until confronted with deaths), and over-reportage of death. The latter point, there appears to be substantial evidence for.
Data from investment watch blog (https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/johns-hopkins-data-shows-covid-19-deaths-have-declined-in-the-us-for-the-4th-consecutive-week/)
https://www.fort-russ.com/2020/05/covid-19-deaths-have-declined-in-the-us-for-the-4th-consecutive-week-johns-hopkins-data-shows/

https://preview.redd.it/qlod8atl4dz41.png?width=932&auto=webp&d15123fd
National deaths excluding New York and New Jersey are also down 18% from their peak (https://imgur.com/a/8KRc1Tc) three weeks ago.

onawah

21st May 2020, 16:59

Win Keech wrote this on FB today:
dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6abb59f64ad6c60f6f9&oe=5EEAE3F8
https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/99291145_10158368243007246_2173814980095246336_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=xjU3OnwlMrkAX8f5_-7&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6abb59f64ad6c60f6f9&oe=5EEAE3F8
"If you look very carefully, you might just see a very small red curve. That is the actual Swedish daily death rate curve (Sweden had no lockdown)... The other two curves are the figures predicted by the self serving idiots insisting upon the lockdown. I'm glad I went to a real place of learning and not Imperial College. As an engineer, if I or any of my fellow engineers every made calculations or estimates so insanely wrong, not only would the World around you literally come crashing down everywhere, we could never live with the shame and abject failure. It seems that day has come for science and virology in particular. Science has sold out to corporate greed and the pharmaceutical industry in particular... And has forever lost all credibility as a result."

Philippe

21st May 2020, 19:58

That is what I said to counter contacts that say Sweden is worse than Norway, Finland and Denmark added : by what we were warned for Sweden should have 20.000 or even 50.000 deaths by now for not following these dreadful recommendations. This worldwide calamity seems to be the price humanity has to pay to get rid of these death sciences. Because the evidence collected has the potential to take this decennia even millenia ( I have memories) old scourge down. That can count as a positif outcome. Keep strong.

Win Keech wrote this on FB today:
dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6abb59f64ad6c60f6f9&oe=5EEAE3F8
https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/99291145_10158368243007246_2173814980095246336_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=xjU3OnwlMrkAX8f5_-7&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=4ca3ac63f660b6abb59f64ad6c60f6f9&oe=5EEAE3F8
"If you look very carefully, you might just see a very small red curve. That is the actual Swedish daily death rate curve (Sweden had no lockdown)... The other two curves are the figures predicted by the self serving idiots insisting upon the lockdown. I'm glad I went to a real place of learning and not Imperial College. As an engineer, if I or any of my fellow engineers every made calculations or estimates so insanely wrong, not only would the World around you literally come crashing down everywhere, we could never live with the shame and abject failure. It seems that day has come for science and virology in particular. Science has sold out to corporate greed and the pharmaceutical industry in particular... And has forever lost all credibility as a result."

DeDukshyn

21st May 2020, 21:45

A mathematician / statistician's perspective on the COVID-19 stats ... forgive me if this has been posted -- this guy has many videos on the topic, here is a link to his YouTube page:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmFDE8P6_M-C4HTOuWwm4Dg/featured

Maybe someone should DL his videos in case his channel gets shut down ... interesting stuff.

onawah

22nd May 2020, 23:36

Gary Null: COVID Vaccine Utterly Futile
MAY 21, 2020
RALPH FUCETOLA Open Source Truth
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/covid-vaccine-utterly-futile/
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/GaryNullShow.jpg
https://prn.fm/gary-null-show-fast-tracking-cov-19-vaccine-worry/

( Dr. Gary Null is a well-known figure in the US mainstream news, so he may be able to open many more minds to the dangers of a Covid vaccine.)

"Fast-Tracking a CoV-19 Vaccine: Why Should We Worry?
The consequences are that proposals for issuing certificates or passports would be utterly futile, an extraordinary waste of funding that would accomplish little.
Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD
Progressive Radio Network, May 21, 2020
https://prn.fm/gary-null-show-fast-tracking-cov-19-vaccine-worry/

The CoV-19 pandemic is now exposing the hidden agendas and motives of the powers that be in government, in the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street, and in the media. Despairingly opponents of vaccine mandates are largely divided. Many Trump supporters in the so-called anti-vaccination community believed he would be their savior to protect vaccine exemptions and avert compulsory mandates. Nevertheless, during his watch draconian mandate laws to ban religious exemption for children to attend public schools have been signed by the governors of California and New York.

Throughout the CoV-19 pandemic, Trump has waffled wildly, jumping on and off the vaccine band wagon depending upon his daily whims. Early he stated there was no need for a vaccine since the virus would magically disappear and no longer be a threat. It was his gut feeling and not surprisingly he was wrong. Yet during a press conference on March 14th, Trump announced the unveiling of his Operation Warp Speed agenda to accelerate development of a CoV-19 vaccine and have it ready this year. Trump is now fully on board with the pro-vaccination agenda. Moreover, he ordered that the military will be “mobilized so at the end of the year, we’re going to be able to give it to a lot people very, very rapidly.” His newly appointed Warp Speed advisor is a venture capitalist and a former chairman of GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccine division, Moncel Slaoui.

Often in order to understand Trump’s strategies, follow the money trail, especially if the money trails leads to sealing loyalty to the president. However, his probable immediate motivation is for reelection and to increase the profits of pharmaceutical and investor profiles as repayment for those loyalties. We can therefore reasonably expect, despite what has already been stated, that Trump may nationally mandate a CoV-19 vaccine. There are voices in Trump’s camp who favor mandates. One of Trump’s leading attorneys is Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz who recently went on record saying,

“Let me put it very clearly, you have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread disease…. You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business…. if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

What might be the downside if a vaccine pushed on the public en masse is discovered to not work or is found unsafe in the long-term? Worse, what might be the consequences of a flawed vaccine that becomes mandated and required as policy to attend schools, work or even to leave the home to shop? We might be faced with an epidemic of vaccine-related illnesses and death on a scale that could dwarf the current CoV-19 pandemic.

There would be a greater rationale to push forward a fast-tracked vaccine if the private vaccine manufacturers were held legally liable for vaccine-related injuries and deaths. However, this was laid to rest by the Reagan administration after the passage of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act in 1986, which freed the pharmaceutical industry from personal injury lawsuits. Consequently, there is no incentive whatsoever for the vaccine industry to perform thorough due diligence analyses and reviews and to adopt gold standard scientific measures to create a safe and effective vaccine. In effect, they have free rein to develop vaccines according to their own rules.

According to German oncologist Claus Kohnlein, we may well be in the era of “virus mania.” The prevailing medical establishment has become dominated by a rapidly expanding private industry obsessed with viruses and the invention of pandemics for enormous profit. This obsession has hijacked not only medical practice and legislators who are determined to mandate vaccination, but has also infiltrated the entire mainstream media. This is despite consensual confirmatory evidence that some of these viruses may not be dangerous enough to warrant a vaccine nor demand mass screening to monitor potential infection. For example, University of Toronto professor emeritus of pathology, Dr. Etienne de Harven would have us ask:

do molecular markers for retroviruses truly confirm the presence of a virus, or is this a human invention that substitutes the absence of identifiable viral proteins and particles? Embedded in all of the confusion over CoV-19 and the heated debates and uncertainty over life returning to normal, the mainstream chorus chants that stability will only resume after a vaccine is launched on the public. At this moment, Kohnlein’s 2007 book Virus Mania: Avian Flu, Cervical Cancer, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio is essential reading to expose the life-threatening failures in modern medical science’s efforts to tackle viral threats. And what Kohnlein outlines is being repeated again with CoV-19.

The need for a vaccine in order for society and the economy to return to normal was clearly stated by Trump’s Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. “.. for the economy to fully recover,” he stated, “that may have to await the arrival of a vaccine.” Unfortunately, besides the White House and nation being impatient and placing high hopes in a vaccine, we are also witnessing a careless zeal to cut regulatory corners. And this atmosphere could potentially end in a serious medical disaster on the not-too-distant horizon. Virus mania is morphing into vaccine mania. That vaccine mania has become a reality is evidenced in the 133 vaccines currently in development worldwide targeted against CoV-19 according to the Milken Institute.

Many challenges must be recognized and surmounted before an effective CoV-19 vaccine can be deemed safe.. The virus has already been shown to mutate rapidly despite beliefs that its RNA is stable. .Mutations of course naturally occur when a virus changes hosts, especially after jumping species. However, RNA viruses mutate more readily than larger DNA viruses such as herpes, HPV and smallpox. University of Cambridge has identified three separate mutations since the Wuhan outbreak. Last month Los Alamos National Laboratory reporteda recent mutation that is more contagious and transmittable than the original Wuhan strain. Another strain was identified in India; the South China Morning Post reported that this Indian strain is being viewed as more virulent for the development of severe acute respiratory syndrome. The researchers from National Changhua University in Taiwan and Murdoch University in Australia warned that it “means current vaccine development against Sars-CoV-2 is at risk of becoming futile.” The problem with mutations, similar to the challenges to create a universal flu vaccine, is whether or not any CoV-19 vaccine would generate sufficient immunity to combat future mutant strains and whether this is a cross-over of multi-strain immunity.

Furthermore, some reports indicate that natural

CoV-19 immunity may wane quickly. This is an additional caution about any promises that a fast-tracked and poorly evaluated vaccine, which will bypass a rigorous regulatory review, will provide much if any long-term immunity. In a preliminary study, Columbia University researchers identified people who were reinfected with the same coronavirus strain within a single year. Twelve individuals tested positive two or three times for the same strain within 18 months. Similar findings were noted in South Korea. The Columbia scientists’ conclusion is that coronavirus “immunity seems to wane quickly.” Dr. Matthew Frieman at the University of Maryland is an expert in coronaviruses. He states that “we get coronaviruses every winter even though we’re seroconverted….. We really don’t understand whether it is a change in the virus over time [ie., mutations] or antibodies that don’t protect from infection.”

The consequences are that proposals for issuing immunity certificates or passports would be utterly futile, an extraordinary waste of funding that would accomplish little.

Since 2003 efforts have been made to develop coronavirus vaccines following the first SARS outbreak in China. All of these efforts failed either because of a lack in funding or because of observable serious adverse effects that necessitated the project to cease. To our knowledge, none of these efforts reached human trials because of serious adverse effects in animal trials.

However, now we are witnessing one company Moderna bypassing animal studies with its new CoV vaccine and commencing with human trials. The company has already reported that its experimental vaccine showed signs of being “safe and provoked a strong immune response” in a first phase clinical trial; the vaccine was administered to a very small number of human participants (N=45) to determine safety and to measure the levels of volunteers’ immune response. Just over half of the participants had recognizable antibodies, but these were “binding antibodies.” What is critical for protection is neutralizing antibodies; and on this account only 4 of the 45 participants were actually “analyzed” to show promising neutralizing antibody results. Nor did Moderna report any T-cell activity, essential for fighting the virus. In other words, Moderna’s premature reports are negligible for guaranteeing an effective and safe CoV-19 vaccine.

We should remember this is only a first phase trial. The vaccine has a ways to go before it can be ruled effective. “If you look at vaccine development,” stated Dr. Daniel Salmon, Director of Johns Hopkins’ Institute for Vaccine Safety, “[there are] lots of vaccines that look good out of phase one that don’t turn out to be good products.”

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, a professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa, has documented NIAID’s Dr. Anthony Fauci’s support of Moderna’s vaccine, and. according to Bobby Kennedy, Faico waved the needs for the company to test the vaccine in ferrets and primates and instead proceed directly into larger human trials. Both Moderna’s and its German competitor CureVac’s CoV-19 vaccine rely on mRNA technology, which carry strands of mRNA that encode CoV-19-specific proteins intended to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. Bill Gates says he is “particularly excited by two new approaches that some of the candidates are taking: RNA and DNA vaccines.” But modern medicine has no practical experience with such vaccines being given to entire populations; therefore, there is absolutely no past history to monitor potential long-term risks, such as whether an engineered genetic code of a viral antigen will recombine adversely with the body’s own DNA and trigger other life-threatening injuries we have to be aware of.

Despite the hype over Moderna’s apparent success and a huge 39 percent rise in its stock price, a recent article in Nature warns us not to pop the Champaign corks yet. Moderna’s data remains unpublished and many scientists worry the results may be “murky.” It is worrisome that the company would make such an announcement before any data is made available for independent review. Seemingly this was solely for financial reasons; Moderna’s premature claims were rewarded with a $1.3 million stock offering to bankroll its vaccine. Trump is also throwing his weight behind Moderna’s vaccine: it is manufactured in the US, funded by the government, and Warp Speed advisor Slaoui sits on the board of the Lonza Group that is collaborating with Moderna. One caveat is that Moderna has never brought a vaccine nor a therapeutic product to the market and is therefore largely inexperienced. There is also no public release of consent forms that the trial participants are required to sign. And no indication of how much volunteers were paid. Are they being compensated with inordinate amounts beyond the industry’s standards to accept high risk? None of this information has been provided.

The Nature article also quotes Baylor University vaccine scientist and coronavirus expert Dr. Peter Hotez’s response to Moderna’s announcement, “I’m not convinced that this is really a positive result.” The article notes that

“… most people who have recovered from COVID-19 without hospitalization did not produce high levels of ‘neutralizing antibodies’, which block the virus from infecting cells. Moderna measured these potent antibodies in eight participants and found their levels to be similar to those of recovered patients.”

The most promising vaccine, Hotez believes, is being developed by Sinovac Biotech in China, but it requires three separate inoculations. Sinovac’s vaccine after being administered to rhesus monkeys showed no presence of the virus found in the throats, lungs or rectums of the primates.

Another vaccine being developed at Oxford University protected monkeys (only six in the trial) from pneumonia but the primates;’ nasal passages contained as much of the virus as those unvaccinated. In other words, all vaccinated monkeys became infected.In addition, the antibody titers were extremely low, which suggests the animals may not be fully protected. Nevertheless, Oxford is interpreting these weak results as a success and will also push forward with recruiting participants for a large human trial.

This sets a very disturbing precedent that will likely be imitated by other vaccine companies either now or during a future infectious pandemic. Still other vaccines in development are entirely experimental and have no predecessor on the market. Noroavx has created a recombinant nanoparticle vaccine — an artificially engineered fake replica of the actual virus. Since there is no vaccine on the current CDC schedule utilizing this technology, we have no idea of its long-term safety.

So what do earlier efforts at developing a coronovirus vaccine tell us?

In 2012, a vaccine being developed by the University of Texas at Galveston and Baylor University observed pulmonary immunopathology in an animal study with mice. The researchers proposed the vaccine’s pathology may be attributed to an adverse cytokine response, an observation a large number of physicians and researchers have made with persons severely affected with CoV-19. A later vaccine effort in 2016 by the same institutions targeted the MERS coronavirus strain and observed lung immunopathology similar to infection with the wild virus.

A year earlier, another vaccine effort led by the University of North Carolina’s Vaccine Institute noted an increase in eosinophilic proinflammatory pulmonary responses in a mouse model. Eosinophils are a type of white blood cell that are associated with infections, allergies and cancers. However, an abnormal increase in eos, a condition called eosinophilia, can result in nasal allergies and even cancer. This raises a question whether the North Carolina vaccine could have potentially contributed to lung cancer? The vaccine was also shown to provide poor protection from infection both in the adjuvant and non-adjuvant vaccines.

A later 2018 SARS vaccine trial with rhesus macaques conducted at Wuhan University led to antibody-dependent vaccine induced infections. The project was supposedly discontinued.

Another SARS vaccine trial with ferrets led by researchers at the University of Manitoba observed a promising neutralizing antibody response; however there severe inflammatory responses were observed in the animals’ livers. The scientists concluded that the vaccine was “associated with enhanced hepatitis.” That vaccine project too seems to have been shelved.

Japanese scientists in 2008 developed a SARS vaccine that utilized a recombinant vaccinia virus that expressed the SARS spike protein. Immunized mice exhibited increased infiltration of esoinophils in the lungs, a thickening of the alveolar epithelium, an uptake in cytokines contributing to abnormal inflammatory storms, and aggravated severe pneumonia.

Clearly, the past history to develop a coronavirus vaccine is not encouraging.

Jennifer Sun, a molecular biologist at Princeton, warns that due to past coronavirus vaccine failures, the CoV-19 signatures need to be fully evaluated before any human trials commence in order “to prevent organ damage upon viral challenge.” Baylor University, which has attempted to develop a vaccine, knows the problems all too well. According to Dr. Robert Atmar at Baylor’s Department of Molecular Virology, coronaviruses “are notoriously difficult when it comes to vaccine development…. the concern is that if these vaccines were used in people, they could end up causing harm.”

Other scientists have issued warnings against hastily approving a vaccine without proper large, long-term clinical trials and scrupulous evaluation. For example, Dr. Paul Offit at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and one of the nation’s most vocal advocates for compulsory vaccination, has criticized the shortened vaccine timelines being stated. In a Philadelphia Inquirer interview, Offit cautioned for the need of “extensive animal model testing” to be certain the vaccine “is safe in animals.” This process, Offit says, “takes a lot of time, typically years.” “If you’re going to be testing this in otherwise healthy people who are very, very unlikely to die from this infection,” he continues, “you better make sure it’s safe. So you want those regulations in place…. The point being: We’re not very good at assessing risk.”

Trump is pushing to have a vaccine ready by the end of this year. Offit and others argue two years is more realistic, and the global analytics firm Clarivate estimated that a vaccine “will require at least five years… to complete the development process through full regulatory approval.”

The good news is that the firm predicts that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine has a 5% probability of success. The bad news is that the government and federal health agencies will very likely ram the first promising vaccine through the regulatory channels without having been properly evaluated for its efficacy and safety.

Without serious critical thought, the demand for a vaccine now outweighs the risks. And there is the potential for many risks that remain completely unknown, which is the same for any vaccine. Trump said it will be available “in a fairly quick manner.” In an interview with philosophy professor Nicholas Evans at the University of Massachusetts, he raised concerns over the lack of proper animal model vaccine trials before administering it to humans. Unfortunately there are no US laws that require animal trials. Consequently the pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of this derelict oversight in their race to be the first to get a vaccine approved and distributed. Evans also worries about “the shredding of regulations and regulatory norms as part of their [the federal health agencies] response to this outbreak and this is a very dangerous proposition.”

Rarely do politicians, and increasingly more and more scientists, make efforts to learn the lessons history offers. Past efforts to develop a coronavirus vaccine have failed and the adverse effects observed in these efforts are clear indicators for why fast-tracking a CoV-19 vaccine would be frightfully irresponsible. But now this is all being ignored within the Trump White House, the CDC, and across most of the medical establishment, particularly the private vaccine makers. In addition, the media continues to fuel our vaccine mania, priming the public to willingly surrender their bodies to the syringe under a pretext of being protected from future CoV outbreaks.

Perhaps the most disturbing problem our national public health faces is the failure of our leading health agencies — the CDC, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the World Health Organization — to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that no vaccine developed during the past half century is truly safe and effective for all. Are there any scientific gold standard studies — double blind, controlled trials using an actual inert placebo — conducted for any vaccine currently on the market? No? Have meticulous independent studies been performed to compare the quality of health between vaccinated and non-vaccinated participants? Unfortunately there aren’t any, and the CDC was forced to acknowledge this during a Congressional subcommittee hearing on autism.

All of the media’s vaccine propaganda is stacked with pro-industry scientists who have something to gain. They are always presented as the experts. On the other hand, independent scientists, as well as board certified physicians and pediatricians, who question the official vaccine dogma, are attacked by federal officials and the mainstream media as alarmists, anti-vaxxers and even threats to society if they speak out. Several years ago the World Health Organization listed vaccine opponents among the 10 leading threats to global health.

But no one considers that the many millions of people who either themselves or their children received a vaccine and experienced serious adverse effects were at one time pro-vaccination. It was for that very reason they submitted themselves to be vaccinated in the first place. Now with the dramatic rise in vaccine injuries and deaths as more shots are added to the nation’s vaccination schedule, we still await Congressional hearings at the federal and state levels that invite independent scientists, toxicologists and immunologists to explain the actual peer-review literature that would have us conclude there is no such thing as either a safe vaccine or vaccine that creates neutralizing antibodies for any given person. In other words, every vaccine may or not be effective and there is no proof they protect everyone.

There is also the utterly absurd notion that whenever someone receives a vaccine and does not come down with the disease, 100 percent of the credit is given to the vaccine’s efficacy.

And where are the real advocates who are speaking on behalf of the victims from vaccine injuries? Certainly not the pharmaceutical industry that profits immensely without any liability for damages. Nor are advocates to be found in federal and state health agencies, in most of the medical community nor across the spectrum of the media. Rather, those who refuse to take unsafe vaccines are blamed for spreading fear, uncertainty, conspiracies and even infectious disease.

But now those who have been injured or their loved ones are speaking out in greater unison. This is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for those who have profited for years from their pain." "

norman

23rd May 2020, 16:35

U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2020/05/07/ap_20121523242226_custom-f74f6c4fc5f7d89a650de2622183c0a68b2aa80b-s800-c85.jpg

The endeavor cost more than $660 million, according to an NPR analysis of federal spending records.

But nearly four months into the pandemic, most of these facilities haven't treated a single patient.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/851712311/u-s-field-hospitals-stand-down-most-without-treating-any-covid-19-patients?t=1590251229970

shaberon

23rd May 2020, 18:29

The good news is that the firm predicts that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine has a 5% probability of success. The bad news is that the government and federal health agencies will very likely ram the first promising vaccine through the regulatory channels without having been properly evaluated for its efficacy and safety.

Robert Kennedy's response on this indicates that three trial participants wound up with a level three (impairing) syndrome at a period of forty-three days after use. In world math, this is like saying it is ok to potentially cripple 1.5 billion people in order to treat everyone.

This vaccine's trial must have started at least that long before the press statement, i. e. they had a formula ready to go around the beginning of April.

How realistic is this compared to the background of sixty years of coronaviruses with no corresponding success?

Most field hospitals around the world are getting packed up with little to no use. That seems to be where most of the money and policies are headed, little to no use. Except it works for stock investors, just not the old ones that had airlines or something, but those with enough intuition to have gone medical for the win, or killing blow, depending on how you look at it.

onawah

23rd May 2020, 21:02

There are no good or safe vaccines imho. I posted that article because Gary Null is a more mainstream name and so may reach more people who are still undecided.

The good news is that the firm predicts that Moderna’s mRNA vaccine has a 5% probability of success. The bad news is that the government and federal health agencies will very likely ram the first promising vaccine through the regulatory channels without having been properly evaluated for its efficacy and safety.

Robert Kennedy's response on this indicates that three trial participants wound up with a level three (impairing) syndrome at a period of forty-three days after use. In world math, this is like saying it is ok to potentially cripple 1.5 billion people in order to treat everyone.

This vaccine's trial must have started at least that long before the press statement, i. e. they had a formula ready to go around the beginning of April.

How realistic is this compared to the background of sixty years of coronaviruses with no corresponding success?

Most field hospitals around the world are getting packed up with little to no use. That seems to be where most of the money and policies are headed, little to no use. Except it works for stock investors, just not the old ones that had airlines or something, but those with enough intuition to have gone medical for the win, or killing blow, depending on how you look at it.

Luke Holiday

24th May 2020, 04:50

DaveToo

24th May 2020, 05:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPjwmrodGMU

David Icke dicusses the problems with the testing explains in the first 4 minutes why the CV 19 virus has not been identified and the problems with testing. He also reports on the real agendas and Why Bill Gates needs to be arrested to crimes against humanity.

Blessings Luke

Thanks Luke.
Often times Icke will get a little sloppy with his research.
Such is the case here.

He mentioned several times that the President of Tanzania sent in his samples to the WHO for testing.
The samples were sent to a local Tanzanian testing facility.

pueblo

24th May 2020, 10:15

Trust the statistics? Not when the UK has been counting a nasal and throat swab of the same patient as TWO DIFFERENT tests!

Tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double-counted, officials admit

Two samples taken from the same patient are being recorded as two separate tests in the Government's official figures

Tens of thousands of Covid-19 tests have been double-counted in the Government’s official tally, public health officials have admitted.

Diagnostic tests which involve taking saliva and nasal samples from the same patient are being counted as two tests, not one.

The Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England each confirmed the double-counting.

This inflates the daily reported diagnostic test numbers by over 20 per cent, with that proportion being much higher earlier on in the crisis before home test kits were added to the daily totals.

Almost 350,000 more tests have been reported in Government data than people tested since the start of the pandemic.

The discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting salvia and nasal samples for the same individual twice.

Public Health England oversee the testing of patients who are seriously ill in hospital, as well as the most critical key workers.

The test involves a swab from the mouth and nose as well as a sample of saliva. Although both of these are taken from the same patient, they are counted twice by the Government in its daily data.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/tens-thousands-coronavirus-tests-have-double-counted-officials/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3xyPOZUFs29OKNo00TM_Y4pQF-s1Qzg3bGxSCvszdp4qr4RteJiT4KPzA#Echobox=1590091486

shaberon

25th May 2020, 05:46

There are no good or safe vaccines imho. I posted that article because Gary Null is a more mainstream name and so may reach more people who are still undecided.

I hope so, I hope that overall a different message will prove itself to the public's eyes that "you don't necessarily need all this" including various concoctions generally claimed to produce effective relevant anti-bodies.

It seems to me, in the long run, it may become evident to a majority, but the eerie thing here is how fast it may come to be and what kind of regulations accompany it. The only thing I can think of is if someone can grab enough legal muscle to make the whole thing plain as outright grafting. If someone (Johnson and Johnson) can be guilty of over-prescribing opiates, then someone (Johnson and Johnson) can be guilty of over-prescribing vaccines. Promoting, making widely available, etc. There are other names attached, with Moderna being a glaring example of it. I could not come up with anything more scandalous in a Faustian farce, and so I hope the message does something a little more forceful than "pick up the swing vote" and that some kind of fraud, conflict of interest, etc., will actually stick to it.

Even if that happens, I am pretty sure that perhaps someone else's vaccine will at least be available in the stores like anything else. I don't think it will completely go away. But I think the worst brunt of it can be blocked, again as the last line there are probably at least a few sheriffs who would not allow something physically mandatory, and maybe the circle of those involved in the worst collusion will take a serious beating.

This really has to go over our heads and find more dissident doctors able to make cases that would be going up against what I am sure is not exactly a cheap legal team. Maybe the right judge. I can see it now, we'll get a trial on live tv where it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that "Billy Gates, you've had your finger in the apple pie ever since you were six minutes old" and the judge will say "Ok Bill, that's $14.72, go about your business". It will take something really strong to keep his philanthropy where it belongs, at his house.

So yeah, I hope that people in general will start listening to professionals with other views, at the same time I hope these guys blow by the time lapse of public opinion and cripple what appears to be trying to stand up.

Bo Atkinson

25th May 2020, 10:10

There are no good or safe vaccines imho. I posted that article because Gary Null is a more mainstream name and so may reach more people who are still undecided.

I hope so, I hope that overall a different message will prove itself to the public's eyes that "you don't necessarily need all this" including various concoctions generally claimed to produce effective relevant anti-bodies.

For more than 20 years now I've heard Gary Null shows online or on FM radio before webcasting began, as he was always spreading the message of natural health backed by extensive science-sources, and then increasingly criticizing the unhealthy profiteering of authoritarianism, and always phrased with kindness and calm, so as not to depress people. I expected this could at some point promote humanitarian trends, but I was wrong here.

In this last decade I am increasingly struck by Nikola Tesla's statements that he is, (and by example all of us are), automaton(s) or machines(s). I first read these statements in the 1970s and as a youth had to dismiss this as unclear, despite that his work so impressed me otherwise. In recent years the better parts of scattered, readings also point out this issue, and furthermore the subdivision which defines the mental, the emotional and the physical robotic composition, which finally gives me more to work on internally.

Most of governance particularly including forced vaccination functions on the emotional core of people. There is no way to overcome this lower emotionality except by higher emotionality or by higher mentality, (such as scientific debating, if ever that is achieved today). Both of which are hard to give away, when lower emotionality captivates physicality, and away these go, saturating the lower neural centers, (chakras).

I wonder if we cannot put together a list of scientifically undeniable links, just the links with several key words each, to easily look up, and share on social media, except that this always collides with that emotionality of our audiences, so that only by our personal touches can we reach out to people we know, (with the simple key subject #).

onawah

2nd June 2020, 21:28

More Evidence CV-19 Narrative Fake News, Media Covered up
As Riots Continue, More Evidence that COVID-19 Narrative Was Fake News and Deliberately Covered up by the Corporate Media
June 2, 2020
by Brian Shilhavy Editor, Health Impact News
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/as-riots-continue-more-evidence-that-covid-19-narrative-was-fake-news-and-deliberately-covered-up-by-the-corporate-media/

https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/06/Fake-news-headline-on-a-newspaper.jpg

"As riots continue across the U.S. today, more and more evidence is surfacing that the months of lock downs were based on a false narrative propagated by the corporate media, which is where the real fake news originates these days, as their Big Tech partners work hard to suppress the truth about Coronavirus from publications like Health Impact News and others in the alternative media.

The publication Off-Guardian ran a story yesterday (May 31, 2020) with three examples where the media got caught trying to hide the truth about Coronavirus.

On May 26th Dr Alexander Myasnikov, Russia’s head of coronavirus information, gave an interview to former-Presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak in which he apparently let slip his true feelings.

Believing the interview over, and the camera turned off, Myasnikov said:

“It’s all bull**** […] It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality […] Why has the whole world been destroyed? That I don’t know.”

According to an e-mail leaked to Danish newspaper Politiken, the Danish Health Authority disagree with their government’s approach to the coronavirus. They cover it in two articles here and here (For those who don’t speak Danish, thelocal.dk have covered the story too).

There’s a lot of interesting information there, not least of which is the clear implication that politicians appear to be pressing the scientific advisors to overstate the danger (they did the same thing in the UK), along with the decision of some civil servants to withhold data from the public until after the lockdown had been extended.

But by far the most important quote is from a March 15th e-mail [our emphasis]:

The Danish Health Authority continues to consider that covid-19 cannot be described as a generally dangerous disease, as it does not have either a usually serious course or a high mortality rate,”

Earlier this month, on May 9th, a report was leaked to the German alternate media magazine Tichys Einblick titled “Analysis of the Crisis Management”.

The report was commissioned by the German department of the interior, but then its findings were ignored, prompting one of the authors to release it through non-official channels.

The fall out of that, including attacks on the authors and minimising of the report’s findings, is all very fascinating and we highly recommend this detailed report on Strategic Culture (or read the full report here in German: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/29/german-official-leaks-report-denouncing-corona-as-global-false-alarm/).

We’re going to focus on just the reports conclusions, including [our emphasis]:

The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.
After being attacked in the press, and suspended from his job, the leaker and other authors of the report released a joint statement, calling on the government to respond to their findings.

Read the full article at Off-Guardian: https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/31/its-all-bullsht-3-leaks-that-sink-the-covid-narrative/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=11f8137ad46371712a1512fb81326d459e455208-1591132221-0-Af4pcTkNex3roygpEKPsd9o1jgeUZOpifH22hR9aGofZP9skrXyZsm_IX0H1MoUFIVJEALMt80susAS4PRPexdIaoZiWHAF3YG4s rTnLnPK1qNmnMrwjNNdJWft2F41MWGHa6DVh77qxZD9oBB25agKTLqDEO7L33J8ykMsWFnq4K4g4biYjU2rNV74kF0emuChgr_6c MLpRlY1NAAV7X0anaPIysLhCqRhTo62DJP2KVEbOHzrkOnMjdS7fAvCXwgZlTqW2bjtJ9uFRD88dAM5q_zhwPGVdGfVWfvUlXP-j5FD0rhFOR3nKLddJcjkAcLtT1p_U4b931vUCAiS4UZyWnjEPDdLtEyxbthZYe6zk

On May 29, 2020, The Strategic Culture Foundation also covered the story of the leaked document in Germany, and the attempts by the media there to do “damage control.”

Germany’s federal government and mainstream media are engaged in damage control after a report that challenges the established Corona narrative leaked from the interior ministry.

Some of the report key passages are:

The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
The people who die from Corona are essentially those who would statistically die this year, because they have reached the end of their lives and their weakened bodies can no longer cope with any random everyday stress (including the approximately 150 viruses currently in circulation).
Worldwide, within a quarter of a year, there has been no more than 250,000 deaths from Covid-19, compared to 1.5 million deaths [25,100 in Germany] during the influenza wave 2017/18.
The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
A reproach could go along these lines: During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.
So far, so bad. But it gets worse.

The report focuses on the “manifold and heavy consequences of the Corona measures” and warns that these are “grave”.

More people are dying because of state-imposed Corona-measures than they are being killed by the virus.

The reason is a scandal in the making:

A Corona-focused German healthcare system is postponing life-saving surgery and delaying or reducing treatment for non-Corona patients.

Read the full article at The Strategic Culture Foundation: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/29/german-official-leaks-report-denouncing-corona-as-global-false-alarm/

Of course, the same thing is happening here in the U.S. Could part of the reason people are taking to the streets and rioting these past few days be because many are waking up to the fact that they have not been told the truth about why so many of them had to lose their jobs and freedoms?
Ja7df0ayk9M
Stay tuned, as we prepare to report more on this issue."

Comment on this article at:
https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/as-riots-continue-more-evidence-that-covid-19-narrative-was-fake-news-and-deliberately-covered-up-by-the-corporate-media/

onawah

2nd June 2020, 21:38

H.R. 6666: $100 Billion in Taxes to Fund Your Persecution?
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
June 02, 2020
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/06/02/hr-6666-covid-19-government-surveillance.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20200602Z1&et_cid=DM554070&et_rid=885306761

"This new bill calls for $100 billion of our taxpayer money to fund our own persecution - despite the fact this COVID-19 virus isn't particularly lethal for those under the age of 80, and has an overall survival rate of about 99%. Take action today and help us stop it.STORY AT-A-GLANCE
H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, May 1, 2020, by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-III
The bill authorizes CDC to award grants for testing, contact tracing, monitoring and other activities to address COVID-19
The government grants — $100 billion of taxpayer money for 2020 alone — would be used by “eligible entities” to hire employees and buy the supplies needed to conduct testing and contact tracing, including sending employees to the residences of citizens to conduct COVID-19 testing
H.R. 6666 does not ensure privacy. It also sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights, including the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth amendments
Contact your Congressional representative today, and ask them to oppose H.R. 6666: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/15/contact-tracing-app.aspx

As if vaccine passports, COVID-19 contact tracing apps https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/15/contact-tracing-app.aspx
... and the Rockefeller Foundation's plan to reopen America https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/13/digital-vaccination-certificate.aspx
...don’t already pose enough of a threat to civil liberties and democratic society, here comes a new bill, H.R. 6666, the COVID-19 Testing, Reaching And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.1

The bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., May 1, 2020. As of May 25, 2020, the bill has 64 cosponsors — all Democrats. Originally, there also was one Republican, but he withdrew his sponsorship May 15. According to the summary of the bill:2

“This bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to award grants for testing, contact tracing, monitoring, and other activities to address COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019).

Entities such as federally qualified health centers, nonprofit organizations, and certain hospitals and schools are eligible to receive such grants. In awarding the grants, the CDC shall prioritize applicants that (1) operate in hot spots and medically underserved communities, and (2) agree to hire individuals from the communities where grant activities occur.”

H.R. 6666 — A ‘Monstrously Unconstitutional’ Bill
Needless to say, many an eyebrow are being raised over the “6666” in the resolution. It seems both unfortunate and ironically apt. As noted by Cheryl Chumley in a May 12, 2020, Washington Times article:3

“Mark of the beast. Mark of the beast for a beastly, monstrously unconstitutional bill. After all, what’s more devilishly un-American than launching one of the most massive government surveillance programs of private citizens in U.S. history, all under the guise of protecting people from the coronavirus?”

The government grants — a whopping $100 billion of taxpayer money for 2020 alone — would be used by “eligible entities” to hire employees and buy the supplies needed to conduct testing and contact tracing. This includes sending employees to the residences of citizens to conduct COVID-19 testing.

Entities eligible for grant money include federally qualified health centers, school-based clinics, disproportionate share hospitals, academic medical centers, nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, high schools and any other entities determined to be eligible by the Health and Human Services Secretary.

If you test positive, you would then be quarantined either at a mobile health unit or in your own home. Contact tracers would also collect information about anyone you may have come into contact with so that they can be tested and, if needed, quarantined.

As noted by Chumley, just how the government intends to ensure compliance with quarantine remains an unanswered question. We now know that up to 80% of people who test positive remain asymptomatic,4 and for people who feel fine, being locked up, whether at home or in a mobile unit, for two weeks or more may not be a welcome proposition at this point.

COVID-19 Does Not Warrant Proposed Tracking Measures
In a nutshell, H.R. 6666 calls for taking $100 billion of our taxpayer money to fund our own persecution. I say “persecution,” considering this virus isn’t particularly lethal for people under the age of 80, and has an overall survival rate of about 99% and therefore doesn’t pose a significant threat for the vast majority of the population.

At present, most data are still unreliable, seeing how “suspected” cases are lumped into mortality statistics. But two situations for which we have more complete data suggest the risk from SARS-CoV-2 is minimal.

For example, of the roughly 4,800 crew on the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, 840 tested positive,5 but 60% were asymptomatic,6 meaning they had no symptoms. Only one crewmember died.7

Similarly, among the 3,711 passengers and crew onboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 712 (19.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5% were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptoms, only 9.7% required intensive care and 1.3% (nine) died.8

Military personnel, as you would expect, tend to be healthier than the general population. Still, the data from these two incidents reveal several important points to consider. First of all, it suggests that even when living in close, crowded quarters, the infection rate is low.

Only 17.5% of the USS Theodore Roosevelt crew got infected — slightly lower than the 19.2% of those onboard the Diamond Princess, which had a greater ratio of older people.

Second, fit and healthy individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic than not — 60% of naval personnel compared to 46.5% of civilians onboard the Diamond Princess had no symptoms despite testing positive.‘Devilish’ in Its Substance
While H.R. 6666 may not be satanic, it’s certainly “devilish,” Bob Barr writes in a May 20, 2020, Marietta Daily Journal op-ed.9 Barr, president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation, is a former U.S. Congressman for Georgia’s Seventh District.

“Make no mistake … the bill is a dangerous piece of legislation, not because of its number, but because of its substance,” Barr writes. “It is the latest in a long line of legislative vehicles … to increase the federal government’s power to gather and database private information on citizens ...

In this latest effort, House Democrats have employed the tradecraft for which the Congress has become notoriously adept — hiding the true purpose of legislation behind a façade of protecting people from a known or perceived danger …

The specific provisions within H.R. 6666 pose a very real danger; not only as a stand-alone bill … but as a possible amendment that could be slipped into the most recent, massive COVID-19 ‘stimulus’ bill that passed the House last week.

The administration already has signaled support for some version of a Phase IV relief package, and whatever that final document looks like, it is certain to be long and complicated, making it a perfect vehicle in which to hide a provision for ‘contact tracing’ similar perhaps to what Rush’s TRACE Act would do ...

Those of us who are concerned about the growth of government surveillance and data-basing of personal information must be vigilant against measures like the TRACE Act, regardless of their surface appeal. We must demand the Congress and the Administration aggressively oppose any such measures.”

WARNING: Apple, Android Updates Include API for Tracing Apps
Considering the latest iPhone and Android updates make the phones contact-tracing ready, the bill has, in pragmatic terms, already come to pass.

As reported by Global World Trends,10 Apple’s iOS 13.5 update contains a built-in Exposure Notifications API, which will “allow governments and public health agencies to develop apps that alert you if you've come into contact with someone who later tests positive for Covid-19 and that person anonymously logs their positive result into a database.”

API stands for “application programming interface.”11 It’s essentially a set of functions that allow apps to access certain data or features of the operating system. That said, you would still have to download a contact tracing app in order to participate in a contact tracing program, according to an Apple representative.12

HR 6666 Sets Us on a Dangerous Path
As detailed by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in a recent “Action Alert” emailed to users of NVIC’s Advocacy Portal:13

“H.R. 6666 is a federal funding bill. It proposes to create a surveillance infrastructure that can be used by the federal government, as well as local and state governments and private businesses, to require medical testing and tracking of all citizens.

This is in violation of fundamental civil liberties as set forth in the Bill of Rights, which include the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and limit the power of the government.

H.R. 6666 lacks safeguards and conditions related to funding of the proposed surveillance operation to prevent it from being applied to intrusive programs mandating testing and surveillance without an individual’s voluntary consent.

If this legislation is passed by Congress and enacted into law, it could lead to denial of an individual’s right to appear in public spaces and travel; the right to employment and education or participation in government-funded services, and the right to receive care in a government funded hospital or other any other medical facility.

H.R. 6666 specifically allows for funded entities to home quarantine a person against their will, even while they are healthy. Once a vaccine is available, the testing and tracing results potentially could be used to force individuals to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccine against their will.”

As noted by NVIC, while the bill specifies that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,” H.R. 6666 in no way guarantees privacy.

HIPAA “has always allowed disclosure of private health information to government officials and other government approved entities including foreign governments without the knowledge or consent of the individual for the purpose of conducting public health surveillance, investigations or interventions,” NVIC writes.14

Public Health Crisis Does Not Suspend Bill of Rights
NVIC also highlights the fact that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution cannot be suspended or ignored by state or federal government during public health emergencies.

As noted by the U.S. Department of Justice in a recent Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs in the case of Temple Baptist Church against the City of Greenville and its mayor, which banned drive-in church services and slapped attendees with fines:15

“There is no pandemic exception, however, to the fundamental liberties the Constitution safeguards. Indeed, ‘individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis.’

In re Abbott, — F.3d —, 2020 WL 1685929, at *6 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020). These individual rights, including the protections in the Bill of Rights made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, are always in force and restrain government action.”

Indeed, H.R. 6666 “sets the stage for multiple violations of our constitutional rights,” NVIC notes, including the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth amendments:

•The Fourth Amendment16 right of American citizens is to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As explained by NVIC:

“The bill does not allow individuals to exercise their Constitutional right to be safe in their homes free from warrantless government intrusion, and does not provide for voluntary refusal of testing and monitoring by a government funded entity.

The bill also does not set forth how the contacts of persons with COVID-19 will be traced and whether the Constitutional rights of those infected with COVID-19, as well as their contacts, will be upheld.”

•The Fifth Amendment17 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

“This legislation provides government funding of entities that will enforce testing and potentially enforce vaccination of healthy individuals, who are suspected of having come into contact with COVID-19 positive persons whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms, without requiring the voluntary consent of the individual,” NVIC writes.

•The Eighth Amendment18 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of citizens. In this case, as noted by NVIC:

“The proposed law provides government funding to entities that will create and implement programs that trace, monitor and support the enforced quarantine of healthy individuals, who are suspected of coming into contact with COVID-19 persons, whether or not they are exhibiting symptoms and whether or not they may already be immune.”

•The 9th Amendment19 of the U.S. Constitution bestows upon the people rights not specifically set forth in the Constitution.

“H.R. 6666 provides funding for entities to create and implement undefined ‘related activities’ to COVID-19 testing and unnamed ‘other purposes.’”

Take Action Today!
“H.R. 6666 should be opposed because it provides federal funding to entities to create and enforce unrestricted surveillance, testing, tracing and quarantine mechanisms and has no set end date. There is simply no way to know how many inalienable rights protected under the U.S. Constitution could be infringed upon or taken away from citizens if this bill becomes law,” NVIC says.

I urge you to take action today and help us stop this nasty bill. Call and email your U.S. congressional representative and ask them to vote against H.R. 6666, the “COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act.”

Feel free to select a few salient points to personalize your message. Keep in mind that many staffers are still working remotely, so be prepared to leave a coherent phone message.

If you’re unsure who your representative is, or don’t have their contact information, you can look them up on the NVIC’s Advocacy Portal. https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/National.aspx Just enter your zip code and click on the names listed to get their contact information. If you happen to live near a district office, you may also consider setting up a longer phone call, video chat or face-to-face meeting with your representative or staff.

The nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is the largest and oldest consumer-led organization in the U.S. disseminating information on vaccines and infectious diseases and advocating for protection of the legal right to make voluntary vaccination decisions. NVIC researches and publishes referenced information you can trust and use for talking points when you speak with your legislators.

I urge you to register as a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal so you can receive timely email Action Alerts from NVIC tailored to your state and access state and federal legislation action items and updates on the Portal website. NVIC constantly reviews and updates the status of pending vaccine-related bills so you can take action to protect your rights.

“Bills can change many times over the legislative process and your timely visits, calls, and emails directed at the correct legislators are critical to this process,” NVIC writes. Lastly, take a moment to forward this newsletter to your friends and family, and ask them to share their concerns with their elected representatives as well." "

+ Sources and References1 Congress.gov HR 6666
2 Congress.gov HR 6666, Summary tab
3 Washington Times May 12, 2020
4 CEBM.net April 6, 2020
5 Fox News April 23, 2020
6 Business Insider April 17, 2020
7 NBC San Diego April 16, 2020
8 CDC.gov MMWR March 27, 2020; 69(12): 347-352, Diamond Princess
9 Marietta Daily Journal May 20, 2020
10 Global World Trends May 20, 2020
11 MuleSoft, What Is an API?
12 Wusa9.com May 22, 2020
13, 14 NVIC May 15, 2020
15 Justice.gov, US Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:20-cv-64-DMB-JMV (PDF)
16 US Constitution Amendment 4
17 US Constitution Amendment 5
18 US Constitution Amendment 8
19 US Constitution Amendment 9

TomKat

12th June 2020, 11:57

A nurse exposes covid fraud at a New York City hospital, where testing negative = confirmed case of covid. Just listen to the 5 minutes starting here (54 min to 59min):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLYTaIwYkHU&feature=youtu.be&t=3273

Tintin

12th July 2020, 22:27

Reported on The Bernician website here's what purports to be a genuine statement from a UK NHS Accident and Emergency Consultant.

Having myself worked for many years in direct correspondence on a routine basis with Consultant grade doctors across all specialties, both in Membership environments and medical education settings this statement does ring very consistently with how I'd expect one to write. In fact I have a hunch I even know which hospital it might even be but will not commit at all to further conjecture on that as this has been written anonymously, and with good reason.

Source: https://www.thebernician.net/nhs-consultant-says-staff-are-being-silenced-over-covid-19/

NHS Consultant Says Staff Are Being Silenced Over COVID-19
Posted on 11th July 2020 by The Bernician

Here lies an anonymous statement from an A&E consultant in a major hospital in Surrey, in relation to the criminal gagging of all levels of NHS staff, who have been threatened that they will lose their jobs if the speak out about the COVID-1984 scamdemic.

“I am a consultant at a major , regional hospital in Surrey. By major you can take that to indicate that we have an A&E department. I had agreed to give an interview to an anti lockdown activist in which I would have revealed my identity. I have since changed my mind and only feel able to give an anonymous statement. I have changed my mind simply because that all staff , no matter what grade, at all hospitals have been warned that if they give any media interviews at all or make any statements to either the Main Stream Press or smaller, independent press /social media we may, immediately be suspended without pay. I have a family, dependents and I simply cant do it to them. I therefore can not reveal my identity at this time but wish to state as follows:

In my opinion, and that of many of my colleagues, there has been no Covid Pandemic, certainly not in the Surrey region and I have heard from other colleagues this picture is the same throughout the country. Our hospital would normally expect to see around 350,000 out patients a year. Around 95,000 patients are admitted to hospital in a normal year and we would expect to see around a similar figure, perhaps 100,000 patients pass through our A&E department. In the months from March to June (inclusive) we would normally expect to see 100,000 out patients, around 30,000 patients admitted to hospital and perhaps 30,000 pass through A&E. This year (and these figures are almost impossible to get hold of) we are over 95% down on all those numbers. In effect, the hospital has been pretty much empty for that entire period.

At the start, staff that questioned this were told that we were being used as ‘redundant’ capacity, kept back for the ‘deluge’ we were told would come. It never did come, and when staff began to question this, comments like, ‘for the greater good’ and to ‘protect the NHS’ came down from above. Now its just along the lines of, ‘Shut up or you don’t get paid’. The few Covid cases that we have had , get repeatedly tested, and every single test counted as a new case. Meaning the figures reported back to ONS / PHE (Office for National Statistics & Public Health England) were almost exponentially inflated. It could be that Covid cases reported by hospitals are between 5 to 10x higher than the real number of cases. There has been no pandemic and this goes a long way to explain why figures for the UK are so much higher than anywhere else in Europe.

The trust has been running empty ambulances during lockdown and is still doing it now. By this I mean ambulances are driving around, with their emergency alert systems active (sirens & / or lights) with no job to go to. This I believe has been to give the impression to the public that there is more demand for ambulances than there actually is. Staff only wear face coverings/ masks & social distance when public facing, as soon as they are out of public view, the masks come off and social distancing is not observed. Indeed jokes are made about the measures, and I have heard staff express amazement that despite warnings on packets and at point of sales, telling people masks are totally ineffective and dangerous , the public still buy them, because a politician has told them too.

We have cancelled the vast majority of operations and of these ALL elective surgery has been cancelled. That’s surgery that has been pre planned / waiting list. Non elective Surgery, this tends to be emergency surgery or that which is deemed urgent has been severely curtailed. The outcome of this is simple. People are at best being denied basic medical care and at worst, being left to die, in some cases, in much distress and pain.

Regarding death certification. All staff that are responsible for this have been encouraged where possible to put Covid-19 complications as reason for death, even though the patient may have been asymptomatic and also not even tested for covid. I feel this simply amounts to fraudulently completed death certificates and has been responsible to grossly inflating the number of Covid deaths. The fact is that regardless of what you actually die of in hospital, it is likely that Covid-19 will feature on your death certificate. I have included with my statement the detailed published guidance from Government on Death Certification which shows how Covid-19, as a factor is encouraged to at least feature on a death certificate.

Remember Covid-19 itself can not kill. What kills is complications from the virus, typically pneumonia like symptoms. These complications are in reality incredibly rare but have featured and a large amount of death certificates issued in recent months. As long as Covid-19 appears on a death certificate, that death is counted as Covid-19 in the figures released by the ONS and PHE. I genuinely believe that many death certificates, especially amongst the older 65+ demographic have been fraudulently completed so as to be counted as Covid-19 deaths when in reality Covid-19 complications did not cause the death.

There have been Thursday nights when I stood, alone in my office and cried as I heard people cheering and clapping outside. It sickens me to see all the ‘Thank You NHS’ signs up everywhere and the stolen rainbow that for me now says one word and word only; fear.

There are many good people in the NHS and whilst I do not plead forgiveness for myself, I do plead for them. Most are on low pay, they joined for the right reasons and I did and have been bullied and threatened that if they don’t ‘stay on message’ they don’t eat. I know that if a way could be found to assure staff within the NHS of safety against reprisals, there would be a tsunami of whistleblowers which I have no doubt would help end this complete and brutal insanity. I am finding it increasingly hard to live with what I have been involved in and I am sorry this has happened. To end, I would simply say this. Politicians haven’t changed, the country has just made a fatal mistake and started trusting them without question.”

greybeard

17th July 2020, 12:54

Prof Carl Heneghan: can we trust Covid-19 death numbers?

Accompanying article here: https://unherd.com/thepost/prof-carl-...

Professor Carl Heneghan is Director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, and has been paying close attention to the Covid-19 statistics. In a post yesterday evening he revealed an extraordinary detail: the Public Health England daily death totals announced to the media include anyone who has ever tested positive for Covid-19 — even if they recovered completely.

Key quotes:
• There was “massive confusion” about different Covid data between England’s health bodies. “Public Health England figures are about double the ONS figures because PHE are reporting anybody who has had a positive Covid death in the past… This will get increasingly confusing as we go into the next Winter because there could be a new outbreak and new deaths while also still reporting on historical deaths… This is a problem for epidemiologists and media… ”
• Even a “28 period cut-off is still not ideal for accurate death numbers because there is “immediate cause and underlying cause… Immediate cause means you’ve had Covid within 21 days but outside of that, it becomes the underlying cause — something that contributed to your death but wasn’t a direct cause. A 21 day cut-off would be helpful because it gives a clearer understanding of that distinction”
• “We follow excess deaths which is the most accurate information about what’s going on at that moment, but it can’t tell you what those deaths are caused by” (i.e. people not coming forward with heart attacks etc)
• “There’s an important distinction between lives lost and life years lost. One of the things we’ll be watching very closely over the next six months is how many people would have actually died in the next six months… That’s where the excess deaths really matter. If we start to see it trend significantly under for the next few months, we’ll start to come forward with information that suggests there was a group of vulnerable people that any respiratory infection would have shortened their life.”
• “In the media you’ll always hear about catastrophe and the consequences of that. One of the things we notice is that when you don’t hear anything that usually means there’s good news happening. So when Sweden looks worse you hear about it but when it’s not so bad, like now, you never see it in the media.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxLDJJb1_KI

Chester

17th July 2020, 14:15

[US centric post]

Taken from "CDC Data" (thus inflated) - and still the data makes it clear the handling of it all is an OP (but veterans here already know that, right?)

https://twitter.com/BenMarten/status/1283977112131563521

greybeard

17th July 2020, 14:26

Yahoo News UK
Coronavirus death toll disputed after PHE accused of ‘exaggerating COVID-linked deaths’

Yahoo News UK
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-phe-accused-exaggerating-deaths-093838013.html

Matt Hancock has ordered an urgent review into how Public Health England (PHE) calculates daily coronavirus death figures after experts criticised “flaws” in the way they are recorded.

Concerns have been raised that the reported death toll in England appears so high in contrast to neighbouring countries because of flaws in the way PHE is compiling “out of hospital” death statistics, including anyone who has ever been diagnosed with COVID-19 — even if they did not necessarily die from the disease.

Epidemiologist Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, said the figures record people who have ever tested positive for coronavirus and then have died.

In a blog post on The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s website, they said: “PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the COVID test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community.

“Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.

“By this PHE definition, no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness. A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.”

Public Health England defended its reporting, telling Yahoo News UK it had been right to include all deaths up until now because COVID-19 is a new infection and there is “increasing evidence of long term health problems for some of those affected”.

Dr Susan Hopkins, Public Health England Incident Director, welcomed the review, indicating the way England accounts for its death toll could soon change.

The professors said the system explains why PHE figures vary substantially from day to day.

They added: “It’s time to fix this statistical flaw that leads to an over-exaggeration of COVID-associated deaths.

“One reasonable approach would be to define community COVID-related deaths as those that occurred within 21 days of a COVID positive test result.

“In summary, PHE’s definition of the daily death figures means that everyone who has ever had COVID at any time must die with COVID too. So, the COVID death toll in Britain up to July 2020 will eventually exceed 290k, if the follow-up of every test-positive patient is of long enough duration.”

Health secretary Matt Hancock is expected to order an urgent review into the situation, clarifying any confusion over coronavirus deaths.

On the Government death statistics website for England, the issue is acknowledged, saying: “Deaths are counted where a lab-confirmed positive coronavirus test result is reported in any setting.

“This means that not all deaths reported here are caused by coronavirus.”

Dr Susan Hopkins, Public Health England Incident Director, said: “Although it may seem straightforward, there is no WHO agreed method of counting deaths from COVID-19. In England, we count all those that have died who had a positive COVID-19 test at any point, to ensure our data is as complete as possible.

“We must remember that this is a new and emerging infection and there is increasing evidence of long term health problems for some of those affected. Whilst this knowledge is growing, now is the right time to review how deaths are calculated.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “The Health Secretary has asked Public Health England to conduct an urgent review into the reporting of deaths statistics, aimed at providing greater clarity on the number of fatalities related to Covid-19 as we move past the peak of the virus.

It seems to me that some of the truth is coming out -- regarding inflated figure.
Chris

Chester

17th July 2020, 14:46

An acquaintance of mine (some I have come to love and respect most greatly) has the following - a Twitter site that relates to this thread's intentions - https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic

https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1224952342111571968

Check his entire feed as it is full of excellent information - here's an example:

https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1283923568024264704

Mypos

21st July 2020, 10:36

IRlPPzydSyMNo idea wether this was allready posted before, if so excusez moi.

Patient

22nd July 2020, 00:19

Try this!!!

Go to Google's search bar.

Type in any 3 digits and then " new cases".

See what you get.

I managed to get different numbers showing up for the same province.

Give this treat to anyone who thinks that we are not being played.

greybeard

22nd July 2020, 12:42

Covid 19 "V" Prof. Dolores J. Cahill - Truth Edit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSPO7bUfigg&t=38s

Debunking coronavirus with Dr Dolores Cahill. Biologist/Immunologist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDWuYEm7sIc&t=1759s

She is acknowledged as top authority on her subject in the world.
Well worth taking the time to watch.
Chris
Ps this may seem off topic and can be moved if deemed to be so but it all comes under the heading of eradicating virus.
ch

DaveToo

23rd July 2020, 03:09

WOW, just WOW!

I am doing some research for a website article.

I just discovered some data that if accurate, confirms what many here have been saying all along.

This COVID-19 is a big fat NOTHING BURGER!

I had previously dug up seasonal flu death stats for a few countries and compared them with Covid-19 death stats.

For the U.S. in particular, they lumped the flu with pneumonia, so I just compared total all-cause deaths from the last five years to this year.
With Covid-19, the U.S. is seeing just a 5.5% increase in all-cause deaths this year.

Neil Ferguson was predicting that millions would die in the U.S. and the pandemic would be in the league of the Spanish flu!

Well get this...

31 countries have had more deaths due to Covid-19 than the 2017 flu .
89 countries have had more deaths due to the 2017 flu than Covid-19!

I dare you to publish this anywhere in your media, MSM, let alone the front page!

And for this we have shut down the world?

Gwin Ru

23rd July 2020, 10:43

Ninety out of 144 Covid-19 tests were wrong (https://www.iceagenow.info/ninety-out-of-144-covid-19-tests-were-wrong/)

by Robert (https://www.iceagenow.info/author/xilef/)
July 22, 2020 (https://www.iceagenow.info/ninety-out-of-144-covid-19-tests-were-wrong/)
“Ninety out of 144. That is a failure rate of of 68.75%. We cannot trust ANY of the data.”
– Benjamin Napier
_______________

Ninety people who received positive COVID-19 results did not have the virus, according to the Connecticut state Department of Public Health.

The department said the state public health laboratory uncovered a flaw in one of the testing systems it uses to test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and 90 of 144 people tested between June 15 and July 17 received a false positive COVID test report. Many are nursing home residents.

According to the state Department of Health, the errant testing results were “from a widely-used laboratory testing platform that the state laboratory started using on June 15.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/state-lab-finds-90-positive-covid-19-test-results-were-false/ar-BB16Yche?ocid=mmx&fbclid=IwAR0YgLMiQBb2wuARnrKDVbt-qn99nFHt7KsYkQDy8owBCdpyWVGstMm7xVE

Thanks to Benjamin Napier for this link

Gwin Ru

27th July 2020, 16:36

...
Sweden: the One Chart That Matters (https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/sweden-the-one-chart-that-matters/)

Mike Whitney (https://www.unz.com/author/mike-whitney/)
July 25, 2020

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed7gFBbXsAErwhq?format=png&name=small

While the Covid-19 epidemic continues to drag on in the United States, it’s largely over in Sweden where fatalities have dropped to no more than 2 deaths per day for the last week. Sweden has been harshly criticized in the media for not imposing draconian lockdowns like the United States and the other European countries. Instead, Sweden implemented a policy that was both conventional and sensible. They recommended that people maintain a safe distance between each other and they banned gatherings of 50 people or more. They also asked their elderly citizens to isolate themselves and to avoid interacting with other people as much as possible. Other than that, Swedes were encouraged to work, exercise and get on with their lives as they would normally even though the world was still in the throes of a global pandemic.

Full article: https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/sweden-the-one-chart-that-matters/

greybeard

28th July 2020, 08:34

The Fact-Free Lockdown Hysteria | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDffMCAujg

kfm27917

28th July 2020, 17:35

Covid 19 is now THE miracle cure for most fatal ailments from HIV, TB, Arterioschlerosis (sp?)
Heart Attacks and Cancer.
These are now longer deadly diseases.
Thank You, WHO !

onawah

30th July 2020, 05:23

NYTimes SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Lies: Part 1
by Jeremy R. Hammond Jul 29, 2020
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/07/29/how-the-new-york-times-lies-about-sars-cov-2-transmission-part-1/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=How+the+New+York+Times+Lies+about+SARS-CoV-2+Transmission%3A+Part+1&utm_campaign=How+the+New+York+Times+Lies+about+SARS-CoV-2+Transmission%3A+Part+1&vgo_ee=skdpDJCXllVoqWOVbfck%2BA%3D%3D

"In response to the novel coronavirus pandemic, governments have implemented extreme “lockdown” measures with devastating economic consequences, the costs of which must be measured not only in dollars but also in terms of worsened health and lost or shortened lives. The mainstream media have fulfilled the function of manufacturing consent for these extreme policies by reporting about the virus in an alarmist manner that has caused mass fear and panic among the public.

A key pillar of the mainstream narrative that has served to cause mass fear and submission to harmful government diktats is that the spread of the coronavirus is largely driven via the airborne route by people who don’t know they are infected because they have no symptoms. The New York Times, America’s “newspaper of record”, has been pushing this narrative for months in a series of articles by Apoorva Mandavilli, who last year was awarded the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting.

A recurring theme in Mandavilli’s articles is that the World Health Organization (WHO) has been consistently behind the science when it comes to knowledge about the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The WHO, as the Times tells it, has been wrong to say that asymptomatic transmission appears to be rare and has been stubbornly resistant in acknowledging the airborne transmissibility of the virus in the community setting.

A critical examination of the Times’ reporting, however, reveals how it lies to the public by systematically mischaracterizing the science and the WHO’s positions on asymptomatic and airborne transmission.

For example, on July 16, in an article titled “Mask Rules Expand Across U.S. as Clashes Over the Mandates Intensify”, the Times reported that “Public health officials increasingly see masks as a powerful weapon against the virus, particularly after the World Health Organization acknowledged that the virus can be airborne, with tiny respiratory droplets able to linger in the air for hours.”[1]

That statement is false. In fact, the WHO rightly maintains that airborne transmission, while a theoretical possibility, remains unproven. The linked source for that claim is another Times article, which was written by Mandavilli. However, the fact that the Times falsely characterizes the WHO’s position as well as the science can be seen by examining her own primary sources.

The Times has built its deceptive narrative over a matter of months in a litany of articles by Mandavilli, with each successive article building on those that came before, and so to demonstrate how the more recent Times articles lie to readers, it is necessary to also examine the earlier reporting.

So, to begin, let’s go back to March 17, on which day the Times published an article by Mandavilli with a headline asking, “How long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”

How the Times Falsely Reported Airborne Transmission as a Proven Fact
That article reported as fact that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible, remaining viable in the air for up to thirty minutes, contrary to the position of the WHO that the virus is not airborne.

In fact, however, the studies cited to support that contention did not contradict the WHO’s position that airborne transmission remained unproven.

Having reported the airborne route as a proven mode of transmission with its headline, the Times article correctly noted that experts believed that the risk of transmission through contact with infected surfaces, known as fomite transmission, is “low”, but that they also “offered additional warnings about how long the virus survives in air”.

While many among the general public might assume that any transmission of the virus by droplets that travel through the air constitutes “airborne” transmission, it is actually a technical term that distinguishes between respiratory droplets with different characteristics.

The predominant mode of transmission is recognized to be larger respiratory droplets generated by coughing, sneezing, or talking at higher volumes. These droplets fall rapidly to the ground within a short distance, which is the basis for the “social distancing” recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to maintain a distance of at least six feet from others.

Airborne transmission, by contrast, refers to smaller droplets, generally under five micrometers in diameter, that are known as aerosols and can linger in the air longer and travel farther.

The main source for the Times article was a study published online by the New England Journal of Medicine on March 17. “In the study’s experimental setup,” the Times reported, “the virus stayed suspended for three hours, but it would drift down much sooner under most conditions.”

Under more natural conditions, aerosols “can stay suspended for about a half-hour, researchers said, before drifting down and settling on surfaces where it can linger for hours.”

The study’s finding that “the virus can survive and stay infectious in aerosols”, the Times asserted, “is inconsistent with the World Health Organization’s position that the virus is not transported by air.”

“For weeks experts have maintained that the virus is not airborne”, the Times adds. “But in fact, it can travel through the air and stay suspended for that period of about a half-hour.”

Furthermore, “procedures health care workers use to care for infected patients are likely to generate aerosols.”

Health care workers might also resuspend droplets into the air when doffing their protective gear, thereby exposing themselves and others to the virus. “A study that is being reviewed by experts”, the Times stated, “bears out this fear.”

A third study, published in the journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, “also indicates that the virus is transported by air. That study, based in Singapore, found the virus on a vent in the hospital room of an infected patient, where it could only have reached via the air.”

The article paraphrases Dr. Linsey Marr, “an expert in the transmission of viruses by aerosol at Virginia Tech”, saying that “the World Health Organization had so far referred to the virus as not airborne” but cautioning that health care workers should wear protective gear including respirator masks on the assumption that it is.

Importantly, the Times included the caveat that “The virus does not linger in the air at high enough levels to be a risk to most people who are not physically near an infected person.”

In other words, even if we assume that SARS-CoV-2 is spread via the airborne route by people who have no symptoms of infection, prolonged close contact with others would still be required for transmission to occur.

Relevant to the ongoing debate about executive mask-wearing orders, the article also quoted Dr. Marr saying that “surgical masks are probably insufficient” to protect health care workers from airborne transmission—as opposed to serving as a physical barrier to transmission via larger respiratory droplets.

In another important caveat, the Times also relayed Dr. Marr’s paraphrased reassurance that the new findings “should not cause the general public to panic, however, because the virus disperses quickly in the air.” While it “sounds scary”, the Times quoted Dr. Marr as saying, “unless you’re close to someone, the amount you’ve been exposed to is very low.” The Times reiterated that, “for anyone farther than a few feet away, there is too little of the virus in the air to be any danger.”

Further into the article, the Times also quoted Dr. Vincent Munster, a virologist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who led the New England Journal of Medicine study, acknowledging that they generated aerosols using “bizarre experiments done under very ideal controllable experimental conditions.”

But the only significance the Times attributes to the experimental nature of the study, in which researchers “used a rotating drum to suspend the aerosols, and provided temperature and humidity levels that closely mimic hospital conditions”, was that it left open the question of how long viable virus may remain suspended in the air once aerosolized.

It paraphrases Dr. Munster saying that “the virus survived and stayed infectious for up to three hours, but its ability to infect drops sharply over this time”, with aerosols perhaps staying aloft “only for about 10 minutes” in real-world settings. Then it paraphrases Dr. Marr disagreeing, saying that infectious aerosols “could stay in the air for three times longer” and that “the experimental setup might be less comfortable for the virus than a real-life setting.”[2]

Thus, the overall message the Times delivers to its readers is that airborne transmission had been proven, and that the only question remaining was how long aerosols containing viable virus remain in the air after being generated by infected individuals. Furthermore, this important new finding, readers are told, contradicts the WHO’s position that SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne transmissible.

Dissecting the Times’ Claims about Airborne Transmission
The first thing to note about this New York Times article is how the headline presupposes that the airborne route had been proven as mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. The rest of the article reinforces the claim that studies had contradicted the position of the WHO that the virus is not airborne. The question, the way the Times frames it, is how long viable virus can remain airborne, not whether it remains infectious in smaller aerosol droplets.

That characterization of the science, however, is false.

The New England Journal of Medicine study, titled “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1”, did detect viable virus in aerosols. As the Times points out, researchers did so experimentally, using aerosol-generating machinery. However, while the Times characterizes the significance of this as simply leaving open the question of how long infectious virus might remain suspended in the air, its true significance is that it leaves open the question of whether infectious virus can be found in aerosols generated by individuals by coughing, sneezing, talking, or breathing.

The WHO itself points this out in a scientific brief published on July 9. With reference to the New England Journal of Medicine study, the WHO notes that its findings were based on “experimentally induced aerosols that do not reflect normal human cough conditions.” Consequently, it did not demonstrate that airborne transmission occurs in the community setting.[3]

In an earlier scientific brief, published on March 29, less than two weeks after the Times reported airborne transmission as a proven fact, the WHO pointed out that some studies had provided “initial evidence on whether the COVID-19 virus can be detected in the air”, and “some news outlets” had consequently “suggested that there has been airborne transmission.” However, the WHO noted, these initial findings “need to be interpreted carefully.”

In the New England Journal of Medicine study, specifically, aerosols were experimentally generated using “a high-powered machine that does not reflect normal human cough conditions.” It was, in other words, “an experimentally induced aerosol-generating procedure.”[4]

The authors of the study themselves acknowledged that they did not prove that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible. Their findings, the researchers noted, rather indicated “that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible” (emphasis added).[5]

As for the potential for airborne transmission in the health care setting due to aerosol-generating medical procedures, the WHO had already been warning about this risk prior to that study’s publication.

As the WHO observed in a report published on February 28, “Airborne spread has not been reported for COVID-19 and it is not believed to be a major driver of transmission based on available evidence; however, it can be envisaged if certain aerosol-generating procedures are conducted in health care facilities.”[6]

The New England Journal of Medicine study, contrary to the Times’ characterization, did not contradict but reinforced that stated position of the WHO, which was not that airborne transmission had been definitively ruled out, but that it remained a theoretical risk and an important topic for further research.

The second study cited by the Times to support its narrative is titled “Aerodynamic Characteristics and RNA Concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol in Wuhan Hospitals during COVID-19 Outbreak”. Published on the preprint server bioRxiv (“bio archive”) on March 10, this was the study the Times said had borne out the fear that aerosols can be resuspended by health care workers doffing protective gear, resulting in workers exposing themselves to infectious virus.

However, the study did not confirm that this can happen, but merely hypothesized that it might occur. Its authors detected viral RNA in air samples in two hospitals in Wuhan but did not determine whether it remained viable. In contrast to the Times’ characterization, the study authors did not claim that their findings demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible; they rather characterized their findings as supporting “a hypothesis that virus-laden aerosol deposition may play a role in surface contamination and subsequent contact by susceptible people resulting in human infection.”[7]

The third study cited by the Times is titled “Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient”. Published in JAMA on March 4, this is the study the Times says “also indicates that the virus is transported by air.”

That study did detect viral RNA in an environmental sample taken from an air vent using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. As its authors reported, “Air samples were negative despite the extent of environmental contamination. Swabs taken from the air exhaust outlets tested positive, suggesting that small virus-laden droplets may be displaced by airflows and deposited on equipment such as vents.”

However, what the Times fails to relay to its readers is the fact that the detection of viral RNA is not necessarily indicative of the presence of infectious virus. As the study authors explicitly stated, one of the limitations of their study was that “viral culture was not done to demonstrate viability.”[8]

As the WHO’s scientific brief of March 29 rightly observes, “It is important to note that the detection of RNA in environmental samples based on PCR-based assays is not indicative of viable virus that could be transmissible.” To establish the airborne transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the WHO noted, further research was required to determine whether it is possible to detect viable virus in air samples in the absence of aerosol-generating procedures.[9]

In an interim guidance document published on June 29, the WHO noted that airborne transmission “is possible under circumstances and settings where aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are performed”. It added that, “Although the COVID-19 virus has been detected by RT-PCR in air samples gathered in the rooms of COVID-19 patients who did not undergo AGPs, none of these studies have been able to culture the virus from these air particles, a step that is critical to determining the infectiousness of viral particles.”[10] (Emphasis added.)

The WHO’s updated scientific brief of July 9 similarly states (emphasis added),

Some studies conducted in health care settings where symptomatic COVID-19 patients were cared for, but where aerosol generating procedures were not performed, reported the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples, while other similar investigations in both health care and non-health care settings found no presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; no studies have found viable virus in air samples. Within samples where SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found, that quantity of RNA detected was in extremely low numbers in large volumes of air and one study that found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples reported inability to identify viable virus. The detection of RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based assays is not necessarily indicative of replication- and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of causing infection.

The WHO once again reiterated that “Further studies are needed to determine whether it is possible to detect viable SARS-CoV-2 in air samples from settings where no procedures that generate aerosols are performed and what role aerosols might play in transmission.”[11]

Conclusion
In sum, the New York Times, in its March 17 article titled “How long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”, characterized the science as having firmly established that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible, albeit with questions remaining about the duration that viable virus might remain in the air after aerosols are generated by infected individuals in the community setting. To bolster that characterization, the Times portrayed the WHO as having expressed a position that was contradicted by the scientific studies being reported.

In truth, however, as is evident from examining the Times’ own cited sources, airborne transmission remained theoretical, and the studies cited did not contradict the WHO’s position for reasons that the WHO has itself since explained. Namely, the detection of viable virus in air samples in experimental studies using machines to generate aerosols does not demonstrate airborne transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting, and the detection of viral RNA using RT-PCR assays is not necessarily indicative of the presence of infectious virus.

In forthcoming installments of this series, we’ll further examine the propagandistic nature of the New York Times’ reporting and how it has systematically deceived the public for months about the what science tells us about how transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the community setting.

References
[1] Sara Mervosh, Manny Fernandez, and Campbell Robertson, “Mask Rules Expand Across U.S. as Clashes Over the Mandates Intensify”, New York Times, July 16, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/us/coronavirus-masks.html.

[2] Apoorva Mandavilli, “How Long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”, New York Times, March 17, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/health/coronavirus-surfaces-aerosols.html.

[3] World Health Organization, “Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions”, WHO.int, July 9, 2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

[4] World Health Organization, “Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations”, WHO.int, March 29, 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331616.

[5] Neeltje van Doremalen et al., “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1”, New England Journal of Medicine, March 17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2004973.

[6] World Health Organization, “Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), WHO.int, February 28, 2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/report-of-the-who-china-joint-mission-on-coronavirus-disease-2019-(covid-19).

[7] Yuan Liu et al., “Aerodynamic Characteristics and RNA Concentration of SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol in Wuhan Hospitals during COVID-19 Outbreak”, bioRxiv, March 10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.08.982637.

[8] Sean Wei Xiang Ong et al., “Air, Surface Environmental, and Personal Protective Equipment Contamination by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) From a Symptomatic Patient”, JAMA, March 4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

[9] WHO, “Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19”.

[10] World Health Organization, “Infection prevention and control during health care when coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is suspected or confirmed”, WHO.int, June 29, 2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-IPC-2020.4.

[11] WHO, “Transmission of SARs-CoV-2”. "

onawah

30th July 2020, 23:13

Yale PhD Epidemiology "Unnecessary Deaths"
Newsweek: “Tens of Thousands of Patients with COVID-19 are Dying Unnecessarily” – by Dr. Harvey A. Risch
7/30/20
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/newsweek-tens-of-thousands-of-patients-with-covid-19-are-dying-unnecessarily-by-dr-harvey-a-risch/

Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

"While not a “news” story, but an “opinion” piece, it is still rare to see a corporate media outlet like Newsweek publish the truth about hydroxychloroquine.

Since this was written the week before the Frontline Doctors descended upon Washington D.C. to educate the public on how they were curing ALL of their COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine, we are republishing the entire editorial by Dr. Harvey A. Risch before it disappears.

The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It
by Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health
Newsweek.com

As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.” That article, published in the world’s leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients.

These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been “natural experiments.” In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.

A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?

First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.

In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.

But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.

Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.

In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points.

For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately."

Full article at Newsweek.com: https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.

onawah

31st July 2020, 22:56

FAIL: The Exact Same COVID Test will Produce Different Results Depending on the Laboratory
7/30/20
https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/fail-the-exact-same-covid-test-will-produce-different-results-depending-on-the-laboratory/

"Another failure of the COVID diagnostic test
by Jon Rappoport
NoMoreFakeNews.com

In previous articles, I’ve detailed several key reasons why the PCR test is worthless and deceptive. (PCR article archive here).

Here I discuss yet another reason: the uniformity of the test has never been properly validated. Different labs come up with different results.

Let’s start here—the reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

—Sobering, to say the least. Of course, some people will claim that since the date of the Times’ article (2007), vast improvements have been made in the PCR test.

Really? The truth is, something much worse is lurking in the weeds. It has been lurking ever since the PCR was approved for use in diagnostics:

No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done.

You would think at least a dozen very large studies had checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

Here is what should have been done decades ago:

Take a thousand volunteers. Remove tissue samples from each person. Send those samples to 30 different labs. Have the labs run PCR and announce their findings for each volunteer.

“We found the following virus in sample 1…” Something simple like that.

Now compare the findings, in each of the 1000 cases, from all 30 labs. Are the findings the same? Are the outcomes uniform all the way across the board?

My money would be against it. Strongly against.

But this is not the end of the process. SEVERAL of these large-scale studies should be done. In EACH study, there are 1000 volunteers and 30 labs.

Why? Because, as you can readily see, the whole story about a current pandemic is riding on those tests. The story, the containment measures, the lockdowns, the economic devastation, the human destruction—it’s all built on the presumption that the PCR is a valid test.

It’s unthinkable that these validation studies of the PCR weren’t done decades ago. But they weren’t. And there is only one reason why: to avoid the truth. The results of the PCR aren’t uniform. They vary from lab to lab.

One lab says positive for virus B. Another lab says negative for virus B. Both labs are looking at the same sample.

No? Couldn’t be? Then prove it with the several large-scale studies I’m proposing.

I’ll give you a rough fictional analogy for the current testing situation—

In an old-growth forest of immense trees, a government agency tests white spots found on some trunks. The verdict? A highly destructive and novel fungus, for which there is no remedy. Without immediate and drastic action, the fungus will spread to the whole forest and destroy all the trees.

So a government contract is signed with a logging company, and workers move in and start cutting down many trees.

Meanwhile, another lab tests those white spots and reports they’re harmless bird droppings. Yet another lab claims they’re a mild traditional fungus of no great concern.

The reports of these two labs are suppressed and censored. The labs are put on a quiet blacklist, and their business dries up.

The tree cutting continues.

An analyst at the US Forestry Service sends a memo to his boss. It details the fact that the test which found deadly fungus is unreliable. Different labs doing the test come up with different and conflicting results.

Worse yet, that test was never properly validated as a uniform process before being approved for use. In other words, no one did a large study in which multiple labs used the test to determine the composition of spots found on trees. No one made sure that all labs came to the same conclusions using the test.

The Forestry analyst writes:

“The test has inherent flaws. Different labs examining the same sample will always come up with different results. This has disastrous consequences in the real world. You can see that now; we are cutting down half a forest to prevent the spread of a fungus which has been noticed for centuries, and never caused serious harm…”

The analyst is fired from his job and firmly reminded that he signed a non-disclosure agreement, and he better keep his mouth shut.

The tree-cutting goes on. A developer buys up the cleared land at a very low price…

In essence, the pipeline of information from actually reliable sources, to the government, and then to the public, is narrowed, and guarded against unwelcome intrusions of TRUTH.

In the case of the PCR test, that’s what is happening.

Read the full article at NoMoreFakeNews.com: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/29/another-failure-of-the-covid-diagnostic-test/

Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com."

Rawhide68

1st August 2020, 11:53

Gwin Ru

1st August 2020, 13:53

Very good question!

"They" know what it is but don't want it to be published in order to misdirect the research onto something else as was done by the same guy for the Chronic Fatigue Syndrom (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110916-PLANDEMIC-Part-1-Virologist-Dr-Judy-Mikovits-Speaks-Out&p=1369949&viewfull=1#post1369949) and what Dr. Judy Mikovits found out as well as Luc Montagnier (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110970-Biowarfare-Labs-Fort-Detrick-Etc....&p=1364903&viewfull=1#post1364903).

... I mean... who wants to demonstrate many had a hand in the manufacture of the "bug" at Fort Detrick? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?26454-Conspiracy-Theory-to-Application&p=272935&viewfull=1#post272935)

It also doesn't mean that Kaufman is lying but his analysis might be insufficient simply because:

What causes cells to spit out, as exosomes, bits and pieces of malaria, HIV, H1N1, etc. to start with?

Where are these bits and pieces coming from and generating an "en masse" detox of cells?

Maia Gabrial

2nd August 2020, 02:48

Can you believe this? If it wasn't bad enough that they were told to fudge the numbers of the virus, now they're telling the states to do it even more so.

Is this what the second wave will be? Even more fraud? We all should question their honor and integrity finally. A lie is still a lie....To perpetrate an even bigger hoax means that there is no pandemic, so they have to make it appear as though there is one. :( :( :(

YYPhZGbvnT8

As far as I'm concerned, "potential cases" are like "what ifs". The chances are, they may never happen. Is that how we want to live?

indigopete

2nd August 2020, 15:04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xO723gH7Go

indigopete

2nd August 2020, 15:32

Guv testing out their propaganda messaging for "selling" the vaccine to us:

https://i.imgur.com/kAaQzr0.png (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04460703?term=Vaccine&cond=Covid19&cntry=US&draw=2)

Satori

2nd August 2020, 16:19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xO723gH7Go

Outstanding, concise and extremely informative and thought-provoking video.

DaveToo

3rd August 2020, 02:56

waves

3rd August 2020, 04:06

A question
If there is no virus, no peer reviewed studies of a gold standard isolation of the virus have been done.(Acc to Dr Kaufman)
What are the the big Farma trying to make vaccin's from?
They must have the "kern" of the virus to have something to work on.

Is Dr Kaufman a liar?

No, the rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper..... and deeper.

Don't forget, absolutely nothing you're hearing from any official, any msm, any newspaper about anything to do with CV is true.... so no one is 'working on' a vaccine. It's done.

When you start to see how long planned all mass influence agendas are, you get that all steps have long been all planned out and anything supposedly 'being worked on' was finished along time ago....like all this amazing highly developed and mass manufactured stuff didn't just begin to get designed starting mid March this year either. Friday the 13th by the way was the official announcement date that the sh*t was going to HTF.

The design, approval, manufacturing and distribution of countless varieties of millions and millions of 'thing's' to support/promote/ENFORCE this social degradation agenda doesn't happen in a week. All the memes 'social distancing', 'new normal', blah blah are planned years ago and dropped in step, all the orders to all different businesses are pre written, all the floor stickers, store sign orders to wear masks, plexiglass designs for all different check out stations, etc were designed and manufactured a long time ago and waiting, mass manufacturing/design of masks were done a long time ago waiting for mass promotion/campaign to start making normal - long ago pre produced and waiting, school cubicles, home schooling programs, new text books, complete new organization of school procedures/rules/tests, blah blah... done a LONG time ago and waiting....and this was not rolled out until the vaccine concoction with all their hi-tech nazi/orwellian technology was perfected and ready to go.

Dr. Kaufman's sees thru the official story just fine. It's full of holes, hypocrisies, impossibilities, and absurdities galore. Jack and Jill Sheep could care less and will be obediently walking right into the vaccine slaughterhouse which is the 2020 style nazi train.

DSKlausler

3rd August 2020, 13:13

No, the rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper..... and deeper.

Don't forget, absolutely nothing you're hearing from any official, any msm, any newspaper about anything to do with CV is true.... so no one is 'working on' a vaccine. It's done.

When you start to see how long planned all mass influence agendas are, you get that all steps have long been all planned out and anything supposedly 'being worked on' was finished along time ago....like all this amazing highly developed and mass manufactured stuff didn't just begin to get designed starting mid March this year either. Friday the 13th by the way was the official announcement date that the sh*t was going to HTF.

The design, approval, manufacturing and distribution of countless varieties of millions and millions of 'thing's' to support/promote/ENFORCE this social degradation agenda doesn't happen in a week. All the memes 'social distancing', 'new normal', blah blah are planned years ago and dropped in step, all the orders to all different businesses are pre written, all the floor stickers, store sign orders to wear masks, plexiglass designs for all different check out stations, etc were designed and manufactured a long time ago and waiting, mass manufacturing/design of masks were done a long time ago waiting for mass promotion/campaign to start making normal - long ago pre produced and waiting, school cubicles, home schooling programs, new text books, complete new organization of school procedures/rules/tests, blah blah... done a LONG time ago and waiting....and this was not rolled out until the vaccine concoction with all their hi-tech nazi/orwellian technology was perfected and ready to go.

Dr. Kaufman's sees thru the official story just fine. It's full of holes, hypocrisies, impossibilities, and absurdities galore. Jack and Jill Sheep could care less and will be obediently walking right into the vaccine slaughterhouse which is the 2020 style nazi train.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Luke Holiday

7th August 2020, 18:10

.... Here is one from Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-gov-dewine-tests-negative-covid-19-hours-testing-positive

Ohio Gov. DeWine tests negative for COVID-19 hours after testing positive and neither test was testing for the ‘virus’. What a JOKE it all is
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine tested negative for COVID-19 on Thursday hours after testing positive before he was set to greet President Trump at the Cleveland airport, according to a statement by the governor’s office.

Instead of meeting with Trump, DeWine returned to Columbus and was ultimately tested for coronavirus a second time.

The second test was a PCR test administered that afternoon, which his office said was “extremely sensitive, as well as specific, for the virus.” His wife, Fran DeWine, and staff members also tested negative.

“The PCR tests for the Governor, First Lady, and staff were run twice,” the statement said. “They came back negative the first time and came back negative when they were run on a second diagnostic platform.”

His office said the PCR test was different than the rapid antigen test administered earlier in the morning as part of the standard protocol required to meet with Trump.

“We will be working with the manufacturer to have a better understanding of how the discrepancy between these two tests could have occurred,” the statement added.

Read More: Ohio Gov. DeWine tests negative for COVID-19 hours after testing positive

Blessings Luke

Stealthy Monk

8th August 2020, 00:29

Daniel McCrossan MLA Reports Falsified Covid Death Certificates of his Constituents In Northern Ireland Assembly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6JkwDH7okM

Rawhide68

8th August 2020, 11:02

Hi fellow members!

Two of my favourite's Spiro and Corbet. :clapping:
The importance of NOT complying is CRUCIAL!!! for humaniy's future.

OX_jYEI6Z3Q

PS
(Noticed Stealthy Monk above = The Ugly, since I'm the Good,where is the Bad :))
IMDB Trailer https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2789278233?ref_=tt_pv_vi_aiv_2

DS

PSS

I just noticed the trailer and its all wrong!
It states:

Lee Van Cleef as "Sentenza / Angel Eyes" as the ugly according to the trailer? NO he is "the bad"!

Eli Wallach as "TUCO" as the bad ? NO he is "the ugly" !

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENCE! IS THIS ANOTHER MANDELA EFFECT ?
Am I going crazy? , Please help me out here ?!

Just posted on "Mandela effect", go there,looking forward you answers

Gwin Ru

10th August 2020, 13:20

Conversation

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1790281240/henry-makow_bigger.jpg Henry Makow (https://twitter.com/HenryMakow) @HenryMakow

(https://twitter.com/HenryMakow)Reader: "In eleven minutes, this man explains brilliantly how the COVID hysteria has been contrived as a cover story for the financial crisis."

Robbie

(https://t.co/OEFwpwnFpx?amp=1) He couldn't have said it any better. *Watch before they take this down again* (https://t.co/OEFwpwnFpx?amp=1) (<--- click)

facebook.com
(https://t.co/OEFwpwnFpx?amp=1)
2:44 PM · Aug 10, 2020

3544978478866393

Stealthy Monk

13th August 2020, 15:43

LOL - I don't know who is "The Bad". Great film!

Maia Gabrial

14th August 2020, 21:12

I'm going to send this video to my governor and ask him if this doctor is talking about him.
:becky:
Most governors claim that it's the "science" that they're following, when it's no such thing. They love the power trip so much that they'll say anything. I used to think Gov. Wolf of PA was better than most. But I've been paying closer attention. (Thank God, he's not like Michigan's power mad nutjob)....

Dr. Tim O'Shea explains what to look for so we don't get caught up in govt and Lamestream medias' attempts to mislead us. Seems that it's all in the wording.... and of course, we get snagged by it all the time... Anybody else here, getting fed up with all of this?

https://www.brighteon.com/7a0cac08-70f4-43c7-af42-6a3609110224

Btw, I don't know anyone who's got the Rona virus. But I've noticed alot of sickly looking eyes behind masks, One cashier looked like she was going to pass out, which is one of the symptoms of Hypercapnia... Btw, my governor is going to get the diagram of Carbon Dioxide Toxicity because it's easier to understand than a bunch of words by the real experts.... :becky:

onawah

18th August 2020, 04:51

How Government “Cures” Drive Out Real Cures
by Barry Brownstein, PhD
Published August 16, 2020
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/08/how-government-cures-drive-out-real-cures/
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.141/bb3.b64.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/microscope-701x445.jpg

"Scurvy, we all know, is a disease caused by a vitamin C deficiency. It took almost 200 years from the time a “lemon juice” cure for scurvy was discovered until it was promoted by the British government. Some think the mental biases that caused the needless deaths of millions have been eliminated in more “enlightened” modern times. They are wrong.

In his book, Bad Medicine, history professor David Wootton explains that scurvy “became a major problem only with the beginning of transoceanic voyages.” On those voyages, fresh fruits and vegetables were lacking for at least ten weeks.

On long voyages, the mortality rate from scurvy was 50 percent. Wootton writes, “One estimate is that two million sailors died of this dreadful disease between Columbus’s discovery of America and the replacement of sailing ships by steamships in the mid-nineteenth century.”

Wootton accounts that in 1740 George Anderson commanded a fleet of six ships and 2,000 men and lost 1,800 men to scurvy. During the French and Indian War (1754-1763), approximately 133,000 of 184,000 sailors in the British fleet died from scurvy. Many of the dead sailors had been “press-ganged into service.”

Yet, most of these deaths were avoidable. By 1601 merchant Sir James Lancaster had already solved the scurvy problem by stocking his ship with lemon juice on his voyage to the East Indies. Wootton reports the practice of stocking lemon juice “became standard on ships of both the Dutch and English East India companies in the early seventeenth century.”

Unfortunately, the lemon juice cure, Wootton writes, “made no sense to doctors with a University education, who were convinced that this disease, like every other, must be caused by bad air or an imbalance of the humours.” Pressured by doctors, ship captains refused to stock lemons.

The British Admiralty “formally asked the College of Physicians for advice on how to combat scurvy.” In 1740, 139 years after the lemon juice cure was known, the response of the College of Physicians was to advocate the use of vinegar and Ward’s Drop and Pill. The pill consisted of poisonous ingredients, including antimony, cobalt, and arsenic, thought to purge illness from the body.

Wootton points out that history incorrectly credits a surgeon, James Lind, with discovering the cure for scurvy. Yet, Lind’s “discovery” occurred 150 years after knowledge of the efficacy of lemon juice was known to the Portuguese, the Spanish, and the first American colonists.

Initially, Lind recognized the lemon juice cure but didn’t understand that scurvy was a nutritional disease. He stuck with a humours theory and believed skin pores clogged by damp air caused scurvy. Lind thought lemon juice unblocked clogged pores. Decades after his first success in 1747, Lind himself lost faith in his remedy and again resorted to bloodletting for scurvy patients. It took another 50 years for lemon juice to be generally adopted by the English Navy.

Voices of those who knew the lemon juice cure were rejected. In 1786, a merchant sea captain wrote to the British Admiralty, informing them that lemon juice cured scurvy. The captain was told that trials have been made of the use of lemons in the treatment of scurvy and that surgeons “all agree” that “lemons and oranges were of no service either in the prevention or cure” of scurvy.

The Admiralty issued this “official” advice 185 years after James Lancaster effectively used lemon juice against scurvy. Notice that merchants were more open-minded in their willingness to try new treatments to save lives. Without the power to press gang, protecting crew members and saving lives was paramount. Notably, Captain James Cook, commanding the Endeavour during his 1769 voyage to New Zealand and Australia, bucked the Admiralty by serving sauerkraut and fresh vegetables when he made landfalls. Cook didn’t lose a single crew member to scurvy during his almost three-year voyage. Yet, in 1773 Lind was still insisting diet was not the cause or cure of scurvy.

Wootton is clear; doctors were culpable: “When good arguments are beaten from the field by bad ones, those who do the driving must bear the responsibility.” “Bad knowledge drove out good,” Wootton argues. The advice of doctors was used as a shield by an inflexible government determined not to yield to the evidence.

Gresham’s Law
Is Wootton correct, did bad knowledge about scurvy drive out good knowledge?

Gresham’s Law explains why bad money drives out good money. This law is frequently misunderstood.

Gresham’s Law only is operable when the bad money and the good money are both legal tender. For instance, when both silver quarters and non-silver quarters were circulated side-by-side, the public hoarded the more valuable silver quarters, taking the silver quarters out of circulation. Bad money (non-silver quarters) drove out good money (silver quarters), but that was only because shopkeepers were forced to treat both silver and non-silver quarters as having the same value.

Detractors of free markets frequently seek to apply Gresham’s Law to products other than money. Their antipathy to free markets leads them to claim that the market rewards the lowest common denominator.

Yet, a moment’s reflection shows this to be untrue. A men’s shirt from Walmart peacefully competes with ones from Charles Tyrwhitt, and these stock shirts peacefully compete with custom-made shirts costing hundreds of dollars. Consumers decide which products best fit their needs, given their preferences and income.

Wootton is correct; history shows how bad knowledge drove out good knowledge about the prevention and treatment of scurvy. Gresham’s Law can be applied: The British Admiralty sanctioned the College of Physicians to provide a “legal tender” treatment—ineffective vinegar and poisonous pills. The bad treatment crowded out the good treatment (lemons) on government ships. The British Admiralty was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of sailors by blocking a known effective treatment.

If YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook were around in the 18th Century, would they have censored advocates of lemon juice on the grounds that it undermined “the science” endorsed by the College of Physicians?

Remdesivir
Like the British Admiralty acting on the advice of “expert” physicians, many of our experts and politicians assure the public that for COVID-19 there is no prevention other than lockdowns, social distancing, masks, and soon a vaccine. They claim there is no treatment for COVID-19 other than the astonishingly expensive new drug remdesivir. Remdesivir costs $3,120 a dose and is the only FDA-approved treatment for COVID-19. And yet, remdesivir does nothing to reduce mortality from COVID-19. The United States bought the entire supply of remdesivir at the cost of over $1 billion; great for the politically connected pharmaceutical company Gilead, producing remdesivir. But if remdesivir is the “legal tender” treatment, how does this impact our health?

We have all seen this lousy movie before, but our memories are short. In 2009, during the Swine Flu pandemic, Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer asked hard questions about Tamiflu, the “remdesivir” of that time. As with remdesivir, Tamiflu at best reduced the duration of illness without impacting mortality. As with remdesivir, Tamiflu was very expensive and was stockpiled by the government. Brownlee and Lenzer questioned whether “the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled” have “power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized?” They report,

“As with [flu] vaccines, the scientific evidence for Tamiflu and Relenza is thin at best. In its general-information section, the CDC’s Web site tells readers that antiviral drugs can “make you feel better faster.” True, but not by much. On average, Tamiflu (which accounts for 85 to 90 percent of the flu antiviral-drug market) cuts the duration of flu symptoms by twenty-four hours in otherwise healthy people. In exchange for a slightly shorter bout of illness, as many as one in five people taking Tamiflu will experience nausea and vomiting. About one in five children will have neuropsychiatric side effects, possibly including anxiety and suicidal behavior.”

In short, antivirals such as Tamiflu “have had their effectiveness overplayed, and harms underplayed.”

Today, politically anointed remdesivir is crowding out the inexpensive 65-year-old generic drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Anecdotal and empirical evidence shows HCQ is safe and effective in treating COVID-19. Bretigne Shaffer has done an outstanding job compiling the known evidence about hydroxychloroquine.

Adnan Munkarah, MD, is Executive Vice President and Chief Clinical Officer, and Steven Kalkanis, MD, is Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of the large Henry Ford Health System in Michigan. They report that hydroxychloroquine significantly cut mortality rates for thousands of their Health System’s patients. Yet, as Munkarah and Kalkanis write, “the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events.”

“Scientific debate,” they write “is a common occurrence with almost every published study. In part, this is what fuels the advancement of knowledge–challenging one another on our assumptions, conclusions and applications to get to a better place for the patients we collectively serve.”

Scientific debate is being stifled. Dr. Peter Gøtzsche is one of the leading advocates of “rigorous methodology and the elimination of bias in assessing the efficacy of treatments.” In July he warned,

“It has become increasingly difficult to publish articles in medical journals that are critical of drugs or the drug industry, or that expose fraud and other wrongdoing committed by doctors. It is also difficult to publish articles documenting that the status quo in a medical specialty is harmful for the patients even though such articles should be warmly welcomed.”

How much has really changed since the British College of Physicians suppressed a real cure for scurvy in favor of Ward’s Drop and Pill?

With hydroxychloroquine, “experts” led by Dr. Fauci are actively suppressing debate. The FDA has revoked its emergency use permission for hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine is denied to those inflicted with COVID-19, not on the merits of remdesivir, but due to the coercive force of government.

What Government Is Selling
Connecting the dots is easy. The government is spending over $10 billion on its Operation Warp Speed to produce a vaccine that will be shielded from liability.

A rushed COVID-19 vaccine will not go through full safety trials, yet the FDA will probably issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to approve a vaccine. To issue an EUA, there must be “no adequate, approved, and available alternative.” In other words, HCQ or another effective treatment is a threat to a vaccine; if hydroxychloroquine is effective, there can be no fast-tracked vaccine.

Recently Bill Gates was questioned about the side effects of a COVID-19 frontrunner vaccine being manufactured by biotech start-up Moderna. Norah O’Donnell asked Gates about the alarming report that 80% “of the participants [in the vaccine trial] experienced a systemic side effect.” Gates responded, “The side effects were not super severe; that is, it didn’t cause permanent health problems.” Given the short-term trial time, Gates doesn’t know if there are permanent health problems. Gates’s “not super severe” standard might be acceptable to some people; many others are ready to say no thanks.

Gates then added, the FDA will do a good job [of not allowing a vaccine with severe side effects] despite the pressure. Fauci, too, said he is not worried about side effects of the Moderna vaccine.

Fauci and Gates rely upon the FDA to guarantee safety. In his book Against Leviathan Robert Higgs writes:

“Rather than supplying the quality assurance that people value, the FDA serves, in a sense, as a central planner in the quality-assurance sector of the medical goods economy. The agency imposes a body of rigid, one-size-fits-all rules, binding on everyone regardless of the actual individual differences of people’s medical conditions, personal preferences and attitudes towards bearing risks…Like other forms of central planning, it cannot solve the problems of information and incentives inherent in its way of dealing with the issues within its jurisdiction.”

Higgs quotes former FDA official Dr. Henry Miller as saying, “The gold standard of FDA regulation is fool’s gold.”

As an economist, I’m concerned that liability shields eliminate the essential role insurance companies play in assessing risk. I take seriously the words of Ruud Dobber, an executive at AstraZeneca, another COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer, who said about the worldwide liability shields his company sought, “We as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.” As a consumer, I give more serious consideration to Dobber’s reservations than Gates’s “not super severe” assurance of side effects.

A recent survey by KEKSTCNC, a global strategic communications firm, found that in the United States, Americans believe the prevalence and morbidity of COVID-19 are far greater than actual counts. Americans believe an astonishing 9% of Americans have died from COVID-19. The public perception is exaggerated 225x.

If many people you know are in a constant state of fear for themselves and their children, incessantly monitoring themselves for symptoms, now you know why. To the frightened, Dr. Fauci is a hero who they desperately hope will relieve their existential fears of death, an existential dread that many have projected onto COVID-19. They resent when their hero is fact-checked.

Refuse Fauci’s favored vaccine solution, and some advocate the government should force you to take the vaccine or jail you. Such draconian solutions take root when the government feeds existential fears.

There are likely “lemon juice” solutions to COVID-19, and perhaps hydroxychloroquine is one. But a government that suppresses debate and wants to funnel billions towards politically connected firms will discredit all challengers to their favored solutions. In the name of what they define as “the science,” the discovery process of real science is suppressed. Science suppressors are part of an illiberal movement whose members, in the words of Jeffrey Tucker, are “enemies of freedom and human rights.” They threaten the health of billions.

This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is senior contributor at Intellectual Takeout and the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership.

Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking. "

Tintin

18th August 2020, 11:30

The following article was written back on May 30th for The Spectator magazine. Much, if not all of its content remains pertinent.

______________________________

"Normally, two doctors are needed to certify a death, one of whom has been treating the patient or who knows them and has seen them recently. That has changed. For Covid-19 only, the certification can be made by a single doctor, and there is no requirement for them to have examined, or even met, the patient. A video-link consultation in the four weeks prior to death is now felt to be sufficient for death to be attributed to Covid-19."

- Dr. John Lee, Histopathologist

____________________________

The way ‘Covid deaths’ are being counted is a national scandal
We have no idea how many lives have really been lost to the disease

From magazine issue: 30 May 2020

https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltf04078f3cf7a9c30/blt4a3f1b7811ed23bf/5ece34a5859dd01a62688c2e/John-Lee.jpg?format=jpg&width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds

As a pathologist, I’m used to people thinking that my job mainly involves dealing with death. But nothing could be further from the truth. That is why I and many of my colleagues are so dismayed by changes introduced during the coronavirus epidemic which mean that pathology has not been able to play the role that it should have in helping to understand this new disease.

The word ‘pathology’ tends to conjure up images of body bags, mortuaries and murder investigations. ‘Ho ho,’ people say, ‘your patients can’t answer back.’ They imagine days spent trudging across fields to reach murder scenes, Silent Witness-style, and nights sifting through arcane evidence to catch the perpetrators. And a rare type of pathologist — the forensic pathologist — does indeed do that.

Most pathologists, though, spend the majority of their careers looking after the living. After all, pathology is the study of disease, and the whole point of knowing about diseases is to inform our approaches to preventing and treating them.

There are four main types of pathologist. Microbiologists specialise in the study of infectious diseases — a subtype is the virologist, in particular demand at the moment. Chemical pathologists are experts in the liquid parts of the blood; they analyse the endless samples that pour into path labs day and night, looking for changes in chemicals and hormones that indicate disease. Haematologists are experts in diseases of the blood cells, the red cells and white cells that can cause problems such as anaemia or leukaemia.

And then there is my own speciality of histopathology, or cellular pathology. We are experts in analysing changes in the fabric of our bodies that result from disease. Many diseases affect our tissues in ways that can be seen down the microscope, allowing them to be accurately diagnosed and monitored, particularly tumours and inflammations. Every time a biopsy or surgical sample is taken, it comes to the histopathology lab to be examined. Histopathology is often regarded as a ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis of diseases that change tissue structure. A clinical examination or X-ray may suggest that a tumour or fibrosis of the lung, say, is present, but you need to examine a tissue sample microscopically to be sure that it’s really there, what type it is, and how advanced. Tissue can also be examined genetically to look for the presence of infectious agents or cellular receptors that may determine how deadly it is.

The other thing that some histopathologists do is autopsies — hence the confusion with forensic pathology. But in this case the autopsies are not typically looking for evidence of foul play. They are usually requested by a coroner to ascertain the cause of death. Relatives, even doctors, are often surprised by the need for this in the world of modern medicine. Surely all the examinations, tests and imaging carried out in life mean that the treating doctors know what was wrong with the patient when they die? But no, it turns out that autopsies often reveal the unexpected. Tests and images can be misleading, and treating doctors may have fixed ideas about what the matter is, based on first impressions or incomplete evidence.

Autopsy — auto opsis — literally means seeing for oneself. And the person doing the seeing should be clear-eyed — an independent specialist medical practitioner, with no emotional or professional vested interest in what happened to the patient. Autopsy studies typically show major discrepancies between actual findings and clinical diagnosis in a quarter to a third of cases. And in about a sixth of the cases, knowing about these hidden pathologies in life could have made differences to treatment that might have prevented death. In the UK in recent decades about one in six deaths have had an autopsy examination — a deceased person’s last gift to the living.

The results contribute to maintaining and improving care, verifying and upholding the standards of public health statistics, preventing diagnostic drift, and basically keeping medicine honest. Autopsies also allow sampling of tissues from more organs than is usually possible in life, facilitating molecular and genetic studies.

And nowhere are autopsy studies more important than in the study of new diseases and new treatments. The best example of this in recent years was acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or Aids. When Aids first appeared in the early 1980s no one knew what it was, how it affected victims, how to treat it, or what effects potential treatments had. Knowledge about all of these aspects was substantially acquired by study of tissue samples taken during life, and by autopsy examinations, with study of samples acquired after death. There was much uncertainty and worry at the time about how the disease was spread, and possible contagion to healthcare workers and to the general population. But work continued, and the results were of immense help in understanding the disease and developing treatments.

Looking at the current crisis, the response so far has been very different. We are still struggling to understand coronavirus. I can think of no time in my medical career when it has been more important to have accurate diagnosis of a disease, and understanding of precisely why patients have died of it. Yet very early on in the epidemic, rules surrounding death certification were changed — in ways that make the statistics unreliable. Guidance was issued which tends to reduce, rather than increase, referrals for autopsy.

Normally, two doctors are needed to certify a death, one of whom has been treating the patient or who knows them and has seen them recently. That has changed. For Covid-19 only, the certification can be made by a single doctor, and there is no requirement for them to have examined, or even met, the patient. A video-link consultation in the four weeks prior to death is now felt to be sufficient for death to be attributed to Covid-19. For deaths in care homes the situation is even more extraordinary. Care home providers, most of whom are not medically trained, may make a statement to the effect that a patient has died of Covid-19. In the words of the Office for National Statistics, this ‘may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result, or be reflected in the death certification’. From 29 March the numbers of ‘Covid deaths’ have included all cases where Covid-19 was simply mentioned on the death certificate — irrespective of positive testing and whether or not it may have been incidental to, or directly responsible for, death. From 29 April the numbers include the care home cases simply considered likely to be Covid-19.

So at a time when accurate death statistics are more important than ever, the rules have been changed in ways that make them less reliable than ever. In what proportion of Covid-19 ‘mentions’ was the disease actually present? And in how many cases, if actually present, was Covid-19 responsible for death? Despite what you may have understood from the daily briefings, the shocking truth is that we just don’t know. How many of the excess deaths during the epidemic are due to Covid-19, and how many are due to our societal responses of healthcare reorganisation, lockdown and social distancing? Again, we don’t know. Despite claims that they’re all due to Covid-19, there’s strong evidence that many, perhaps even a majority, are the result of our responses rather than the disease itself.

It might have been possible to check these proportions by examining the deceased. But at a time when autopsies could have played a major role in helping us understanding this disease, advice was given which made such examinations less likely than might otherwise have been the case. The Chief Coroner issued guidance on 26 March which seemed designed to keep Covid-19 cases out of the coronial system: ‘The aim of the system should be that every death from Covid-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the [death certification] process.’ And even guidance produced by the Royal College of Pathologists in February stated: ‘In general, if a death is believed to be due to confirmed Covid-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.’

We need proper information to inform our responses to the virus, both clinical and societal. Instead, we have no idea how many of the deaths attributed to Covid-19 really were due to the disease. And we have no idea how many of the excess deaths were really due to Covid-19 or to the effects of lockdown. Officials should be releasing, as a matter of urgency, detailed information on the surge in deaths, both apparent Covid and non-Covid — particularly in care homes. How many are dying of Covid acquired in hospitals? Data presumably exists on this too, but is not released.

The first rule in a pandemic should be to ensure transparency of information. Without it, errors can go undiscovered — and lives can be lost. We will never be able to find out for sure what this disease was like, or what it did in the early stages of the crisis.

One of the unappreciated tragedies of this epidemic so far is the huge lost opportunity to understand Covid-19 better. We like to beat ourselves up for having the worst Covid death toll in Europe — but we will never know, because we decided not to count properly. In a country that has always prided itself on the quality of its facts and figures, the missing Covid-19 data is a national scandal.

onawah

20th August 2020, 20:24

Connecting the Dots: Big Meat, Big Pharma, Big Vaccines and Big Pandemics
August 20, 2020
Organic Consumers Association
by Martha Rosenberg
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/connecting-dots-big-meat-big-pharma-big-vaccines-and-big-pandemics?utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=OB+672&utm_content=OB+672

"The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic is surely the worst in recent memory, but prehistory is full of records of plagues and pandemics.

In more modern history, we’ve seen the Asian flu pandemic of 1957, the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968 and the AIDS pandemic of 1981.

Then, a decade ago, along came H1N1, a novel flu virus hosted by pigs. H1N1 was followed in 1997 by H5N1, a bird flu virus that first surfaced in Hong Kong.

What's different about these more recent pandemics?

They're directly linked to the “intensive confinement of animals” in factory farms, according to the Journal of Public Health Policy.

Since the onset of COVID-19—which clearly did not originate on an industrial factory farm—experts have rightly pointed out that our industrial meat and poultry production systems are breeding grounds for future pandemics.

But what most have them haven't done, is connect the dots between Big Pharma's animal vaccines and the increased risk of pandemics.

Connecting the dots: swine flu, avian flu and pandemics

The novel H1N1, originally called swine flu, which was responsible for the 2009 – 2010 pandemic, was a new and ominous combination of five viruses––North American swine flu, North American avian flu, two swine flu viruses from in Asia and Europe and a human flu virus.

The five viruses had undergone re-assortment and swapped genes, creating a novel virus not previously identified in humans.

Not only did no one have immunity or antibodies to H1N1, but experts said humans could both give and get H1N1 from pigs. According to Nancy Cox, director of the Influenza Division at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) during the H1NI pandemic:

"Unlike the situation with birds and humans, we have a situation with pigs and humans where there's a two-way street of exchange of viruses."

Five months after its identification, H1N1 had spread to 43 countries according to the World Health Organization (WHO), which declared it a pandemic in June 2009. Between 151,700 and 575,400 people died worldwide, according to the CDC.

In 1997, a strain of avian flu called H5N1 surfaced in Hong Kong, and for eight years had much of the world fearing a pandemic. Like H1N1, H5N1 was novel pathogen never before encountered. By 2004, H5N1 had spread to more than 50 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Though there were cases where H5N1 was "transferred from birds to humans, in settings such as farms or open markets with live animal vending," said researchers in the Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, H5N1 lacked the human-to-human transmission of H1N1. But of those who got the virus, as many as 66 percent died.

During the H5N1 pandemic scare hundreds of millions of birds were inhumanely exterminated in a vain attempt to stop the disease. But new, unexposed animals introduced into the same, virus-laden environments perpetuated it. The disease remains endemic in several countries.

Moreover, bird viruses related to H5N1, such as H5N2, H5N7 and H5N8, have raged through industrial poultry farms in the U.S. since 2015, with tens of millions of birds destroyed––12 percent of U.S. egg layers and 8 percent of turkeys.

Big Food succeeded in hiding the extent of the bird flu outbreaks on industrial poultry farms in the U.S., to avoid scaring people away from eating their products. "It doesn't affect humans, just birds," they declared, even as CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operations, the industry term for factory farms) operations across the country have been depopulated under the public's radar. A new U.S. bird flu outbreak in 2020 barely got a mention in the mainstream press.

Experts: ‘Widespread vaccination may actually be selecting for new viral types’

Prehistory is full of records of plagues and pandemics. But, according to the Journal of Public Health policy, today's pandemics are different, especially when it comes to flu viruses, thanks to the “intensive confinement of animals” in factory farms—and the widespread use of animal vaccines on those farms:

"For centuries, the evolution of the influenza virus had remained relatively stable. In recent years, however, the virus has undergone an evolutionary surge, with new variants emerging rapidly. The intensive confinement of animals is shown to be a major contributor to this surge. Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1, first isolated in the Guangdong Province of China in 1996, is one of the most notable pathogens to appear recently...

According to the World Organization for Animal Health of the Food and Agriculture Organization, two lessons should be learned from these prior outbreaks. First, that if LPAI [low pathogenic avian influenza] viruses are allowed to spread among farmed birds, they can eventually mutate into HPAI [highly pathogenic avian influenza] viruses; and second, that densely confining birds considerably increases their vulnerability to infectious diseases."

The crowding and stress rampant throughout industrial factory farms are only part of what has changed in modern meat production. The other big change is the extent to which food animals are medicated and vaccinated.

For example, Merck, a leader in both human and animal vaccines, markets over 30 vaccines for poultry diseases like fowl pox, turkey coryza, bursal disease, coccidiosis, laryngotracheitis, hemorrhagic enteritis, avian encephalomyelitis of course salmonella and E. coli.

Merck also markets vaccines for cattle, pigs and even farmed fish.

According to an article in Science magazine, titled "Chasing the Fickle Swine Flu," vaccination is now routine in traditional animal farming.

"Another crucial change has been the recent wide-scale vaccination for swine influenza. In less than a decade, vaccination has become the norm for breeding sows."

The widespread use of vaccines has caused a whole new set of problems, according to the article:

"Today, more than half of all sows are vaccinated against both both H1N1 and H3N2 viruses, says Robyn Fleck, a veterinarian at Schering-Plough, one of the nation's three producers of swine influenza vaccine. But the vaccine is not protecting against all new strains. 'We’re seeing clinical disease in vaccinated pigs,' says Rossow [veterinary pathologist of the University of Minnesota]. Flu is also showing up in piglets thought to be protected by maternal antibodies passed on from vaccinated sows."

The big question that neither Big Food or Big Vax want the public ask is whether vaccinations are driving pandemics, especially because of the uniform immunity created by animal bio-engineering that helps them spread.

Again, according to Science magazine:

"Widespread vaccination may actually be selecting for new viral types. If vaccination develops populations with uniform immunity to certain virus genotypes, say H1N1 and H3N2, then other viral mutants would be favored. Webby [Richard Webby, a molecular virologist] suggests that the combination of avian polymerase genes generating errors in the genetic sequence and immunologic pressure from vaccination may be selecting for unique variants...

Schering-Plough veterinarian Terri Wasmoen acknowledges that vaccines 'may be pressuring change.' But she also notes that larger hog confinement operations and more shipping from state to state may play a role."

How did H1N1 really start?

Suspicions continue to circulate about the origins of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. In 2009, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives wrote that "one potential source of the original outbreak—factory swine farming in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)—has received comparatively little attention by public health officials."

Gregory Gray, director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the University of Iowa College of Public Health, notes the inherent risks in CAFOs:

"When respiratory viruses get into these confinement facilities, they have continual opportunity to replicate, mutate, reassort, and recombine into novel strains...The best surrogates we can find in the human population are prisons, military bases, ships, or schools."

Unlike such human congregate facilities where a virus will often "burn out," said Gray, in CAFOs, because there is a continual introduction of new animals, "there’s a much greater potential for the viruses to spread and become endemic."

In fact, when H1N1 first surfaced, in Mexico near the town of La Gloria in the Mexican state of Veracruz, a cluster of CAFOs owned by the Mexican meat giant Granjas Carroll and partially owned by Smithfield Foods immediately came under suspicion.

Mexican government officials were quick to deny any links.

According to GRAIN, a small international non-profit organization supporting small farmers and biodiversity-based community-controlled food systems, there were additional questions about the H1N1 virus' origin in Mexico:

"While it has not been widely reported, the region around the community of La Gloria is also home to many large poultry farms...in September 2008, there was an outbreak of bird flu among poultry in the region. At the time, veterinary authorities assured the public that it was only a local incidence of a low-pathogenic strain affecting backyard birds.

But we now know, thanks to a disclosure made by Marco Antonio Núñez López, the President of the Environmental Commission of the State of Veracruz, that there was also an avian flu outbreak on a factory farm about 50 kilometres from La Gloria owned by Mexico's largest poultry company, Granjas Bachoco, that was not revealed because of fears of what it might mean for Mexico's export markets."

According to Grain, scientists from the National Institutes of Health warn that locating swine CAFOs next to avian CAFOs "could further promote the evolution of the next pandemic."

The centralized nature of the CAFO industry ensures that "the disease gets carried far and wide, whether by feces, feed, water or even the boots of workers," added Grain.

Residents of La Gloria, however, had no luck in getting authorities to investigate the "genetic cocktail of pig, bird and human influenza," lurking at the nearby Granjas Carroll operation. Authorities even accused the residents of spreading the disease through the use home remedies wrote Grain.

Such corporate cover-ups are commonplace, according to Grain:

"It is not the first time and it will not be the last time that corporate farms conceal disease outbreaks and put people’s lives at risk. It is the nature of their business...in Romania, Smithfield refused to let local authorities enter its pig farms after residents complained of the stench coming from hundreds of dead corpses of pigs left rotting for days at the farms...Eventually, it emerged that Smithfield had been concealing a major outbreak of classical swine fever on its Romanian farms.

In Indonesia, where people are still dying from bird u and where many health experts believe the next pandemic virus will emerge, authorities can still not enter large corporate farms without the permission of the company."

It will only get worse . . . unless we end industrial meat production

There are clear reasons CAFOs drive pandemics. The stress and crowding reduce animals' immune systems which are already impaired by bio-engineering and the uniform immunity it produces.

The many medications animals are given, including hormones, growth producers and antibiotics further, reduce the animals' health.

Finally, vaccines encourage the development of mutant strains of a virus.

CAFOs not only encourage pandemic-capable viruses, they spread them through polluting the air and water with their run-off, manure lagoons and biosolids.

CAFO's also spread pandemics through their unethical treatment of workers. According to Environmental Health Perspectives, protection of the 54,000 workers working on swine and poultry CAFOs during the H1N1 pandemic was "relatively small" and workers can unwittingly spread the virus:

"In a 2-year prospective study of 803 rural Iowans, published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in December 2007, he [Dr. Gray] found that CAFO workers were 50 times more likely to have elevated H1N1 antibodies than nonexposed controls. Equally important, their spouses were 25 times more likely to harbor these antibodies, reflecting how the viruses can jump from farm workers to their intimate contacts.

Similarly, in work published 15 May 2009 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Gray and coauthor Whitney S. Baker reported that 84% of 44 seroepidemiologic studies reviewed identified an increased risk of zoonotic pathogen infection among veterinarians."

In July, the CDC reported that 16,200 workers across 23 states had tested positive for the virus.

The worldwide danger of CAFOs has long been recognized says Dr. Michael Greger, a physician and internationally recognized public health expert:

"The public health community has been warning about the risks posed by factory farms for years . . . in 2003, the American Public Health Association, the largest and oldest association of public health professionals in the world, called for a moratorium on factory farming. In 2005, the United Nations urged that '[g]overnments, local authorities and international agencies need to take a greatly increased role in combating the role of factory-farming,' which, they said, combined with live animal markets, 'provide ideal conditions for the [influenza] virus to spread and mutate into a more dangerous form.'"

Yet despite the warnings, global industrial meat production marches on."

onawah

20th August 2020, 23:32

If You Test Positive, Do You Really Have COVID-19?

A positive COVID-19 test result is widely considered a COVID-19 'case,' but is it really? Find out why the clinical diagnosis of someone with severe respiratory illness shouldn't be confused with someone who tests positive, yet remains asymptomatic.

CDC Admits Hospital Incentives Drove Up COVID-19 Deaths
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
August 20, 2020

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/20/hospital-incentives-drove-up-covid-19-deaths.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20200820Z1&mid=DM627901&rid=944819904

KpGeRFK0tao

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
In April 2020, Minnesota state senator and family physician Scott Jensen came out with a strong critique against the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for how doctors were to certify COVID-19 fatalities on the death certificate
In July, Jensen came under investigation by the state medical board and faced disciplinary action and loss of his medical license after an anonymous complaint was filed against him, alleging he had been spreading misinformation about how death certificates are categorized during the pandemic
July 28, 2020, Jensen announced the Minnesota Medical Board had dismissed the allegations against him
CDC director Robert Redfield recently admitted that financial policies likely have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. Brett Giroir with the U.S. Health and Human Services Department also told lawmakers the COVID-19 death statistics the HHS has been receiving from states “are over-inflated”
Perhaps the most egregious misrepresentation of reality is the media’s conflating a positive test result with the actual disease, COVID-19. “COVID-19” refers to a clinical diagnosis of someone who exhibits severe respiratory illness characterized by fever, coughing and shortness of breath. If you test positive but are asymptomatic, you do not “have COVID-19” and should not be counted as a “COVID-19 case”
Four months ago, in early April 2020, Minnesota state senator and family physician Scott Jensen came out with a strong critique against the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for how doctors were to certify COVID-19 fatalities on the death certificate.1

Jensen called the guidelines “ridiculous,” saying they could easily lead to unwarranted fear as it would make the disease appear deadlier than it actually is. According to the CDC guidelines:

"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is suspected or likely (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as 'probable' or 'presumed.'"

Indeed, reporting deaths as COVID-19 deaths, without factual proof that the patient was in fact infected and actually died of the illness, is a clear manipulation of the statistics that drive up the perceived death rate.

Death Statistics Are Clearly Unreliable
In his April interview with Laura Ingraham, Jensen said:2

"The idea that we are going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because we are going to undermine the [public] trust. And right now, as we see politicians doing things that aren’t necessarily motivated on fact and science, their trust in politicians is already wearing thin."

In that interview, Jensen pointed out that according to CDC guidelines, a patient dying after being hit by a bus, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 after death, would be reported as a COVID-19 death, regardless of the injuries sustained in the accident, and regardless of whether symptoms of COVID-19 had even been present to begin with.

“That doesn’t make any sense,” he said. We recently saw a near-identical example of this nonsensical practice in Florida, where a motorcycle accident claimed the life of a 20-something man who was subsequently listed as a COVID-19 death.3

Ditto for a Florida man who died of a gunshot wound to the head, and a 77-year-old who died of Parkinson’s disease.4 According to a July 24, 2020, Washington Examiner report,5 only 169 of 581 COVID-19 deaths in Florida have COVID-19 listed as the sole contributing factor on the death certificate.

That same week, it was reported6 that the CDC website listed more than 3,700 COVID-19 deaths that also involved “intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events,” and in Texas, the death toll was reduced by more than 3,000, as they were never actually tested.

Financial Incentives Can Have Significant Influence
At that time in April, Dr. Anthony Fauci brushed off questions about COVID-19 deaths being “padded” as yet another “conspiracy theory” that should be ignored.7 A host of mainstream media reports also claimed suspicions that hospitals were overreporting positive cases and deaths in order to charge more money were pure conspiracy theory that lacked a basis in reality.

The fake arbiter of hoaxes, Snopes, also gave a “False” rating to Jensen’s claim that CDC guidelines for listing COVID-19 on death certificates in the absence of a test are resulting in an overcount.8 At the time, Jensen reacted to Fauci’s dismissal saying:9

"Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [have] impact on what we do.”

Indeed, if we are to believe the first-hand testimony of nurse Erin Olszewski, these financial incentives were indeed at the heart of the routine overdiagnosis and mistreatment of patients at Elmhurst Hospital Center, a public hospital in Queens, New York, which was “the epicenter of the epicenter" of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.

I reported her shocking story in “Nurse on the Frontlines of COVID-19 Shares Her Experience.” According to Olszewski, patients who tested negative for COVID-19 were routinely listed as positive and were quickly placed on ventilators — a largely inappropriate treatment that ended up killing virtually all of them.

CDC Director Agrees Hospitals Likely Inflated COVID Deaths
Now, CDC director Robert Redfield admits that financial policies may indeed have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. As reported by the Washington Examiner, August 1, 2020:10

“… Redfield agreed that some hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths … ‘I think you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes, too.

Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement,’ Redfield said11 during a House panel hearing … when asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer about potential ‘perverse incentives.’

Redfield continued: ‘So, I do think there’s some reality to that. When it comes to death reporting, though, ultimately, it’s how the physician defines it in the death certificate, and … we review all of those death certificates.

So I think, probably it is less operable in the cause of death, although I won’t say there are not some cases. I do think though [that] when it comes to hospital reimbursement issues or individuals that get discharged, there could be some play in that for sure.’”

Brett Giroir with the U.S. Health and Human Services Department also believes financial incentives have inflated COVID-19 fatalities. Giroir told lawmakers the statistics the HHS has been receiving from states “are over-inflated.”12

Medical Board Drops Case Against Jensen
Many medical professionals, scientists and researchers have been put through the wringer as a result of expressing views about the pandemic and its response that differ from the status quo put forth by the likes of Bill Gates and the World Health Organization.

Jensen, too, has been a fairly outspoken critic of several COVID-19 related issues over these past few months. In a July 6, 2020, video (above), Jensen told viewers he was under investigation and faced disciplinary action and, possibly, loss of his medical license after the Minnesota medical board received an anonymous complaint against him. The two-count allegation claimed he had:

Spread “misinformation” about how death certificates are categorized during the pandemic
Given “reckless advice” by comparing COVID-19 mortality to that of influenza
In his video, Jensen explained why neither of these accusations had any basis in fact. Copies of his response letters to the Minnesota Medical Board can be found on the Highwire website.13 July 28, 2020, Jensen announced14 the Medical Board had dismissed the allegations against him. In a press release, Jensen stated:

“We are all entitled to our own reasoning. In a nation built on free speech, this right must be protected. I was forced to respond to allegations from accusers I could not face. These people threatened to uproot my practice, my profession, and my life. But cancel culture didn’t win this time.”

String of ‘Errors’ Have Permanently Muddled Statistics
As reported in “Consistent Inaccuracies in COVID-19 Testing and Reporting” and “Common Cold May Trigger Positive COVID-19 Antibody Test,” the only consistent pattern in COVID-19 statistics is their inconsistency.

Faulty or contaminated tests have been used, labs have sporadically reported only positive test results,15,16,17 and reporting guidelines for infected cases (positive tests), hospitalizations and deaths have been changed so many times, it’s now virtually impossible to determine the accuracy of these statistics.

Positive Test Result Is Not a COVID-19 Case
Perhaps the most egregious misrepresentation of reality, though, is the media’s conflating a positive test result with the actual disease, COVID-19. These tests only test for the virus directly (PCR tests) or antibodies to the virus. The fact that a person tests positive does NOT equate to actually having the disease.

The media is intentionally confusing a positive test result with COVID-19 to deliberately mislead the public into believing the disease is far more serious than it is. They know better but consciously choose this despicable practice.
They’re infected, yes, but “COVID-19” refers to a clinical diagnosis of someone who exhibits severe respiratory illness characterized by fever, coughing and shortness of breath. If you’re asymptomatic, you do not “have COVID-19.” The worst that could be said is that you’re infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but if you’re not actually ill, you do not have COVID-19.

The media is intentionally confusing a positive test result with COVID-19 to deliberately mislead the public into believing the disease is far more serious than it is. They know better but consciously choose this despicable practice. A recent example would be CNN’s article, “Florida Has More COVID-19 Than Most Countries in the World.”18

They refer to the positive test as a “case.” This is beyond stretching reality to suit their nefarious purposes. Again, a case is NOT a positive test result but, rather, a person that has a positive test result and is seriously ill. You would never know that by reading their article.

Further down in their fear-mongering article is a subhead, “Florida Has Surpassed Italy in COVID-19 Cases, Too.” But at the very end of the article they finally admit the truth: Even though Florida surpassed Italy in “cases,” they had nearly 90% FEWER deaths — the metric that really counts, unless your goal is to perpetuate needless fear into the population.
What is your risk for developing COVID-19? Take the two-minute COVID risk quiz to find out. The quiz was designed by a coalition of health experts dedicated to help stop COVID cold."
https://media.mercola.com/assets/images/mercola/covidrac/covidrisk-quiz-tablet.png
Check my Covid Risk: https://www.stopcovidcold.com/
Sources and References
1, 2, 7, 9 Fox News April 9, 2020
3 Washington Examiner July 17, 2020
4, 5 Washington Examiner July 24, 2020
6 Washington Examiner July 23, 2020
8 Snopes
10 Washington Examiner August 1, 2020
11, 12 Breitbart July 31, 2020
13 The Highwire Senator Scott Jensen’s Medical Board Investigation Documents
14 SW Newsmedia July 28, 2020
15 Florida State Coronavirus testing by laboratory, Data through July 6, 2020
16 Florida State Coronavirus testing by laboratory, Data through July 13, 2020
17 Alachua Chronicle July 7, 2020
18 CNN July 13, 2020

onawah

21st August 2020, 05:53

Who Do You Trust?
Amazing Polly
109,296 views•Aug 19, 2020
Amazing Polly
354K subscribers

"There are two competing narratives of the you know what. One is being pushed by people who are, by my estimation, untrustable. The other side of the story, buried by mainstream media & social media giants, is being represented by people on the ground who are risking everything to speak sense into this chaotic and insane panic."
More:....

My Bitchute video Channel: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/ZofF...

References:
The Real Slog blog re covid insanity: https://therealslog.com/2020/08/16/th...

Morality Pill: https://theconversation.com/morality-...

Global Preparedness Monitoring Board Document (item is on pg 10) https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annu...

NIH Study on Vaccine Messaging: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/N...

Rancourt / The Wall Will Fall, Mask Studies show Masks don’t work: https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/06/2...

Summit News Australia lockdown: https://summit.news/2020/08/18/melbou...

Obama Rationer in Chief: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...

Emanuel on allocating resources for COVID: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...

NIH Scientists fired for taking money from China:

BBC Doctor Video Pulled: https://www.bbc.com/news/53559938

German Panel of 500 investigating COVID: https://www.collective-evolution.com/...

Forbes, WHO faked a pandemic: https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/wor...

Pill Tracker: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press...

Biometric UN refugees: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2...

NIH Chinese Money, Scientists fired: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/...

NIH – WUHAN funding: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-op...

AAAS: NIH Lifts Ban: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...

NYT: Pseudo Pandemic, 2007, PCR test don’t work: https://web.archive.org/web/202008101...

VIDEO: Upward Look TV re Gates & Africa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVyqn...avIpEV7p7oo

Tintin

24th August 2020, 08:12

Here's another example of the extremely suspect testing process shared by a commenter on Twitter earlier:

1297586035849863171

onawah

25th August 2020, 23:33

Bombshell Evidence that COVID RNA Base Pairs are Identical to Chromosome 8 Human DNA
8/25/20
by Alexandra Bruce
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/bombshell-evidence-that-covid-rna-base-pairs-are-identical-to-chromosome-8-human-dna/

"There are many physicians and healthcare practitioners who subscribe to this newsletter, so I think many of you may appreciate this video by Canadian naturopath, Amandha Vollmer."

***
"This is what they're using to detect in your body and to make a positive test result, okay?

"This is their sequencing, their primary assembly - now, over here, this is Homo sapiens - that's humans!

"Chromosome 8. Primary Assembly Chromosome 8 is this sequence CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT - very specific and over here, CTGCTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT.

"What what they are doing, is calling our Chromosome 8 Primary Assembly as the 'coronavirus'.

"We are the virus. Your own DNA - like I've been saying, like I've been teaching, here's the evidence that what they are pulling out of your body and calling a disease - is your own DNA.

"This should really help you, okay to understand the scam at hand, here and if you can't see this, if you go, 'Oh, blah blah blah!' Go away. Go take the vaccine.

"Leave! Please. Because you're too dumb to exist. Really. Alright? Go back to the soil. Start over.

"But for those of us with a thinking brain. This should help you understand the Big Scamola...

"So, Gardasil syndrome - you can read about it more. This is basically poison. This is not protecting you from anything. There's no HPV. Your body makes these things in response to injury. Your body makes these things with your own DNA inside of it or RNA, to send to an area that has damage

"If your cervix has been damaged, either by sex either by inflammation, either by some sort of imbalance in the tissues; acidity in the tissues, chronic inflammation, what happens is, your cells, your pleomorphic cells change shape to go and take the information to repair those cells to the area and that's your own DNA.

"It's your own DNA. They're tool boxes of repair. And of course, once the job is done, it will shed or it will just be present or be reabsorbed, if it doesn't need to shed.

"But if you want to go and do a scraping, what are you going to find, there? You're going to find these particles of your own DNA in the area, that's trying to repair it.

"And these dumb mofos, who can't think, who call themselves 'doctors', who call themselves 'intelligent', they are so confused. They're in such a cult. They're so brainwashed. They're so dumbed-down.

"They can't see what's right before them - and what's right before them is the evidence, the effect of a healing.

"They think every symptom is a disease. They think they suppress it and they kill it.

"They can't get their head around it, because they've been brainwashed by these clowns; by the WHO and all their cronies, okay? So this is important for you to understand, okay?

"It's important that you realize that this is evidence of what I'm talking about and have been talking about for years; that the material we are finding, that we or they are calling 'viruses' is nothing more than your own DNA.

"And why do you think they're getting such false positives out of this crappy test? Because, you all have this in your body and at any given point in time, your body is going to repair this piece of information, especially if you have inflammation; especially if you're having exudate of the lungs; you're having a clear-out or a detox of the lungs, which is what a cold and flu is: it's a detox.

"It's getting rid of waste. If you detox your body ahead of time, you don't get sick, you don't get these things. It's not contagious. You don't catch anything. You don't get anything. You get triggered into detoxes, that's all it is.

"And so, when you're detoxing and they find these particles that have come to the area to repair your cells, they make a cartoon of it and they tell you it's floating through the air and it's going to kill you.

"You're being punked. You're being lied to. This is a hoax. This is a Trojan Horse for a Socialist takeover, okay?

"I don't know how much more clearly I can explain it to you than this." "

5y1KzCKrZ3A

Gwin Ru

30th August 2020, 15:33

Conversation

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1108039739234492418/VHS6TmS5_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/littllemel) Mel Q (https://twitter.com/littllemel) @littllemel
(https://twitter.com/littllemel)
“This week the CDC quietly updated the Covid number to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 deaths recorded actually died from Covid That's 9,210 deaths The other 94% had 2-3 other serious illnesses & the overwhelming majority were of very advanced age”
https://facebook.com/1566405890/posts/10224050038749877/?extid=gr0T716wo2v3tjFm&d=n (https://t.co/WEZxsfcnhW?amp=1)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgnJb5NXcAA68Xc?format=jpg&name=small (https://twitter.com/littllemel/status/1299791452105474057/photo/1)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgnJb5NWsAEHPEf?format=jpg&name=small (https://twitter.com/littllemel/status/1299791452105474057/photo/2)

9:30 PM · Aug 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone (https://help.twitter.com/using-twitter/how-to-tweet#source-labels)

onawah

1st September 2020, 06:08

CDC Blows The Lid Off The COVID Pandemic—Media Goes Into High Gear to Cover It Up...
45,698 views•Aug 31, 2020
Lisa Haven
451K subscribers

1oCLL2HkKUw

Delight

1st September 2020, 06:57

Science vs Propaganda - The Authentic Podcast with Henna Maria & John Blaid

H3SHKNMN74Y

Gwin Ru

1st September 2020, 17:26

SIX THOUSAND KILLED BY CORONAVIRUS LOCKDOWN (https://terroronthetube.co.uk/2020/08/30/six-thousand-killed-by-coronavirus-lockdown/)

Dr. Nick Kollerstrom NK (https://terroronthetube.co.uk/author/admin/)
August 30, 2020

Here is a graph showing all deaths in England and Wales on a weekly basis, in red, over the year 2020. The ONS (Office of National statistics) provides these, as well as a helpful average figure for the five previous years, for comparison, here shown in green. We can see the massive spike in deaths which began in the last week in March, i.e. right after the lockdown.

https://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CORONSTA4-1024x731.jpg (https://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CORONSTA4.jpg)

For the opening month of this year you can see there was actually a deficit of deaths – actually 5% less, compared to previous years. Then suddenly, the fear, stress and loneliness of the lockdown started killing off old people, together with the policy of emptying out the hospitals. That big peak over April-May as well as the last week in march, shows almost six thousand people dying. Yes, it was a cull of old people.

For the months of June, July and August there was NO excess, the death rate is absolutely normal. The lockdown was eased, cafes started opening up, and the dreadful stress eased off: the lockdown was no longer killing people. The killing spree was over!

It’s the same for every country for which reliable mortality data exists: the big surge in deaths happened after the lockdown is implemented (https://medium.com/@JohnPospichal/questions-for-lockdown-apologists-32a9bbf2e247), NOT before.

The Government tell us (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu/consultation-document-changes-to-human-medicine-regulations-to-support-the-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccines), “COVID-19 is the biggest threat this country has faced in peacetime history.” Whereas it is actually just one more exercise in state-fabricated terror. Why do the British people fall for it?

Did Lockdown prevent anything? I doubt it. It’s just part of the daily diet of fear-porn that the British people seem to need.

https://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CoronahoaxFrontCover-215x300.jpg (https://terroronthetube.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CoronahoaxFrontCover.jpg)

Related:

Dr. Nick Kollerstrom on the Covid Hoax - Trafalgar Square (http://www.renegadetribune.com/dr-nick-kollerstrom-on-the-covid-hoax/)

Gwin Ru

4th September 2020, 00:40

...

Deaths in Sweden, which NEVER locked down, are far less than New York State, which DID lock down (https://www.iceagenow.info/deaths-in-sweden-which-never-locked-down-far-are-less-than-new-york-state-which-did-lock-down/)

by Robert (https://www.iceagenow.info/author/xilef/)
September 2, 2020 (https://www.iceagenow.info/deaths-in-sweden-which-never-locked-down-far-are-less-than-new-york-state-which-did-lock-down/)
“In Sweden, daily corona deaths are now close to zero. The overall mortality rate is in the range of earlier strong flu waves. Even the monthly peak mortality (in April 2020) remained below the strong flu waves of the 1990s.” https://swprs.org/facts-about-covid-19/

“So the graph shows the cumulative deaths in Sweden since March 11?” says reader Penelope. (She’s referring to the graph here. (https://www.iceagenow.info/lockdown-or-no-lockdown-covid-19-death-curve-looks-to-be-self-flattening/))

“I admit to a preference for graphs showing the daily deaths, as it shows nearly zero.”

“This site contains a graph comparing deaths per million in New York State and Sweden:
New York State 1670 deaths per million, Sweden 540.”
“45% of US corona deaths occurred in nursing homes,” says Penelope.

“Over 50% occurred in the six states that actively placed Covid patients in nursing homes.”

https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Corona-Deaths-Sweden-vs-New-York.png

Did you get that?
A locked down state with triple the number of deaths as an entire country that did not lock down!

New York State, 1670 deaths per million, Sweden 540.

Can anyone tell me what good the lockdown is doing?

Facts about Covid-19 (https://swprs.org/facts-about-covid-19/)
Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment.

https://i2.wp.com/swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/cropped-swiss-policy-research-logo.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1Swiss Policy Research (https://swprs.org)

greybeard

4th September 2020, 06:26

I like many others get frustrated with the media and Goverment narative that keeps the fear building in spite of the evidence posted by Gwin Ru and others.
Yet social distancing, masks and self isolation mandatory, continues.

In UK leading Professor stated that the increased testing
See on link (posted several times)
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-second-wave-testing-more-135414823.html

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1320428/Coronavirus-news-lockdown-mistake-second-wave-Boris-Johnson

Chris

Eric J (Viking)

4th September 2020, 18:03

I don’t have it.

I don’t know anyone who has it within my circle...none of my friends have it...none of my colleagues have it...none of my friends friends have it and none of my colleagues friends have it.

Are we immune to it or do a lot of people have physiological COVID as per link below

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/03/how-many-people-have-psychological-covid/

Viking

Ernie Nemeth

4th September 2020, 18:13

To the above post I would add that I also know of no one who had it and that everyone who I heard had it had some other underlying precondition. That actually does not mean it does not exist, but it does means that the bulk of humanity is immune to this flu.

Last I heard is still just like first thing I heard:
Infection rate: 10 - 15 %
Death rate: .04%

Which means:
Out of 10,000 average citizens:
1,000 will get the flu
4 will die

And of the whole population then (averaged so I don't need a calculator):
10,000,000,000:
1,000,000,000 will be infected
4,000,000 will die

Tintin

5th September 2020, 20:58

What to make of this from the World Bank in 2018............

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/CAN/partner/ALL/nomen/h5/product/902780

44244

Bill Ryan

5th September 2020, 21:41

What to make of this from the World Bank in 2018............

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/CAN/partner/ALL/nomen/h5/product/902780

44244That was interesting. :bigsmile:

BUT — before you all go crazy with this, I really don't think there's anything to see here. :)

Here's the link that was screenshotted:

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/CAN/partner/ALL/nomen/h5/product/902780

That enables us to dive in and explore. I clicked around, and I found a ton of dates under "year"... not just 2018.

So far I've seen 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2015, and 2017. I'd be sure there are others.

It's most likely something to do with when the tariff was agreed or established, or when the country was registered into the system, or some such accounting thing. Nothing to do with Covid-19 testing kits. Not in 1989 or 1990. :)

greybeard

5th September 2020, 21:53

Bill Ryan

5th September 2020, 21:59

It would be interesting to see when the patents for testing kits was registered and by whom.
Think the virus was also patented.
That seems weird but I saw it some where.
I dont want to say more, as my memory faulty.
Some on Avalon are very experienced at checking patents -- a look at what Bill and Melina Gates have patented might be appropriate
ChrisChris, it took me three minutes (maybe three and a half) to find a whole bunch of much earlier dates. They're easy to pull up.

It's something arcane to do with accounting protocols. I can post screenshots if needed, but I'd really like to encourage others to do it themselves. Maybe between us we can see what the earliest date in the system is. :) (There are hundreds of interlinked pages here. Just click on each country's name to get more.)

Agape

6th September 2020, 04:05

Covid-19 may be endemic in deprived parts of England (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/covid-19-could-be-endemic-in-deprived-parts-of-england)

It occurred to me over last few days watching the “big numbers” of Covid infections worldwide rising - with never sufficient cross-testing of population and majority of asymptomatic cases anyway that it’s has been with us for a long time, in other words that it’s in fact endemic guest to both animal and human kingdom we simply did not count in till it was isolated and reported in Wuhan.

It seems to me that it was about “everywhere” before the pandemics started and was announced, it’s been here discretely without being acknowledged, for a long time together with thousands of the rest of them.

The problem ? The scam ? Viruses are so small compared to bacteria that they’re extremely difficult to isolate and test for individually and developing tests for any particular RNA virus has so far been very expensive.

If you have studied biology to some degree you must be aware of this. They’re simply “everywhere” in large numbers.

Majority of viruses causing trouble to human populace are “zoonotic viruses” , that is they’re endemic to certain or many animal species including marine life.

With exposure to wild animals that includes fish, shrimps and whatever you call sea-food whose production and consumption has increased globally in past few decades now consumed in areas with no direct ocean access as well,
by touching or consuming these creatures- especially uncooked - the human host is infected and virus “adjusts” that is mutates its chemistry to feed from human body.

However and since it originates from far more simple environment and evolved in dependence on certain animal specific proteins it is targets and binds to similar classes of proteins in humans, especially in humans who are predominantly meat and milk eaters.

In my life experience - that’s practical experience with eating mostly vegetarian food since teenage - with exceptions of visits with friends to whom I was the “wrong ball in court” because of their own upbringing was about 99% different from how I carry myself and not to hurt common sensitivities - most zoonotic viruses will miss a vegetarian even in crowded room - or a household and pass through them with only minor symptoms because they can’t find the “right protein” to feed on.

However -sharing households between purists/vegetarians and typical omnivores in long run where lots of “free floating” biological material is exchanged via air, surfaces , liquids etc. unfortunately results in decreased immunity for both parties -

most people who actually don’t eat or use animal products for ethical or philosophical reasons in long term do know about it and that’s one reason why we can not share households with non-purist omnivores.
It isn’t about one being better than another, it’s really about 99% different life styles and the biological strain on organism in “tweaking” one’s immunity and metabolic system in favour of someone’s else’s convictions.

Omnivores typically carry themselves as the “stronger” and “more immune” species among humans , paying no attention to whatever infections they may carry - as others carry make-up and their world view is good as usually unless we all lived in world that’s been thoroughly stirred and mixed,
that is out and away from clean natural environments and resources.

I am not attacking anyone on their meat eating - it’s a personal choice and all our human ancestors “did it” at some point that’s why we are here.

But and on the other hand : meat was only dominant part of diet among hunters and warrior clans.
In most of the rest of the populace it was consumed in small quantities, with respect to the source and the difficulty in obtaining it.

With development of modern technologies through last 100 years, more or less, the difficulty is virtually non-existent.
Meat of all kinds is so called produced in large amounts and all kinds of packaging and distribution chains globally.

Paradoxically and in many “developed economies” , the cost of ham and sausages is half that of a price of the cheapest cheese and the price for vegan sourced products- mostly wheat or soya based - some of the cheapest and most available to us resource are set ridiculously ( and artificially) high only to induce meat consumption and condemn veg based eating as something luxurious : despite anyone with thinking brain can calculate the price of green crops versus breeding animals for food.

Meat consumption in Europe and America has increased manifold times since WWII onwards , with logical demand on refeeding the starved populace.

Any ethical or philosophical aspect of not eating animals was mostly missing in our parent generations and is still vaguely NON EXISTENT in most today’s “over 50s”.

Unless themselves stricken with illness and made to learn about their bodies and lifestyle, these generations of people were mostly oriented in technical education ( social engine drive) but struggle and shy from studying live sciences , psychology, philosophy and spirituality ( portrayed as “stagnation factors” ) by many progressive economies so the need and amount of education in those area has been always artificially curbed and limited to small numbers.

If some kind of awareness is totally absent together with no relevant experience or knowledge in that area - I’m sorry to say that it can’t be actually REDEEMED rapidly.

The presence of zoonotic viruses in human populace is ancient and does depend on exposure and consumption of raw meats and animals including fish and sea food on all continents.

China and their ominous eating habits that once included everything that walks, crawls and flies, without any prejudice in itself is a perfect environment for spread of zoonotic viruses but so is today’s Europe or Americas.

To remedy this wild situation return to “clean eating” is important for all people but the it really isn’t “just about eating”.
The mental and physical discernment between appropriate and misappropriate that has been cultivated and carried on by most cultures of old with respect to life and death for example,
with respect to human to human differences and cultures has been largely “washed down” by century of systemic materialistic upbringing -
supporting “simple” worker class opinion and lack of education resulting in communism, atheism adopted by scientific factions as prevalent doctrines and even today’s AI technocratic trends to the disadvantage of everything living.

I don’t see the situation can be redeemed in long term or quite yet - pardon my skepticism here because people -speaking of people of all possible cultures - live everywhere now mingled with other cultures and the modern world and are in essence extremely confused about “rights” and “wrongs” on the inside,
living under extreme economic stress and very often deprived of the option of even choices and compromises - to do with everything.

The recent “Pandemics” looks like the recentest NWO attempt to reinstall controls, basic rules, does and don’ts in human society worldwide,
again and mostly with disrespect to cultural patterns, individual human dignity and discernment,
without adequate knowledge of the Covid-19 virus we are so naming these days, without mentioning it’s biological source and the rest of millions of zoonotic viruses “living with us”.

The spread of the pandemic - like a fire- with large numbers of humans getting infected out of sudden through out the society, 75% of whom are asymptomatic and may have been carrying this virus for a long time on and off - all down to accuracy or amount of tests - is good enough to create international hype

but most typically, can’t be seen to address and answer the basic question of origin and animal- human transmission of the virus so it’s quite quite useless in my opinion now.

To illustrate this by very small example - coronavirus infection is known by people breeding snakes and other reptiles for decades now.
If it occurred - logically both the animal and its owner were isolated in order to prevent epidemics among school kids. Coronavirus infections aren’t rare in animal kingdom perhaps but do depend on hygiene of the environment and that of human handler.
Till now it was possible to isolate and contain the infection spread by maintaining better hygienic rules.
In case of snake and bird lovers, the stress is quite like with humans - with regular and meticulous cleanliness of the enclosures and providing safe food resources.

Animals bought in pet shops were frequently known to carry viruses in them.

Now - any human being talking to me who are basically unaware or unwilling to protect their hygienic environment of all things the first but some expect “someone else” doing it “for them”,
with the extreme example of certain snobs hiring Indian PhD students to clean their households or work as carers in their facilities while the lords aren’t willing to observe rules but continue to carry with dirty habits per their personal levels of arrogance and egotism ( shoes to bed example , washing hands is unnecessary , etc)
is beyond civilisation redemption , long term.

Not only those unclean people will die but before it happens they will infect everyone else too - for the very joy of their ignorance.

I pray to those with awareness instead, those not wishing for their respective cultures to “die off” , please help to increase wisdom and discernment about all the problematics of biological cross contamination, disinfection and hygiene before its late.

It’s always been here, that’s why so many prohibitions of various animal consumptions in different cultures.

The Truth is Out There

🙏🌟🙏

greybeard

6th September 2020, 06:05

CV19 TEST IN WORLD BANK DATA TABLE DATED 2018!
CENSORED BY FACEBOOK

https://www.awakeningchannel.com/post/cv19-test-in-world-bank-data-table-dated-2018?postId=5f54026bcf3db10017bd6261

Bill Ryan

6th September 2020, 08:21

CV19 TEST IN WORLD BANK DATA TABLE DATED 2018!
CENSORED BY FACEBOOK

https://www.awakeningchannel.com/post/cv19-test-in-world-bank-data-table-dated-2018?postId=5f54026bcf3db10017bd6261There's nothing here. The facebook censors don't know what they're looking at. (Either! :) )

Here's the page for the Democratic Republic of Congo, that well-known global provider of Covid testing kits since 1989. :P

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/ALL/partner/ZAR/nomen/h5/product/902780/pagenumber/1/pageSize/200/sort/year/sortorder/asc

http://projectavalon.net/WITS_screenshot_Congo.png

You can click the "Year" column to show the ascending/descending dates. What you see here is

Sweden — 1989
Finland — 1990
Austria — 1990
Cyprus — 2002
Hungary — 2002
Slovak Republic — 2002
Lithuania — 2003
Czech Republic — 2003
Poland — 2003
Slovenia — 2003
Romania — 2005

It's just a specialized accounting protocol that's not explained on the page to any casual viewer. '2018' is just the latest of the many dates that's shown.

:focus:

onawah

6th September 2020, 16:52

From Win Keech (a brilliant scientist in his own right) commenting on his FB page today re the RT article:

The 1% blunder: How a simple but fatal math mistake by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns
6 Sep, 2020
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19-math-mistake-panic/

"And so it begins... The complete collapse of the CVid narrative has descended into the blame game. The scapegoat of choice seems to be an 'accidental' confusion over CFR and IFR by people whose job it is,to know the difference between them.. . The result was a virus no more deadly than the flu being incorrectly considered to be10x more deadly. Umpteen thousands died from the reaction rather than the virus... And millions more are slowly dying in pain due to the lockdown. This is more than just incompetence. X"

The article:
"By Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/ and his book, 'Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,' is available here: http://www.doctoringdata.co.uk/

In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was ‘akin to a severe flu’ and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.
When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.

You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people – and that’s a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.

But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake. A pretty major thing to make a mistake about, but that’s what happened.

Such things occur. On September 23, 1998, NASA permanently lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter. It was supposed to go round and round the planet looking at the weather, but instead it hit Mars at around 5,000 mph, exploding into tiny fragments. It didn’t measure the weather; it became the weather – for a few seconds anyway.

An investigation later found that the disaster happened because engineers had used the wrong units. They didn’t convert pound seconds into Newton seconds when doing their calculations. Imperial, not metric. This, remember, was NASA. An organisation not completely full of numbskulls.

Now you and I probably have no idea of the difference between a pound second and a Newton second (it’s 0.67 – I looked it up). But you would kind-of hope NASA would. In fact, I am sure they do, but they didn’t notice, so the figures came out wrong. The initial mistake was made, and was baked into the figures.

Kaboom!

With Covid, a similar mistake happened. One type of fatality rate was substituted for another. The wrong rate was then used to predict the likely death rate – and, as with NASA, no-one picked up the error.

In order to understand what happened, you have to understand the difference between two medical terms that sound the same – but are completely different. Rather like a pound second or a Newton second.

Which fatality rate, did you say?
First, there’s the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This is the total number of people who are infected by a disease and the number of them who die. This figure includes those who have no symptoms at all, or only very mild symptoms – those who stayed at home, coughed a bit and watched Outbreak.

Then there’s the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is the number of people suffering serious symptoms, who are probably ill enough to be in hospital. Clearly, people who are seriously ill – the “cases” – are going to have a higher mortality rate than those who are infected, many of whom don’t have symptoms. Put simply – all cases are infections, but not all infections are cases.

Which means that the CFR will always be far higher than the IFR. With influenza, the CFR is around ten times as high as the IFR. Covid seems to have a similar proportion.

Now, clearly, you do not want to get these figures mixed up. By doing so you would either wildly overestimate, or wildly underestimate, the impact of Covid. But mix these figures up, they did.

The error started in America, but didn’t end there. In healthcare, the US is very much the dog that wags the tail. The figures they come up with are used globally.

On February 28, 2020, an editorial was released by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the editorial stated: “… the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”
They added that influenza has a CFR of approximately 0.1 percent. One person in a thousand who gets it badly, dies.

But that quoted CFR for influenza was ten times too low – they meant to say the IFR, the Infection Fatality Rate, for influenza was 0.1 percent. This was their fatal – quite literally – mistake.

The mistake was compounded. On March 11, the same experts testified to Congress, stating that Covid’s CFR was likely to be about one percent, so one person dying from a hundred who fell seriously ill. Which, as time has passed, has proved to be pretty accurate.

At this meeting, they compared the likely impact of Covid to flu. But they used the wrong CFR for influenza, the one stated in the previous NEJM editorial. 0.1 percent, or one in a thousand. The one that was ten times too low.

Flu toll 1,000 – Covid toll 10,000
So, they matched up the one percent CFR of Covid with the incorrect 0.1 percent CFR of flu. Suddenly, Covid was going to be ten times as deadly.

If influenza killed 50, Covid was going to kill 500. If influenza killed a million, Covid was going to get 10 million. No wonder Congress, then the world, panicked. Because they were told Covid was going to be ten times worse than influenza. They could see three million deaths in the US alone, and 70 million around the world.I don’t expect you or I to get this sort of thing right. But I bloody well expect the experts to do so. They didn’t. They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.

Here’s what the paper, “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation”,says: “On March 11, 2020,... based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders.”

On February 28 it was estimated that Covid was going to have about the same impact as a bad influenza season – almost certainly correct. Eleven days later, the same group of experts predicted that the mortality rate was going to be ten times as high. This was horribly, catastrophically, running-into-Mars-at-5,000-miles-an-hour wrong.

Enter the Mad Modellers of Lockdown
In the UK, the group I call the Mad Modellers of lockdown, the Imperial College experts, created the same panic. On March 16, they used an estimated IFR of 0.9 percent to predict that, without lockdown, Covid would kill around 500,000 in the UK.

Is this prediction anywhere close?

So far, the UK has had around 40,000 Covid deaths. Significantly less than 0.1 percent, but not that far off. Of course, people will say... “We had lockdown... without it so many more would have died. Most people have not been infected…” etc.

To answer this, we need to know the true IFR. Is it a 0.1 percent, or one percent? If it is one percent, we have more than 400,000 deaths to go. If it is 0.1 percent, this epidemic has run its course. For this year, at least.

With swine flu, remember that the IFR started at around two percent. In the end, it was 0.02 percent, which was five times lower than the lowest estimate during the outbreak. The more you test, the lower the IFR will fall.

So where can we look to get the current figures on the IFR? The best place to look is at the country that has tested more people than anywhere else as a proportion of their population: Iceland.

As of last week, Iceland’s IFR stood at 0.16 per cent. It cannot go up from here. It can only fall. People can’t start dying of a disease they haven’t got.

This means that we’ll probably end up with an IFR of about 0.1 percent, maybe less. Not the 0.02 percent of Swine Flu – somewhere between the two, perhaps. In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy has proved to be pretty much bang on.

Which means that we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that lockdown achieved, almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.

Mangled beyond recognition
Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no-one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.

Instead of celebrating that, we’ve artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid “case.” This is not medicine. A “case” is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.

Now, however, you test positive, and you’re a “case.” Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.

Lockdown happened because we were told that Coivid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent – max.

That’s the figure estimated back in February, by the major players in viral epidemiology. A figure that has turned out to be remarkably accurate. Bright guys… bad mistake.

We’ve killed tens of thousands – for nothing
But because we panicked, we’ve added hugely to the toll. Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.

We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.

It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.

We threw – to use health secretary Matt Hancock’s ridiculous phrase – a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.

That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.

Which means that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself. This has been a slow-motion stampede, where the elderly – in particular - were trampled to death.

We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.

We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengthening waiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses – the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.

Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.

It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let’s end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again."

(But for those of us who have connected the dots, it certainly appears this "mistake" was completely intentional.)

Also see:
Up to 90% of people who test positive for Covid barely carry any virus & are not contagious. Every stat about the disease is bogus
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/499816-positive-covid-virus-contagious/

‘Corona World’ game backed by German public TV dehumanizes lockdown resisters & kids – but sure, what could go wrong?
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/499786-germany-corona-world-dehumanizes-dissidents/

Lockdown supporters are using psychology pseudoscience to label anti-maskers as irrational, stupid sociopaths
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/499715-lockdown-anti-maskers-covid/

We might have to wait forever for science to show the Covid threat is over, so let’s use our common sense & get back to normal
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/499544-covid-19-fetishising-science-normality/

Weird science: Covid-19 does NOT cause heart damage, as blockbuster study had basic calculation errors
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/499357-science-covid-19-heart-damage/

Extinction Rebellion & BLM set for weekend of protests despite Covid-19 restrictions...because nobody gives a damn anymore
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/499135-extinction-rebellion-blm-protest-covid/

araucaria

6th September 2020, 17:03

In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was ‘akin to a severe flu’ and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.
When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.

You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people – and that’s a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.

This error dates back to much earlier. It would seem to correspond to the calculations of the 2018 BBC simulation (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111658-CONTAGION--BBC4-2018--The-mathematical-modeling-of-an-outbreak&p=1370362&viewfull=1#post1370362) (and possibly Neil Ferguson's research long before that). That simulation as I recall predicted 800,000 UK deaths, which is roughly equivalent to the 670,000 mentioned here.

Tintin

7th September 2020, 07:01

greybeard

7th September 2020, 08:18

No doubt what is posted on Avalon is noticed too.
Chris

greybeard

7th September 2020, 08:31

An alternative view of how the virus comes about -- very informative and believable.
Chris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Im7jsW9_Y

Bill Ryan

7th September 2020, 09:59

World Bank table: UPDATE

With thanks to another member for doing what I was going to do fairly soon myself :highfive:

If you now check this link >> https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/CAN/partner/ALL/nomen/h5/product/902780 any mention of COVID-19 has been removed.

The original wording was completely unambiguous which is why it raised eyebrows. In fairness, it could well have been an administration or database blip/mistake as the description here in this edited page populates the same fields as in the previous one we saw. It happens if you edit text in a particular field on linked tables/fields, which may partly explain it appearing against legacy dates.

It could have been an easy mistake for an administrator to make and they may just not have noticed it, until it went (nearly) viral :)And on this slightly different search link (click it and see)

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/ALL/partner/ZAR/nomen/h5/product/902780/pagenumber/1/pageSize/200/sort/year/sortorder/asc

... the dates still show as

Sweden — 1989
Finland — 1990
Austria — 1990
Cyprus — 2002
Hungary — 2002
Slovak Republic — 2002
Lithuania — 2003
Czech Republic — 2003
Poland — 2003
Slovenia — 2003
Romania — 2005

There's nothing significant here. As is so often the case, some people in the alt community have leapt to instant conclusions without even pausing to think intelligently for a few minutes and taking a close, cautious look. We do see this all the time.

:focus:

Tintin

10th September 2020, 13:52

greybeard

10th September 2020, 14:00

Delight

11th September 2020, 02:59

Tests look like becoming redundant.
If the proposed law on this post becomes law in UK then people may well be inoculated regardless.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111599-The-Plandemic-Resistance-thread&p=1377216&viewfull=1#post1377216

Videocast With David Icke And Dr Andrew Kaufman
⁣If you live in the UK please sign and share this petition against any restrictions being placed on your for refusing a covid19 vaccine - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323442/

VIRUS TEST REVELATIONS!!
4,074 (https://brandnewtube.com/watch/virus-test-revelations_6ZyPiQImyIF4Pdv.html)

greybeard

11th September 2020, 11:46

Technology
NHS Coronavirus Contact-Tracing App To Be Launched On September 24

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/nhs-coronavirus-app-september-24-matt-hancock-105905691.html

ralfy

11th September 2020, 12:39

5Z8nV10dFcw

onawah

12th September 2020, 23:23

Great post from IndigoPete re Covid testing, another good example of how hoaxing the data via COVID TESTING is ongoing, and I will say it's most likely done for profit and for keeping people in fear, to further the larger agenda.
(Thanks Pete! :waving:)

https://i.imgur.com/peXu9N1.png (https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1304250461164314626)

Related threads:

https://twitter.com/RebelACole/status/1304264218699390977

https://twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1304183943479074816

ALSO:

Hi

Today I've been stumbling across quite a few pieces of media that kind of stunned me in the level of skeptiscism over the whole pan/plan/scamdemic, whatever you want to call it. I realised how fast things can turn around when small pieces of information propagate through a lot of people and everyone suddenly comes out of the woodwork that you never knew existed.

I started bookmarking them but there were so many that I lost track. I thought I'd collect a few here.

First of all is this awesome Ivor Cummins commentary. It got retweeted by talkradio host Julia-Hartley-Brewer (in fact she pinned it here (https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1304383061514223621)) and received support from Professor Carl Heneghan of the Dept of Evidence Medicine at Oxford University.

Next Jeremy Vine of the BBC retweeted it (https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1304412801461559297) which led to great celebration by Ivor Cummin's followers. And it now has a quarter of a million views.

https://i.imgur.com/CcRxrif.png

https://i.imgur.com/rRaFngt.png (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvFhIFzaac)

Then there was this thread (https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1304480459745906688) on the Telegraph's report of the "Covid Passport" being planned. The comments are fairly stark - the readers "get it" what the plan is.

Then an interesting program with Mike Graham who took a lot of callers and interviews discussing the new "rule of six" that the UK Guv is bringing in. I've been reading the Telegraph comments lately and noticed that they've almost universally turned apoplectic at the idea that new restrictions are being brought it. "Pitchforks at dawn" is the general sentiment...this clip here is typical:

https://i.imgur.com/IUibGwU.png (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xttCWnzSRSU&feature=youtu.be&t=1480)

Then I noticed this tweet getting circulated - that the Doctors of the German "Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigation commitee" (a self-appointed, unofficial group I think) are directly now calling the Covid-19 phenomenon a fraud.

https://i.imgur.com/hclmsAh.png (https://twitter.com/YellowCube7/status/1304032980864651264)

Next I discovered this business of the PCR test requiring to be "cycled" to achieve a result. In other worlds it's an amplification process where you take a bit of RNA, repeatedly heat it and cool it to get it to make copies of itself so you have a sample big enough to test. The prooblem is, if you do too few cycles, you get all false negatives. Too many and you get all false positives (like over-brightening a photograph exposure till you don't see any detail, just white).

Apparently Carl Heneghan (Oxford guy above) recommended around 25 cycles and others are saying that anything over 35 yields all false positives. Well people have been digging and dug up the NHS guidance for the tests which indicate that they are doing 45 cycles which may explain all the false positives and the fact that they can simply baloon the statistics whenever needed. This is now being more widely understood and discussed.

https://i.imgur.com/mkJD0sx.png

People are waking up to this now such as here (https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1304533467707834368).

The I stumbled across this statement by Rachel Elnaugh who's an ex Dragon from Dragon's Den in the UK. This is just AWSOME ! Describes the whole agenda from start to finish. The whole thing is insanity. She cites Goebells "If you can get people into a state of fear, you can control them (https://youtu.be/CguZY5gKyr4?t=429)". (This is a great commentary - recommend watching).

https://i.imgur.com/WftmlEs.png (https://twitter.com/WaterpennyW/status/1304555065366269954)

Then we have all these statistics starting to appear that are putting everything into perspective.

https://i.imgur.com/tl5J2r4.png

https://i.imgur.com/32ITule.png

https://i.imgur.com/fl2Bp57.png

Ok, that's it for now. Glad I got that off my chest and onto a page ! There sure is some waking up going on and not before time. Needs to accelerate.

onawah

13th September 2020, 22:26

MUST SEE!! Great data compilation.
Stanford University Nobel Prize Winner Biophysicist Michael Levitt says the pandemic is over, though according to the mainstream media, the "casedemic" continues. As much data from him and many other experts as anyone could wish in this video.I give the first part of this video an A+, despite all the religious beliefs shared at the end, but easy to skip through.

https://www.facebook.com/veritasmedical/videos/374536836892730/
374536836892730
https://www.facebook.com/veritasmedical/videos/374536836892730/
https://www.facebook.com/veritasmedical/videos/374536836892730/
More about Dr. Michael Levitt: https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/nobel-prize-winner-coronavirus-lockdowns-saved-no-lives/

( I will ask the Mods if this got embedded--I can't always tell. Or if not, to embed it, and please save it to the library asap, in case it gets removed.

Agape

14th September 2020, 04:59

Also this just came in news this morning :

Coronavirus genomes in India have 5.39% mutation similarity with 72 nations: study (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/coronavirus-genomes-in-india-have-5-39-mutation-similarity-with-72-nations-study/amp_articleshow/78093092.cms)

Based on identifying specific single nucleotide polymorphisms of the virus that in turn identify and bind with specific human proteins, Indian scientists have previously found 57 out of 64 SPNs ( single nucleotide polymorphisms ) in the virus that are not found in nature.

They’ve extended their research to more than 10 000 Coronavirus genomic sequences from around the globe and found 20 260 unique mutation points of the virus depending on which SPNs occur in each sample.

Trying to find the link to this published study

🦢

Agape

14th September 2020, 05:27

This too looks like new promising pathway for developing effective antivirotics, from Brazilian researchers (2009):

Mechanism of virus resistance and potential anti-viral activity of snake venoms (https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-91992011000400005)

I can imagine new generation of anti-virotics that would target and dissolve specific proteins thus destroy the virus “on spot” could emerge from the snake venom research.

Unfortunately and due to the “Big Pharma” money ruling and sometimes running genuine medical practices,
very little attention is payed to seeking new efficient treatments from nature.

greybeard

15th September 2020, 20:49

Why Are Covid-19 Cases Soaring In NZ? PCR Test Update

Dr Sam Bailey talks about what is happening in NZ in regards to COVID-19 and important information you should know about the COVID-19 PCR Test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcONxyAJ8S4&feature=youtu.be

James Delingpole: "No sane informed person would wear a face mask"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3iXEk_629E&feature=youtu.be

ExomatrixTV

18th September 2020, 20:49

Lockdown 2 🇬🇧 BREATHTAKING NEW Undeniable FACTS - Please SHARE:
py9l7e4dS9M
https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AATXAJw8qX8pTuWYk5xdJgjhQitPuQmgaAI1Kd-5-4Bcfg=s88-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo (https://www.youtube.com/user/alexbelfield)

Alex Belfield - THE VOICE OF REASON (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChmgPfkRooDpmni6LzMuYtg) (118K subscribers)

I genuinely can’t believe what I’m seeing. This is total insanity...

norman

20th September 2020, 17:19

sSBQUIEUbQ8
ZERO Evidence that COVID Fulfills Koch's 4 Germ Theory Postulates - Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Sayer Ji

In this interview, Dr. Kaufman explores a new study published in NATURE which claims to establish COVID-19 related pathogenicity in an animal model, but which does not fulfill Koch's postulates for germ theory, and may overtly misrepresent the truth.

Tintin

28th September 2020, 14:57

As Patrick Henningsen (21st CenturyWire) rightly pointed out, the responses really are quite revealing. Matt Hancock, one of the Devil's many concubines, may wish to review his use of Twitter. He's doing us a service being active there though :) - do please browse through the feedback.

1310221986275225603

avid

28th September 2020, 15:51

Another rare family reunion wrecked due to this damnable dodgy app, someone somewhere miles from family member was within a mile of a person who may have been near someone else..... Oh, but it’s okay to go to school where the originator perpetrated the ghastly deed of not washing hands 😱😱😱 ffs! Apols for being very angry, the whole scenario reeks of deliberate incompetence, but the puppeteers are NOT pulling MY strings. When is enough - enough?

As my late wondrous Dad said, “put your foot down with a firm hand” He would be so disappointed these days after all the sacrifices he and his friends made under the auspices of ‘saving us’ in the manipulated ‘World Wars’. Disgraceful. Despicable.

Sorry, but I am aware of the ‘big picture’, but will never ever stop trying to save those who are teetering on the edge of complete slavery or annihilation.

Off for a pleasant camomile tea, feet up, and deciding which plants to move around my garden 😜

TargeT

28th September 2020, 18:53

Delight

28th September 2020, 19:57

Putting this here as it is a lecture on the historic background from pharmaceutical studies of using statistics etc. in a biased way. Before the banning others experienced, in 2019, Malcolm Kendrick was banned from wikipedia as he was already evidencing dangerous divergence from the party lines.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has long been an outspoken skeptic with regard to the medical status quo. “It’s just not possible to believe much of the clinical research that’s published,” he says.

Just one week prior to this talk, delivered at CrossFit HQ during a CrossFit Health event on Dec. 15, 2018, Kendrick’s Wikipedia page was deleted because, as he explains, “I’m now considered dangerous enough to be removed from public consumption.” In this talk, he shares one thread of his “dangerous” thinking — a thread that follows the distortion of data pertaining to cholesterol and statin research, which he explores in greater detail in his second book, Doctoring Data.

Kendrick explains that he wrote the book to:
• show how data from clinical studies are distorted;
• allow people to make informed decisions about the interventions and drugs they receive;
• highlight some of the really bad advice we are given about fat and carbs;
• stop believing that “experts” know what they are doing or saying; and,
• reduce the fear and anxiety that now seems to stalk the land.

He describes several ways in which data become distorted and focuses in particular on the strategic use of relative and absolute risk factors in the data from the famous JUPITER trial, previously discussed on CrossFit.com.

He also highlights some of the reasons why data get distorted. While money is a contributing factor, he explains, a much more potent and insidious explanation relates to researchers’ attachment to ideas.

People become emotionally attached to ideas, he observes, and worse: “Facts have very little effect on what people believe.”

I know this last statement is the case from talking with many about their medical treatments. I cannot believe myself that so many who have injury STILL think the medication they receive is MORE IMPORTANT. If people cannot begin to see clearly, they are going to be targets. IMO these cases of willful ignorance are more frightening than all germs everywhere.

T3ldcRYadR4

Chester

29th September 2020, 00:52

Kulvinder Kaur MD

https://twitter.com/dockaurG/status/1306791383643152387

DaveToo

29th September 2020, 02:26

onawah

29th September 2020, 02:52

It's not so much a question of the MSM not getting it, as not being allowed to report the truth (although no doubt some of MSM mouthpieces really are that oblivious>..)

Too bad the MSM doesn't get it yet. LOL!!!

Chester

29th September 2020, 03:09

"Magic Letter" says "Is it about the election?"

cV6xJ6jV8gM

onawah

29th September 2020, 04:59

When will hysterical defenders of “science” face up to the destruction the US medical system is causing? \
by Jon Rappoport
September 28, 2020
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/28/will-hysterical-science-defenders-face-up-to-destruction-medical-system-is-causing/

"Millions of masked people, who border on hysteria, believe they know COVID science.

On closer examination, these people believe what their television sets tell them. They believe Fauci because he’s on television, and he’s talking from the White House, and he disagrees with Trump. These elements are not exactly what Galileo had in mind when he challenged the Roman Church on the issue of the Earth revolving around the sun.

Of the millions who believe in Fauci television science, there are many who will say science is “studies.” They are quite sure these studies back up what Fauci and Redfield are spouting, and any contradictory studies would be artifacts dreamed up by secret minions of Trump. This sort of argument is not exactly what Galileo had in mind, either.

I recently analyzed COVID-19 from the point of view of false data.

COVID case numbers and death numbers are being fraudulently inflated to the skies. That’s an enormous crime, because the lockdowns and the economic devastation have been based on these data.

Now I want to apply that same direct analysis to the entire US medical system. In this instance…

True data are buried, hidden, and ignored.

What data? Actual numbers of deaths and maiming CAUSED by medical treatment.

When you see the dimensions of this crime and this mass human tragedy, you’ll also see further implications—titanic insurance fraud, tax fraud, and, indeed, millions upon millions of work-hours irretrievably lost to the nation’s economy.

Insurance companies are paying out billions of dollars for medical treatment that is destructive, not helpful.

Insurance companies are also paying billions in death benefits as a result of doctors, not diseases, killing people.

And all this medical destruction is being subsidized by the taxpayer.

No one has calculated the $$ cost. No one can calculate the tragic human cost.

Now here is the analysis. Understand that the vital data in these mainstream reports have been briefly revealed, then hidden.

ONE: “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)

TWO: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998: “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.”

The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:

Every year, in the US, between 76,000 and 137,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs.

Beyond that, every year 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.

The authors write: “…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”

So this study had nothing to do with doctor errors, nurse errors, or improper combining of drugs. And it only counted people killed who were admitted to hospitals. It didn’t begin to tally all the people taking pharmaceuticals who died as consequence of the drugs, at home.

THREE: July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans per year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.

I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust. She answered a resounding NO. She also said her estimate of medically caused deaths in America was on the conservative side.

FOUR: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans. Every public health agency knows the truth.

FIVE: None of the above reports factor in death or injury by vaccine.

The US system for reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken.

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable analysis:

“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]”

“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.”

“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]”

“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events [per year]. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”

Medical crimes.

Medically caused deaths of friends, family members, loved ones, who are buried along with the truth.

No criminal investigations, no prosecutions, no guilty verdicts, no prison sentences.

But of course, you can believe everything leading lights of the US medical system tell you about COVID.

You can believe everything the press—who buries the truth about this medical holocaust—tells you about COVID.

Given the reports on medically caused death and maiming I’ve just cited and described in this article, it’s obvious that…

Leading medical journals around the world, which routinely publish glowing accounts of clinical trials of medical drugs…

Are spilling over with rank fraud, on page after page.

Indeed, here is a stunning quote from a woman who has quite probably read and analyzed more medical-drug studies than any doctor in the world:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

Compare that quote with one from “the father of COVID science,” Tony Fauci. In an interview with the National Geographic, Fauci stated: “Anybody can claim to be an expert even when they have no idea what they’re talking about…If something is published in places like New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, Cell, or JAMA—you know, generally that is quite well peer-reviewed because the editors and the editorial staff of those journals really take things very seriously.”

Sure, Tony, sure.

Now put on your mask and get lost."

Also posted here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111445-Jon-Rappoport-on-the-Covid-Hoax&p=1380542&viewfull=1#post1380542

Tintin

29th September 2020, 13:54

[08:34]:

Yeadon People like Prof. Carl Heneghan in Oxford has been has been banging the drum on this for ages that they should not use this protocol without revision.

Now let me tell you Julia (interviewer) last week the [UK] government put out an edict to revise the PCR protocol so that weak positives will be retested but there was no media on this. This is a major U-turn because, let me just say this, were it not for the test data that you get on the tv all the time you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over and nothing much is happening.

Of course some people go to hospital. We'll be moving into the autumn season, but remember, I've said there's no science that suggests the second wave should happen at all.

[Interviewer - Julia Hartley-Brewer]: Go back over. so those of us who are not medical experts just in terms of the swab tests, these are the tests that people are getting when you go to..you're in the community you think, "Oh i've got a bit of a persistent cough, got a temperature. i might be in contact with someone. I'll go and get one of these tests the government's made available." And we know there are some false positives but ..the concern is that a lot of these are called weak positives. The way they are carrying out these tests, they are able to take/detect the tiniest tiniest taste of the virus which may be months and months old, so these people may well have had the virus - may have come in contact with it months ago. They're not at risk of infecting anyone else or themselves getting ill, but we are basing a government policy an economic policy, a a civil liberties policy in terms of limiting people to six people, and meeting and, like, all based on what may well be completely fake data about the spread of the virus....Anyway or do you think they have honest reason to believe that we are in a second wave and we're about to start it?

Yeadon:Yes. When, when this episode started it was entirely fine when 30 of the samples were genuinely positive and people were ill, it wasn't a problem that maybe half or one percent were false positives - it didn't matter.

But I'm afraid now the ONS survey shows, that the general prevalence of the virus, how many people have it in the community is about 10 times lower than the false positive rate.

To say it again, when you run the test you'll find 10 times more false positives than actually exist in reality. And so they finally come to their senses and last week said we have to change this protocol because we don't essentially.. they've admitted.. we don't really know how many true positives we've got so I'm demanding that SAGE and the government to pause introducing any new restrictions until they've made the change that they've recognized is necessary And then tell us what whether we really have an uptick in cases or not.

__________________________

Dr Mike Yeadon former chief scientific adviser for Pfizer on Talk Radio September 11th, 2020 making some very pertinent points around the premise, probably a false one, on a 'second wave'. He's very lucid, very knowledgeable and it's a balanced 11 minutes of commentary.

He reaffirms the natural immunity of 30%-50% of the population through T cell circulation/priority immunity, and reasserts that mostly every clinical epidemiologist and virologist accepts this as good science. Remember the virus isn't quite as 'novel' as was originally promoted as it is closely related (a laboratory construct) to at least four other coronaviruses. The pandemic is essentially over.

As many of us here have intuited, and considered from reading some good scientific research, this is likely just one continuous wave which is effectively petering out.

He also covers the PCR virus amplification test anomalies.

Su0wMysBYPM

onawah

29th September 2020, 22:36

Coronavirus Cases Plummet When PCR Tests Are Adjusted
by Barbara Cáceres
Published September 29, 2020
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2020/09/coronavirus-cases-plummet-when-pcr-tests-are-adjusted/

"Health experts now say that PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, the virus associated with the illness COVID-19, is too sensitive and needs to be adjusted to rule out people who have insignificant amounts of the virus in their system.1 The test’s threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.2

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found.3

Manufacturers and Labs Set Criteria for Positive COVID-19 Test Results
The reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test used to identify those people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses a nasal swab to collect RNA from deep within the nasal cavity of the individual being tested. The RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA and amplified through 40 or more cycles, or until virus is detected.4 The result is reported as a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether someone is infected.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials state they do not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own threshold ranges.5

PCR Test Threshold for COVID-19 Positivity Is Too Sensitive
Any test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 is too sensitive, says Juliet Morrison, PhD, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result worth acting on.6

The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.7

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus—that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.” But “yes” or “no” isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.8

The number of people with positive results who aren’t infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “That worries me a lot, just because it’s so high,” he said.9

SARS-CoV-2 Positive Case Numbers Drop When Cycle Threshold is Adjusted, Removing Need for Contact Tracing
Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to CT values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles. With a cutoff of 35 cycles, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

“I’m really shocked that it could be that high—the proportion of people with high CT value results,” said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”10

“Gold Standard” PCR Tests Leave Many Unanswered Questions Due to Knowledge Gaps
A positive PCR test does not tell doctors whether the person is currently ill or will become ill in the future, whether they are infectious or will become infectious, whether they are recovered or recovering from COVID, or whether the PCR test identified a viral fragment from another coronavirus infection in the past. The CDC reports that a person who has recovered from COVID-19 may have low levels of virus in their bodies for up to three months after diagnosis and may test positive, even though they are not spreading COVID-19.11

CT Value Adds Context to PCR Results, Personalizes Care
Although the cycle threshold (CT) is not reported on PCR tests, new evidence suggests the CT value could help to better inform clinical decisions, particularly when testing in the absence of symptoms for COVID-19. When SARS-CoV-2 virus is detected after fewer amplification cycles, that indicates a higher viral load and a higher likelihood of being contagious, while virus detected after more amplifications indicates a lower viral load.

“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the CT values from all these tests—that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added.12

In a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases in May, 2020,13 the authors suggested that viral load based on CT cutoff could establish whether inpatients have transmissible disease or need to be retested. This would conserve valuable testing capacity, reagents, and personal protective equipment (PPE), and determine when a patient could discontinue isolation. Taking the CT value into account may also help justify symptom-based strategies recommended by the CDC. CT values may enable contact tracers to focus only on persons most likely to be infectious, which will become increasingly important as asymptomatic screening expands.

Another study14 found that patients with positive PCR tests at a CT above 33-34 are not contagious and can be discharged from the hospital or strict confinement at home.

Evidence from both viral isolation and contact tracing studies supports a short, early period of transmissibility. By accounting for the CT value in context, RT-qPCR results can be used in a way that is personalized, highly sensitive, and more specific.15

FDA Approves Rapid, Less Sensitive Coronavirus Antigen Test
Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, Dr. Mina said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it—even if the tests are less sensitive. “It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the super spreaders.”

The FDA noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these infections. That problem is easily solved, Dr. Mina said: “Test them again, six hours later or 15 hours later or whatever,” he said. A rapid test would find these patients quickly, even if it were less sensitive, because their viral loads would quickly rise. People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.16

When a patient is tested for the coronavirus, doctors typically tell them to stay home until the results come in. If a patient tests positive and faces a two-week quarantine, that means they could spend a total of three weeks in isolation. That’s a long time for anybody who has bills to pay or kids to care for, and it’s understandable that some people will continue working until the results come in. The problem is that anybody who does this with a serious infection is putting others at risk.17 Rapid tests can be helpful in these situations.

In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn’t need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.18 The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus’s genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do."19
References:

Angela Rasmussen, Ashish Jha, Association of Public Health Laboratories, Barbara Cáceres, bbot Laboratories, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Columbia University, coronavirus, COVID-19, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Harvard Global Health Institute, Harvard T.H Chan School of Public Health, Juliet Morrison, National Vaccine Information Center, NVIC, PCR tests, personal protective equipment, PPE, reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction, RT-qPCR, SARS-CoV-2, The Vaccine Reaction, Wadsworth Center

DaveToo

30th September 2020, 00:32

They say a picture is worth a thousand words...
Here are a few pics, so that means a few thousand words. :)

Cases on top, deaths below.
The 'second wave' is a big fat nothing burger. A flop.

https://i.postimg.cc/R0KRb2xp/Austria.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

https://i.postimg.cc/GpCY926z/Canada.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

https://i.postimg.cc/pLN51rVx/Denmark.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

https://i.postimg.cc/yNsgsGSb/Fance.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

https://i.postimg.cc/fRjy2vgj/UK.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

These are graphs that you will never see in the MSM.

holistic1

30th September 2020, 20:50

Here is another excellent link I found
http://tapnewswire.com/2020/09/ultimate-proof-covid-19-was-planned-to-usher-in-the-new-world-order/

onawah

1st October 2020, 18:07

Another Testing Debacle
22,541 views•Sep 29, 2020
Pamela Popper
106K subscribers
Subscribe to Dr. Pam’s weekly newsletter and video clips here! https://wellnessforumhealth.com/news/

(Lawsuit in Ohio is being filed re the lockdown, which is mentioned in the first part, the rest is focused on testing and how invalid and inaccurate the statistics are.)
EYnfF60XBRA

onawah

1st October 2020, 23:21

The COVID Danger You Haven’t Heard About
OCTOBER 1, 2020
CATEGORY: STOP POISONING OURSELVES
https://anh-usa.org/the-covid-danger-you-havent-heard-about/

"Chemicals found in the disinfectants that are being used extensively during COVID could be undermining our health. Action Alert!

Some researchers are raising the alarm about quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, that are commonly found in the disinfectants, hand sanitizers, and sanitizing wipes being used by households and businesses to protect against the COVID-19 virus. Quats are being linked with fertility problems as well as other endocrine disrupting effects. We must demand that these chemicals be pulled from the market so they can be studied properly for safety.

Published studies have found that mice exposed to quats produced fewer pups than those that were not exposed to the chemicals. Other research has found that quats are potent compounds at inhibiting mitochondrial activity.

Animal studies and cellular studies are demonstrating the harm these chemicals can cause, and our exposure to them is increasing dramatically on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in Maricopa County, Arizona, restaurants are required to sanitize customer areas after each sitting with disinfectants, including the table cloth, chairs, table tops, and condiment holders. Grocery stores are spraying and wiping shopping carts after each use. These chemicals are everywhere. Quats stay active on surfaces for up to two weeks.

The Environmental Protection Agency has given industry a pass on these chemicals for decades. Quats entered the market in the early 20th century, before legislation was passed in 1976 allowing for the regulation of potentially dangerous chemicals. Because quats were on the market when the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act was passed, they were allowed to stay on the market without being evaluated for safety. The EPA is currently updating risk assessments for quats, which will be released for public comment in 2021. How many of us will have been exposed to unsafe levels of these chemicals by then, given their extensive use in public and private spaces?

Quat disinfectants aren’t only dangerous, they are unnecessary. Soap and water is sufficient to protect against the coronavirus. Additionally, rubber gloves can be worn when shopping to protect the skin, but this won’t protect against sprayed droplets in the air. The EPA needs to act now by pulling these chemicals from the market. At the very least, the EPA should remove these chemicals from the list of approved disinfectants the agency recommends for COVID-19, which currently includes 235 quat products.

As we’ve been writing over the past few months, this isn’t the only example of simple and safe solutions to protect us against COVID being largely ignored. The FDA and the FTC are actively working to keep information from the public about how natural medicine can help protect us from COVID-19 infection. This is costing us lives and has to stop.

Action Alert! Write to the EPA, telling them to pull quats from the market immediately given the increased use and the documented dangers of these chemicals. Please send your message immediately. By sending this message, you will also be supporting our petition to ungag doctors so that they can share with patients the benefits of supplements and natural treatments for COVID."
https://anh-usa.org/the-covid-danger-you-havent-heard-about/

NOTE: I noticed that Alexandra Bruce of Forbidden Knowledge ( https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/archive/page/3/ )has been featuring a non-toxic disinfectant cleaner in her email updates. See: https://getnuturell.com/alexandra/

onawah

2nd October 2020, 02:48

Sweden Spared Surge as SARS-CoV-2 Infections Stay Low
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 01, 2020

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/01/sweden-coronavirus.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20201001Z1&mid=DM667084&rid=977368482

"STORY AT A GLANCE
While health experts in the U.S. and many other countries are warning of a second wave of COVID-19 as we move into fall and winter, Sweden does not expect a reemergence of widespread contagion as herd immunity appears to have been established
Rather than locking down the whole country, Sweden only temporarily closed high schools and colleges, banned gatherings of more than 50 people and asked seniors over the age of 70 to self-isolate
Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden’s coronavirus response says the primary goal has been to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming medical services
As of mid-September 2020, Sweden’s infection rate had reached an all-time low and COVID-19 related deaths were at zero; 22 of 31 European countries, most of which enacted strict lockdowns, had higher infection rates
As a result of their sensible approach to the pandemic, Sweden has also largely escaped the financial ruin and skyrocketing mental health problems experienced in other areas, including the U.S.

While health experts in the U.S. and many other countries are warning of a second wave of COVID-19 as we move into fall and winter, one nation that does not appear to worry about a resurgence of people testing positive for the virus and/or hospitalizations and deaths attributable to COVID-19 is Sweden.

Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden's coronavirus response, has stated1 he does not believe Sweden will see a second wave with widespread contagion as the country is seeing a rapid decline in positive tests, indicating herd immunity has been achieved.2

Sweden's Trajectory Shows How Unnecessary Lockdowns Are
Sweden, one of the few countries that did not shut down schools and businesses or mandate strict social distancing or mask wearing rules, choosing the route of natural herd immunity development instead, has been sharply criticized by many over the past several months.

Rather than locking down the whole country, Sweden only temporarily closed high schools and colleges, banned gatherings of more than 50 people and asked seniors over the age of 70 to self-isolate. All others were simply asked to respect physical distancing recommendations, and to work from home whenever possible.

Tegnell told The Guardian3 that the primary goal has been to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming medical services. As you may recall, this was the original plan just about everywhere. The difference is, Sweden actually stuck to the original goal, whereas other nations have twisted response plans to, apparently, prevent infection transmission altogether, even among those for whom the risk of such an infection is vanishingly minor.

At this point, Sweden is proving to be a valuable test case, demonstrating just how ineffective and unnecessary the global shutdowns have been. Countries that enacted draconian freedom-restrictions are faring no better than Sweden, which allowed its citizenry to largely go about their business as usual. As noted by the National Review back in April 2020:4

"In theory, less physical interaction might slow the rate of new infections. But without a good understanding of how long COVID-19 viral particles survive in air, in water, and on contact surfaces, even that is speculative ...

It is possible that the fastest and safest way to 'flatten the curve' is to allow young people to mix normally while requiring only the frail and sick to remain isolated.

This is, in fact, the first time we have quarantined healthy people rather than quarantining the sick and vulnerable. As Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels, wrote5 in The Spectator (U.K.) last week:

'The theory of lockdown, after all, is pretty niche, deeply illiberal — and, until now, untested. It's not Sweden that's conducting a mass experiment. It's everyone else.'"

UK Enacts New Restrictions in Face of Mounting 'Cases'
Despite Sweden's tactical success, many countries are continuing to enforce and even enact new lockdown restrictions due to new upticks in positive tests. For example, September 22, 2020, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced6 new restrictions, which he predicts may remain in place for the next six months, warning that if Britons fail to follow the rules, they may be looking at a second lockdown.

This, even though there's no concomitant rise in hospitalizations or deaths. The vast majority of people testing positive at this point remain asymptomatic.

Johnson's announcement came on the heels of dire — and completely implausible — predictions by professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance, whose models predict the U.K. may be looking at 50,000 new "cases" (i.e., positive tests) per day by mid-October unless new restrictions are put into place.

In the video below, journalist Ben Swann reviews why such predictions are likely to be a gross overestimation, and one that is unlikely to result in a dramatic increase in hospitalizations or deaths.

_ATOCTSrF58

Sweden's Death Rate Hits Zero
Meanwhile, in Sweden, infection rates have reached an all-time low. As reported by The Guardian, September 16, 2020:7

"According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the Scandinavian country's 14-day cumulative total8 of new cases was 22.2 per 100,000 inhabitants on Tuesday, against 279 in Spain, 158.5 in France, 118 in the Czech Republic, 77 in Belgium and 59 in the UK, all of which imposed lockdowns this spring.

Twenty-two of the 31 European countries surveyed by the ECDC had higher infection rates. New cases, now reported in Sweden only from Tuesday to Friday, are running at roughly the rate seen in late-March, while data from the national health agency showed only 1.2% of its 120,000 tests last week came back positive …

Thirteen Covid-19 patients are in intensive care in Swedish hospitals, and its seven-day average of coronavirus-related deaths is zero."

The two graphs from The Guardian, below, show Sweden's infection rate and deaths per million, compared to other countries that enforced stricter lockdown rules.

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2020/September/swedens-infection-rate-and-deaths-per-million.jpg

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2020/September/swedens-infection-rate-april.jpg

High Mortality Was Due to Nursing Home Failures
Initially, Tegnell's approach came under fire as Sweden's death toll soared five to 10 times higher than its neighboring countries, Denmark, Norway and Finland. However, Tegnell insists this early spike in deaths was not due to a lack of lockdowns or social distancing in general, but rather due to a failure to prevent infection in nursing homes, where a majority of the deaths actually occurred.

"The strategy in Sweden is to focus on social distancing among the known risk groups, like the elderly. We try to use evidence-based [measures]." ~ Emma Frans, epidemiologist, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
"Of course something went wrong there," Tegnell told The Guardian.9 Other than that, Swedish authorities insist the strategy to encourage and trust citizens to take personal responsibility for their health and well-being has been the correct one.

Contrary to other nations, Sweden's decision has also resulted in consistent public messaging about disease prevention, thereby avoiding the confusion, frustration and distrust that comes from getting mixed messages.

In April 2020, Emma Frans, science communicator and a postdoctoral researcher in medical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, told the National Review:10

"The strategy in Sweden is to focus on social distancing among the known risk groups, like the elderly. We try to use evidence-based [measures]. We try to adjust everyday life. The Swedish plan is to implement [measures] that you can practice for a long time."

The Vanishing Middle-Class
As a result of their sensible approach to the pandemic, Sweden has also largely escaped the financial ruin experienced in other areas, including the U.S. This also means they've minimized the impact of the pandemic on mental health. As Tegnell told11 The Daily Mail, April 4, 2020, "We can't kill all our services. And unemployed people are a great threat to public health. It's a factor you need to think about."

Indeed, preventing healthy people from working is upending the middle-class in the U.S. and elsewhere, and has (as expected) resulted in a massive rise in suicide and other tragedies. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in "How the Government Uses Fear to Control," research from the 1980s found that for every 1-point rise in unemployment there were 37,000 excess deaths, 4,000 excess imprisonments and 3,300 excess admissions into mental institutions.

Kennedy also cites recent data from a hospital in San Francisco that stated they saw one year's-worth of suicides in a single month, a 1,200% increase, and British research showing that while there were 30,000 excess deaths in nursing homes during a five-week period during the lockdown, only one-third of them were due to COVID-19.

In other words, the death rate from isolation was double that of the virus itself. People didn't get the proper medical care for chronic conditions and so on. Kennedy also rightly points out that what we will see — and are already seeing — is the obliteration of the middle-class and the shift of wealth from the poor to the already ultra-rich.

A September 20, 2020, article12 in The Wall Street Journal highlights the financial devastation experienced by the American "loan-laden white-collar" middle-class. Journalist AnnaMaria Andriotis tells the story of Alysse Hopkins, a Rockland County, New York foreclosure and personal-injury lawyer:

"In a good year, the 43-year-old lawyer and her husband, Ian Boschen, 41, together brought in about $175,000, the couple said — enough to cover the mortgage, two car leases, student loans, credit cards and assorted costs of raising two daughters in the New York City suburbs.

After the coronavirus halted many foreclosures and closed courts, her work dried up. Unemployment benefits have helped, Ms. Hopkins said, but the family is running low on savings and can't keep up with $9,000 in monthly debt payments including mortgage installments. 'It frustrates me to not be able to earn a living,' she said. 'I have a law degree, almost 20 years of practice' …

While lower-wage workers have borne much of the brunt, the crisis is wreaking a particular kind of havoc on the debt-laden middle class … The coronavirus has spared few industries and expanded unemployment benefits designed to replace the average American income didn't cover all the lost pay of higher-earning workers, especially in or near expensive cities.

The extra $600 weekly payments expired in July, putting them even further behind. 'What I see happening here is a core assault on successful college-educated families, which are the new breed of middle-class American families,' said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. 'There's a professional workforce that's getting slammed.'"

Lockdowns Have Likely Done More Harm Than Good
So far, most efforts to curb COVID-19 infection have proven to be ill advised. Evidence shows the illness spreads mostly indoors,13,14,15 for example, casting doubt on the sanity of closing parks and beaches, especially during the summer.

Importantly, the total all-cause mortality is not significantly different than in previous years, as discussed by my interview with Denis Rancourt. Many other deaths have been shifted to COVID-19, bringing a high spike in deaths, but when you look at the area under the curve for total deaths, it really doesn't differ from previous years.

This statistic has also been highlighted by the American Institute for Economic Research.16 As early as April 2020, they referred to the COVID-19 pandemic as "An egregious statistical horror story" that resulted in "a vandalistic lockdown on the economy," which:

" … would have been an outrage even if the assumptions were not wildly astronomically wrong. Flattening the curve was always a fool's errand that widened the damage …

The latest figures on overall death rates from all causes show no increase at all. Deaths are lower than in 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2015, slightly higher than in 2016. Any upward bias is imparted by population growth.

Now writing a book on the crisis with bestselling author Jay Richards, [statistician William] Briggs concludes: 'Since pneumonia deaths are up, yet all deaths are down, it must mean people are being recorded as dying from other things at smaller rates than usual.' Deaths from other causes are simply being ascribed to the coronavirus.

As usual every year, deaths began trending downward in January. It's an annual pattern. Look it up. Since the lockdown began in mid-March, the politicians cannot claim that their policies had anything to do with the declining death rate.

A global study17 published in Israel by Professor Isaac Ben-Israel, chairman of the Israeli Space Agency and Council on Research and Development, shows that 'the spread of the coronavirus declines to almost zero after 70 days — no matter where it strikes, and no matter what measures governments impose to try to thwart it.'

In fact, by impeding herd immunity, particularly among students and other non-susceptible young people, the lockdown in the U.S. has prolonged and exacerbated the medical problem."

- Sources and References
1 Metro August 24, 2020
2 The Sun August 24, 2020
3, 6 The Guardian September 22, 2020
4, 10 National Review April 6, 2020
5 The Spectator April 1, 2020
7, 9 The Guardian September 16, 2020
8 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
10 National Review April 6, 2020
11 Daily Mail April 4, 2020
12 Wall Street Journal September 20, 2020 (Archived)
13 The Atlantic May 26, 2020
14 Harvard Gazette June 29, 2020
15 Nola.com July 1, 2020
16 American Institute of Economic Research April 24, 2020
17 The Times of Israel April 19, 2020

ExomatrixTV

2nd October 2020, 11:47

Rigged "covid" tests - rigged mass media (mass hypnotism) - rigged puppet politicians - rigged push for mass surveillance "contact tracing apps" - rigged (corrupted) statistics / computer-models to scare people in to submission 24/7 to push for mandatory (toxic) vaccines serving Agenda 2030 A.I. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) & Psychopathic Technocrats (http://Technocracy.News) micromanaging everybody to "save the earth" bs.

If we are somehow able to counter all of that ... we must have much more allies than BEFORE the mass hysteria!
⚠️ tinyurl.com/My-2020-2030-Perspectives (http://tinyurl.com/My-2020-2030-Perspectives)

cheers,
John Kuhles aka 'ExomatrixTV'
October 02, 2020

Paul Weston - Is CV-19 A Global Fraud?
tpWa_-CaOs0

ExomatrixTV

2nd October 2020, 12:42

A "Covid-19" Nasal Swab Test Punctured Woman's Brai (https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/a-covid-19-nasal-swab-test-punctured-womans-brain-lining-and-leaked-brain-fluid-from-her-nose-2927009.html)n Lining and Leaked Brain Fluid From Her Nose

BREAKING: Major Investigative Report by Association of French Reserve Army Officers (https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/09/04/breaking-major-investigative-report-by-association-of-french-reserve-army-officers-finds-covid-19-pandemic-to-have-a-hidden-agenda-for-global-totalitarianism-nanotech-chipping-of-all-5g-irradia/) Finds COVID-19 “Pandemic” to Have a Hidden Agenda for Global Totalitarianism, Nanotech Chipping of All, 5G Irradiation, & Genocide

Tintin

20th October 2020, 14:08

Mike Yeadon writing today on Twitter and sharing some interesting insights and information. I’ve made an attempt to pull all his thread commentary into one stream, here, but you can of course follow the thread – while it’s still there! – via the link, in the usual way, if you prefer.

_______________________

1318450567631544320

A source just gave me the following information. A hospital in Wales, Nevill Hall in Abergavenny, has 250 beds. 200 beds are empty. The surgeons are bored & pass much time on the nearby golf course. I think this might be one answer to why UK doctors are not investigating to find out why hospitals have no patients in them! Apparently all covid cases are currently being sent to this hospital.

This story tallies with the original evidence which drew me into this ghastly mess we’ve made of our country. I’ve not mentioned this for quite a while but you all should be incandescent about it.

A good friend who’s a professor of cell biology was playing hockey many miles from home. He fell into conversation with one of the opposing team. This person is a fairly senior manger in NHS England & has daily sight of bed disposition across the service. He was upset to have realised that, as intensive care beds emptied because the many covid19 patients either recovered or sadly died, they were not being replaced by elective surgical patients. To the best of my recollection, this was late June.

I was put in touch with the NHSE staffer by my friend, because he knew I was, by then, telling him all the time that “something is seriously wrong”. I met up with the NHSE manager who, by good fortune, lives less than 10 miles from me. He told me that the utilisation of the ICU beds was at a far lower % than ever in his whole career. Worse, he told me the reason, showing me part of a management briefing he’d recently attended.

To my surprise, in the section entitled NHS Priorities, the top one wasn’t what I expected to see to get the NHS back to normal service ASAP. No, that was there, but it was second. The top priority was entirely contradictory to the second & essentially said “Run the NHS as lightly loaded as possible in order to be prepared to cope with the second wave”.

Just so we’re clear, it’s not an accident that it’s hard to get access to the NHS at present. No, it’s a strategic choice: they’re not seeing you, doing fewer elective surgeries, to protect the NHS. Kafka would probably have rejected this as a plot line on grounds that it’s absurd.

While there has recently need an increase in utilisation of ITU beds, I don’t know about you, it’s completely unacceptable that someone’s decided it’s ok not to replace your heart valve & certain other elective surgeries. Why? To cope with an expected “second wave”. This is where & why I got stuck in.

Viruses do not do waves.

It’s not possible to have a second wave of infections & deaths in a country which has already been intensely infected in spring. This is because those infected & survived, which is 99.8%, are then immune. When a pandemic was self-limiting, as it was in U.K. and almost everywhere I’ve looked, it’s now not possible for the population to enable & support a large, consolidated & growing epidemic.

I knew that back in June & of course we’re not experiencing a second wave, but a #SecondaryRipple (https://twitter.com/hashtag/SecondaryRipple?src=hashtag_click)

This, too, will self-limit. I’m sceptical about, but open-minded to, the possibility that what are being labelled as ‘covid19 deaths’ actually are as advertised. More likely, the majority are simply people who’ve died of other causes, some of which are respiratory deaths, within 28d of a positive PCR test.

PCR testing is wholly unsuitable for the role it’s asked to do. Scandalously, Govt either cannot or has chosen not to tell us what at present in the operational false positive rate.

My own inferences are that is not implausible that most positive tests are false (subclinical infection, fragments of destroyed virus, cross reactivity with common cold coronaviruses, old fashioned contamination). A total operational FPR of 5% would yield 15-20k positives per day, which is what we’re seeing.

In direct contradiction to its own edict, issued after relentless & appropriate criticism of community testing during summer, no steps at all to assess & remove these problems. Based on that internal instruction, testers were required to retest positives, certainly weak positives.

They were also charged with responsibility for assessing then limiting the number of amplification cycles used in PCR, so to greatly reduce FPs. You might ask yourself why they’ve not fixed that glaring error. I can see no reason they’d fly in the face of they’d own, very good advice, other than to keep people fearful for longer.

It’s certainly not saving anyone’s lives. But it provides the cover to order lockdowns. Put simply, it’s terrible practical science, it’s suspicious & you should completely reject the output of mass testing. I think it is telling us less than nothing. If I’m right that, even now, most positives are false, then if unexpectedly they genuine prevalence of virus in the population was to increase, it would be missed.

To finish where I started, If there is ample justification to be absolutely furious at the incompetence - at best - and lethally incorrect advice coming from SAGE. They’re either the wrong people to advise us, because they lack the expertise I & others have to assess the underlying science, in which case they should immediately resign or be.dismissed.

Or more worryingly, some on SAGE know exactly what they’re doing, in which case they should be arrested & charged with numerous crimes of conspiracy.

But whatever you think of the science of testing, you should be appalled to learn that no serious scientist talks of second waves. It’s an absurdity which doesn’t happen, yet Govt & SAGE have persuaded many to expect as axiomatic & almost certain.

But for me the final straw should be to learn that the NHS chose to allow you, your family & friends go untreated, to suffer & even to die, ...in order to prepare for a lie. In closing, followers know I’ve been on about pre-existing immune response, before the virus arrived. Some have said I’m building in sand. I say no. This is to be expected. We even know why it occurs. It’s exposure to related viruses that does. it, leaving behind a robust & durable immune memory.

Here’s an interesting review of that very field (https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3563.full.pdf) in that rather edgy journal, the BMJ.

___________________

BMJ Article:
Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3563.full.pdf

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3563.full.pdf

Sue (Ayt)

20th October 2020, 16:39

To my surprise, in the section entitled NHS Priorities, the top one wasn’t what I expected to see to get the NHS back to normal service ASAP. No, that was there, but it was second. The top priority was entirely contradictory to the second & essentially said “Run the NHS as lightly loaded as possible in order to be prepared to cope with the second wave”.

Just so we’re clear, it’s not an accident that it’s hard to get access to the NHS at present. No, it’s a strategic choice: they’re not seeing you, doing fewer elective surgeries, to protect the NHS. Kafka would probably have rejected this as a plot line on grounds that it’s absurd.

Does anyone remember the opening ceremony for the 2012 Summer Olympics?
Speaking of a kafkaesque scenario. Geesh! I remember being very creeped out watching this thing, but it sure seems like foreshadowing of the 2020 situation, doesn't it? (just something I've pondered again lately)
(pull forward to watch the show from 44:00-55:00.)
4As0e4de-rI
(pull forward to watch the show from 44:00-55:00.)
The theme song of Oldfield's Tubular Bells alone sets a creepy atmosphere. Be sure to watch right through til the end, with the children in cages scenes. (my impression)
I had a surprisinly hard time finding this scene. Perhaps it is something that should be archived and stored before it is totally gone...

onawah

28th October 2020, 01:13

How COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Rigged
10/27/20
by Dr. Mercola
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/27/covid-vaccine-trials.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20201027Z1&mid=DM692979&rid=997224455

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
While vaccine makers insist any COVID-19 vaccine reaching the market will have undergone rigorous testing, the way trial protocols are designed suggests these vaccines will not have a significant impact on infection rates, hospitalizations or deaths
Shockingly, preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 is not a criterion for success in these vaccine trials. The only criterion for a successful COVID-19 vaccine is a reduction of symptoms shared by both COVID-19 and the common cold
In AstraZeneca’s case, the interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients. The vaccine will be a success if 12 or fewer develop symptoms after exposure to SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19 in the 25-person control group
At least two cases of transverse myelitis (severe inflammation of the spinal cord) has been documented in AstraZeneca’s trial, and the company temporarily halted its trial in September 2020. In October, Johnson & Johnson also paused its trial due to an undisclosed “unexplained illness” in one of its participants
If the vaccine cannot reduce infection, hospitalization or death, then it cannot end the pandemic, which means everyone who takes the vaccine will be doing so in vain

"There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether or not the fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine will in fact be safe and effective. While vaccine makers insist that any vaccine reaching the market will have undergone rigorous testing, the way trial protocols are designed suggests these vaccines may leave a lot to be desired.

As reported1 by Forbes contributor William Haseltine, a former professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, while Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have all published their vaccine trial protocols in a rare display of transparency, “close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns.”

In a nutshell, the trial designs are such that the vaccines will get a passing grade even if their efficacy is minimal. Of course, we must also consider vaccine side effects and I’ve also written several articles about mounting safety concerns.

COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Rigged to Pass Efficacy Test
As noted by Haseltine, prevention of infection would typically be a critical endpoint of any vaccine trial. In other words, you want to ensure that when you take the vaccine, your risk of infection is significantly reduced.

However, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, shockingly, preventing infection is not a criterion for success in any of these trials. The only criterion for a successful COVID-19 vaccine is a reduction of COVID-19 symptoms, and even then, the reduction required is minimal.

“We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols — Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca — do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache,” Haseltine writes,2 adding:

“The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from 30,000 to 60,000 participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy.

The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants. These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.”

To get a “passing” grade in the limited interim analysis, a vaccine must show a 70% efficacy. However, again, this does not mean it will prevent infection in 7 of 10 people. As explained by Haseltine:3

“For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms … in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group. Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group.”

The other vaccine makers are basing results on a similar protocol, where only a limited number of vaccinated participants are exposed to the virus to evaluate the extent of their symptoms.

Johnson & Johnson’s interim analysis will include results from 77 vaccine recipients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and if fewer than 18 of them develop symptoms of COVID-19, compared to 59 in the control group, the vaccine will be considered successful.

In AstraZeneca’s case, the interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients. The vaccine will be a success if 12 or fewer develop symptoms after exposure to SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19 in the 25-person control group.

Pfizer’s interim analysis is the smallest of the bunch, with just 32 vaccine recipients. Their success margin is seven or fewer vaccine recipients developing symptoms, compared to 25 in the control group. In the primary analysis, efficacy is set to about 60%, and at most, 164 volunteers will be included in that analysis.

Especially concerning are that those receiving the vaccine in these trials are young and healthy individuals who are not really at high risk of dying from COVID-19. This makes the results of these trials highly questionable in the far more vulnerable population of the elderly.

Trials Are Merely Testing Reduction of Common Cold Symptoms
As if that’s not eyebrow-raising enough, the minimum qualification for a “case of COVID-19” amounts to just one positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms, such as headache, fever, cough or mild nausea. As noted by Haseltine, “This is far from adequate.”

All they’re doing is testing to see if this COVID-19 vaccine will minimize common cold symptoms. They are not actually ensuring the vaccine will prevent serious COVID-19 complications. Johnson & Johnson’s trial is the only one that requires at least five severe COVID-19 cases to be included in the interim analysis.

“One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus?

These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of COVID-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation,” Haseltine writes.4

Severe illness and death are also secondary objectives in these trials, and none of them include failure to prevent hospitalization or death as an important barrier to success. The increasingly disappearing common sense tells us that if the vaccine cannot reduce infection, hospitalization or death, then it cannot end the pandemic, which means everyone who takes the vaccine will be doing so in vain.

Some COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Not Using Inert Placebos
In addition to all of that, some COVID-19 vaccine trials are using other vaccines as “placebo” rather than truly biologically inert substances such as saline, which effectively makes if far easier to hide any vaccine side effects. While Moderna is using a saline solution placebo,5 AstraZeneca is using injected meningococcal vaccine rather than a true placebo.6

Another way AstraZeneca is masking potential side effects is by administering the vaccine along with certain drugs. In one of its study arms, subjects are given acetaminophen every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation. The pain and fever reducer could potentially mask and downplay side effects such as pain, fever, headache or general malaise.

In addition to masking side effects, it is widely recognized among literate natural medicine physicians that using acetaminophen during acute viral infections is not a wise strategy as it impairs the immune response to fight the infection.

dT6mHi_8V5E
As reported by Wired:7

“The press release for … results from the Oxford vaccine trials described an increased frequency of ‘minor side effects’ among participants. A look at the actual paper, though, reveals this to be a marketing spin …

Yes, mild reactions were far more common than worse ones. But moderate or severe harms — defined as being bad enough to interfere with daily life or needing medical care — were common too.

Around one-third of people vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine without acetaminophen experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and/or feverishness.

Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches. That’s a lot, in a young and healthy group of people — and the acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems.”

Two Trials Paused Due to Safety Concerns
September 6, 2020, AstraZeneca paused its Phase 3 vaccine trial due to a “suspected serious and unexpected adverse reaction” in a British participant.8,9 The company did not initially divulge the nature of the adverse reaction, but it has since been revealed the volunteer developed severe inflammation of the spinal cord, known as transverse myelitis.10,11

September 12, 2020, the British Medicines Health Regulatory Authority gave AstraZeneca the go-ahead to resume its Phase 3 trial in the U.K., after an independent review found it “safe to do so.”12,13 According to an AstraZeneca spokesperson, the incident was a case of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis.14

Days later, September 19, 2020, The New York Times reported15 a second case of transverse myelitis had occurred in the AstraZeneca trial. According to one expert consulted by the NYT, the occurrence represented a “dangerous pattern,” and that a third incidence might shut down the vaccine trial indefinitely.

AstraZeneca, however, claims the two cases are “unlikely to be associated with the vaccine,” and that there’s “insufficient evidence to say for certain that the illnesses were or were not related to the vaccine.”16 October 21, 2020, it was reported17 that one of the volunteers in AstraZeneca’s Brazilian trial had died from COVID-19 complications, but that the trial would continue anyway.

October 12, 2020, Johnson & Johnson halted its trial due to “unexplained illness” in one of its participants.18,19 Like AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson has kept mum about the details of the illness, saying “it’s important to have all the facts before we share additional information.”

Side Effects Are Commonplace
The fact that more trials have not been halted is surprising considering the rate of side effects20 occurring in perfectly healthy volunteers. As reported in “Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine,” after the first of two doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose developed systemic side effects.21

After the second dose, 100% reported side effects ranging from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%).

Despite that, the 100-mcg dose was ultimately chosen to move on to Phase 3 trials.22 In the highest dosage group, which received 250 mcg, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses.23 Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events.”

An October 1, 2020, report24 by CNBC reviews the experiences of five participants in Moderna’s and Pfizer’s SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials. One of the participants in Pfizer’s vaccine trial “woke up with chills, shaking so hard he cracked a tooth after taking the second dose.”

A Moderna trial participant told CNBC he had a low-grade fever and felt “under the weather” for several days after his first shot. Eight hours after his second shot he was “bed-bound with a fever of over 101, shakes, chills, a pounding headache and shortness of breath. He said the pain in his arm, where he received the shot, felt like a ‘goose egg on my shoulder.’ He hardly slept that night, recording that his temperature was higher than 100 degrees for five hours.”25

Two others reported similar side effects, and a third warned you would need to take a day off after the second shot. CNBC also noted that “as companies progressed through clinical trials, several vaccine makers abandoned their highest doses following reports of more severe reactions.”

Might Certain COVID-19 Vaccines Raise Risk of AIDS?
Disturbingly, a group of researchers are now expressing concern that some COVID-19 vaccine candidates might put certain people at a higher risk of acquiring HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.26,27,28

Using the failed attempt to create an HIV vaccine as an example, researchers explain29 that the genetically engineered adenovirus, Ad5, used in the HIV vaccine trials, is the same one being used now in four COVID-19 candidates being studied in the U.S., Russia and Pakistan.

At the time of the failed HIV vaccine, scientists were unable to identify the exact reason why Ad5 seemed to increase the risk of HIV; it just inexplicably did. Interestingly, Dr. Anthony Fauci was the lead author on the HIV study,30 in which he questioned “whether the problem extends to some or all of the other recombinant vectors currently in development or to other vector-based vaccines.”

Reflecting on that question, the researchers say they decided to go public with this information now, because Ad5 vaccines for COVID-19 might soon be tested in populations with high HIV prevalence, and they believe that informed consent about the HIV/AIDS risk should be part of the COVID-19 clinical studies.

Will COVID-19 Vaccine Be Mandatory?
According to one September 2020 poll,31 only 51% of Americans said they “definitely or probably” would get the COVID-19 vaccine when it comes out. Another survey32 found only 44% would take the first-generation vaccine even if they were paid $100. Mounting vaccine hesitancy was bemoaned in an October 1, 2020, article33 in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the answer, the article suggests, is to make it mandatory for all.

And, to entice compliance, the authors recommend implementing severe penalties for noncompliance, such as the suspension of employment and/or house arrest.

An October 19, 2020, article 34 by Wisconsin Public Radio also warns that if precedents hold, employers may have the right to force workers to get vaccinated. Potential exceptions might include certain medical issues, bona fide religious objections, and certain union contracts that bar vaccine requirements.

Operation Warp Speed recently selected Walgreens and CVS as nationwide partners in the coming vaccine distribution effort.35 Nursing homes and long-term care facilities around the U.S. can opt in by signing up to have either of these companies come and administer the vaccine to its residents and staff, once available.

So-called “health passports” are also becoming reality. Ireland, for example, has already begun its national trial. The Health Passport Ireland initiative uses an app to track and display results of COVID-19 testing. Vaccination status will be added once a vaccine becomes available.

Untold amounts of money are also being spent on programs to tag, track and trace the human population in the name of public health and safety. According to an article36 in the journal JAMA, the estimated cumulative costs of the COVID-19 pandemic related to lost output and health reduction amounts to more than $16 trillion in the U.S. alone, or about 90% of our annual gross domestic product.

“For this reason, policies that can materially reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 have enormous social value,” the article claims. However, testing, tracing and isolation rules, all of which are promoted in this article, also have a price, and it’s one that any sensible person would reject, namely the loss of privacy and liberty.

As reported37 by The Last American Vagabond, governments are selling our freedom in the name of public health. Do we really want to live in a “biosecurity state”? These freedom-robbing strategies are being sold to us as the path back to normalcy, but the reality will be anything but normal.

As detailed in “The Global Takeover Is Underway,” the pandemic and the global response to it is far from accidental. Overwhelmingly, the evidence points to it being part of a much larger scheme to implement the last stages of a technocratic takeover.

I’ve also covered various aspects of this globalists agenda in “COVID Symptoms of Power: Tech Billionaires Harvest Humanity,” “Tech Billionaires Aiming at a Global Currency,” “Harvard Professor Exposes Surveillance Capitalism,” “How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible” and “US Surveillance Bill 6666: The Devil in the Details.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically widened the economic gap between average people and the wealthy elite,38,39 and continuing down the path we’re currently on will only make this disparity worse, not better.

The globalist plan isn’t about creating a better world for the average person, it’s about enslaving us so that we cannot reject or even resist what’s ultimately coming. Forced vaccinations are but one aspect of the plan that must be resisted at all cost.

One of the Most Powerful Videos I've Ever Seen
The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.

There is a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that results in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.

xEcYQydhY9E

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.

Think Globally, Act Locally
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up to date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and will get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call-to-action items you need at your fingertips. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

JOIN THE NVIC ADVOCACY PORTAL

Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

Vaccine Requirements and Exemptions by State — Vaccine laws vary from one U.S. state to another. By knowing the specific policies where you live, you’ll learn how you can get exemptions and better protect your right to make informed vaccine choices.
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims — View descriptions and photos of children and adults who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions — Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
Vaccine Freedom Wall — View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Vaccine Failure Wall — View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.
Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One Who Will Listen and Care
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor.

Harassment, intimidation and refusal of medical care are becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.

At least 15% of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day, or continuing to provide medical care for those families who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So, take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect, and who is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Subscribe to the Mercola Newsletter to Get Timely Vaccine News and Updates
Google has been censoring vaccine information providers, which means finding reliable information about this topic can be a real challenge.

To help you keep updated on vaccine issues and exemptions, I invite you to subscribe to my FREE health newsletter. You will receive the latest health news from Mercola.com straight to your inbox, with no threats to your security and privacy."

+ Sources and References
1, 2, 3, 4 Forbes September 23, 2020
5 Henryford.com Moderna COVE Vaccine Study
6, 7 Wired July 21, 2020
8, 12 AstraZeneca September 12, 2020
9 STAT News September 8, 2020
10 KHN September 14, 2020
11 New York Times September 8, 2020 (Archived)13 STAT News September 12, 2020
14 En.as.com September 21, 2020
15 The New York Times September 19, 2020 (Archived)
16 Covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk Participant Information Sheet (PDF)
17 Reuters October 21, 2020
18 JnJ.com
19 Channel3000 October 19, 2020
20 Observer October 20, 2020
21 NEJM July 14, 2020 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483
22 Neurology Live July 16, 2020
23 Reporter.am July 14, 2020
24, 25 CNBC October 4, 202026, 29 The Lancet October 19, 2020
27 Forbes October 20, 2020
28 Science October 19, 2020
30 Science April 4, 2014; 344(6179): 49-51
31 CIDRAP September 18, 2020
32 Axios September 24-27, 2020
33 NEJM 2020; 383:1296-1299
34 Wisconsin Public Radio October 19, 2020
35 Defense.gov October 17, 2020
36 JAMA 2020;324(15):1495-1496
37 The Last American Vagabond October 13, 2020
38 The Nation October 5, 2020
39 The Guardian October 6, 2020

DaveToo

3rd November 2020, 03:58

Not that we can trust these stats, but it probably is worth mentioning that despite the U.S. entering its 3rd wave now of cases and racking up their largest number of alleged daily 'cases' since the plandemic started, it is not the leader in deaths/million.

The honors for that go to Peru (1047 deaths/million).

It is also worth mentioning that despite its relatively small size, Ecuador is leading the U.S. in Covid deaths/million:

Ecuador: 719 deaths/million
U.S.: 698 deaths/million

onawah

4th November 2020, 18:37

CDC Reveals Hospitals Counted Heart Attacks as COVID-19 Deaths
241,953 views•Oct 27, 2020
One America News Network
963K subscribers
"The latest numbers from the CDC reveal hospitals have been counting patients who died from serious preexisting conditions as COVID-19 deaths. One America’s Pearson Sharp has more, as the CDC counts over 51-thousand patients who actually died from heart attacks, as opposed to the coronavirus."

7x-biB_JrcU

Tintin

5th November 2020, 13:13

Here's an extraordinarily courageous young nurse from a Cornish hospital in England sharing her experience and outlining her reasons for resigning her post. Very sad.

As she states in this clip she had the wit to take a screenshot of hospital information and shared it on an email. This is just 02:20 in length. If a longer version appears and I can grab it I'll try and share it. (I have already downloaded this two minute clip)

1324305950858203141

Bill Ryan

5th November 2020, 14:56

It is also worth mentioning that despite its relatively small size, Ecuador is leading the U.S. in Covid deaths/million:

Ecuador: 719 deaths/million
U.S.: 698 deaths/millionAnd Ecuador ended its lockdown on 12 September, nearly two months ago. The country had to get back to work, and the government, apparently having not got the memo from the WHO, absolutely knew that.

Apart from mandatory masks when entering a store (a tiny thing considering), there are no other inconveniences at all. There are no in-country travel or gathering restrictions, and everything's open. See this thread:

About Ecuador (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111959-About-Ecuador)

:focus:

onawah

12th November 2020, 05:35

pueblo

12th November 2020, 10:04

This is excellent (and he has a sharp sense of humour/irony which I like!), just under 20mins.

The Covid Cult | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

mcm8Sc8f66o

Edit: I hadn't heard of Tom Woods previously..

"Thomas Ernest Woods Jr. (born August 1, 1972) is an American author, historian and libertarian who is currently a senior fellow at the Mises Institute.[2][3][4] Woods is a New York Times Best-Selling author and has published twelve books.[3] He has written extensively on subjects including the history of the United States, Catholicism, contemporary politics, and economics. Although not an economist himself, Woods is a proponent of the Austrian School of economics.[5] He hosts a daily podcast, The Tom Woods Show, and he formerly co-hosted the now defunct Contra Krugman.[4][6][7]

- Wiki"

DaveToo

12th November 2020, 23:39

Dr. Andrew Kaufman - The Pandemic Fraud Runs Deep - Red Pill Expo (Oct 10, 2020)
October 23rd, 2020
2,992 views

https://odysee.com/@Alin:7/y2mate.com---Dr.-Andrew-Kaufman-at-Red-Pill-Expo-(Oct-10,-2020)---The-Pandemic-Fraud-Runs-Deep_480p:f

Thanks onawah.
I started to watch the video but see he is basically going over what I have heard him talk about many times.

I have a science background but am open to both the terrain and germ theory.

I have a question for all here that Dr. Kaufman has not covered nor have I seen anyone else cover when
they talk about exosomes.

If we assume that there is no Covid-19 virus, that everyone who is getting sick with the same symptoms of
shortness of breath, fever, cough etc. etc., is just undergoing an exosome detox,
how do we explain the following.

How could so many people from all around the world, at one and the same time,
be affected by such varying local toxic terrains, yet all come down with the same symptoms?

That is the burning question that Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan avoids.

If anyone has a good answer that makes logical sense, I will embrace the exosome/terrain theory with
open arms!

P.S. I would have posted this in the Exosome thread, except no one there seemed to have the knowledge to answer it.

onawah

13th November 2020, 01:01

I think 5G and possibly other toxic frequencies and possibly other toxins probably have a lot to do with it.
Even though all the technology for 5G has yet to be installed everywhere, there are still thousands of 5G satellites that have been launched and continue to be launched.
Chemtrails are still filling the skies and the air with toxins, and it's so widespread that everything that is being dropped on us cannot be thoroughly monitored.
Nanotechnology is finding its way into our bodies and is still largely kept under the public's radar.
We are being exposed to so many toxins in unprecedented amounts that it's no wonder if people are getting sick and dying in record numbers.
But at the same time, we know those statistics are skewed, so it's still largely a matter of speculation to know the real numbers and which is causing what.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman - The Pandemic Fraud Runs Deep - Red Pill Expo (Oct 10, 2020)
October 23rd, 2020
2,992 views

https://odysee.com/@Alin:7/y2mate.com---Dr.-Andrew-Kaufman-at-Red-Pill-Expo-(Oct-10,-2020)---The-Pandemic-Fraud-Runs-Deep_480p:f

Thanks onawah.
I started to watch the video but see he is basically going over what I have heard him talk about many times.

I have a science background but am open to both the terrain and germ theory.

I have a question for all here that Dr. Kaufman has not covered nor have I seen anyone else cover when
they talk about exosomes.

If we assume that there is no Covid-19 virus, that everyone who is getting sick with the same symptoms of
shortness of breath, fever, cough etc. etc., is just undergoing an exosome detox,
how do we explain the following.

How could so many people from all around the world, at one and the same time,
be affected by such varying local toxic terrains, yet all come down with the same symptoms?

That is the burning question that Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan avoids.

If anyone has a good answer that makes logical sense, I will embrace the exosome/terrain theory with
open arms!

P.S. I would have posted this in the Exosome thread, except no one there seemed to have the knowledge to answer it.

Constance

13th November 2020, 01:33

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

DaveToo

13th November 2020, 05:03

DaveToo

13th November 2020, 05:15

Hi DaveToo :flower:

Adding to what Onawah had to share, Dr. Zach Bush might have some answers for you. In this video, Zach addresses what he believes has happened in relation to the questions you ask here.

It's a long video but well worth the listen...

Thanks for the video Constance.
That was cruel of you to make me watch such a long video just to find the answers to my question! :)

I like Dr. Zach Bush and have watched some of his videos early on in the pandemic.

I was a bit surprised to see that this video was made only two months into the pandemic (May 26, 2020).

1. He talks as if this pandemic might be the '6th extinction' holding at just 50% loss of life of the earth's population!
With the previous five extinctions where we lost 85-90% of the world's population.
Me thinks he will prove to be off just slightly with his prediction. :)

2. He talks about many people actually celebrating the lockdowns
giving them a much needed work break, instead of highlighting all the devastation they are causing worldwide.
That was a bit of a shocker. (Mind you maybe two months into the pandemic it did feel a bit party-like).

3. He compares the tragedy and loss of life due to volcanoes to Covid!!
Another shocker!

He finally lays out his thoughts on what is causing the CV symptoms:

Air pollution, toxins, (cyanide poisoning) around the world.

OK, fair enough.
But we have had a steady building of air pollution for decades now.
Why did it 'explode' all at once starting this year 2020 causing
the symptoms that we see with CV patients?

If he has any other ideas as to what is causing the CV symptoms please let me know Constance!
I would appreciate it. 90 minutes is 90 minutes. Time is money, money is time. Life is short. :)

onawah

13th November 2020, 05:34

The combination of different toxins have to be causing an overall challenge to the immune system, and when the final straw is introduced (that being whatever Covid is--if it really is a virus, or if such a thing as a virus exists), there is little resistance to it left , and then it's not illogical that similar symptoms would manifest in everyone.

I think 5G and possibly other toxic frequencies and possibly other toxins probably have a lot to do with it.
Even though all the technology for 5G has yet to be installed everywhere, there are still thousands of 5G satellites that have been launched and continue to be launched.
Chemtrails are still filling the skies and the air with toxins, and it's so widespread that everything that is being dropped on us cannot be thoroughly monitored.
Nanotechnology is finding its way into our bodies and is still largely kept under the public's radar.
We are being exposed to so many toxins in unprecedented amounts that it's no wonder if people are getting sick and dying in record numbers.
But at the same time, we know those statistics are skewed, so it's still largely a matter of speculation to know the real numbers and which is causing what.

Thanks onawah.

While I certainly look to 5G as a possible culprit/explanation for some of the "Covid symptoms",
(certainly the 5G that was on the cruise ships early on) I have a hard time
taking such diverse toxins as 5G, chemtrails, nanotech et al. and lumping them
altogether to produce essentially the exact same symptoms we see in CV patients.

That's where I can't feel satisfied about connecting the dots or completing the puzzle.
The toxins seem far too different in nature to all produce the same symptoms.

Do you find the explanation to be convincing?

onawah

13th November 2020, 07:21

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 13, 2020
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/13/covid-19-testing.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20201113Z1&mid=DM706762&rid=1010255044

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
PCR tests are not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones
Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified, yet many labs use 45 cycles. This amplifies any tiny sequence of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads “positive” even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive
The PCR test can also pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you’ve recuperated from a common cold in the past
Millions of people are simply carrying inactive viral DNA that pose no risk to anyone, yet positive test results are being used by the global technocracy to implement a brand new economic and social system based on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls
Research shows the global lockdown strategy harms public health to a greater degree than the virus itself

"From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the clarion call has been to test, test and test some more. However, right from the start, serious questions arose about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.

Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.

This, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and aren't designed to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, has even gone on record stating1 that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to "manufacture a 'second wave' based on 'new cases,'" when in fact a second wave is highly unlikely.

Understanding PCR Tests
xd4De47ldYs

Before his death, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it's incapable of diagnosing disease. A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. As noted in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and prevention publication on coronavirus and PCR testing dated July 13 2020:2

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
So, what does the PCR test actually tell us? The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle.

Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified, yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.

What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads "positive," even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. As a result of these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise.

We've also had problems with faulty and contaminated tests. As soon as the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 became available in January 2020, German researchers quickly developed a PCR test for the virus.

In March 2020, The New York Times3 reported the initial test kits developed by the CDC had been found to be flawed. The Verge also reported4 that this flawed CDC test in turn became the basis for the WHO's test, which the CDC ended up refusing to use.

PCR Tests Cannot Detect Infection
Perhaps most importantly of all, the PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones. What that means is that PCR tests cannot detect infection. Period. It cannot tell you whether you're currently ill, whether you'll develop symptoms in the near future, or whether you're contagious.

The tests may pick up dead debris or inactive viral particles that pose no risk whatsoever to the patient and others. What's more, the test can pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you've recuperated from a common cold in the past.

An "infection" is when a virus penetrates into a cell and replicates. As the virus multiplies, symptoms set in. A person is only infectious if the virus is actually replicating. As long as the virus is inactive and not replicating, it's completely harmless both to the host and others.

Chances are, if you have no symptoms, a positive test simply means it has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This would also mean that you are not contagious and pose no risk to anyone.

For all of these reasons, a number of highly respected scientists around the world are now saying that what we have is not a COVID-19 pandemic but a PCR test pandemic. In his September 20, 2020, article5 "Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics — The Deadly Danger of False Positives," Yeadon explains why basing our pandemic response on positive PCR tests is so problematic.

In short, it appears millions of people are simply being found to carry inactive viral DNA that pose no risk to anyone, yet these test results are being used by the global technocracy to implement a brand new economic and social system based on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls.

Artificially Created Justifications for Totalitarian Controls
As reported by The Vaccine Reaction, September 29, 2020:6

"The test's threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It's like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.7

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90% of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found8 …

'We've been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that's all,' Dr. Mina said. 'We're using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.'

But 'yes' or 'no' isn't good enough, he added. It's the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient's next steps. 'It's really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,' Dr. Mina said."

Again, medical experts agree any cycle threshold over 35 cycles makes the test too sensitive, as at that point it starts picking up harmless inactive DNA fragments. Mina believes a more reasonable cutoff would be 30 or less.

Changing the cycle threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated about 43% of the positive results. Limiting it to 30 cycles eliminated a whopping 63%.
According to The New York Times,9 the CDC's own calculations show it's extremely unlikely to detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles, and research10 published in April 2020 concluded patients with positive PCR tests that had a cycle threshold above 33 were not contagious and could safely be discharged from the hospital or home isolation.

Importantly, when officials at the New York state laboratory, the Wadsworth Center, reanalyzed testing data at The Times' request, they found that changing the threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated about 43% of the positive results. Limiting it to 30 cycles eliminated a whopping 63%.11 The Vaccine Reaction adds:12

"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. 'I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,' he said.

'I'm really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high CT value results,' said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. 'Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing'13 …

In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn't need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test [BinaxNOW] will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.14

The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus's genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do.15"

Massive Waste of Resources
As noted by Dr. Tom Jefferson and professor Carl Henegan in an October 31, 2020, article in the Daily Mail,16 mass PCR testing has been a massive waste or resources, as it doesn't provide us with the information we actually need to know — who's infectious, how far is the virus spreading and how fast does it spread?

Instead, it has led to economic devastation from business shutdowns and isolating noninfectious people in their homes for weeks and months on end. Jefferson and Henegan claim they shared their pandemic response plan with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson over a month ago, and just presented it to him again. "We urge him to pay attention and embrace it," they write, adding:

"There are only two things about which we can be certain: first, that lockdowns do not work in the long term … The idea that a month of economic hardship will permit some sort of 'reset', allowing us a brighter future, is a myth. What, when it ends, do we think will happen? Meanwhile, ever-increasing restrictions will destroy lives and livelihoods.

The second certainty is this: that we need to find a way out of the mess that does no more damage than the virus itself … Our strategy would be to tackle the four key failings."

These four areas are:

Addressing the problems in the government's mass testing program
Addressing "the blight of confused and contradictory statistics"
Protect and isolate the vulnerable — primarily the elderly, but also hospitalized patients in general and staff — while allowing the rest to maintain "some semblance of normal life"
Inform the public about the true and quantifiable costs of lockdown that "kill people just as surely as COVID-19"
"If we do these things, there is real hope that we can learn to live with the virus. That, after all, was supposed to be the plan," Jefferson and Henegan note. With regard to testing, the pair call "for a national program of testing quality control to ensure that results are accurate, precise and consistent."

Importantly, we must not rely on positive/negative readings alone. The results must be assessed in relation to other factors, such as the age of the subject and whether they are symptomatic, to determine who actually poses an infectious risk. You can review the full details of their proposed plan at the end of their Daily Mail article.17

Lockdown Dangers Have Been Kept Out of Public Discussion
Jefferson and Henegan aren't the only ones highlighting the fact that the global lockdown strategy is causing more harm and destruction than the virus itself. In a June 16, 2020 article in The Federalist, James Lucas, a New York City attorney, wrote:18

"If we're going to allow models and modelers to dictate the entire nature of our society, one would hope that the models are as complete as possible. Yet the epidemiological models that have so transformed our world are seriously incomplete, and therefore fundamentally inadequate.

Any medical therapy is supposed to be tested for both efficacy and safety. There have been several studies19 examining the effectiveness of the lockdowns in combating the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with mixed conclusions.

So far, however, none of these studies or models have analyzed the safety side of the lockdown therapy. In response to questions from physician Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy, Dr. Anthony Fauci admits20 this side of the equation has not been accounted for in the models now driving our world.

As noted in an open letter21 recently signed by more than 600 health-care professionals, the public health costs from the lockdowns — described as a 'mass casualty incident' are real and growing.

These models are estimations based on existing research. The constantly changing projections of coronavirus deaths are extrapolations from research on previous epidemics. Yet modelers have no excuse for leaving evaluations of the lockdowns' massive costs to public health out of their models."

The Hidden Costs of Lockdowns
How does the "lockdown therapy" affect public safety? In his article, Lucas highlights the following:22

•Increased chronic disease rates due to unemployment, poverty and putting non-COVID medical care on hold — Research23 by the Veterans Administration has shown delaying cancer treatment for just one month led to a 20% increase in mortality. Another study24 found each one-month delay in breast cancer diagnosis increased mortality by 10%

•Increased rates of mental health problems due to unemployment and isolation

•Increased mortality rates from suicide — In one study,25 being unemployed was associated with a twofold to threefold higher relative risk of suicide. A more recent study26 estimates "deaths of despair" linked to lockdowns may be around 75,000 in the U.S.

•Reduced collective life span — Extended unemployment is also associated with shorter, unhealthier lives. Hannes Schwandt, a health economics researcher at Northwestern University, estimates an extended economic shutdown could shorten the lifespan of 6.4 million Americans entering the job market by an average of about two years.27 Lucas notes:

"If epidemiologists don't care to take account of this toll, another profession must. A study28 just released by a group of South African actuaries estimates that the net reduction in lifespan from increased unemployment and poverty due to a national lockdown will exceed the increased lifespan due to lives saved from COVID-19 by the lockdown by a factor of 30 to 1.

In other words, each year of additional life attributable to isolating potential coronavirus victims in the lockdown comes at a cost of 30 years lost due to the negative public health effects of a lockdown …"

Lack of education is also associated with significantly shorter life spans and poorer health. High school drop-outs die on average nine years sooner than college graduates,29 and school closings disproportionally affect poorer students.

Who Pays the Most?
As noted by Lucas, in addition to calculating the overall costs on society, modelers must also determine "on whom those costs fall," because the costs are not borne equally by all. The consequences of the lockdowns disproportionally affect those who are already the most vulnerable — financially and health wise — such as those living near the poverty line, the chronically ill, people with mental illness and minorities in general.

"Contrary to the PR slogan, we are NOT all in this together," Lucas writes.30 "We need less insipid pro-lockdown propaganda extolling the virtues of the 'essential' workers, and more serious analysis of the enormous public health toll the lockdowns are imposing on them. Otherwise, we may come to see the era of coronavirus as simply the time where pro-lockdown elites sacrificed the working class31 to protect themselves."

A Pandemic of Fearmongering
An October 28, 2020, article featured by the Ron Paul Institute points out that:32

"Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry.

But the facts and the science simply don't support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land. Yes, we do have a pandemic, but it' a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact."

Nine facts that can be backed up with data "paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens," the article states. In addition to the fact that PCR testing is practically useless, for all the reasons already mentioned, these data-backed facts include:

1.A positive test is NOT a "case" — As explained by Dr. Lee Merritt in her August 2020 Doctors for Disaster Preparedness33 lecture, featured in "How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible," media and public health officials appear to have purposefully conflated "cases" or positive tests with the actual illness.

Medically speaking, a "case" refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, "case," has been completely and arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA. As noted by Merritt, "That is not epidemiology. That's fraud."

2.According to the CDC34 and other research data,35 the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99%, and the vast majority of deaths occur in those over 70, which is close to normal life expectancy.

3.CDC analysis reveals 85% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 wore face masks "often" or "always" in the two weeks preceding their positive test. As noted in the Ron Paul article,36 "The only rational conclusion from this study is that cloth face masks offer little if any protection from Covid-19 infection."

4.There are inexpensive, proven successful therapies for COVID-19 — Examples include various regimens involving hydroxychloroquine with zinc and antibiotics, quercetin-based protocols, the MATH+ protocol and nebulized hydrogen peroxide.

5.The death rate has not risen despite pandemic deaths — Data37,38 show the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady during 2020 and doesn't veer from the norm. In other words, COVID-19 has not killed off more of the population than would have died in any given year anyway.

As noted in the Ron Paul article,39 "According to the CDC as of early May 2020 the total number of deaths in the US was 944,251 from January 1 — April 30th. This is actually slightly lower than the number of deaths during the same period in 2017 when 946,067 total deaths were reported."

15,000 Doctors and Scientists Call for End to Lockdowns
All in all, there are many reasons to suspect that continued lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates are completely unnecessary and will not significantly alter the course of this pandemic illness, or the final death count.

And, with regard to universal PCR testing where individuals are tested every two weeks or even more frequently, whether they have symptoms or not, this is clearly a pointless effort that yields useless data. It's just a tool to spread fear, which in turn allows for the rapid implementation of the totalitarian control mechanisms required to pull off The Great Reset. Fortunately, more and more people are now starting to see through this plot.

About 45,000 scientists and doctors worldwide have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration,40 which calls for the end to all lockdowns and implementation of a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, meaning governments should allow people who are not at significant risk of serious COVID-19 illness to go back to normal life, as the lockdown approach is having a devastating effect on public health — far worse than the virus itself.41,42 The declaration states:43

"Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health …

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to coronavirus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this focused protection."

The declaration points out that current lockdown policies will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class. As of November 5, 2020, The Great Barrington Declaration44 had been signed by 11,791 medical and public health scientists, 33,903 medical practitioners and 617,685 "concerned citizens."45"

+ Sources and References
1 The Huntingtonian October 6, 2020
2 CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)
3 New York Times, March 20, 2020
4 The Verge, March 17, 2020, Current Gold Standards
5 Lockdownskeptics September 20, 2020
6, 11, 12 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
7 Daily Mail August 30, 2020
8, 9, 13 The New York Times August 29, 2020
10 Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39(6): 1059-1061
14 Abbott Press Release August 26, 2020
15 Business Insider September 21, 2020
16, 17 Daily Mail October 31, 2020
18, 22, 30 The Federalist June 16, 2020
19 National Review May 22, 2020
20 WSJ Opinion May 13, 2020
21 Letter from Doctors to President Donald Trump May 19, 2020
23 Health Services Research 2007 Apr; 42(2): 644–662
24 The ASCO Post April 14, 2016
25 Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2003; 57: 594-600
26 Well Being Trust Projected Deaths of Despair During COVID-19
27 Reuters April 3, 2020
28 Pandemic Data and Analytics — Quantifying Years of Lost Life
29 Center on Society and Health February 13, 2015
31 The Federalist May 4, 2020
32, 36, 39 Ron Paul Institute October 28, 2020
33 Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
34 CDC.gov Pandemic Planning Scenarios Updated September 10, 2020
35 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
37 YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
38 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
40, 43, 44 Great Barrington Declaration
41 Sky News October 7, 2020
42 Washington Times October 8, 2020
45 Great Barrington Declaration Signatures

Constance

13th November 2020, 09:00

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

DaveToo

13th November 2020, 21:00

onawah

13th November 2020, 21:01

Good luck with that!!

The combination of different toxins have to be causing an overall challenge to the immune system, and when the final straw is introduced (that being whatever Covid is--if it really is a virus, or if such a thing as a virus exists), there is little resistance to it left , and then it's not illogical that similar symptoms would manifest in everyone.

I can go along with that theory.
But as detective Columbo used to say "Just one more thing".....

Your theory doesn't cover a crucial element to this puzzle.
Clusters.

Time and time again we see/read of regular news stories around the world (U.S./Canada all over the place)
of cluster outbreaks in localities.

I need someone here to give me a full-proof explanation for these. :)

DaveToo

13th November 2020, 21:27

My own thoughts are that it isn't any great revelation or secret that the artificial and toxic ways in which most of the modern world lives is having severe consequences for the lives of future generations. For example, in Australia with the rates of obesity, such as they are, there is a concern that parents will outlive their children (https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/contents/health/overweight-and-obesity).

In Australia, about one in 9 Australian couples (https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/infertility) of reproductive age experiences fertility problems.

In the USA, the CDC reports that the percentage of women aged 15-49 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infertility.htm) (population of females in that age bracket is 75,403) with infertility issues is at a rate of 13.1%. That is one in every 10 women in the USA.

I agree with these thoughts. However for the purpose of this discussion I would like to get down to specific cause and effect.
If someone hits another person over the head with a hammer, and the person drops to the floor, head cracked open and bleeds to death,
an autopsy would likely reveal that a blunt force instrument caused trauma to the head which led to the death of the victim.

They would be able to narrow down the exact cause of death. They would rule out a gun, a knife, a bomb, cyanide gas etc.

2. He talks about many people actually celebrating the lockdowns
giving them a much needed work break, instead of highlighting all the devastation they are causing worldwide.
That was a bit of a shocker. (Mind you maybe two months into the pandemic it did feel a bit party-like).

Maybe you can point me in the right direction to where he said this? I couldn't find any reference for what you said here. I went through the entire video transcript. I'm not saying that you didn't hear this, I'm just saying that I didn't hear/see anything that was even vaguely close to what you've written here.

Sure, give a good listen to 6:45 -7:30.

3. He compares the tragedy and loss of life due to volcanoes to Covid!!
Another shocker!

To put what Zach said into context, what he actually said @ 08:32 was: "Uh volcanoes are not gentle you know, transformers and none of the cataclysmic events that change the course of the planet are gentle."

Correct and he personally chose to compare what is happening now with Covid to volcanoes. No one held a gun to his head and said you must use this as a comparison. :)

He finally lays out his thoughts on what is causing the CV symptoms:

Air pollution, toxins, (cyanide poisoning) around the world.

OK, fair enough.
But we have had a steady building of air pollution for decades now.
Why did it 'explode' all at once starting this year 2020 causing
the symptoms that we see with CV patients?

I'm not sure that the symptoms we are seeing now in COVID patients did explode in early 2020. Zach reported (at 26:28) the similarities between SARS and COVID19 symptoms, including the approach to stopping them.

Well, if we believe what authorities and the MSM are telling us is happening around the world right now,
we are seeing an explosion that began this year. Not a gradual, incremental build-up of similar symptoms beginning in 2003.

DaveToo

13th November 2020, 21:31

Constance

13th November 2020, 22:09

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

norman

14th November 2020, 07:31

Joe Biden's COVID Tzar ( if he ever gets his hands on the presidency ) is Michael Osterholm.

Here, Michael Osterholm talked to Joe Rogan, a while ago.

E3URhJx0NSw

Constance

15th November 2020, 23:02

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

greybeard

16th November 2020, 12:15

Covid: 'Cases are flatlining and hospitals are not being overwhelmed'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGR5FwZr24

Tintin

19th November 2020, 15:59

Twitter and Facebook are (typically) making accessibility to this type of scientific view difficult. The audio was taken down by both within 7 minutes of it being posted up, although the committee meeting at which this audio extract is sourced remains up on youtube, for now.

The full meeting is here but is long at over 3 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1W0FHuR-Rc&feature=youtu.be

Avalon library links are here: http://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=Coronavirus_%28Wuhan_2019-nCov%29/Roger_Hodkinson_audio_recording_Nov_2020

MP3 is here: http://avalonlibrary.net/Coronavirus_%28Wuhan_2019-nCov%29/Roger_Hodkinson_audio_recording_Nov_2020/Dr_Roger_Hodkinson_recorded_Edmonton_Nov_13_2020.mp3

_______________________________

DR. ROGER HODKINSON ON COVID: “THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOAX EVER PERPETRATED ON AN UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC”
NOVEMBER 18, 2020

Source: Electroverse (https://electroverse.net/dr-roger-hodkinson-on-covid-hoax/)

https://i0.wp.com/electroverse.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/hodkinson-2-e1605724684177.jpg?w=1164&ssl=1

Dr. Roger Hodkinson is the former Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons committee in Ottawa, he was once CEO of a large private medical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta, and for the past 20 years has held the position as Chairman of a Medical Biotechnology company based in North Carolina currently tasked with selling a COVID-19 test. He is a medical specialist in pathology, which includes virology, who trained at Cambridge University in the UK — he is perfectly positioned to speak on this topic.

In a recent Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee meeting (the audio from which is currently gaining traction on YouTube), Dr. Hodkinson says: “The bottom line is there is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

“[COVID-19] is nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game.”

Hodkinson goes on to stress that no action of any kind is needed, other than what happened during last year’s flu season: “If we felt ill, we stayed home, we took chicken noodle soup, we didn’t visit granny, we decided when we would return to work; we didn’t need anyone to tell us.”

“MASK ARE UTTERLY USELESS”
“There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.

“[Masks] are simply virtue signalling.

“Seeing these people walking around like lemmings obeying, without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.”

“SOCIAL DISTANCING IS ALSO USELESS”
“COVID is spread by aerosols, which travel 30 meters-or-so before landing.”

“CLOSURES OF SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES HAVE HAD SUCH TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES”
“Everywhere should be open tomorrow, as was stated in the Great Barrington Declaration (linked below).

“POSITIVE TEST RESULTS DO NOT MEAN A CLINICAL INFECTION”
“All testing should stop, unless you’re presenting to hospital with some respiratory problem … it’s driving public hysteria, and all testing should stop.

“All that should be done is to protect the vulnerable.

“And I would remind you all that using the provinces [Alberta’s] own statistics, the risk of death under 65 is 1 in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this. The scale of the response … with no evidence for it, is utterly ridiculous.

“Suicides, business closures, [cancelled] funerals, weddings, etc., etc. — it’s simply outrageous, it’s just another bad flu, and [people] have got to get their minds around that.”

Hodkison concludes with some advice for policy makers in Alberta: “Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health in this province. I’m absolutely outraged that this has reached this level. It should all stop tomorrow. Thank you very much.”

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have issued crippling page restrictions.

Be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse, and/or consider “allowing ads” for www.electroverse.net if you use a blocker.

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has. So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

thepainterdoug

19th November 2020, 16:58

READ THIS!!!
https://summit.news/2020/11/18/top-pathologist-claims-coronavirus-is-the-greatest-hoax-ever-perpetrated-on-an-unsuspecting-public/

onawah

20th November 2020, 23:21

From: A Microwaved Planet https://www.facebook.com/AMicrowavedPlanet

Radiation Induced Bystander Effect is the mechanism by which cells communicate changes in their environment to other cells through the release of exosomes. This secretion of exosomes is being called a 'virus'.
1. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/eaau6977....
Video here:
https://brandnewtube.com/.../radiation-sickness-and-not...

1.The biology, function, and biomedical applications of exosomes
View ORCID ProfileRaghu Kalluri1,2,3,*, View ORCID ProfileValerie S. LeBleu1
See all authors and affiliations
Science 07 Feb 2020:
Vol. 367, Issue 6478, eaau6977
DOI: 10.1126/science.aau6977
"Clinical uses of cellular communication
Exosomes are a type of extracellular vesicle that contain constituents (protein, DNA, and RNA) of the cells that secrete them. They are taken up by distant cells, where they can affect cell function and behavior. Intercellular communication through exosomes seems to be involved in the pathogenesis of various disorders, including cancer, neurodegeneration, and inflammatory diseases. In a Review, Kalluri and LeBleu discuss the biogenesis and function of exosomes in disease, highlighting areas where more research is needed. They also discuss the potential clinical applications of exosome profiling for diagnostics and exosome-mediated delivery of therapeutics to target disease cells.

Science, this issue p. eaau6977

Structured Abstract
BACKGROUND
All cells, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, release extracellular vesicles (EVs) as part of their normal physiology and during acquired abnormalities. EVs can be broadly divided into two categories, ectosomes and exosomes. Ectosomes are vesicles that pinch off the surface of the plasma membrane via outward budding, and include microvesicles, microparticles, and large vesicles in the size range of ~50 nm to 1 μm in diameter. Exosomes are EVs with a size range of ~40 to 160 nm (average ~100 nm) in diameter with an endosomal origin. Sequential invagination of the plasma membrane ultimately results in the formation of multivesicular bodies, which can intersect with other intracellular vesicles and organelles, contributing to diversity in the constituents of exosomes. Depending on the cell of origin, EVs, including exosomes, can contain many constituents of a cell, including DNA, RNA, lipids, metabolites, and cytosolic and cell-surface proteins. The physiological purpose of generating exosomes remains largely unknown and needs investigation. One speculated role is that exosomes likely remove excess and/or unnecessary constituents from cells to maintain cellular homeostasis. Recent studies reviewed here also indicate a functional, targeted, mechanism-driven accumulation of specific cellular components in exosomes, suggesting that they have a role in regulating intercellular communication.

ADVANCES
Exosomes are associated with immune responses, viral pathogenicity, pregnancy, cardiovascular diseases, central nervous system–related diseases, and cancer progression. Proteins, metabolites, and nucleic acids delivered by exosomes into recipient cells effectively alter their biological response. Such exosome-mediated responses can be disease promoting or restraining. The intrinsic properties of exosomes in regulating complex intracellular pathways has advanced their potential utility in the therapeutic control of many diseases, including neurodegenerative conditions and cancer. Exosomes can be engineered to deliver diverse therapeutic payloads, including short interfering RNAs, antisense oligonucleotides, chemotherapeutic agents, and immune modulators, with an ability to direct their delivery to a desired target. The lipid and protein composition of exosomes can affect their pharmacokinetic properties, and their natural constituents may play a role in enhanced bioavailability and in minimizing adverse reactions. In addition to their therapeutic potential, exosomes also have the potential to aid in disease diagnosis. They have been reported in all biological fluids, and the composition of the complex cargo of exosomes is readily accessible via sampling of biological fluids (liquid biopsies). Exosome-based liquid biopsy highlights their potential utility in diagnosis and determining the prognosis of patients with cancer and other diseases. Disease progression and response to therapy may also be ascertained by a multicomponent analysis of exosomes.

OUTLOOK
The study of exosomes is an active area of research. Ongoing technological and experimental advances are likely to yield valuable information regarding their heterogeneity and biological function(s), as well as enhance our ability to harness their therapeutic and diagnostic potential. As we develop more standardized purification and analytical procedures for the study of exosomes, this will likely reveal their functional heterogeneity. Nonetheless, functional readouts using EVs enriched for exosomes have already provided new insights into their contribution to various diseases. New genetic mouse models with the ability for de novo or induced generation of cell-specific exosomes in health and disease will likely show the causal role of exosomes in cell-to-cell communication locally and between organs. Whether exosome generation and content change with age needs investigation, and such information could offer new insights into tissue senescence, organ deterioration, and programmed or premature aging. Whether EVs and/or exosomes preceded the first emergence of the single-cell organism on the planet is tempting to speculate, and focused bioelectric and biochemical experiments in the future could reveal their cell-independent biological functions. Single-exosome identification and isolation and cryoelectron microscopy analyses have the potential to substantially improve our understanding of the basic biology of exosomes and their use in applied science and technology. Such knowledge will inform the therapeutic potential of exosomes for various diseases, including cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/367/6478/eaau6977/F1.medium.gif
Exosomes: A cell-to-cell transit system in the human body with pleiotropic functions.
Exosomes are extracellular vesicles generated by all cells and they carry nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, and metabolites. They are mediators of near and long-distance intercellular communication in health and disease and affect various aspects of cell biology.Abstract
The study of extracellular vesicles (EVs) has the potential to identify unknown cellular and molecular mechanisms in intercellular communication and in organ homeostasis and disease. Exosomes, with an average diameter of ~100 nanometers, are a subset of EVs. The biogenesis of exosomes involves their origin in endosomes, and subsequent interactions with other intracellular vesicles and organelles generate the final content of the exosomes. Their diverse constituents include nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, amino acids, and metabolites, which can reflect their cell of origin. In various diseases, exosomes offer a window into altered cellular or tissue states, and their detection in biological fluids potentially offers a multicomponent diagnostic readout. The efficient exchange of cellular components through exosomes can inform their applied use in designing exosome-based therapeutics.

http://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuse
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.

View Full Text:https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/eaau6977.full

****************************************
2. RADIATION SICKNESS AND NOT CAUSED BY A SO-CALLED VIRUS, PROPAGANDA VIA MSM AND GOVERNMENTS, VACCINES

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/radiation-sickness-and-not-caused-by-a-so-called-virus-propaganda-via-msm-and-governments-vaccines_lmtFYVrA7KHknAR.html?fbclid=IwAR19QNH1DYI1KcvFpXDunwgnpMe9ZI6DmE6yjJpoSnp1yJHLjxWGTUBeAME
Also see:
Top Pathologist Claims The Current VIRUS Is The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated On The Public!

This audio has been banned on FaceBook, Twitter and YouTube. There was an attempt to prevent it being shown on BNT. Brand New Tube is a new format for videos, etc. that are banned on other channels. ( Not sure if the Mods can embed the audio, but you can link to it here: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/top-pathologist-claims-the-current-virus-is-the-greatest-hoax-ever-perpetrated-on-the-public_XD4VvqkwKcxQXOC.html )

Brand New Tube
BNT SHOWCASE
5:09
BNT HUB

Eric J (Viking)

21st November 2020, 10:59

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-transcript-doctor-destroys-utterly-unfounded-public-hysteria-over-covid (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-transcript-doctor-destroys-utterly-unfounded-public-hysteria-over-covid?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=a418f794c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_BANNED_FROM_YOUTUBE&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-a418f794c8-408097514)

I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the U.K. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test.

And [inaudible] you might say I know a little bit about all of this. The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season.

Link with video...I couldn’t embed

Viking

Brigantia

21st November 2020, 11:28

...edit...

Just a question - does anyone know what that awful flu was that many reported having in the autumn of 2019? I had it (from my husband as it went through his office like wildfire) and many friends and colleagues too. It took 6 weeks to clear completely with heavy lung congestion. I've never found anything to say what that virus was called, but it was not a normal flu. If they name flu strains, do you know what this one was named?

21st November 2020, 16:00

I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the U.K. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test.

And [inaudible] you might say I know a little bit about all of this. The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season.

Link with video...I couldn’t embed

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-transcript-doctor-destroys-utterly-unfounded-public-hysteria-over-covid?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=a418f794c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_BANNED_FROM_YOUTUBE&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-a418f794c8-408097514

Viking

Clarification:

http://newsroom.royalcollege.ca/clarification-on-statements-made-regarding-covid-19-by-dr-roger-hodkinson/

On November 19, 2020 the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (Royal College) was made aware of statements regarding COVID-19 by a Royal College Fellow, Dr. Roger Hodkinson. In some online references, Dr. Hodkinson is being incorrectly identified as a chair/past-chair of the Royal College.

We would like to clarify that Dr. Hodkinson is not nor has ever held the position of chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

We can confirm that Dr. Roger Hodkinson was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976.

The Royal College believes COVID-19 presents a serious threat to the health of Canadians. The Royal College strongly supports all public health advice given by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, including recommendations to practise physical distancing and to wear masks to help prevent COVID-19 transmission.

Bill Ryan

21st November 2020, 16:08

Thank you for sharing this, Viking. You are yet another medical expert telling it as it is, with the MSM trying to shut you down.

Just a question - do you know what that awful flu was that many reported having in the autumn of 2019? I had it (from my husband as it went through his office like wildfire) and many friends and colleagues too. It took 6 weeks to clear completely with heavy lung congestion. I've never found anything to say what that virus was called, but it was not a normal flu. If they name flu strains, do you know what this one was named?Just a mod note here: I moved viking's quoted source article to the start of his post, because it gave the impression he was saying all that himself.

But viking was just quoting the article. He's not a "medical expert", just a regular forum member.

:focus:

Tintin

21st November 2020, 16:18

ADMIN NOTE

Viking - thanks for your efforts here, always appreciated :thumbsup:

BUT this presentation and audio has already been covered on the forum here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110505-Covid19-Global-reports-news-and-updates&p=1391203&viewfull=1#post1391203), here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110507-Covid19-Don-t-trust-the-statistics--or-the-science-re-the-tests-the-cause-of-the-sickness-&p=1391337&viewfull=1#post1391337) here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110761-The-face-mask-discussion&p=1391359&viewfull=1#post1391359), and here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?110505-Covid19-Global-reports-news-and-updates&p=1391429&viewfull=1#post1391429)

I was able to do a quick search in the Advanced Search option on "Hodkinson" and returned the results very quickly.

Another new thread in this instance really isn't necessary.

And please do, when posting, try and make it clear at the top - ideally - on a post, the source or attribution. You've created the impression, unintentionally I suspect, that you are speaking of yourself here; it creates a mis-impression.

I'll be stating the same on another thread which has been started by another member who hasn't attributed that article to its original source either.

Thanks for your support here.

Tintin

Eric J (Viking)

21st November 2020, 16:57

Thank you for sharing this, Viking. You are yet another medical expert telling it as it is, with the MSM trying to shut you down.

Just a question - do you know what that awful flu was that many reported having in the autumn of 2019? I had it (from my husband as it went through his office like wildfire) and many friends and colleagues too. It took 6 weeks to clear completely with heavy lung congestion. I've never found anything to say what that virus was called, but it was not a normal flu. If they name flu strains, do you know what this one was named?

Bless you Hiker...I posted the article as was written. It is not me I’m afraid, Im just the poster passing on the information for all to read and enlighten with, hopefully it will convince a few elsewhere to realise the dreadful reality they are trying to enforce on humanity.

Thank you for your feedback.

Edit...sorry Bill just saw your feedback, thank you.

And thanks Tintin...

Viking

Brigantia

21st November 2020, 17:16

Sue (Ayt)

21st November 2020, 18:42

Evidence that the virus was in circulation earlier than previously thought.

Unexpected detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the prepandemic period in Italy

Abstract
There are no robust data on the real onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and spread in the prepandemic period worldwide. We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)–specific antibodies in blood samples of 959 asymptomatic individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 to track the date of onset, frequency, and temporal and geographic variations across the Italian regions. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, starting from September 2019 (14%), with a cluster of positive cases (>30%) in the second week of February 2020 and the highest number (53.2%) in Lombardy. This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620974755?journalCode=tmja

pueblo

21st November 2020, 18:47

onawah

23rd November 2020, 06:30

Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People
November 18, 2020
A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.by GreatGameIndia.com
https://greatgameindia.com/portuguese-court-pcr-tests-unreliable/
https://greatgameindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Portuguese-Court-Rules-PCR-Tests-As-Unreliable-Unlawful-To-Quarantine-People-696x435.jpg

"A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.

The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that:

if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.

The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40, which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3% and the false positive rate as high as 97%.

This case concerned the fact that four people had been quarantined by the Regional Health Authority. Of these, one had tested positive for COVID using a PCR test; the other three were deemed to have undergone a high risk of exposure.

Consequently, the Regional Health Authority decided that all four were infectious and a health hazard, which required that they go into isolation.

The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:

Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.

It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.

The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily. These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well.

This fact about false positives of PCR Tests was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern.

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].

Earlier, the WHO’s testing protocol was even questioned by Finland’s national health authority."

Read the full article at GreatGameIndia.com: https://greatgameindia.com/portuguese-court-pcr-tests-unreliable/

Tintin

23rd November 2020, 16:42

Rob Slade, who did some wonderful research of his own around the "Skripal Affair" (remember that?) shares this on his Twitter feed today:

1330911176964751361

Sue (Ayt)

5th December 2020, 20:52

It pays to keep in mind that winter months have always been the "reaping" months for the elderly and infirm. When care-taking my parents, grandparents, and others, I always get a feeling of dread come November, wondering who will be taken each winter, and who would make it through for another year.
I think the higher death and hospitalization rates likely reflect this trend.
(After all, pneumonia has historically been known as "The old man's friend.")

Another trend to keep in mind is that of the aging population. The proportion of elderly in the population has grown, so obviously there will proportionately be more deaths recorded each winter for a while. (the baby boom bulge is working its way through the snake)

So anyway, the death rates likely reflect these two trends combined, and will continue to do so each year, I suspect.
----

More People Die In Winter Than Summer

Every year, roughly 2.8 million Americans shuffle off this mortal coil. In 2017, the CDC recorded exactly 2,813,503 deaths for an average of 7,708 deaths per day.

But averages can be misleading. You can drown in a body of water that has an average depth of one foot. The reason is because some parts are really deep and other parts are really shallow. The same logic applies to the average number of daily deaths. While the average is 7,708 per day, there is wide variability depending on the time of year.

Specifically, people are far likelier to die during the winter. New data released from the CDC show very clearly that the heart of winter -- December, January, and February -- are the deadliest months of the year. This may seem counterintuitive, given how much the media hypes summer heat waves. But the reality is that the summer months are actually the safest.

https://www.acsh.org/sites/default/files/deadliest%20time%20of%20the%20year%20cdc.gif
The CDC says that the average number of deaths in January, February, and December are 8,478; 8,351; and 8,344, respectively. By contrast, the summer months of June, July, and August recorded 7,298; 7,157; and 7,158 average daily deaths, respectively. The other months had daily averages somewhere in between those extremes, but it is notable that the relatively cooler spring and fall also exhibited a greater number of deaths than the summer.

What Can We Conclude from This Data?

It's tough to draw any conclusions from this data alone. So, we will need to rely upon some outside information. In general, we can draw three conclusions:

1) Summer heat waves are deadly, but winter is deadlier. This data does not imply that people should ignore summer heat waves. They can indeed be deadly. A heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 was thought to have killed 30,000 people. But while heat waves grab headlines, winter is the more insidious killer.

2) Winter is deadlier because of cold temperatures and influenza. Cold weather is inherently deadly. But it can kill indirectly, as well. It is thought that cold temperatures suppress our immune systems, making us likelier to get sick. (Yep, mom was right.) Perhaps that's why the flu season is almost always in the winter, with February often being the absolute worst month.

3) Any projections about the impact of climate change on weather-related deaths must take #1 and #2 into account. Usually, when the media discusses climate change, there is a focus on the increased number of deaths that may be caused by heat waves and catastrophes like floods. However, it should be kept in mind that winter is the deadliest season, so if global temperatures increase, we would expect fewer deaths during those months.*

*Update on 18-Jul-2019 @ 1:34 am PT. It was brought to my attention that this pattern of seasonal deaths is only to be expected in the rich world. Many of the poorer and more populated parts of the world are in or near the tropics, where summers are sweltering and winters are mild (or nonexistent). Thus, an increase in global temperatures would cause more deaths in these areas.

Source: "QuickStats: Average Daily Number of Deaths, by Month — United States, 2017." MMWR 68 (26): 593. Published: 5-July-2019. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6826a5
link (https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/07/10/more-people-die-winter-summer-14146)

https://19vl00gi4gmczdl041ew214r-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ELDERFRAUD_image-300x194.jpg
https://www.wolffardis.com/blog/

Gwin Ru

9th December 2020, 11:58

The UK PCR test Ct is 45 cycles. Let's envisage the amplification this applies... (https://davidicke.com/2020/09/11/the-case-scam-revealed-in-official-nhs-document-test-is-being-massively-amplified-to-systematically-secure-false-positives-to-justify-still-more-control-please-share-we-are-still-blocked/)

By: malterwitty
Tags:

SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/category/sciencehealthclimatenature)

On a 4K TV the screen resolution is 3840 x 2160px, which gives a total of 8,294,400px.

Imagine the first pixel is white, and the rest are black. The white pixel represents a DNA fragment, and just like the fragment it represents it's all but invisible on the black screen.

Now let's apply the PCR amplification method to this pixel. After 1 cycle there are 2 white pixels, after 2 cycles there are 4 white pixels, after 3 cycles there are 8 white pixels etc.
After 23 cycles all pixels on the TV are white. [There are ~94K additional white pixels, but for the sake of simplicity let's ignore these]

@24 cycles all pixels on 2 TVs are white.

@30 cycles all pixels on 128 TVs are white.

@35 cycles all pixels on 4,096 TVs are white.

@40 cycles all pixels on 131,072 TVs are white.

@45 cycles all pixels on 4,194,304 TVs are white.
Is it any wonder there is a casedemic?

Gwin Ru

12th December 2020, 23:20

Coronavirus scandal breaking in Merkel's Germany affects the whole world (https://journal-neo.org/2020/12/10/coronavirus-scandal-breaking-in-merkel-s-germany-2/)

F. William Engdahl New Eastern Outlook (https://journal-neo.org/2020/12/10/coronavirus-scandal-breaking-in-merkel-s-germany-2/)
Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00 UTC

https://www.sott.net/image/s29/592601/large/1_Dr_Christian_Drosten_unknown.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s29/592601/full/1_Dr_Christian_Drosten_unknown.jpg)
Dr. Christian Drosten © Unknown

The widely-praised German model of the Angela Merkel regime to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic is now engulfed in a series of potentially devastating scandals going to the very heart of the testing and medical advice being used to declare draconian economic shutdowns and next, de facto mandatory vaccinations. The scandals involve a professor at the heart of Merkel's corona advisory group. The implications go far beyond German borders to the very WHO itself and their global recommendations.

The entire case for WHO-mandated emergency lockdown of businesses, schools, churches and other social arenas worldwide is based on a test introduced, amazingly early on, in the Wuhan, China coronavirus saga. On January 23, 2020, in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, of the EU Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charite Hospital, along with the head of a small Berlin biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, published a study claiming to have developed the first effective test for detecting whether someone is infected with the novel coronavirus identified first only days before in Wuhan. The Drosten article was titled, "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR" (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020).

The news was greeted with immediate endorsement by the corrupt Director General of WHO, Tedros Adhanom, the first non-medical doctor to head WHO. Since then the Drosten-backed test for the virus, called a real-time or RT-PCR test, has spread via WHO worldwide, as the most used test protocol to determine if a person might have COVID-19, the illness.

On November 27 a highly-respected group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for Eurosurveillance to retract the January 23, 2020 Drosten article. Their careful analysis of the original piece is damning (https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/). Theirs is a genuine "peer review." They accuse Drosten and cohorts of "fatal" scientific incompetence and flaws in promoting their test.

To begin with, as the critical scientists reveal, the paper that established the Drosten PCR test for the Wuhan strain of coronavirus that has subsequently been adopted with indecent haste by the Merkel government along with WHO for worldwide use - resulting in severe lockdowns globally and an economic and social catastrophe - was never peer-reviewed before its publication by Eurosurveillance journal. The critics point out that, "the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On January 23rd 2020 the paper was online." Incredibly, the Drosten test protocol, which he had already sent to WHO in Geneva on 17 January, was officially recommended by WHO as the worldwide test to determine presence of Wuhan coronavirus, even before the paper had been published (https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/).

As the critical authors point out, for a subject so complex and important to world health and security, a serious 24-hour "peer review" from at least two experts in the field is not possible. The critics point out that Drosten and his co-author Dr. Chantal Reusken, did not disclose a glaring conflict of interest. Both were also members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. Further, as reported by BBC and Google Statistics, on January 21 there were a world total of 6 deaths being attributed to the Wuhan virus.

They ask,

"Why did the authors assume a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?"
Another co-author of the Drosten paper that gave a cover of apparent scientific credibility to the Drosten PCR procedure was head of the company who developed the test being marketed today, with the blessing of WHO, in the hundreds of millions, Olfert Landt, of Tib-Molbiol in Berlin, but Landt did not disclose that pertinent fact in the Drosten paper either (https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/).

Certainly nothing suspicious or improper here, or? It would be relevant to know if Drosten, the Merkel chief scientific advisor for COVID-19, Germany's de facto "Tony Fauci," gets a percentage for each test sold by Tib-Molbiol in their global marketing agreement with Roche.

False Positives?
Since late January 2020, world mainstream media has inundated us all with frightening hourly updates on "the total number of coronavirus infected." Usually they simply add each daily increase to a global total of "confirmed cases," presently over 66 million. Alarming, but for the fact that, as Pieter Borger and his fellow scientific collaborators point out, "confirmed cases" is a nonsense number. Why?

The Borger report identifies what they call "ten fatal problems" in the Drosten paper of last January. Here we take up the most glaring that can easily be grasped by most laypeople.

Drosten & co. gave confusing unspecified primer and probe sequences. The critics note:
"This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories. These six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not relate to SARS-CoV-2... the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally." They add that "RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis (https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/)."

Amplification Cycles
But even more damning for Drosten is the fact that he mentioned nowhere of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result! The Borger report notes:
"These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP (Standard Operational Protocol), including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected... scientific studies show that only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35." The WHO and Drosten recommend a Ct of 45 cycles and, reportedly, presently the German health officials do as well. Little wonder that as the number of tests is ramped up in the onset of winter flu season, PCR "positives" in Germany and elsewhere explode. As the critical authors point out, were the health authorities to specify 35 cycles maximum, the number of corona positive would be only less than 3% the present number! They note:
"an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). All this should be communicated very clearly. It is a significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.

"The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus." In simple English, the entire edifice of the Gates foundation, the Merkel government, the WHO and WEF as well as the case for de facto forced untested vaccines, rests on results of a PCR test for coronavirus that is not worth a hill of beans. The test of Drosten and WHO is more or less, scientific crap.

Missing Doctor proof too?
This devastating critique from twenty three world leading scientists, including scientists who have patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, and a former Pfizer Chief Scientist, is damning, but not the only problem Professor Dr. Christian Drosten faces today. He and the officials at Frankfurt's Goethe University, where he claims to have received his medical doctorate in 2003, are being accused of degree fraud. According to Dr. Markus Kühbacher, a specialist investigating scientific fraud such as dissertation plagiarism, Dr. Drosten's doctor thesis, by law must be deposited on a certain date with academic authorities at his University, who then sign a legal form, Revisionsschein, verified with signature, stamp of the University and date, with thesis title and author, to be sent to the University archive. With it, three original copies of the thesis are filed.

Kühbacher charges that the Goethe University is guilty of cover-up by claiming, falsely, Drosten's Revisionsschein, was on file. The University spokesman later was forced to admit it was not filed, at least not locatable by them. Moreover, of the three mandatory file copies of his doctor thesis, highly relevant given the global importance of Drosten's coronavirus role, two copies have "disappeared," and the remaining single copy is water-damaged. Kühbacher says Drosten will now likely face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title (https://www.extremnews.com/berichte/weltgeschehen/833517f0aa09949).

Whether that is to pass, it is a fact that a separate legal process has been filed in Berlin against two people responsible for a German media site, Volksverpetzer.de, for slander and defamation, brought by a well-known and critical German medical doctor, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. The court case demands of the defendants €250,000 in damages for defamation of character and material damages to Wodarg by the accused in their online site, as well as in other German media, claiming they viciously and without proof, defamed Wodarg, calling him a "covid-denier," falsely calling him a right-extremist (he is a life-long former parliament member of the Social Democratic Party) and numerous other false and damaging charges (https://clubderklarenworte.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Klage-LG-Berlin-Eingereicht_compressed-medium.pdf).

The attorney for Dr Wodarg is a well-known German-American attorney, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. In his charges against the defendants, Fuellmich cites in full the charges against the Drosten test for coronavirus of Dr. Pieter Borger et al noted above. This is in effect forcing the defendants to refute the Borger paper. It is a major step on the way to refute the entire WHO COVID-19 PCR testing fraud.Already an appeals court in Lisbon, Portugal ruled on 11 November that the PCR test of Drosten and WHO was not valid to detect coronavirus infection and that it was no basis to order nationwide or partial lockdowns.

If the stakes were not so deadly for mankind it would all be material for a comedy of the absurd. The world health Czar, WHO chief Tedros is no medical doctor whose WHO is financed massively by a college dropout billionaire computer manager, Gates, who also advises the Merkel government on COVID-19 measures. The Merkel government uses the Drosten PCR test and Drosten as an "all-wise" expert to impose the most draconian economic consequences outside wartime. Her Health Minister, Jens Spahn, is a former banker who has no medical degree, only a stint as a lobbyist for Big Pharma. The head of the German CDC, called the Robert Koch Institute, Lothar Wieler, is not a virologist but an animal doctor, Tierarzt. With this crew, Germans are seeing their lives destroyed by lockdowns and social measures never before imagined outside Stalin's Soviet Union. There is science and then there is science. Not all "science" is valid however.
About the Author:
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" (https://journal-neo.org/). SOTT Comment (https://www.sott.net/article/445669-Coronavirus-scandal-breaking-in-Merkels-Germany-affects-the-whole-world):
To peruse the Corman-Drosten Review Report submitted 27th November, 2020, go here (https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/). Included are: a detailed analysis of mistakes, a put-forth of concerns and a summary of errors found in the paper.

Related:

Austrian lawmaker denounces 'medical tyranny' after cola drink returns positive result for coronavirus (https://www.sott.net/article/445639-Austrian-lawmaker-denounces-medical-tyranny-after-cola-drink-returns-positive-result-for-coronavirus)

Good idea! Germany's Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigative Commission launching a class action suit against corona criminals (https://www.sott.net/article/442393-Good-idea-Germanys-Extra-Parliamentary-Corona-Investigative-Commission-launching-a-class-action-suit-against-corona-criminals)

Flawed paper behind Covid-19 testing faces being retracted, after scientists expose its ten fatal problems (https://www.sott.net/article/445594-Flawed-paper-behind-Covid-19-testing-faces-being-retracted-after-scientists-expose-its-ten-fatal-problems)

The test set: Another brick in the covid-19 disinformation game plan (https://www.sott.net/article/437344-The-test-set-Another-brick-in-the-covid-19-disinformation-game-plan)

pueblo

13th December 2020, 09:06

Good interview with the PCR test inventor, Kary Mullis.

They way he scathingly disparages Fauci is enough to cast doubt in my mind about the actual cause of his death (he died in August 2019 at the age of 74, death listed as pneumonia) just before Event 201 in October 2019.

If he had been alive for the Plandemic he would have been a major pain in the ass for the controllers, there is no doubt.

f6ArP1iEro8

norman

13th December 2020, 09:38

The Propaganda Report - A Conversation w/Greg Carlwood of The Higherside Chats (https://podbay.fm/p/the-propaganda-report/e/1607716146)
This conversation is sparky and bright and covers the casedemic scam very well.

norman

16th December 2020, 13:31

Tintin

17th December 2020, 15:55

Good idea! Germany's Extra-Parliamentary Corona Investigative Commission launching a class action suit against corona criminals (https://www.sott.net/article/442393-Good-idea-Germanys-Extra-Parliamentary-Corona-Investigative-Commission-launching-a-class-action-suit-against-corona-criminals)

Here's a follow-up to this action: https://twitter.com/HowardSteen4/status/1339282976320991233

1339282976320991233

And the Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/491547566) video

Gwin Ru

19th December 2020, 14:03

WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’ (https://principia-scientific.com/)

by John O'Sullivan
Published on December 17, 2020

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpljroxXMAIl9OY?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/1-2-550x370.jpg
In a statement (https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users) released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.

This WHO-admitted “Problem” (https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users) comes in the wake of international lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for purpose.

pueblo

19th December 2020, 14:31

meat suit

19th December 2020, 16:59

greybeard

19th December 2020, 19:10

The Scam Has Been Confirmed: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2)

The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 (https://www.greenmedinfo.com/disease/coronavirus-disease) are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.

powerful article, very much what David Icke said way back when it all started.
question is, what is that illness if not covid 19 ?

Seasonal Flu which mutates every year, meat suit
Call it by any name the symptoms and mortality rate similar to traditional flu.
Really flu or virus can not be escaped -- it can be delayed.
A lot on this site from top professionals.
Chris
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/

Gwin Ru

31st December 2020, 01:36

...

... probably already posted somewhere but worth bumping:

BELARUS IS FREE 🎈 - NO MASKS NO COVID THEATER, NOBODY DROPPING DEAD ;) (https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z447a8bDRTOr/) 16:24

Z447a8bDRTOr

First published at 09:31 UTC on December 6th, 2020.

B - 2020 🍀 (https://www.bitchute.com/channel/vuurvogel/) B (https://www.bitchute.com/profile/6UPRu0IxQVrR/)

Via Airaguma: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bi3z9C5JHTkf/

In white Russia: no masks, no lock downs. Restaurants, bars, clubs are open and PEOPLE ARE NOT DROPPING LIKE FLIES! Billy Six headed from Germany to Belarus and witnessed it with his own eyes.

#scamdemic, yes it is...!!!
------------

Sep 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong:
" Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:
• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy
Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank.

This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this! Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world!

The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!

-----------

🗣️ Liverpool, Operation Moonshot update: NO CASES WITHOUT THE PCR TEST! https://www.bitchute.com/video/piBmPprmGBAr/

🔖 Recommended:
Jon Rappoport: THE CREATION OF A FALSE EPIDEMIC:
** Episode 1: HOW IT STARTED >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/q5h0CeSrnwWs/

** Episode 2: THE MEDICAL CIA, COVERT OPS >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/CD2fctN9l7hJ/

** Episode 3: THE TRUE GOAL OF THE FALSE PANDEMIC >> https://www.bitchute.com/video/qX2M0umDu10S
BLAME IT ON A CONTAGIOUS VIRUS #SCAMDEMIC
** Dr. Lanka - 'germ theory' = scientific fraud. https://www.bitchute.com/video/aOKX9wR1PMxA/

** Dr. Lanka Measles Court Case: https://www.bitchute.com/video/5GINdlpUSW8E/

** Aajonus Vonderplanitz dismantles the virus myth: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UHFNVCXgOA37/

** Kary Mullis - PCR Test but not a test. https://www.bitchute.com/video/LsD3GfigvsJX/

** You cannot catch a virus! https://www.bitchute.com/video/VeImUAiLlmcv/

** DR. WILLNER INJECTS HIMSELF WITH HIV ON TV: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Yo5o98vppwIN/

** ROBERTO GIRALDO - EVERYBODY IS HIV POSITIVE https://www.bitchute.com/video/nkMN1kr0eukR/

** INFLUENZA 1918 SCRIPT; RINSE REPEAT > COVID-19: https://www.bitchute.com/video/6eKF4nzGcXiP/

** Dr. Papadopulos: HIV was never proven to exist: https://www.bitchute.com/video/MVabU0seKNMH/

** MD OFFERS $5000 FOR PROOF THAT COVID EXISTS: https://www.bitchute.com/video/cgjcIdY4mMhZ/

** Virus Mania: C. Markolin, Ph.D. (pt.2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/0SIeRUxrgW1n/

** Virus Mania: C. Markolin, Ph.D. (pt.1) https://www.bitchute.com/video/XRCxanRMLGkT/

** Deconstructing The AIDS Myth - Gary Null docu: https://www.bitchute.com/video/2Q83yDG115oC/

** House of Numbers - the HIV/AIDS story: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lohmnsGaLy2X/

** Dr. Köhnlein interview House of Numbers: https://www.bitchute.com/video/FTytxqTeXNxe/

** HIV / AIDS = FAUCI'S FIRST FRAUD: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xwKIEPpPpmzv/

** The Infectious Myth - David Crowe: https://www.bitchute.com/video/QbjP8sO2qCq2/

** Germs, The Terrain & our Future, A. Kaufman: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Hh4k27cXPxv/
Related:

Catherine Austin Fitts Full Interview Planet Lockdown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCiIc6i81uM&feature=emb_logo) 48:31

Dec 29, 2020

LCiIc6i81uM

C.A. Fitts would seem to agree with Charlie Ward that this whole thing is to distract from a deep state global financial reset.

pueblo

31st December 2020, 09:44

Fauci's crystal ball was firing on all cylinders back in 2017...

Fauci: ‘No doubt’ Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak

January 11, 2017

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is “no doubt” Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.

Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak.

During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak.

“The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with,” he said.

While observers have speculated since his election about how Trump will respond to such challenges, Fauci and other health experts said Tuesday that preventing disease pandemics often starts overseas and that a proper response means collaboration between not only the U.S. and other countries, but also the public and private health sectors.

“We will definitely get surprised in the next few years,” he said.

‘Risks have never been higher’

Trump, the real estate developer-turned-Republican politician, has worried some infectious disease experts with controversial and sometimes unclear views on certain health issues.

Ronald Klain, who coordinated the U.S.’s Ebola response for the Obama administration, said Trump’s virtual silence about the Zika outbreak and harsh comments about American volunteers infected during the West African Ebola outbreak is “not the kind of leadership we need in our next president.”

https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20170111/fauci-no-doubt-trump-will-face-surprise-infectious-disease-outbreak

Tintin

31st December 2020, 17:07

Tintin

31st December 2020, 17:13

Mike Yeadon continues to speak out at the data manipulation in plain view.

Here, as if any of us really needed further reminding, he points out the glaring anomalies in actual NHS real data versus the daily propaganda bombardment of nonsense. There's still plenty of capacity it seems.

We know that thousands of elective surgeries were 'cancelled'/postponed back in spring here in the UK. Of course admissions are up along with seasonal norms.

1344624552370962437

TomKat

31st December 2020, 21:31

How to lie with statistics re covid.

z_5roxNcUik

Tintin

5th January 2021, 23:05

More positive news here it seems relating to immunity - very encouraging.

This study article accepted December 26th 2020 for publication before going through the usual typesetting and house-style formatting for The Journal of Infection.

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30781-7/fulltext

---------------------------

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection

Source: https://www.journalofinfection.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0163-4453%2820%2930781-7

HIGHLIGHTS

• Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection confers immunity to reinfection is uncertain
• The ‘second wave’ of transmission offered an opportunity to examine this
• We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers
• This apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months
• Further studies are required to define immunological mechanism(s) and durability

Tintin

12th January 2021, 19:14

This is pretty damning.

Unfortunately The Times newspaper is stuck behind a subscription paywall but this does seem to be a bonafide cutting from their December 26th 2020 issue.

45802

Source: The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/people-don-t-agree-with-lockdown-and-try-to-undermine-the-scientists-gnms7mp98)

onawah

13th January 2021, 09:39

Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 13, 2021

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/01/13/coronavirus-pcr-testing.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210113_HL2&mid=DM773724&rid=1058242680

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive (noninfectious) viral particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. The false appearance of a lethal pandemic has been manufactured using cycle thresholds (CTs) that are too high
The higher the CT — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. Research shows that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically
The SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was developed based on a genetic sequence published by Chinese scientists, not the viral isolate. Missing genetic code was simply made up
November 30, 2020, 22 international scientists published a review challenging the scientific paper on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 that was adopted as the standard across the world. The scientists are calling for the so-called Corman-Drosten paper to be retracted due to its numerous errors
The flaws of PCR testing have been capitalized upon to incite fear in order to benefit the Great Reset agenda developed by a technocratic elite
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought us many harsh lessons. Importantly, it has shown us how easy it is to manufacture panic and control entire populations through deceptive means. Topping the list of deceptive strategies is the use of a test that falsely labels healthy individuals as sick and infectious. This allows mass testing to drive the narrative that we're in a lethal pandemic.

Of course, I'm talking about the now infamous reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.1

This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others. Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive."

The Crucial Detail That Nullifies Most PCR Test Results
S_1Z8cSXI-Q

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. Due to its tiny size, it must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold (CT).

The higher the CT, the greater the risk that insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

Many scientists have noted that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible.2,3,4 A September 28, 2020, study5 in Clinical Infectious Diseases revealed that when you run a PCR test at a CT of 35 or higher, the accuracy drops to 3%, resulting in a 97% false positive rate.

Yet, a test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles,6,7,8 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend running PCR tests at a CT of 40.9

The question is why, considering the consensus is that CTs over 35 render the test useless. When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you clearly end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we're really dealing with is a "casedemic"10,11 — an epidemic of false positives.

Many are now questioning whether this was done on purpose to crash the global economy and provide cover for the implementation of what's known as the Great Reset, which is nothing less than a global totalitarian takeover by unelected technocrats who seek to gobble up all the world's assets.

Indeed, it seems quite clear we're not dealing with a lethal pandemic in any real sense. Mortality statistics further prove this is the case, as overall mortality statistics have remained stable in 2020 and in line with previous years.12,13,14

In other words, people are dying from COVID-19, yes, but the illness is not killing an excess number of people. The same number of people would have died anyway, from something. Indeed, CDC data15 released August 26, 2020, showed only 6% of so-called COVID-19 deaths had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause on the death certificate.

"For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death," the CDC stated, and any one of those comorbidities could have killed those people even if COVID-19 was nonexistent.

For Accuracy, Much Lower CTs Must Be Used
Now, if CTs above 35 are scientifically unjustified, just how low of a CT should be used? Quite a few studies have investigated this, so there's no shortage of data at this point. The fact that the WHO, FDA and CDC still have not changed their CTs downward in light of all these data tells us they're not interested in getting an accurate picture of the infection rate.

For example, an April 2020 study16 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases showed that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.

More recently, a December 3, 2020, systematic review17 published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases assessed the findings of 29 different studies — all of which were published in 2020 — comparing evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the CTs used in testing.

Five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. What's more, in order to produce live virus culture, a patient whose PCR test used a CT at or above 35 had to be symptomatic.
As reported by the authors, "12 studies reported that CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture." In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.

"Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT," the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. What's more, in order to produce live virus culture, a patient whose PCR test used a CT at or above 35 had to be symptomatic.

So, to summarize, if you have symptoms of COVID-19 and test positive using a PCR test that was run at 35 amplification cycles or higher, then you are likely to be infected and infectious.

However, if you do not have symptoms, yet test positive using a PCR test run at 35 CTs or higher, then it is likely a false positive and you pose no risk to others as you're unlikely to carry any live virus. In fact, provided you're asymptomatic, you're unlikely to be infectious even if you test positive with a test run at 24 CTs or higher.

Fearmongering Success Hinges on Incorrect Use of PCR Test
6ny9nNFHQsY

The video above includes several interviews with experts who have openly criticized the use of PCR testing to diagnose infections such as COVID-19. These include:

The inventor of the PCR test, the late Kary Mullis (he has spoken about the test for other infections, such as HIV, but died in August 2019, a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out)

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Oxford University Center for Evidence-Based Medicine

Emeritus professor of immunology Beda M. Stadler, former head of the Bern Institute of Immunology

Clare Craig, a consultant pathologist

Stephen A. Bustin, professor of molecular medicine and a world-renowned expert on the PCR test

In 1993, Mullis spoke about the use of the PCR test to diagnose HIV. He explained that all the test does is amplify molecules into something you can detect, but it cannot tell you whether those particles actually pose a risk to your health.

He also points out that, using PCR, you can essentially find just about anything in anyone because most of us are walking around with pathogens of all sorts, but the load is either too low to be of concern or the particles are just dead debris that pose no risk.

Bustin points out that when you get a positive result using a CT of 35 or higher, you're looking at the equivalent of a single copy of viral DNA. The likelihood of that causing a health problem is minuscule. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that using a PCR test with a CT above 35 renders it more or less useless because at that point, you're just detecting dead nucelotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high.

Fatal Errors Found in Paper on Which PCR Testing Is Based
November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review18 challenging the scientific paper19 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman. The Corman-Drosten paper was quickly accepted by the WHO and the workflow described therein was adopted as the standard across the world.

According to Reiner Fuellmich,20 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,21 or ACU),22,23 Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to "fatal errors,"24 one of which is the fact that it was written (and the test itself developed) before any viral isolate was available. All they used was the genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.

The fact that the paper was published a mere 24 hours after it was submitted also suggests it didn't even undergo peer review. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper's retraction, stated:25

"Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It's like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID test.

When Drosten developed the test, China hadn't given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.

In the fish market, it's like giving you a few bones and saying 'that's your fish.' It could be any fish ... Listen, the Corman-Drosten paper, there's nothing from a patient in it. It's all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren't there they made up.

They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That's what genetics is; it's a code. So, its ABBBCCDDD and you're missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in ... This is basically a computer virus.

There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper ... But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn't correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it 'donut ring science.' There is nothing at the center of it. It's all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …

There have since been papers saying they've produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: 'Here's the viral isolate.' Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who'd been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it's all full of holes, the whole thing."

The conclusion of the review reads, in part:26

"A decision to recognize the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimize human cost and suffering going forward. Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility."

The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by a November 20, 2020, study27 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in PCR-positive cases at all. The study evaluated data from 9,865,404 residents of Wuhan, China, who had undergone PCR testing between May 14 and June 1, 2020.

A total of 300 tested positive but had no symptoms. Of the 34,424 people with a history of COVID-19, 107 tested positive a second time. Yet, when they did virus cultures on these 407 individuals who had tested positive (either for the first or second time), no live virus was found in any of them!

Antibody Tests Are Equally Unreliable
Antibody tests are also turning out to have their share of quality problems. If you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, that would be evidence that your immune system successfully overcame the virus at some point in the past. However, the COVID-19 antibody test may also turn out positive if you have antibodies against common cold viruses.

June 30, 2020, the CDC admitted that prior exposure to coronaviruses responsible for the common cold can result in a positive COVID-19 antibody test, even if you've never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 specifically.28

The saving grace is that studies29,30,31 suggest antibodies produced following exposure to coronaviruses that cause the common cold also appear to provide some general and long-lasting resistance against SARS-CoV-2.

One such study,32,33 published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell, found 70% of samples from patients who had recovered from mild cases of COVID-19 had resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level, as did 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

According to the authors, this suggests there's "cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating 'common cold' coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2." In other words, if you've recovered from a common cold caused by a particular coronavirus, your humoral immune system may activate when you encounter SARS-CoV-2, thus rendering you resistant to COVID-19.

Another study34 discovered SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are only found in the most severe cases — about 1 in 5. So, a negative antibody test doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that you've been infected and didn't get sick. In fact, this finding suggests COVID-19 may actually be five times more prevalent than suspected — and five times less deadly than predicted.

In a letter to the editor35 published in the July 1, 2020, issue of American Family Physician, Drs. Mark Ebell, deputy editor for evidence-based medicine for the journal, and Henry Barry, reviewed some of the available data, noting that:

"When assessing whether patients had a previous infection and may be immune, it is important to avoid false-positives so that patients do not think they are immune when they are not.

Table 1 summarizes the false-positive rates at various population prevalence for the Cellex test and for a hypothetical test that is 90% sensitive and 99% specific. At relatively low population prevalences, which likely reflect current conditions in the United States and elsewhere, we would argue that false-positive rates are unacceptably high with the Cellex test."

antibody testing for covid-19
Ebell and Barry pointed out that many of the antibody tests that have provisional approval from the FDA still have not even been evaluated for accuracy. They also recommended that labs report test results "in a way that reflects the local population prevalence based on widespread testing and include the false-positive rate," as this information "is needed to help family physicians better inform shared decision-making regarding previous infection and return to work or school."

At present, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone including that data in their reporting, and the way things are going, I wouldn't hold my breath in anticipation of such helpful numbers being included in the future either.

High Time to End Mass Testing Scam
If the vast majority of people who test positive for COVID-19 infection have no symptoms, don't feel sick and don't look sick, is COVID-19 really a "deadly" disease? Or, is it more like HPV — a viral infection that most people have without knowing it, and which 90% are able to eliminate without treatment?

The primary justification for the tyrannical governmental interventions of COVID-19 was to slow the spread of the infection so that hospital resources would not be overwhelmed, causing people to die due to lack of medical care.

These interventions were not about stopping the spread altogether or even reducing the number of people that would eventually get infected. They certainly were never meant to prevent all death. Any rational analysis would rapidly conclude that this simply isn't possible, under any circumstance.

Short-term stay-at-home orders and business closings were only intended to slow down the spread so that, eventually, naturally-acquired herd immunity — the best kind — would prevent it from reemerging. Yet the goal posts keep shifting as we go along.

Two-week lockdowns turned into months in some areas. Eventually, we were told everything would go back to normal as soon as a vaccine became available. But once the vaccines started rolling out, the narrative changed again, and we were told we'd still need masks, social distancing and lockdowns well into 2021 or even 2022 even with a vaccine. What, exactly, is going on?

The only rational reason for why government interventions continue is because they're meant to erode our personal freedoms and civil liberties and transfer wealth to unelected technocrats who are controlling the pandemic narrative. It's all fearmongering based on a combination of wildly manipulated data and flawed tests.

Aside from PCR testing data, there's no evidence of a lethal pandemic at all. As mentioned, while there is such a thing as COVID-19, and people have and do die from it, there are no excess deaths due to it.36,37,38 The total mortality for 2020 is normal.

So, unless we think we should shut down the world and stop living because people die from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, the flu or anything else, then there's no reason to shut down the world because some people happen to die from COVID-19.

What You Can Do
The good news is the hoax is starting to be exposed. In November 2020, a Portuguese appeals court ruled39,40 that the PCR test is "not a reliable test for SARS-CoV-2" and that "a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection." Therefore, "any enforced quarantine based on the results is unlawful."41 The court also noted that forcing healthy people to self-isolate could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.

As detailed in "Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun" and "German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation," additional legal cases are also to be expected, all of which will help expose the fraud perpetrated. As for what you can do in the meantime, consider:

Turning off mainstream media news and turning to independent experts — do the research. Read through the science.
Continue to counter the censorship by asking questions — arm yourself with mortality statistics and the facts on PCR testing, so you can explain how and why this pandemic simply isn't a pandemic anymore.
If you are a medical professional, especially if you're a member of a professional society, write an open letter to your government, urging them to speak to and heed recommendations from independent experts.
Sign The Great Barrington Declaration,42 which calls for an end to lockdowns.
Join a group so that you can have support — Examples of groups formed to fight against government overreach include Us for Them, a group campaigning for reopening schools and protecting children's rights in the U.K., and the Freedom to Breathe Agency, a U.S. team of attorneys, doctors, business owners and parents who are fighting to protect freedom and liberty."

+ Sources and References
1 CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)
2 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020
3 Jon Rappaport’s Blog November 6, 2020
4 YouTube TWiV 641 July 16, 2020
5 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491
6 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)
7 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)
8 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045
9 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35
10 PJ Media October 27, 2020
11 AAPS October 7, 2020
12, 36 YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
13, 37 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
14, 38 Johns Hopkins Newsletter November 26, 2020 (Archived)
15 CDC.gov August 26, 2020
16 European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases April 27, 2020; 39: 1059-1061
17 Clinical Infectious Diseases December 3, 2020; ciaa1764
18, 26 Corman Drosten Review Report
19 Eurosurveillance, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus by real-time RT-PCR
20 Fuellmich.com, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Bio (German)
21 Acu2020.org Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
22 Acu2020.org Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, English
23 Algora October 4, 2020
24, 25 Undercover DC December 3, 2020
27 Nature Communications November 20, 2020; 11 Article number 5917
28 CDC Test for Past Infection
29 Biorxiv preprint DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.26.115832 (PDF)
30 Daily Mail June 12, 2020
31 Science Times June 12, 2020
32 Cell May 14, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
33 Wall Street Journal June 12, 2020 (Archived)
34 Off-Guardian June 12, 2020
35 American Family Physician July 1, 2020; 102(1): 5-6
39 Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, Portugese Original
40 Judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, English Translation
41 Geopolitic.org November 21, 2020
42 Great Barrington Declaration

Phoenix1304

15th January 2021, 00:41

onawah

15th January 2021, 01:11

I can relate, Phoenix, but I'm getting some helpful insights here about avoiding the pitfalls, and remembering that human evolution is an organic process: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113646-Gigi-Young-Talks&p=1404095&viewfull=1#post1404095

pueblo

18th January 2021, 20:50

In this explosive interview with Senior Editor Alex Newman of The New American magazine, former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Dr. Lee Merrit explains her belief that America is currently facing what appears to be biological warfare. Whether the Communist Chinese released the COVID19 virus on purpose or by accident is impossible to know, but the implications are enormous.

When it comes to the new vaccines, Dr. Merrit, a former military doctor who studied biological warfare, goes through previous animal studies on the technology and paints a dire picture. However, even though modern medical schools do not often teach it, there are ways to treat viral infections that are time-tested and effective, she concludes.

mvI-_jXck7Y

Eva2

19th January 2021, 22:01

Carrie Kohan posted a video from someone's FB page on the COVID test q-tip vs. a regular q-tip. In the video she took the tip apart - the "normal" one showed the cotton wool fibres but when she took apart the test q-tip, it was full of silver threads that were actually moving and really did look alive (as she commented in the video). Watching this video made me very uncomfortable and seemed to be a confirmation that it was full of nano bots. So, as an Israeli doctor commented some time ago in a video, we really are also receiving (or parts of it) the vaccine through the tests. I wish I could upload the video evidence but I'm not tech savy enough to do that - it looks like a cellphone upload so its not on youtube.

This is an excerpt from the link below describing them:
'While government officials have been vague and dismissive about Morgellons, other research has found that the mysterious fibers are self-replicating “nano-worms.” They are apparently a synthetic life form, a product of bioengineering at the nano-scale.'
https://shadowproof.com/2012/02/05/morgellons-the-mysterious-new-nano-disease/

onawah

19th January 2021, 23:51

Just In🚨🚨- COVID-19 Tests Compromise Your Blood Brain Barrier - PROOF
671 views•Jan 18, 2021
GFC TV
7.11K subscribers
mm4cx_EZhbc

onawah

20th January 2021, 00:03

Problems with PCR Testing as the Foundation of the COVID-19 Pandemic
From:Stand for Health Freedom
<advocates@standforhealthfreedom.com>
1/19/21

"A massive, worldwide COVID testing campaign has been underway for months with no end in sight. In the United States alone more than a million people a day are being tested for COVID-19, according to Our World in Data. But more and more experts are coming forward with serious concerns that PCR testing, the most common test for COVID-19, is being misused, creating enormous numbers of false positive cases and fueling widespread collateral damage.

Many are denouncing PCR testing as illogical and fraudulent, stating that it shouldn’t be considered diagnostic. Yet PCR tests are the very tests that are being used to report daily numbers around the country that are then used to justify draconian policies that suppress our rights and depress the economy.

You can read more about PCR testing, PCR fraud and why it behooves us to hold health departments and others accountable for their acquiescence in this testing disaster in our new blog post. https://standforhealthfreedom.com/blog/pcr-testing-covid-19/
We also created a downloadable PDF so you can easily share this information with your friends, family and public officials.
https://standforhealthfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/problems_with_pcr_testing.pdf
Many of you probably know that in December 2020, we launched a declaration asking Americans 50 and older to stand up for health freedom during COVID-19. https://standforhealthfreedom.com/action/declaration-of-older-folks/
The declaration invites older Americans (who are generally at higher risk for COVID-19) to ask lawmakers to lift COVID restrictions and not keep society shut down on their account. You can learn more about the raw inspiration behind this campaign to restore liberty in America by listening to world-renowned psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin interview SHF Executive Director Leah Wilson on his radio hour.
https://drpeterbregginshow.podbean.com/e/the-dr-peter-breggin-hour-%e2%80%93-121620/
I know all of you are short on time these days, but the interview has some true hidden gems and is definitely worth a listen (even if you're under 50). So be sure to tune in to our conversation with Dr. Breggin, who's known as "the conscious of psychiatry" for his decades of groundbreaking work to reform the mental health field and to protect families from the rampant drugging of American children with harmful anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs. https://breggin.com/brief-bio/

As always, thanks for everything you do to stand for health freedom.

In solidarity,

The Stand for Health Freedom Team "

"

rgray222

22nd January 2021, 17:14

My brother sent this to me this morning. He and his wife both work at a major hospital, she is an infectious disease doctor. He has been putting off his covid vaccination but can no longer find excuses not to take it. He has no choice. We have never talked about this before so this email came out of the blue.

1:20 today for me…to get my “device”

This is not a vaccine. They are using the term ‘vaccine’ to sneak this thing under public health exemptions.
This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.
And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, ‘What other treatments are there?’…
Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARS.COV.2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site…
The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.
So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result, it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, ‘we are going to fight the vaccine’. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine, you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick.
Dr. David Martin

onawah

26th January 2021, 16:47

53 Dead in Gibraltar in 10 Days After Experimental Pfizer mRNA COVID Injections Started
1/24/21
https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/53-dead-in-gibraltar-in-10-days-after-experimental-pfizer-mrna-covid-injections-started/
[IMG]https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/Gibraltar-Deaths-COVID-Injections.jpg[/
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

"Gibraltar is a British Colony at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula attached to the country of Spain. It’s population is just over 30,000 people, and it is best known for its huge “rock,” the “Rock of Gibraltar.”

I have been contacted by residents in Gibraltar stating that 53 people have died in 10 days immediately following the roll out of injections of the Pfizer mRNA COVID injections, and calling it a “massacre.”

Local media reports confirm the deaths, but blame them on COVID, and not the COVID injections.

However, prior to the roll out of the injections, it is reported that only 16 people in total died “from COVID” since the beginning of the “pandemic” about a year ago.

A Kevin Rushworth reported:

Tiny Gibraltar Shines Huge Light on Vaccine Deaths

Ever since the epidemic began, sorting genuine Covid deaths from others has been a major issue. Now we have the added problem of vaccines in the mix. The UK now allegedly has the highest daily “Covid death” rate ever. Even higher than the “First Wave,” in spite of the substantial degree of herd immunity that has inevitably accrued since the beginning. This atypical “Second Wave” coincides with the vaccine roll-out. Are the two connected?

Gibraltar, normally called simply “Gib,” provides a very clear picture. This tiny British Colony, barely three miles long, appended to the South coast of Spain, has only 32,000 residents. It had suffered relatively little from the epidemic before the 9th January this year, with only seventeen deaths for the whole period. The death rate was well down the Deaths per Million League Table. This was not due to isolation, since Spanish workers have continued to pour into Gib every morning, and back out every evening.

Since the 9th January “Covid deaths” per million have rocketed to Third Place on the Worldometer site. Thirty-six more deaths in little over a week. What changed on the Ninth? The RAF flew in nearly 6,000 Pfizer vaccines, cooled to -70C by dry ice. They were put to use quickly to avoid the risk of degradation. Tiny Gibraltar is like a petri dish; in no other place has there been such a brutally clear relationship between vaccine roll-out and increased “Covid deaths.” Local media and Government have not even referred to the obvious connection. And media elsewhere has conveniently not noticed. Yet failing to recognise that these deaths demand, at the very least, immediate investigation, requires a criminal failure of judgement.

I cannot find the original source of this quote, but local media reports seem to confirm that the deaths occurred after the experimental Pfizer mRNA injection program started.

13 people died the first weekend, most of them elderly, and 27 the first week, as per local media sources.

From The Gibraltar Chronicle on January 17, 2021:

Gibraltar recorded another 13 Covid-related deaths over a “devastating” weekend that drove the death toll to 43 since the start of the pandemic.

During the past week alone, 27 people have passed away either as a direct result of the virus or while infected with it.

Nine Covid-related deaths were recorded on Sunday, the worst in a single day since the public health crisis almost a year ago.

The stark data was confirmed by the Gibraltar Government in its latest Covid update on Sunday, as Chief Minister Fabian Picardo confirmed he would address the community in a live press conference from No.6 Convent Place at 4pm on Monday.

Mr Picardo described the latest developments as “harrowing”, adding he himself lost a relative and friends in recent days.

All but three of those who died this weekend were in the care of the Elderly Residential Services, where there were still 130 active cases of Covid-19 on Sunday.

Those who died included six women and four men, the youngest in their early 70s, the eldest in their late 90s. All were recorded as being deaths from Covid-19.

Two men and woman who were not in the care of ERS also died this weekend from complications arising from Covid-19, including a man in his late 60s.

The first batch of the experimental Pfizer mRNA COVID injections were delivered by the military on January 9th, according to the UK Defense Journal:

A British A400M Atlas transport aircraft has delivered the first doses of the Pfizer COVID19 vaccine to Gibraltar.

According to a statement from the Government of Gibraltar:

“Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar is delighted to announce that the first delivery of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Saturday 9 January 2021. Upon arrival, the vaccine will be immediately be taken directly to dedicated freezers in the basement of St Bernard’s Hospital and kept at -75 degrees centigrade.

This first delivery is being provided to Gibraltar by the UK Government as part of its programme to supply the Overseas Territories, as such the methodology of delivery is the same as it is in the UK.

A 5850 doses of the vaccine will be received in this first delivery. The second delivery of the vaccine is expected by the end of January. The aim to have vaccinated all over 70s with at least one dose by mid February, assuming that the vaccines arrive as planned.”

The vaccination programme for the public in Gibraltar will commence on Monday 11th January and will be at the former Primary Care Centre at the ICC.

Expatica.com reported that the injections started on January 9th, and that by Sunday night January 10th, 5,847 doses had been administered.

Gibraltar began rolling out its vaccination programme on January 9 using the Pfizer vaccine and by Sunday night had administered 5,847 doses — covering around 17 percent of the population. (Full Article.)

The Government of Gibraltar reported that as of January 10th, just one day after the injections started, 4 people immediately died:

It is with deep regret that the Government confirms the deaths of four residents of Gibraltar from COVID-19. This brings the total number of deaths related to COVID-19 in Gibraltar to 16.

The first was a male resident of Elderly Residential Services, aged 90 – 95 years old, who died last night of COVID-19 pneumonia with septicemia. This will be recorded in today’s statistics as a death from COVID-19.

The second was a man, aged 70 – 75 years old, who was also a cancer patient at the time of their death. The patient died today of COVID-19 pneumonitis. This will be recorded in today’s statistics as a death from COVID-19.

The third was a female resident of Elderly Residential Services, aged 90 – 95 years old, who died today from septicemia due to COVID-19. This will be recorded in today’s statistics as a death from COVID-19.

The fourth was a woman aged 95 – 100 years old, who died today of COVID-19 pneumonitis. This will be recorded in today’s statistics as a death from COVID-19.

Instead of immediately halting the COVID “vaccination” program, The Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, stated that the “vaccines” brought “genuine relief and hope for a brighter tomorrow.”

The Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, said: ‘I am extremely saddened by today’s news of the loss of four members of our community to COVID-19. My thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the families and friends of the deceased.

‘The poignancy of their deaths on the same day as Gibraltar’s vaccination programme has begun is particularly painful.

‘We are not out of the woods yet. The rollout of the vaccine brings us genuine relief and hope for a brighter tomorrow. But until we can vaccinate everyone, the best way to protect your loved ones is to stay at home. Remember also that it takes a few weeks for the vaccine to begin to offer protection against COVID-19, so even when you are vaccinated you should still take the greatest of care.

‘That means, for now, continuing to stay at home, wearing a mask if you do have to go out for essential reasons and washing your hands well and often.

‘I urge everyone to register their interest to receive the vaccine using the GHA’s dedicated online form, available at https://www.gha.gi/covid-19-vaccination-interest-form/. I already have done, and eagerly await my turn in line. For now, we will rightly focus on protecting our most vulnerable and our valued frontline workers, whose continued tireless efforts have brought us to this point where we can look to the future with hope.’ (Source.)

Yes, “massacre” is the correct term here, and another government official seemingly guilty of mass murder.

Do you see the pattern developing here? Inject the elderly first, watch them die by lethal injection, and then blame it on the virus, while encouraging everyone else to get the “vaccine” to protect themselves.

The sad thing is that, this is actually working. People are not resisting. Crowds are not rising up to protect the helpless, and imprison the murderous tyrants.

They’re obeying their government by being “good citizens” and wearing their masks, practicing social distancing, and staying home – just as they’re told to do.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12) "

Tintin

26th January 2021, 16:59

Published on UK Column (https://www.ukcolumn.org) - NOTE: some links within the body text have been supplanted with links to the Avalon Library

People have been isolated from friends, family and ordinary daily social interaction (and even from seeing a full face, due to mask wearing). They cannot travel freely. Many are stopped from working and transacting. Many businesses have gone and will go bust, and many people face losing their homes and becoming unemployed. Is this what applied psychology and responsible government was intended to achieve — to make us mentally unwell, suicidal, and to remove our sovereign rights of freedom and liberty? This is nothing but a tyranny.

_____________________

Psychological Attack on the UK - Published January 3rd 2021

https://www.ukcolumn.org/sites/default/files/styles/main_article_image/public/stay%20at%20home_0.png?itok=cOJ2Tinl

by Dr Bruce Scott
Sunday, 3rd January 2021
Article link: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/psychological-attack-uk

We are in unprecedented times. Not because of the deadliest virus known to mankind, but because we have never been attacked with such ferocious psychological methods as is deliberately being done today by our UK and Scottish governments; measures to coerce us, manipulate us, to scare us, to shame us, and to make us shame other people for not following orders pertaining to COVID–19 measures.

We have been warned previously by many who suffered totalitarian communism in Eastern Europe. We were warned for many decades that such a moment would come to the West if we were not vigilant enough; unfortunately, it seems that our watchfulness has failed and our liberty has been stolen.

We have a lot to learn from history and from the great Russian writer and critic of Soviet communism, Alexander Solzhenitsyn [1], especially in our present era of the COVID–19 Brave New Normal. In his address to Harvard University in 1978 (https://avalonlibrary.net/Alexandr_Solzhenitsyn/Alexander_Solzhenitsyn_A_World_Split_Apart_Harvard_graduation_speech_June_1978.mp3) [2], Solzhenitsyn said:

"Many of you have already found out, and others will find out in the course of their lives, that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate our attention totally on its pursuit. But even while it eludes us, the illusion of knowing it still lingers and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth seldom is pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech too, but I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary, but from a friend."

Likewise, when it comes to our era of the COVID–19 Brave New Normal, there are many bitter truths we have to face now.

Applied behavioural psychology
One bitter truth is that we are being manipulated, coerced, frightened and shamed by the state; the very same state that is supposed to have our best interests at heart. The UK and Scottish Governments are using applied behavioural psychology, breaking the ethical guidelines for psychologists, to deliberately ramp up fear in the population. A group of psychologists called SPI-B, part of SAGE, have been tasked with advising the UK and Scottish Governments how to get people to adhere to COVID–19 restrictions. Their document which is freely available (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf) [3] on the UK Government website, and which was reported on the UK Column News of 11th May [4] 2020, states the following:

"A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened."

And:

"The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging."

The psychologists of SPI-B (https://avalonlibrary.net/?dir=Coronavirus_%28Wuhan_2019-nCov%29/UK_Government/SAGE%20-%20Scientific%20Advisory%20Group%20for%20Emergencies/SPI-B) and the UK Government knew fear alone would not be enough. Therefore, SPI-B suggested to government the use and promotion of social approval for desired behaviours, to consider enacting legislation to compel required behaviours, and to consider the use of social disapproval for failure to comply. They have used the mainstream media and social media, along with false "fact-checking" and censorship, to get their message across, and it has been working.

Professional standards
The tactics of the SPI-B psychologists who are informing the UK and Scottish Governments’ policies on the COVID–19 response are, in my opinion, contrary to the ethical and practice guidelines of the British Psychological Society (BPS), the psychology equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath for medicine. Below are some excerpts from two documents: the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018) (https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20-%20Files/BPS%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20and%20Conduct%20%28Updated%20July%202018%29.pdf) and the British Psychological Society Practice Guidelines (2017) (https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/practice-guidelines).

From the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct document:

[From Section 3.1]

Statement of values: Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular regard to people’s rights.

In applying these values, Psychologists should consider:
(i) Privacy and confidentiality;
(ii) Respect;
(iii) Communities and shared values within them;
(iv) Impacts on the broader environment – living or otherwise;
(v) Issues of power;
(vi) Consent;
(vii) Self-determination;
(viii) The importance of compassionate care, including empathy, sympathy, generosity, openness, distress tolerance, commitment and courage.

And:

3.3 Responsibility

Because of their acknowledged expertise, Psychologists enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Psychologists must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management. Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount.

Statement of values: Psychologists value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of Psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their
contribution to society.

In applying these values, psychologists should consider:
(i) Professional accountability;
(ii) Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;
(iii) Respect for the welfare of human, non-humans and
the living world;
(iv) Potentially competing duties.

From the British Psychological Society Practice Guidelines document:

4. Safeguarding

Safeguarding means protecting people’s health, wellbeing and human rights, and enabling them to live free from harm, abuse and neglect […] Abuse takes many forms and cuts through various domains of life. The categories below are often referred to in investigation/legislation context and are not mutually exclusive with e.g. emotional abuse featuring in the other domains of abuse. Abuse can be found across all sections of society, irrelevant of gender, age, ability, religion, race, ethnicity, personal circumstances, financial background or sexual orientation.

• Physical abuse is the use of physical force or mistreatment of one person by another which may or may not result in actual physical injury. This could include hitting, poisoning, deprivation of food, water or liberty, rough handling or exposure to heat or cold, amongst other things […]

• Psychological/emotional abuse is behaviour that is psychologically harmful or inflicts mental distress by threat, humiliation or other verbal/non-verbal conduct. This may include threats, blaming, controlling, intimidation or coercion amongst other things.

• Financial abuse is actual or attempted theft, fraud or burglary. It is the misappropriation or misuse of money, property, benefits, material goods or other asset transactions which the person did not, or could not, consent to, or which were invalidated by intimidation, coercion or deception […]

• Institutional abuse is the mistreatment or neglect by a regime or individuals, in settings which people who may be at risk reside in or use. Institutional abuse may occur when routines, systems and regimes result in poor standards of care, poor practice and behaviours, inflexible regimes and rigid routines which violate the dignity and human rights of the adults and place them at risk of harm. It may occur within a culture that denies, restricts or curtails privacy, dignity, choice and independence. It involves the collective failure of a service provider or an organisation to provide safe and appropriate services and includes a failure to ensure the necessary preventative and/or protective measures are in place.

• Neglect is the persistent failure to meet basic physical and/or psychological needs. It may involve a parent or carer failing to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter, failing to provide or unresponsiveness to, basic emotional needs or failing to protect from physical harm.

It seems quite clear from the above ethics and practice guidelines that the explicit tactics of SPI-B — making people more fearful by deliberately ramping up their sense of personal threat, and encouraging people to shame others for not following regulations — have breached the ethical and practice guidelines governing the use of applied psychology.

Mental health crisis
From the reports of several mental health charities, and from UK and Scottish Government reports, it is clear that mental ill-health is in a crisis because of the COVID19 response/measures. Suicide risk has undoubtedly been greatly increased; when the official figures are completed, I have no doubt that there will have been, and there will continue to be, many suicides because of the COVID–19 governmental response.

People have been isolated from friends, family and ordinary daily social interaction (and even from seeing a full face, due to mask wearing). They cannot travel freely. Many are stopped from working and transacting. Many businesses have gone and will go bust, and many people face losing their homes and becoming unemployed. Is this what applied psychology and responsible government was intended to achieve — to make us mentally unwell, suicidal, and to remove our sovereign rights of freedom and liberty? This is nothing but a tyranny.

All this has come to pass based on the threat posed by a virus, despite huge disagreement about the nature of this threat within the scientific community (for example, the Great Barrington Declaration (https://gbdeclaration.org/) [5] signed by 50,000 scientists and doctors). However, UK and Scottish Government policy seems intent on taking the most damaging route for society for all concerned, relying on advice from scientific advisors who seem determined to change society forever based on the idea that a wonder vaccine will return us to normality: not the old normal, of course, but a new normal where surveillance, vaccine/immunity passports, and a cashless society will be the only way where people can shop, travel and work. Seems kind of harsh? Well, unethical diktats usually break over into the realm of abuse.

Abuse
The COVID–19 response, with its resulting misery, fear, austerity and hopelessness, seems increasingly to equate to society-wide abuse. The similarities to domestic physical and psychological abuse, coercion and manipulation are striking. When reading the below, please bear in mind the restrictions that the UK is under. The applicability of the concept of abuse to the COVID–19 restrictions and their effects is self-evident.

Physical abuse is the use of physical force or mistreatment of one person by another which may or may not result in actual physical injury. This could include hitting, poisoning, deprivation of food, water or liberty.

Psychological or emotional abuse is behaviour that is psychologically harmful or inflicts mental distress by threat, humiliation or other verbal/non-verbal conduct. This may include threats, blaming, controlling, intimidation or coercion, amongst other things, as well as isolation from friends and family. Abusers want to know the victim’s whereabouts and obsessively track and check the victim’s location at all times.

Financial abuse is actual or attempted theft, fraud or burglary. It is the misappropriation or misuse of money, property, benefits, material goods or other asset transactions which the person did not, or could not, consent to, or which were invalidated by intimidation, coercion or deception.

In the realms of abuse by the government, the definition of institutional abuse is fitting. Institutional abuse may occur when routines, systems and regimes result in poor standards of care, inflexible regimes and rigid routines which violate the dignity and human rights of the adults and place them at risk of harm. It may occur within a culture that denies, restricts or curtails privacy, dignity, choice and independence. Institutional neglect is the persistent failure to meet basic physical and/or psychological needs.

Physical or psychological abuse follows a pattern of abuse and manipulation, often involving a phase of ‘grooming’. As a population, it seems we have been groomed since March.

Most survivors of abuse say that at the beginning of their relationship, their partner was charming and affectionate, that they expressed love for them very quickly and wanted to spend a lot of time together with them. Abusive behaviour is interspersed with warmth and kindness, slowly desensitising the victim to the behaviour.

Perpetrators use a wide range of hidden tactics to maintain control and brainwash their victim, by presenting insults as a joke, by gaslighting, and by presenting different versions of events.

Duped
Thus, at the beginning of the COVID–1984 nightmare, we were told we needed a three weeks' lockdown to "flatten the curve", save the NHS, and save lives. We were told to be good, and we have been good. We were told by the Government that they cared about us, that they loved us. But now, seven months later, we are told things are out of control, that we are at tipping point; that they only way out of this is for a vaccine, for an immunity passport, for a New Normal or Building Back Better to form a New World Order. We have been duped. We were good, we did our best, but now we have been told we are complacent, and we are now trapped, just like a victim of abuse.

Professor Susan Michie, a psychologist with SPI-B of SAGE, speaking on LBC Radio with Andrew Castle on 4 October 2020, declared how the population had been complacent by not following COVID–19 regulations. Castle mentioned all the businesses going bust and the rising unemployment. Michie retorted that people will just have to retrain for new jobs or careers. She even mentioned that because of social distancing measures needed for schools (and other workplaces, I presume), government should just take over unused or empty buildings to adapt to the new regime. Sound familiar? It should. That’s because this is what happened under totalitarian communism. Not surprising, as Susan Michie is a member of the Communist Party of Britain.

Like the abuser, the UK and Scottish Governments keep changing the story and goalposts to try to placate us. One minute, the crisis is the so-called deaths from COVID–19, the next minute it is the R number, and now we have a casedemic based on a questionable PCR test, which it seems will place us into a Kafkaesque indefinite COVID–1984: it seems the PCR test can be used and manipulated to bolster population control and movement at a whim; the PCR test was never designed for such diagnostic purposes or to inform public health policies in this way. And then they tell us we have been too complacent and that even more draconian measures could be needed for months or years to come, until a rushed-out unsafe vaccine can save us.

The COVID–19 Brave New Normal is an experiment in which the long-term outcomes on children are as yet unknown; but, from what we know about developmental psychology, it is highly probable that the government(s) are harming future generations.

Complicit
While the unethical psy-op carries on, the British Psychological Society (the regulator of psychologists), the Health and Care Professions Council, psychologists, mental health charities, psychotherapy organisations, politicians, and so-called political activists are completely silent about this deliberate psychological torture of our society and our children. Is the silence from the British Psychological Society because the Director of Policy of the BPS, Kathryn Scott, is on SPI-B of SAGE (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups#scientific-pandemic-insights-group-on-behaviours-spi-b)?

The silence from the aforementioned groups and individuals is unacceptable; it is complicity.

The data and the science are clear: COVID–19 is not a threat requiring us to lock down society and destroy the economy. COVID–19 is the equivalent of a bad flu season. The PCR test is unreliable and should not be used as a diagnostic instrument, and the use of the PCR has contributed to what is now just a casedemic. The hospitals are not overwhelmed; they never were, nor ever will be. Indeed, the famous Nightingale Hospitals were never used and for all intents and purposes have been decommissioned.

Why have mask wearing and hand sanitising not seen a reduction in the yearly average for flu deaths, and why are flu deaths currently outstripping deaths from COVID–19? This is a question never asked by a UK mainstream journalist. Why are the politicians not yelling in anger that lockdown measures will cause more deaths that COVID–19? People cannot get operations, people cannot get screened for illness and disease, people cannot see a dentist, and people cannot see their friends and family. Isolation is a huge killer, especially for old people who are unable to see loved ones if they are in a care home.

Inexplicable
It seems clear that COVID–19 is an excuse to take away our freedom and liberty. But here are some things to bear in mind:

Churches are closed, brothels are open. The rule of six does not apply to supermarkets. We have to wear masks in supermarkets, but MPs and MSPs from many households can meet in the UK and Scottish Parliaments, without masks. Children have to wear masks and are not allowed to sing in school, yet politicians can shout and mingle unmasked in government buildings. Children cannot say goodbye to a dying parent; old people are dying alone, unable to be comforted by loved ones. Matt Hancock, allegedly, can drink wine in the Houses of Parliament Bar after the 10 pm curfew — not socially distancing, of course. We can go grouse shooting but not to a restaurant. Amazon is doing a roaring trade, as are the big multi-national supermarkets, but the High Street is dying.

In Scotland, it was estimated two months ago that one half of all small and medium-sized business will not make it out of this mess. No doubt, with the new measures in Scotland, the list of businesses going bust will be even bigger.

In the good old days, before COVID–19, social justice activists used to cry that "austerity kills". Those activists now are silent; they put on their masks and comply with the regulations whilst the economy burns. In the age of #MeToo, we became used to people calling out abuse and abusers. There is widespread abuse now with the COVID–19 measures, #MeToo activists are silent. Pre-COVID–19, the Adverse Childhood Experience “movement” (ACEs, ACE Aware, etc.) was concerned with negative childhood experiences. Now, they say nothing about children being forced to wear masks, of having to socially distance in classrooms, nor about children are being scared witless by being continually told in school that they are in danger of death, even though the risk of children getting even mild symptoms of COVID–19 is minuscule. ACE awareness, it seems, does not stretch to inappropriate fear-mongering and depriving children of oxygen by muzzling.

Cognitive dissonance
How strange it all is. Can people see how illogical these positions are? Can people perceive the cognitive dissonance in those tasked with making decisions?

The psychological attack, the abusive nature of it, the illogicality of measures and the cognitive dissonance of those who should speak out confuses us, frightens us, angers us and demoralises us. As KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov (https://avalonlibrary.net/Edward_G.Griffin_w_Yuri_Bezmenov__interview_1984.mp4) [9] indicated in relation to the takeover of totalitarian communism, we are in the stage of demoralisation. The psy-op of SPI-B and the politicians who dictate to us are deliberately trying to frighten us, scare us, shame us and sap our morale.

Unfortunately, at the moment there are not enough people (especially politicians and mainstream media journalists) with the necessary courage to call out the tyranny and call out the abuser. Historically, this has also been a problem: both on the political and on the personal scale, the victim finds great difficulty calling out their abuser. In a critical remark and warning to the West, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Harvard address in 1978:

"A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations ... Should one (have to) point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

In our COVID–19 Brave New Normal, let us not ignore the warnings of the past and the historical events through which totalitarian regimes came to flourish. A totalitarian medical technocracy is now being forced upon us. Let us be courageous, let us be brave. We have to do this for our children and grandchildren. If we do not, they will never forgive us and we will never be able to forgive ourselves.
______________________

Sources:

Source URL: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/psychological-attack-uk
Links
[1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aleksandr-Solzhenitsyn
[2] https://youtu.be/WuVG8SnxxCM
[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf
[4] https://youtu.be/GVpCWSx8a6I?t=750
[5] https://gbdeclaration.org/
[6] https://www.buildbackbetteruk.org/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Michie
[8] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Kafkaesque
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE
[10] https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Psychological Attack on the UK http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/psychological-attack-uk&via=ukcolumn
[11] https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/psychological-attack-uk
[12] https://www.ukcolumn.org/print/article/psychological-attack-uk

Matthew

27th January 2021, 01:13

sYzYq2e42x8
A new video from Rotten Politics showing an old BBC Question Time interview with Luke Johnson. Johnson hits back again rotten statistical predictions.

The background to this are all the previous statistical models by Neil Ferguson. Lots of Neil Ferguson in this thread. His models are the official excuse behind the $$$-grab from whoever is profiting. Neil Ferguson has a terrible record of accuracy, to a ludicrous degree(*1)

*1
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/

Gwin Ru

2nd February 2021, 16:54

...

... Real Talk with Ava & Kim (https://www.unitednetwork.news/content/detail/6018f33ac3f17700182c7c73/Real-Talk-with-Ava-and-Kim) 49:54

First Real Talk with Ava & Kim! Covering Covid 19, News from around the World and much more.

https://www.unitednetwork.news/content/detail/6018f33ac3f17700182c7c73/Real-Talk-with-Ava-and-Kim

pueblo

2nd February 2021, 19:13

The Big Black Covid Scare Bus...aka The Bus of Doom.

KmswUg5gJoQ

wondering

2nd February 2021, 19:32

Gwin Ru...I couldn't access this without making a purchase and opening an account...☹️

Gwin Ru

2nd February 2021, 21:23

Gwin Ru...I couldn't access this without making a purchase and opening an account...☹️I am sorry... indeed it can't be accessed now without subscribing. There was a window of time where it wasn't so but now it's out of reach without some subscription... and I am not a subscriber either.

onawah

4th February 2021, 18:32

Study: CDC Broke Federal Law by Manipulating COVID Death Statistics
February 3, 2021
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/study-cdc-broke-federal-law-by-manipulating-covid-death-statistics/
https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/CDC-notice.jpg

(Many hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"A study published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy & the Law recently claims that the CDC violated federal law by inflating COVID-19 fatality statistics.

The study is titled “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective.”

From the Abstract:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19 , on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”

For a nation tormented by restrictive public health policies mandated for healthy individuals and small businesses, this is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis. This revelation significantly impacts the published fatalities count due to COVID-19.

More importantly, it exposes major problems with the process by which the CDC was able to generate inaccurate data during a crisis.

The CDC has advocated for social isolation, social distancing, and personal protective equipment use as primary mitigation strategies in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the promise of inexpensive pharmaceutical and natural treatments.

These mitigation strategies were promoted largely in response to projection model fatality forecasts that have proven to be substantially inaccurate.

Further investigation into the legality of the methods used to create these strategies raised additional concerns and questions.

Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?

Did the CDC’s decision to abandon a known and proven effective system also breach several federal laws that ensure data accuracy and integrity?

Did the CDC knowingly alter rules for reporting cause of death in the presence of comorbidity exclusively for COVID-19? If so, why? (Full study.)

Patrick Howley, writing for National File, reported:

The groundbreaking peer-reviewed research…asserts that the CDC willfully violated multiple federal laws including the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act at minimum. (Publishing Journal – Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge / Public Health Policy Initiative)

“Most notably, the CDC illegally enacted new rules for data collection and reporting exclusively for COVID-19 that resulted in a 1,600% inflation of current COVID-19 fatality totals,” the watchdog group All Concerned Citizens declared in a statement provided to NATIONAL FILE, referring to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge study.

The research demonstrates that the CDC failed to apply for mandatory federal oversight and failed to open a mandatory period for public scientific comment in both instances as is required by federal law before enacting new rules for data collection and reporting.

“The CDC is required to be in full compliance with all federal laws even during emergency situations. The research asserts that CDC willfully compromised the accuracy and integrity of all COVID-19 case and fatality data from the onset of this crisis in order to fraudulently inflate case and fatality data,” stated All Concerned Citizens.

On March 24th the CDC published the NVSS COVID-19 Alert No. 2 document instructing medical examiners, coroners and physicians to deemphasize underlying causes of death, also referred to as pre-existing conditions or comorbidities, by recording them in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates as “…the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause of death more often than not.”

This was a major rule change for death certificate reporting from the CDC’s 2003 Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death, which have instructed death reporting professionals nationwide to report underlying conditions in Part I for the previous 17 years.

This single change resulted in a significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines.

“The research draws attention to this key distinction as it has led to a significant inflation in COVID fatality totals. By the researcher’s estimates, COVID-19 recorded fatalities are inflated nationwide by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks,” stated All Concerned Citizens.

Then on April 14th, the CDC adopted additional rules exclusive for COVID-19 in violation of federal law by outsourcing data collection rule development to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), a non-profit entity, again without applying for oversight and opening opportunity for public scientific review.

On April 5th the CSTE published a position paper Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) listing 5 CDC employees as subject matter experts.

“This key document created new rules for counting probable cases as actual cases without definitive proof of infection (section VII.A1 – pages 4 & 5), new rules for contact tracing allowing contact tracers to practice medicine without a license (section VII.A3 – page 5), and yet refused to define new rules for ensuring that the same person could not be counted multiple times as a new case (section VII.B – page 7),” stated All Concerned Citizens.

By enacting these new rules exclusively for COVID-19 in violation of federal law, the research alleges that the CDC significantly inflated data that has been used by elected officials and public health officials, in conjunction with unproven projection models from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), to justify extended closures for schools, places of worship, entertainment, and small businesses leading to unprecedented emotional and economic hardships nationwide.

“A formal petition has been sent to the Department of Justice as well as all US Attorneys seeking an immediate grand jury investigation into these allegations,” All Concerned Citizens stated.

Read the full article here.https://nationalfile.com/busted-cdc-inflated-covid-numbers-accused-of-violating-federal-law/

Where are the 2020-2021 Influenza Statistics? “Influenza has been renamed COVID” According to Epidemiologist
https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/knut-wittkowski.jpg

Daniel Payne, writing for Just the News, interviewed epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski regarding the disappearing flu statistics this year.

Dr. Knut Wittkowski is the former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University. He holds two doctorates in computer science and medical biometry, and one of his videos on YouTube last year had amassed over 1 million views before YouTube took it down, because he was critical of the lockdowns and its ineffectiveness on stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Just the News reports:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly influenza surveillance tracker reports that the cumulative positive influenza test rate from late September into the week of Dec. 19 stands at 0.2% as measured by clinical labs. That’s compared to a cumulative 8.7% from a year before.

The weekly comparisons are even starker: This week one year ago, the positive clinical rate was 22%, where now it stands at 0.1%.

Those low numbers continue trends observed earlier in the year in which flu rates have remained at near-zero levels. The trend is not limited to the U.S. Worldwide, health authorities have all reported sharply decreased influenza levels throughout what is normally peak flu season in the northern hemisphere. Rates in the southern hemisphere were also low this year.

Where have all the flu cases gone?

Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski thinks he can answer the riddle.

“Influenza has been renamed COVID in large part,” said the former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University.

“There may be quite a number of influenza cases included in the ‘presumed COVID’ category of people who have COVID symptoms (which Influenza symptoms can be mistaken for), but are not tested for SARS RNA,” Wittkowski told Just the News on Thursday.

Those patients, he argued, “also may have some SARS RNA sitting in their nose while being infected with Influenza, in which case the influenza would be ‘confirmed’ to be COVID.” (Read the full article.)Is the CDC Hiding and Manipulating Data Regarding Overall Death Rates for 2020?
https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/dec_30_2020_CDC_All_deaths.last_.jpg

As we were nearing the end of 2020, we reported on some analysis projections for 2020 that were shaping up to have about as many total deaths for the year as previous years, based on the CDC’s own statistics. See:

Statistics Show that the Number of People who Died in the U.S. in 2020 will be the SAME as Previous Years, in Spite of COVID
A subscriber to Health Impact News recently sent me some screen shots that she allegedly saved at the end of December, 2020, from the CDC website, including a page that was reportedly available during most of 2020 tracking COVID deaths and deaths due to all causes (see above).

This page allegedly used to be at this URL: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/covid_weekly/index.htm

However, when you go this page now, you get this notice:
Resource Not Available
“The page you requested cannot be found at this time. It may be temporarily unavailable or it may have been removed or relocated.”

This is NOT the standard 404 error code which you get if you mistype a page address, because on the CDC website the 404 error code looks like this:

https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/CDC-404-error.jpg

So this is a page that used to exist, and according to the screenshot that this user sent to me, on December 30, 2020 this page stated that the total deaths from all causes in 2020 was 2,902,664.

Here is a copy of page 9 of the National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 68, No. 6, June 24, 2019, which lists total deaths for 2016 and 2017:

https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/2018_VITAL_STATS_REPORT.jpg

There were 2,744,248 recorded deaths from all causes in 2016, and 2,813,503 recorded deaths from all causes in 2017, according to the CDC.

So if the alleged CDC numbers for deaths from all causes in the screen capture from December 30, 2020 is correct, with 2,902,664 on December 30th, it is right in line with what we would expect, without the additional deaths allegedly attributed to COVID-19.

The only way this number for total deaths could be accurate, along with the deaths attributed to COVID, would be if deaths due to all other causes that were not COVID, drastically decreased. Is it possible that deaths due to heart disease, cancer, etc. – all decreased so that the total deaths would be on par for what would be expected if there was no Coronavirus pandemic?

So what happened to this page on the CDC website?

What is the CDC now reporting as the total deaths for 2020 here in 2021?

If you go to: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm – and go down to Table 1, and click on “Yearly,” it will produce this chart showing 3,320,435 deaths for 2020:
https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/all-deaths-2020-revised.jpg

So which version is correct?

Only the CDC would know the answer to that question, since they control all the data.

Is the CDC Trustworthy?
https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/gottlieb-fda-pfizer-warp-speed-covid-vaccine.jpg

I have published this information in several articles the past few weeks, but it obviously bears repeating in this article, since the CDC is supposed to be supplying accurate information and statistics, especially now with regards to the new non-FDA approved experimental COVID mRNA injections.

The CDC is the largest purchaser of vaccines in the world, allocating over $5 BILLION in their budget (supplied by American taxpayers) each year to purchase and distribute vaccines from Big Pharma. See:

Should the CDC Oversee Vaccine Safety When They Purchase Over $5 Billion of Vaccines from Big Pharma?
Do you think this might be a conflict of interest?

Secondly, the CDC owns over 56 patents on vaccines, and many of their scientists earn royalties from the sale of vaccines. (Source.)

Do you think this might be a conflict of interest?

https://vaccineimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/09/CDC-Fraud-Corruption-1024x532.jpg

The CDC has a long history of corruption, and over the years many of their own scientists have tried to blow the whistle on this corruption only to be silenced. See some of our previous coverage on CDC corruption:

CDC Scientist Whisteblowers Confirm Corruption Within the CDC
CDC Whistleblower: CDC Covered Up MMR Vaccine Link to Autism in African American Boys
The CDC’s History of Research Fraud Regarding Vaccines and Autism
Can We Trust the CDC? British Medical Journal Reveals CDC Lies About Ties to Big Pharma
In addition, many of the directors running the CDC go on to work for Big Pharma after they complete their term at the CDC. See:

Former CDC Director that Approved Gardasil Vaccine and Became Head of Merck’s Vaccine Division Named “Woman of the Year”
Dr. Scott Gottlieb was the former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner. He joined the board of directors of Pfizer, Inc.—the world’s largest pharmaceutical company and second largest manufacturer of vaccines, in 2019 just shortly after he left the FDA. Pfizer, which posted total revenues of $53.7 billion in 2018, announced Dr. Gottlieb’s election to the board on June 27, 2019.

On July 22, 2020 President Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” project awarded $1.95 BILLION to Pfizer and BioNTech for 100 million doses of their mRNA-based COVID-19.

So what do you think? Can we trust the CDC and the FDA? Are they actually concerned about Public Health, or are they simply the marketing branches of Big Pharma trying to protect their products? "

Tintin

8th February 2021, 14:12

Extracted: "Lucy Wightman, Director of Public Health for Northamptonshire County Council said: "The aim is to recruit volunteers from various backgrounds and communities in the county and equip them to be able to share up to date information in relation to COVID-19 and on how to protect themselves and others against the virus.

"Reflecting the diversity of the county, they will be a trusted source of information on current COVID-19 guidance, able to dispel the myths and rumours surrounding the virus, testing, the vaccine and anything else COVID-related.

"Nothing compares to hearing information from family, friends and trusted people within your community and we will work with Ambassadors to understand the barriers people experience in accessing information and complying with guidelines, as well as making sure everyone knows what they need to do to in the coming days, weeks and months ahead.""

----------------

Fairly self explanatory and another step in the direction of 1930s Germany, frighteningly. It'll be interesting indeed to see how many may be gullible enough to fall for this ploy.

Source: Northamptonshire County Council (https://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/news/council-news/Pages/your-county-needs-you-to-become-a-covid-community-ambassador.aspx)

Your county needs you to become a COVID Community Ambassador
28 January 2021

Northamptonshire County Council is recruiting volunteers to join the COVID Community Ambassadors scheme. Could you be one of them?

Across the county, communities and businesses are working hard to manage the virus and to protect the public from COVID-19. The vaccination programme, which is now underway, will gradually bring greater protection to those who are most vulnerable. It will take time to have an impact and so it is more important than ever that we all do our bit to keep everyone as safe as possible in the meantime.

We also know that some Northamptonshire residents are harder to reach than others or that others may be uncertain in the face of some of the misinformation and conspiracy theories which can be found online. That's why we need your help to make sure everyone in the county has access to the true facts about COVID-19, so they can make informed choices, recognise myths and fake news, and ask the questions that help them understand what is happening.

To apply you need to be over 18 and either living in Northamptonshire or working in the county. You don't need previous volunteering experience, though of course it's great if you do.

There is no minimum time commitment, and you'll share information in a way that works for your community. Ambassadors can also apply for up to £500 funding in order to develop tailored interventions that will specifically work for their community.

...article continues here (https://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/news/council-news/Pages/your-county-needs-you-to-become-a-covid-community-ambassador.aspx)

onawah

12th February 2021, 19:54

CDC Data Disaster
Today's email update from
Stand for Health Freedom
advocates@standforhealthfreedom.com
2/12/21

"Last March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) abruptly changed how death certificates were recorded. Although this might seem like a mere formality, the CDC only made this change for one type of death — COVID-19 — and it appears it circumvented multiple federal laws to do so.

Why did the CDC decide to suddenly abandon the data collection and reporting system it had been using for 17 years without incident? And when it adopted new protocols for defining what constitutes a COVID case, why didn’t it implement safeguards to ensure that case numbers and subsequent data wouldn’t be altered by counting the same individuals over and over?

Join Sayer Ji, co-founder of Stand for Health Freedom, and an esteemed panel of experts as we dive into these questions and more on Wednesday, February 17, at 6 p.m. EST/ 3 p.m. PST. Our live online event, Data Disaster: A Call for an Investigation Into the CDC’s Conduct During COVID-19, https://standforhealthfreedom.com/CDC-investigation
...will take an in-depth look at the CDC’s controversial actions over the past year and the dire consequences they’ve had on all of American society … from school and business closures, to increases in suicides and mental health issues, to loved ones being forced to die all alone.

https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RDO85p6bm0GiTgMRxYQrfAfOfPnS7DkqVdsJ_yec9ZVrdJhLlAkPy06TGnxoSBgW2crMrKTPj0XAmh7HD4e0k7_lbzS65uC8lCXw yzKeYAkOVQUbXhNoxfv2pFxrP6bUEw--VfO2O7VAYR08y_gO-Ieh0rWYmbAsI0Gg86ij3LN7tlXb7uBU4mIn2jfv3tcobGEBvATzHX23o7bMetvfk1u3EVrAUIlERJiPeRdPCiaKbP8=s0-d-e1-ft#https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/voiceforhealthfreedom/mailings/248/attachments/original/CDC_Data_Disaster_-_Promotional_Meme_%282.11.21%29.png?1613126646

In March 2020, the CDC abruptly changed how death certificates were recorded. While this might seem like a mere formality, the CDC only made this change for one type of death — COVID-19 — and circumvented multiple federal laws to do so.

Join our panel of experts — researchers, doctors, lawyers, medical ethicists, educators and lawmakers — as they take an in-depth look at the CDC’s actions and the dire consequences they’ve had on all of American society. This includes unending lockdowns, school and business closures, an increase in suicides and mental health issues, economic hardship and despair, loved ones being forced to die all alone, and many more atrocities that have been inflicted on individuals in the name of “protecting public health.”

Tune in to Learn:
Why we should be concerned about death certificate data.
Why accuracy, integrity and transparency are so important during a public health crisis.
How the CDC set the stage for widespread devastation — physical, psychological and economic.

Simple steps we can take so that incidents of this magnitude never happen again.
Don’t miss one of the most important events of the decade. You’ll not only learn how our nation’s health protection agency set the stage for widespread devastation, you’ll walk away with steps you easily can take so that incidents of this magnitude never happen again.

You can learn more about this exclusive, uncensored panel discussion and our amazing lineup of speakers at standforhealthfreedom.com/CDC-investigation. In the meantime, please be sure to share this important event with your friends, family and neighbors. It’s time to hold our federal officials accountable and take back public health."
https://standforhealthfreedom.com/CDC-investigation

In solidarity,

The Stand for Health Freedom Team

onawah

12th February 2021, 20:21

From VAXXED II
Email update today
Vaxxed II Team <tommeyburrowesproductions@pb05.ascendbywix.com
2/12/21

"We Are Vaxxed has been removed
Our facebook page "We Are Vaxxed" has been deleted.

We have set up a telegram - peoplestruth.

You can follow it by following this link! - https://t.me/peoplestruth

We have also set up a GAB - peoplestruth.

All of our shows have now been added to www.peepstv.org under the content tab.

Remember to sign up to our mailing list on www.peepstv.org to stay connected.

https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/FoqcOewH3aMMaxwpil2dD44F8hOU2tDoMpyRzqpZUfL5Oax3bP30ZyQ_JlKfcMGhqJsopEhIZTf7qdqEbFDIM5HR1oZrgR9dUto3 Hj0Wod54M2QDQo-14LJkCC5TjH3ayv2E90RAPc82FLzv8TtfxwRrkPmiurfKl7Nu6nXxsKJzutNM_Sct_GjFh-7H=s0-d-e1-ft#https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e8dc8c_693087bbedde4afebccece7adff03e20~mv2.png/v1/fit/w_639,h_2000,al_c,q_85/image.png
Add our channel "Peeps TV" on Roku to watch all uncensored content and films."

Head to the Vaxxed II website:
https://www.vaxxed2.com/?utm_campaign=d138a7af-cd37-46f2-bde6-a353624de586&utm_source=so&utm_medium=mail&cid=b510bb7a-9928-456f-8052-cd080b910ba8

Tintin

13th February 2021, 20:30

For me the exhaustive analyses provided here cements without too much of a doubt at all the fallacy of trusting official government statistics concerning the test results and the myth of asymptomatic spread, although, to be fair many of us here had already deduced that.

Really, do not trust the statistics that are promulgated by government.

A little about the authors:

Norman Fenton - Prof:
Norman Fenton is Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London and also a Director of Agena, a company that specialises in risk management for critical systems.

Martin Neil:
Martin is Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at QMUL and a Director of Agena Ltd.

These guys know their onions.

Note, I've emboldened one or two critical statements here.

--------------

Source: Probability and Risk BlogSpot (http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/claim-that-1-in-3-people-who-have-virus.html)

Improving public understanding of probability and risk with special emphasis on its application to the law. Why Bayes theorem and Bayesian networks are needed

Claim that "1 in 3 people who have the virus have no symptoms" is a massive exaggeration

Wednesday, February 10th 2021

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_KaDq0AxSVQ/YCQ9jBYAKdI/AAAAAAAABeQ/Rp5mcAq17gwpwl8IsN9Sc7Mf_ji7E0mjACLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h272/covid_warning.jpg

Disclaimer:
DRAFT ONLY: This article is under review and will be updated. The current full version including the mathematical analysis is here (http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/proportion_covid_asymptomatic.pdf).

12/2/21 UPDATE: We understand there was a BMJ webinar shortly after this article was posted on 11 Feb 21 specifically about this subject. The article will be updated after reviewing that.

One of the major messages currently being pushed everywhere by the UK Government about COVID-19 is the claim that "1 in 3 people who have the virus have no symptoms". In fact, if we trust the Government's own data, this claim is massively exaggerated.

The true figure - as we explain below - is more like 1 in 38*. Moreover, using data from an ongoing study at Cambridge University (https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/documents/uoc_screening_report_lent_week_3_-_2021-02-08.pdf) (in which only people without symptoms are tested) we conclude that 96% of such people who test positive do not have the virus (i.e. they are mostly false positives).

For the various reasons explained in previous articles here (https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2020/10/why-we-know-so-little-about-covid-19.html), we do not know what proportion of people at any one time 'have COVID-19'. This is partly because we do not know for sure who is really infected (on any given day a new 'case' is defined as a person newly testing positive) and we do not know how long a person remains infected. Moreover, the Government data (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/) does not distinguish (for those testing positive) who did and did not get symptoms.

Based on data provided by the UK Government, the website https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/ estimates the number of active cases on any given day. In the week of 1-7 Feb the average daily number of active cases in the UK was 944,650. But not everybody who has the virus gets tested, so assuming testing is accurate, the true number of active cases must be higher than this. If we use the Government "1 in 3" claim - together with reasonable assumptions about the proportion of people with and without symptoms who actually get tested, then the 'true' number of active cases would have to be about 1.4 million, which represents just over 2% of the population (see the detailed analysis (http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/proportion_covid_asymptomatic.pdf)).

Combining the Government’s claim and an assumption of a 2% active daily infection rate, means that 0.711% of the population who had no symptoms must have had the virus, for the period 1-7 Feb (the detailed analysis provides the full Bayesian calculation). So, if we randomly tested 10,000 people without symptoms, during that week, we would expect to have found that about 71 tested of these people would test positive.

We can empirically test the implication of the Government's claim that 0.711% of the population who had no symptoms must have had the virus, using an ongoing study at Cambridge University (https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/documents/uoc_screening_report_lent_week_3_-_2021-02-08.pdf) to do so. This study is testing students without symptoms and, for the week of 1-7 Feb, reported that a total of 4058 students with no symptoms were tested. Given this number, and the government’s claim, we should have expected to see that 29 of these 4038 should have tested positive. But how many did test positive? If it is a lot less, then the government’s claim must be wrong. In fact, NONE tested positive!

Here is a screenshot of the summary results:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UXTDNzO2jZg/YCQmd5t1kyI/AAAAAAAABdo/0YNHQp2yE74PXZvnQo6ftnW-6xqoMBKaACLcBGAsYHQ/w640-h124/cambridge_no_symptoms.JPG

While there were non-zero numbers the previous weeks, in those weeks the number of active cases was higher. Yet, if the government claim was true, the number of confirmed cases were still much lower than they should have been. So, even if the number of 'cases' is being massively exaggerated due to false positive test results, the Government claim that 1 in 3 of people who are infected have no symptoms must be a massive exaggeration.

Can we conclude that the true percentage of those with the virus but with no symptoms is close to 0%, given that none of the 4058 without symptoms had the virus? No, we can't - not just because there were a few cases in previous weeks, but because it is a probability fallacy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMAxrY8Ob9Y&feature=youtu.be) to assume that the proportion of people with no symptoms with the virus is the same as the proportion of people with the virus who have no symptoms. If we use all the recent Cambridge data (6 cases from 11,573 people with no symptoms) then we could assume that about 0.052% of people with no symptoms have the virus. But, with the assumption that 2% of the population have the virus, this would mean only about 2.6% of those with the virus have no symptoms, i.e 1 in 38*. Which is, of course very different to the Government's claim of 1 in 3.

In fact, looking more closely at the Cambridge report we do also find evidence to support the kind of problems we have identified previously with false positives. Critically, the study does pooled testing (https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/pooled-covid19-testing-makes-data-on.html) and then confirmatory testing (https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/on-false-positives-in-covid19-testing.html) on each individual case if a pooled test is positive. In the study there were 1752 pooled samples of which 13 were false positives (in the sense that when individual confirmatory testing was done on these, every sample in all 13 pooled samples was negative). So, even in the highly skilled testing environment at Cambridge, the false positive rate (without confirmatory testing) for people without symptoms is 0.7%.

The Government 'case' numbers are based on mass PCR testing and there is no evidence that any confirmatory testing has been undertaken as previously reported on this blog. If the false positive rate at Cambridge is 0.7%, we can therefore surely assume a false positive rate of at least 1% in the mass testing labs. This is very important for understanding 'case' numbers. Based on the Cambridge data we assume that only 0.052% of people without symptoms have the virus. Then, assuming a 1% false positive test rate for such people, it follows that 96% of those without symptoms testing positive are false positives (again the detailed report (http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/proportion_covid_asymptomatic.pdf) provides the full Bayesian analysis).

*Taking proper account of uncertainty as explained in the detailed report, we estimate there is a 95% probability that the true proportion of people with COVID-19 but no symptoms is between 1.2% and 5.34% with mean 2.92%. So, between as few as 1 in 83 and as many as 1 in 19, with mean of 1 in 34.

-----------------------

Bayes' Theorem with Norman Fenton:

HMAxrY8Ob9Y