Covid19: Global reports, news and updates

[Tintin]

Posted by onawah (here)
WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu
Head of Health Emergencies Program “best estimates” put IFR at 0.14%
Kit Knightly 19/8/20
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/08/...rous-than-flu/

(I'm posting this article because it points out exactly where you can find the statistics on the WHO's own website, though the question now is, "will it remain there?")

"The World Health Organization has finally confirmed what we (and many experts and studies) have been saying for months – the coronavirus is no more deadly or dangerous than seasonal flu.

The WHO’s top brass made this announcement during a special session of the WHO’s 34-member executive board on Monday October 5th, it’s just nobody seemed to really understand it.

In fact, they didn’t seem to completely understand it themselves.

At the session, Dr Michael Ryan, the WHO’s Head of Emergencies revealed that they believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected with Sars-Cov-2. This is their “best estimate”, and a huge increase over the number of officially recognised cases (around 35 million).

Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, later confirmed the figure, stating it was based on the average results of all the broad seroprevalence studies done around the world.

As much as the WHO were attempting to spin this as a bad thing – Dr Ryan even said it means “the vast majority of the world remains at risk.” – it’s actually good news. And confirms, once more, that the virus is nothing like as deadly as everyone predicted.

The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that is 780 million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is 1,061,539.

That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with seasonal flu and the predictions of many experts from all around the world.

0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional figure” of 3.4% back in March. This figure was used in the models which were used to justify lockdowns and other draconian policies.

In fact, given the over-reporting of alleged Covid deaths, the IFR is likely even lower than 0.14%, and could show Covid to be much less dangerous than flu.

None of the mainstream press picked up on this. Though many outlets reported Dr Ryan’s words, they all attempted to make it a scary headline and spread more panic.

Apparently neither they, nor the WHO, were capable of doing the simple maths that shows us this is good news. And that the Covid sceptics have been right all along.

UPDATE 9/10/20: In the interest of thoroughness, a desire to rely on primary sources, and not depending purely on mainstream sources (which may remove or amend articles), I decided to find the actual video of Dr Ryan’s remarks.

For some reason, although this was an important WHO meeting during an allegedly hyper-serious pandemic, the video is hard to find. The only place you are able to see it is the WHO’s own website, and even then you have to scrub through almost 6 hours of footage. Well, I did that, and you are welcome.

You can’t embed the WHO’s stream, but I can tell you to go to this page, click “Session 1” and skip to 1:01:33 to hear the exact quote:

Our current best estimates tell us that about ten percent of the global population may have been infected by this virus. This varies depending on country, it varies from urban to rural, it varies between different groups.”

UPDATE 13/10/2020: Here is the actual ripped audio:"

The audio can be downloaded via this link, here: https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/...an-who.mp3?_=1

Interestingly we don't (yet) seem able to embed mp3s, which is an odd peculiarity. I'll look into this. Tintin.

UPDATE: okay, it's the crotchet icon set between the Youtube and PDF icons but seems to only allow embedding if the audio is attached to projectavalon.net. That ought to be fixed, somehow, as evidenced by below:

[Satori]

I have not done a deep dive into this story, but it is being reported that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against the Michigan Governor's CV-19 dictates:

https://newswithviews.com/burn-your-...tchen-whitmer/

[justntime2learn]

Posted by Satori (here)
I have not done a deep dive into this story, but it is being reported that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against the Michigan Governor's CV-19 dictates:

https://newswithviews.com/burn-your-...tchen-whitmer/

I'm getting a 404 not found error for the link. Anyone else?

[ExomatrixTV]

[onawah]

Michigan Lockdown Orders Ruled Unconstitutional

Email update today from: Jeremy R. Hammond jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com via acems1.com

"You'd think it would make headline news all over the US, but I didn't see the New York Times or any other major news outlet mention it. I only learned about it from local news.

Then again, I've been extraordinarily busy the past couple of weeks and unable to keep up with news, so, just to make sure I didn't miss Times coverage of it, I searched their archives from October 2 to the present, and, sure enough, not a single headline about it.

So, in case you didn't know, which seems likely given the apparent media blackout, the Supreme Court here in my home state of Michigan has ruled that the executive orders issued by the head of the lockdown regime, Gretchen Whitmer, are unlawful.
See: https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/M...constitutional

Whitmer had been relying on two different laws to justify her lockdown orders: the Emergency Powers of Government Act of 1945 (EPGA) and the Emergency Management Act of 1976 (EMA).

From the start, I have held that her orders were illegal. Either the EPGA was or was not intended to grant Whitmer such unlimited authority. If it was, then clearly the law itself was unconstitutional because it would mean that the legislature delegated its own lawmaking authority to the executive branch, which violates the fundamental principle of separation of powers and non-delegation.

The same goes for the EMA. Furthermore, under the EMA, any orders she issues under a declared state of emergency require the approval of the legislature, which she initially had. But after April 30, she continued to issue executive orders, citing this law as authority, without legislative approval.

The state's Supreme Court has now affirmed my reading of the law. On October 2, it ruled that her orders after April 30 violated the EMA. And the court ruled that the EPGA was unconstitutional in its entirety because the legislature cannot delegate its lawmaking powers to the executive.

This is a great victory for the rule of law, but we still have a long way to go both here in Michigan and everywhere else to rid ourselves of the threat of these authoritarian measures, not to mention the frightening prospect of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

I will continue exerting my best effort to expose the state propaganda emanating from the government and mainstream media to manufacture consent for unlawful lockdown measures that grossly violate our fundamental human rights."

Posted by justntime2learn (here)

Posted by Satori (here)
I have not done a deep dive into this story, but it is being reported that the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against the Michigan Governor's CV-19 dictates:https://newswithviews.com/burn-your-...tchen-whitmer/

I'm getting a 404 not found error for the link. Anyone else?

[onawah]

Majority Are Already Immune Against SARS-CoV-2
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 14, 2020
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...&rid=987295589

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Several studies suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined, and that the threshold for herd immunity is far lower than previously estimated
German research shows that even among unexposed individuals, 81% were resistant or immune to SARS-CoV-2 infection
Common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection
If a majority already have some measure of immunity against COVID-19 due to previous exposure to other coronaviruses, then we’ve probably already reached the threshold for herd immunity and vaccinating every human on the planet is unnecessary
Several studies suggest the herd immunity threshold is well below 50%, according to one study, as low as 9%. Meanwhile, a mathematical model suggests immunity against SARS-CoV-2, globally, might be as high as 80%


The more data becomes available about SARS-CoV-2, the more obvious it becomes that the response to this pandemic has been grossly overblown. Fatality statistics1,2,3,4,5,6,7 from multiple sources, calculated in a variety of ways, show the risk of dying from COVID-19 is lower than your risk of dying from conventional influenza, at least if you're under the age of 60.

Overall, the data8,9 also show that the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady this year 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.

Several studies also suggest immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is far more widespread than anyone imagined, and that the threshold for herd immunity is far lower than previously estimated.

Most Are Already Immune to SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Studies supporting the claim that widespread immunity against SARS-CoV-2 already exists include:

•Cell, June 202010,11 — This study 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. Importantly, 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 also had resistance to the virus on the T-cell level.

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.

•Nature Immunology, September 202012 — This German study was initially posted on a preprint server in June 2020 under the title, "SARS-CoV-2 T-cell Epitopes Define Heterologous and COVID-19-Induced T-Cell Recognition."13

It's now published in the September 2020 issue of Nature Immunology with the slightly altered title, "SARS-CoV-2-Derived Peptides Define Heterologous and COVID-19-Induced T Cell Recognition."14 Much like the Cell study above, this investigation also found that that:

"Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 peptides revealed pre-existing T cell responses in 81% of unexposed individuals and validated similarity with common cold coronaviruses, providing a functional basis for heterologous immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection."

In other words, even among those who were unexposed, 81% were resistant or immune to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The term "heterologous immunity" refers to immunity that develops against a given pathogen after you've been exposed to a nonidentical pathogen.

Typically, this occurs when viruses are sufficiently similar or from closely related species. In this case, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be sufficiently similar to coronaviruses that cause the common cold, so that if you've been exposed to any of those coronaviruses, your immune system is also able to combat SARS-CoV-2.

•The Lancet Microbe, September 202015,16 — This study found that rhinovirus infection, responsible for the common cold, largely prevented concurrent influenza infection by triggering the production of natural antiviral interferon.

The researchers speculate that the common cold virus could potentially help protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection as well. Interferon is part of your early immune response, and its protective effects last for at least five days, according to the researchers. Co-author Dr. Ellen Foxman told UPI:17

"Infection with the common cold virus protected cells from infection with a more dangerous virus, the influenza virus, and [this] occurred because the common cold activated the body's general antiviral defenses.

This may explain why the flu season, in winter, generally occurs after the common cold season, in autumn, and why very few people have both viruses at the same time. Our results show that interactions between viruses can be an important driving force dictating how and when viruses spread through a population.

Since every virus is different, we still do not know how the common cold season will impact the spread of COVID-19, but we now know we should be looking out for these interactions."

•Nature, July 202018,19,20 — Originally posted on a preprint server in May 2020,21 this Singaporean study was published in the July 2020 issue of Nature.22 Here, they found that common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity could potentially be long-lasting.

Patients who recovered from SARS infection back in 2003 still had T cell reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV now, 17 years later. These patients also had strong cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.

The authors suggest that if you've beaten a common cold caused by a OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2. According to the authors:

"These findings demonstrate that virus-specific T cells induced by infection with betacoronaviruses are long-lasting, supporting the notion that patients with COVID-19 will develop long-term T cell immunity.

Our findings also raise the possibility that long-lasting T cells generated after infection with related viruses may be able to protect against, or modify the pathology caused by, infection with SARS-CoV-2."

•Cell August 202023,24 — This Swedish study, initially posted on a preprint server in June 202025 and now published in the October 2020 issue of the journal Cell,26 found that SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells likely provide long-term immune protection against COVID-19. According to the authors:27

"Acute-phase SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells displayed a highly activated cytotoxic phenotype that correlated with various clinical markers of disease severity, whereas convalescent-phase SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were polyfunctional and displayed a stem-like memory phenotype.

Importantly, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detectable in antibody-seronegative exposed family members and convalescent individuals with a history of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19.

Our collective dataset shows that SARS-CoV-2 elicits broadly directed and functionally replete memory T cell responses, suggesting that natural exposure or infection may prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19."Innate and Adaptive Immunity
It's important to realize you have two types of immunity. Your innate immune system is primed and ready to attack foreign invaders at any moment and is your first line of defense. Your adaptive immune system,28 on the other hand, "remembers" previous exposure to a pathogen and mounts a response when an old foe is recognized.

Your adaptive immune system is further divided into two arms: humoral immunity (B cells) and cell mediated immunity (T cells). The B cells and T cells are manufactured as needed from specialized stem cells. The graphs below are from my vitamin D report and will help you understand the components of these systems and their timing.



If you have never been exposed to a disease but are given antibodies from someone who got sick and recovered, you can gain humoral immunity against that disease. Your humoral immune system can also kick in if there's cross-reactivity with another very similar pathogen.

As you can see from the list above, in the case of COVID-19, evidence29 suggests exposure to other coronaviruses that cause the common cold can confer immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

On the flip side, there's a phenomenon known as viral interference, where exposure to one virus makes you more susceptible to another virus. Importantly, research30 has found that those who received the influenza vaccine were 36% more susceptible to coronavirus infection.

Mathematical Models Add Support for Widespread Immunity

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dUOFeVIrOPg

If it's true that a majority already have some measure of immunity against COVID-19 due to previous exposure to other coronaviruses, then we've probably already reached the threshold for herd immunity, and vaccinating every human on the planet (or close to it) will not be necessary.

Added support for the idea that herd immunity may already have been achieved in most countries comes from statisticians working with mathematical models. In June 2020, Freddie Sayers, executive editor of UnHerd, interviewed31 professor Karl Friston, a statistician who claims immunity against SARS-CoV-2, globally, might be as high as 80%, as reviewed in the video interview above.

Friston is credited with inventing a statistical parametric mapping technique that is now the standard for understanding brain imaging. As the pandemic erupted, he began applying this method of analysis (which he refers to as "dynamic causal modeling") to COVID-19 data, coming up with a model that predicts far lower mortality rates than earlier models.

The reason for this is because the "effective susceptible population," meaning those who are not already immune to COVID-19 and therefore at risk of infection, was never 100%. At most, it was 50% and most likely only around 20%.

Friston's model effectively vaporizes claims that social distancing is necessary, because once sensible behaviors such as staying home when sick are entered into it, the positive effect of lockdown efforts on "flattening the curve" simply vanish. In all likelihood, the global lockdowns were completely unnecessary, and certainly should not continue, now or in the future.

Signs of Herd Immunity Emerge in Sweden
One country that bucked the global lockdown trend was Sweden, and they now appear to be head and neck ahead of most other countries in terms of herd immunity, while having a death toll that is very similar to nations that destroyed their economy and sacrificed the population's mental health in the name of infection control.

Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist in charge of Sweden's coronavirus response, has stated32 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.33

He told The Guardian34 that the primary goal was always merely to slow the spread to avoid overwhelming medical services. The intention was never to prevent infection from spreading altogether, which has indeed proven impossible.

This was in fact the original plan just about everywhere. But while Sweden stuck to the original goal, and by mid-September boasted all-time low infection rates,35 other nations have twisted response plans to prevent infection transmission altogether, even among those for whom the risk of such an infection is vanishingly minor, such as school-aged children.

The two graphs from The Guardian,36 below, show Sweden's infection rate and deaths per million, compared to other countries that enforced stricter lockdown rules.



Herd Immunity Threshold Likely Below 50%
As reported in "Herd Immunity 'Ahead of Schedule'" experts initially estimated that 70% of the population or more would need to be immune before herd immunity would be achieved. Now, more than a dozen scientists claim the herd immunity threshold is likely below 50%.

As stated earlier, if this is true — and as you can see by the studies reviewed, it appears a majority do have some level of immunity — then the need for a vaccine more or less vanishes.

Herd immunity is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.37 R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who's infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise.

It's far from an exact science, however, as a person's susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community. The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19's herd immunity threshold were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community.

"That doesn't happen in real life," Dr. Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told The New York Times.38 "Herd immunity could vary from group to group, and subpopulation to subpopulation," or even zip code. When real-world scenarios are factored into the equation, the herd immunity threshold drops significantly, with some experts saying it could be as low as 10% to 20%.

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. ~ Great Barrington Declaration
Researchers from Oxford, Virginia Tech and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine are among those that found39,40 when individual variations in susceptibility and exposure are taken into account, the herd immunity threshold dips below 10%.

Independent news source Off-Guardian also cited41 data from Stockholm County, Sweden, which shows a herd immunity threshold of 17%,42 as well as an essay by Brown University professor Dr. Andrew Bostom, who noted:43

"Lead investigator Dr. Gomes, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues concluded: "naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune."44

Separate HIT [herd immunity threshold] calculations of 9%,45 10-20%,46 17%,47 and 43%48,49 — each substantially below the dogmatically asserted value of ~70%50 — have been reported by investigators from Tel-Aviv University, Oxford University, University College of London, and Stockholm University, respectively."

Declaration Urges Implementation of Herd Immunity Approach

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE

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.

As reported by British Sky News,51 October 7, 2020, many respected scientists are now calling for 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. According to the article:52

"The so-called Great Barrington declaration, signed by leading experts from the universities of Oxford, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Exeter, Cambridge, Sussex and York, suggests herd immunity as a way forward.

The declaration states: '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 are having "devastating effects on short and long-term public health" that will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class."

- Sources and References
1 CDC.gov August 26, 2020
2 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
3 Greek Reporter June 27, 2020
4 Washington Examiner July 2, 2020
5 FEE.org July 2, 2020
6, 9 Technical Report June 2020 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.24350.77125
7, 8 YouTube, SARS-CoV-2 and the rise of medical technocracy, Lee Merritt, MD, aprox 8 minutes in (Lie No. 1: Death Risk)
10 Cell June 25, 2020; 181(7): 1489-1501.E15
11 Wall Street Journal June 12, 2020 (Archived)
12, 14 Nature Immunology September 30, 2020 DOI: 10.1038/s41590-020-00808-x
13 Immunology Virology June 17, 2020 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-35331/v1
15 The Lancet Microbe September 4, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30114-2
16, 17 UPI September 4, 2020
18, 22 Nature July 15, 2020; 584: 457-462
19 Daily Mail June 12, 2020
20 Science Times June 12, 2020
21 Biorxiv preprint DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.26.115832 (PDF)
23, 26, 27 Cell October 1, 2020; 183(1): 158-168.E14
24 BBC July 1, 2020
25 BioRxiv June 29, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.29.174888
28 Khan Academy, Adaptive Immunity
29 Cell May 14, 2020 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
30 Vaccine January 10, 2020; 38(2): 350-354
31 Unherd.com June 4, 2020
32 Metro August 24, 2020
33 The Sun August 24, 2020
34 The Guardian September 22, 2020
35, 36 The Guardian September 16, 2020
37, 38 The New York Times April 23, 2020
39, 44 medRxiv May 21, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893 (PDF)
40, 41 Off-Guardian July 7, 2020
42, 47 medRxiv May 22, 2020 DOI: 10.1102/2020.05.19.20104596 (PDF)
43 Andrewbostom.org September 2020
45 medRxiv September 10, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.09.06.20189290
46 medRxiv August 31, 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160762
48 Cornell University arXiv.org May 6, 2020
49 Science August 14, 2020; 369(6505): 846-849
50 Immunity May 19, 2020; 52(5): 737–741
51, 52 Sky News October 7, 2020

[Mare]

This dear reader has been doing the rounds since last night. Make of it what you will and apologies if it’s been posted here already.

Fw: LPC Strategic Committee Leak
Inbox
LPC leaker <LPC_leaker@protonmail.com>

1:47 PM (7 hours ago)
‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 10, 2020 1:38 PM, REMOVED <REMOVED> wrote:

> Dear REMOVED,
I want to provide you some very important information. I'm a committee member within the Liberal Party of Canada. I sit within several committee groups but the information I am providing is originating from the Strategic Planning committee (which is steered by the PMO).
>
> I need to start off by saying that I'm not happy doing this but I have to. As a Canadian and more importantly as a parent who wants a better future not only for my children but for other children as well. The other reason I am doing this is because roughly 30% of the committee members are not pleased with the direction this will take Canada, but our opinions have been ignored and they plan on moving forward toward their goals. They have also made it very clear that nothing will stop the planned outcomes.
>
> The road map and aim was set out by the PMO and is as follows:
>
> - Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis, starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding outward. Expected by November 2020.
> - Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities across every province and territory. Expected by December 2020.
> - Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following the same growth curves. Expected by end of November 2020.
> - Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by end of December 2020 - early January 2021
> - Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be transitioned into the universal basic income program. Expected by Q1 2021.
> - Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of infection. Expected by February 2021.
> - Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1 - Q2 2021.
> - Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected Q2 2021.
> - Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income program. Expected mid Q2 2021.
> - Projected supply chain break downs, inventory shortages, large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.
> - Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.
>
>
>
> Along with that provided road map the Strategic Planning committee was asked to design an effective way of transitioning Canadians to meet a unprecedented economic endeavor. One that would change the face of Canada and forever alter the lives of Canadians. What we were told was that in order to offset what was essentially an economic collapse on a international scale, that the federal government was going to offer Canadians a total debt relief. This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided
> to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program. In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever. The individual would also have to agree to partake in the COVID-19 and COVID-21 vaccination schedule, which would provide the individual with unrestricted travel and unrestricted living even under a full lock down (through the use of photo identification referred to as Canada's HealthPass) .
>
> Committee members asked who would become the owner of the forfeited property and assets in that scenario and what would happen to lenders or financial institutions, we were simply told "the World Debt Reset program will handle all of the details". Several committee members also questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to participate in the World Debt Reset program, or the HealthPass, or the vaccination schedule, and the answer we got was very troubling. Essentially we were told it was our duty to make sure we came up with a plan to ensure that would never happen. We were told it was in the individuals best interest to participate. When several committee members pushed relentlessly to get an answer we were told that those who refused would first live under the lock down restrictions indefinitely. And that over a short period of time as more Canadians transitioned into the debt forgiveness program, the ones who refused to participate would be deemed a public safety risk and would be relocated into isolation facilities. Once in those facilities they would be given two options, participate in the debt forgiveness program and be released, or stay indefinitely in the isolation facility under the classification of a serious public health risk and have all their assets seized.
>
> So as you can imagine after hearing all of this it turned into quite the heated discussion and escalated beyond anything I've ever witnessed before. In the end it was implied by the PMO that the whole agenda will move forward no matter who agrees with it or not. That it wont just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas. That we need to take advantage of the situations before us to promote change on a grander scale for the betterment of everyone. The members who were opposed and ones who brought up key issues that would arise from such a thing were completely ignored. Our opinions and concerns were ignored. We were simply told to just do it.
>
>
> All I know is that I don't like it and I think its going to place Canadians into a dark future.



https://thecanadianreport.ca/is-this...21-you-decide/

>

[greybeard]

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Money Talks Update 1 English

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kod8XTnhKGE

[Mare]

Maybe definitely.

[greybeard]

Posted by Mare (here)
Maybe definitely.

I like that turn around Mare -- smiling.
My signature does not always apply Lol
Chris

[ExomatrixTV]

If the Pandemic "Logic" Was Applied To Everything [Sarcasm/Satire]:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dEkxWTsBINI

[ExomatrixTV]

World Health Organisation has 'reversed its position on lockdowns':

• Source

• Herd immunity would save more lives than strict COVID-19 lockdown, study says

[ExomatrixTV]

Volunteer Gets Sick - Two COVID-19 Vaccines Now Shut Down:


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ynC0pfXpXfnk

• Source

[Eligos]

Posted by Mare (here)
This dear reader has been doing the rounds since last night. Make of it what you will and apologies if it’s been posted here already.

Fw: LPC Strategic Committee Leak
Inbox
LPC leaker <LPC_leaker@protonmail.com>

1:47 PM (7 hours ago)
‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 10, 2020 1:38 PM, REMOVED <REMOVED> wrote:

> Dear REMOVED,
I want to provide you some very important information. I'm a committee member within the Liberal Party of Canada. I sit within several committee groups but the information I am providing is originating from the Strategic Planning committee (which is steered by the PMO).
>
> I need to start off by saying that I'm not happy doing this but I have to. As a Canadian and more importantly as a parent who wants a better future not only for my children but for other children as well. The other reason I am doing this is because roughly 30% of the committee members are not pleased with the direction this will take Canada, but our opinions have been ignored and they plan on moving forward toward their goals. They have also made it very clear that nothing will stop the planned outcomes.
>
> The road map and aim was set out by the PMO and is as follows:
>
> - Phase in secondary lock down restrictions on a rolling basis, starting with major metropolitan areas first and expanding outward. Expected by November 2020.
> - Rush the acquisition of (or construction of) isolation facilities across every province and territory. Expected by December 2020.
> - Daily new cases of COVID-19 will surge beyond capacity of testing, including increases in COVID related deaths following the same growth curves. Expected by end of November 2020.
> - Complete and total secondary lock down (much stricter than the first and second rolling phase restrictions). Expected by end of December 2020 - early January 2021
> - Reform and expansion of the unemployment program to be transitioned into the universal basic income program. Expected by Q1 2021.
> - Projected COVID-19 mutation and/or co-infection with secondary virus (referred to as COVID-21) leading to a third wave with much higher mortality rate and higher rate of infection. Expected by February 2021.
> - Daily new cases of COVID-21 hospitalizations and COVID-19 and COVID-21 related deaths will exceed medical care facilities capacity. Expected Q1 - Q2 2021.
> - Enhanced lock down restrictions (referred to as Third Lock Down) will be implemented. Full travel restrictions will be imposed (including inter-province and inter-city). Expected Q2 2021.
> - Transitioning of individuals into the universal basic income program. Expected mid Q2 2021.
> - Projected supply chain break downs, inventory shortages, large economic instability. Expected late Q2 2021.
> - Deployment of military personnel into major metropolitan areas as well as all major roadways to establish travel checkpoints. Restrict travel and movement. Provide logistical support to the area. Expected by Q3 2021.
>
>
>
> Along with that provided road map the Strategic Planning committee was asked to design an effective way of transitioning Canadians to meet a unprecedented economic endeavor. One that would change the face of Canada and forever alter the lives of Canadians. What we were told was that in order to offset what was essentially an economic collapse on a international scale, that the federal government was going to offer Canadians a total debt relief. This is how it works: the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided
> to Canada by the IMF under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program. In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever. The individual would also have to agree to partake in the COVID-19 and COVID-21 vaccination schedule, which would provide the individual with unrestricted travel and unrestricted living even under a full lock down (through the use of photo identification referred to as Canada's HealthPass) .
>
> Committee members asked who would become the owner of the forfeited property and assets in that scenario and what would happen to lenders or financial institutions, we were simply told "the World Debt Reset program will handle all of the details". Several committee members also questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to participate in the World Debt Reset program, or the HealthPass, or the vaccination schedule, and the answer we got was very troubling. Essentially we were told it was our duty to make sure we came up with a plan to ensure that would never happen. We were told it was in the individuals best interest to participate. When several committee members pushed relentlessly to get an answer we were told that those who refused would first live under the lock down restrictions indefinitely. And that over a short period of time as more Canadians transitioned into the debt forgiveness program, the ones who refused to participate would be deemed a public safety risk and would be relocated into isolation facilities. Once in those facilities they would be given two options, participate in the debt forgiveness program and be released, or stay indefinitely in the isolation facility under the classification of a serious public health risk and have all their assets seized.
>
> So as you can imagine after hearing all of this it turned into quite the heated discussion and escalated beyond anything I've ever witnessed before. In the end it was implied by the PMO that the whole agenda will move forward no matter who agrees with it or not. That it wont just be Canada but in fact all nations will have similar roadmaps and agendas. That we need to take advantage of the situations before us to promote change on a grander scale for the betterment of everyone. The members who were opposed and ones who brought up key issues that would arise from such a thing were completely ignored. Our opinions and concerns were ignored. We were simply told to just do it.
>
>
> All I know is that I don't like it and I think its going to place Canadians into a dark future.



https://thecanadianreport.ca/is-this...21-you-decide/

>

If true, terrifying does not even give it justice!

[ExomatrixTV]

A medic’s case against another lockdown:

'Do no harm' are three words all doctors must follow in the course of their work. These words make me convinced that Covid-19 lockdowns are the wrong approach, and a growing number of doctors are on my side.

Medical students throughout the West are taught the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence as pillars of medical ethics. In simple terms, they dictate that the likely benefits of our treatments ought to substantially outweigh their potential risks.

In my practice, I prescribe medications like atorvastatin to lower cholesterol, or warfarin to thin the blood, because international, randomised, double-blind control trials have proven that their benefits far outweigh their risks. If I were to prescribe thalidomide (which causes birth defects) for morning sickness, or phen-phen (which causes heart problems) for weight loss, that would be unethical malpractice; their risks outweigh their benefits. Generally, prescriptions for such medications are not allowed because regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration in the US or the MHRA in the UK take them off the market once their disproportionate risks become clear.

If lockdowns were a prescription drug for Covid-19 treatment, the FDA would never have approved it. The seminal Imperial College London paper and other mathematical models like it were used to justify their use, but clinicians would never prescribe a drug or propose a surgery based on such modelling. The now well-publicised failure of these models to accurately predict Covid-19 outcomes proves the rule.

Luckily, we no longer have to talk about mathematical models. We now have seven months of real-world data to look at. Some pundits compare Sweden to Norway to argue for lockdown. Others compare Sweden to the UK, or Florida to New York to argue against. Either sort is vulnerable to accusations of cherry-picking the data. In medical science, we rely on epidemiologists to take all the available data from all the countries and perform statistical analyses to correct for as many different variables as possible.

This has now been done for lockdowns. In August, the Lancet published an analysis of data from 50 countries. The researchers found that full lockdowns were 'not associated' with decreased mortality from Covid-19. These are hard outcome data; reality cannot be waved away with theories or projections.

So much for the purported benefits. What about the risks? We cannot answer this question fully because a worldwide lockdown experiment has never been run before. However, evidence for the harms of lockdown is now piling up. In the US, homicides are up 50 per cent compared to last summer. In France, domestic violence calls are up 30 per cent. In Canada, almost three times more people are contemplating suicide compared to last year; and in British Columbia, overdose deaths have tripled from pre-pandemic levels. When you deprive children of their education, adults of their livelihood, and elderly people of their social connections, desperation and despair quickly set in. While a thoughtful person might have predicted this, the mathematical models did not.

All of these numbers fit with what I see in my clinical practice. I have personally admitted dozens of elderly people to hospital with illness resulting from social isolation and neglect. Some were literally starving to death. One patient, in her eighties, lived in a retirement community but relied on family members to feed her meals. When they were socially distanced (banned) from the premises, she couldn’t feed herself and her health quickly deteriorated. Another patient, a 92-year-old woman, simply gave up on life and started refusing her meals once her family stopped coming to visit. Both these scenes were catastrophically inhumane and will stick with me for a long time. Neither is captured in the government’s Covid-19 statistics.

So if a physician were to prescribe a lockdown to a savvy patient who asked about the risks, the physician would have to disclose that depression, suicide, homicide, overdose, wife-beating, and starvation are potential side effects. Rare is the patient who would agree to take such a pill, which brings me to the other pillar of medical ethics: autonomy. Physicians do not force treatment on competent, non-consenting patients. When we discuss treatments with patients, we strive to ground those discussions in the patient’s values and not our own.

I am a life-support specialist. At this point in my career, hundreds of elderly patients have instructed me not to put them on life support. Many have told me they are comfortable with their mortality and that if not much time is left to them, they would rather spend it eating ice cream or listening to music with their family, not hooked up to my machines. It is not for me or the SAGE group to tell such a person what they ought to decide. These are questions of values, not medical science, and values are personal.

It would be deeply unethical for me to put such a patient on a ventilator against their wishes. It would likewise be deeply unethical for the SAGE group to commit such a person to social isolation. I know that reasonable, educated people can decline to consent to further lockdowns because I, for myself, do not consent to further lockdowns.

As a medic, my verdict is clear: mandatory government lockdowns amount to a medical recommendation of no proven benefit, of extraordinary potential harm, that do not take personal values and individual consent into account. Physicians who call for their use should hearken back to these core planks of their ethical training.

Written byDr Matt StraussMatt Strauss is the former medical director of the critical care unit at Guelph General Hospital, Canada. He is now an assistant professor of medicine at Queen’s University.

Source

• Herd immunity would save more lives than strict COVID-19 lockdown, study says
• World Health Organisation has 'reversed its position on lockdowns'

[Dick]

Is this already posted? Couldn’t find it with the search function

https://www.bitchute.com/video/0j07OvAk0bXG/

Its an interview with doctor Christiane Northrop about the new corona vaccine, whats in it and what it does.

[syrwong]

Posted by Dick (here)
Is this already posted? Couldn’t find it with the search function

https://www.bitchute.com/video/0j07OvAk0bXG/

Its an interview with doctor Christiane Northrop about the new corona vaccine, what's in it and what it does.

I remember Alex Collier once said that there was a great galactic tyranny which was traced to start from Earth of this era. Now the time is pinpointed to 2020 and most of the people on earth don't know about how important they are, and how much they support it.

[One]

BBC Doctor: PCR Test Flawed - Creates Repeated False Positives!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mwFQfeDRZdE

[greybeard]

FoR tHe LoVe of HuMaNiTy - GeT tHiS tO EvErYbOdY

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ItcPgU8T_Bw

[pueblo]

Posted by greybeard (here)
FoR tHe LoVe of HuMaNiTy - GeT tHiS tO EvErYbOdY

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ItcPgU8T_Bw

"Cerveza bug" Good video btw, highlight was the quote "Truth is treason in the empire of lies".