The Coronavirus Scamdemic

The Corona Virus, Covid-19 has so far (April) killed over 500,000 people worldwide, or so we have been told.  But there is evidence that the deaths have been exaggerated.  For instance an elderly 80 year old man in hospital after having a heart attack is tested positive for a CoronaVirus and he dies in hospital but his death is not put down as heart failure but his death is given as a death of Covid-19 when in reality his death was heart failure.  That is how they exaggerate the deaths.

Another way to look at is how can this virus spread all around the whole planet in every country in such a short space of time.  Could it all be linked to the 5G coverage all around the world?

Millions of peoples lives are being destroyed for a virus that is no more deadly than the flu. According to the World Health Organisation between 250,000 and 600,000 people die of the flu every year and the whole world does not go under lockdown because of it.. There is a hidden agenda behind this CoronaVirus scare.

Click on the link below to download 4 free books on facts that show you without doubt you have been lied to about this Covid-19.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b67q36d4js4nibw/AAA-Csa...


“Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, NO” - Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

Listen to Dr Bhakdis video below







In the graph below remember Sweden did not lockdown and the UK did

The flu killed 64,000 people in the UK in one month in 2018.  How come there was no social distancing or fearmongering by the media or face masks or lockdowns.  The Covid-91 Agenda is the biggest crime in history.

More Death Figure Lies

The article below is titled ‘The President of the AAPS Exposes the Strategem by the CDC and State Health Authorities to Deceptively Inflate COVID-19 Death Statistics’ from greatmountainpublishing.com

Dr. Kristin Held is the President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). She has written an article that exposes the trickery used by the CDC and the State Boards of Health to inflate the COVID-19 infection and death rates. She explains how it was done.

The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) adopted new definitions of COVID-19 cases and COVID-related deaths in April that were adopted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in May. The states were then encouraged to adopt the new definitions.

The State of Minnesota was one of the states that adopted the new CDC definition until Senator (and doctor) Scott Jensen blew the whistle exposing the fraud.

These new definitions had the direct effect of artificially inflating the COVID-19 case and death statistics. Dr. Held reveals that under the new criteria “COVID-related deaths can include anyone who has COVID-19 listed on their death certificate as one of the causes of death- it doesn’t have to be the first or second cause, and no COVID-19 testing is required.”

There a political motivation to increase COVID-19 case and death statistics. Dr. Held reveals that the hospitals that go along with that political program are being handsomely compensated by the Federal Government. Dr. Held explains:

Why would someone want to inflate case counts, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so? As reported in Modern Healthcare, July 17, 2020, “HHS to send $10 billion in round two of relief grants to COVID-19 hot spots.” Modern Healthcare reports, “Hospitals that had more than 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10 will be paid $50,000 for each COVID-19 admission. HHS asked hospitals to start submitting COVID-19 admission data on June 8.”

Hospitals that use the new CDC definition stand to make millions of dollars. The first round of HHS grants was $12 billion and paid $76,975 per admission to hospitals that had more than 100 COVID-19 admissions from January 1 through April 1. Clearly, states hit early got tons of money- Illinois got $740 M, New York got $684 M, and Pennsylvania got $655 M alone. Additionally, Medicaid will pay out $15 billion in relief funds- hospitals must apply by August, so the more cases the better the return.

Remember, this is on top of the extra money commercial insurers and the extra 20% Medicare pay the hospitals for patients hospitalized “with COVID-19.” The hospitals reporting the most cases get the most money. In addition to expanding the definition of a New COVID-19 case to include exposure to a COVID-19 positive patient and a self-reported fever, lowering admission thresholds, and requiring testing on every admission, the ability to code a hospital admission as “with-COVID” is easy and becomes a very lucrative business model.

Dr. Held concludes:

Clearly, hospitals are financially incentivized to code more COVID cases and deaths. Definitions matter. Another sad consequence is that we are losing freedoms and destroying our state and country based on the inflated numbers. Our reopenings are based on these numbers –we have lost our ability to congregate in groups of 10 or more, go to church, school, weddings, funerals, sporting events, concerts, or go anywhere without a mask, or hug our parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, and the lonely.

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 Timothy 6:10.

Politicians Knew Ahead of Time that the New Definition for a COVID-19 Infection Would Artificially Inflate the Numbers

On May 28, 2020, Texas Scorecard’s Erin Anderson reported that “North Texas officials are warning changes in how the state defines and reports cases of the Chinese coronavirus could ‘significantly and artificially’ spike local case totals, creating false alarm as Texas begins to reopen for business.”

Anderson explains that “Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) will begin reporting ‘probable’ COVID-19 cases in addition to ‘confirmed’ cases. Texas is also expanding its criteria for defining ‘probable’ cases, as well as COVID-related deaths.”

Anderson further reveals:

Prior to the new case-definition guidelines, Collin County and Texas have been reporting “confirmed” cases based on laboratory PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests which detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen.

Under the state’s expanded criteria, it is possible to meet the definition of a probable COVID-19 case without exhibiting any symptoms at all.

Collin County Texas Judge Chris Hill explained the harmful effects of the new misleading reporting criteria:

The increase in false positives will result in more residents quarantined for insignificant reasons and will raise public distrust of the state’s reporting. It will also stress health department resources, as contact tracing of more “probable” cases will lead to inflated lists of people being monitored.

“None of these help us stop the spread of COVID-19, nor do they strike a prudent balance between public health priorities and individual concerns,” he said. “This is not the way to keep our communities healthy.”

According the a Collin County, Texas, Health Department Official testifying at a public hearing, the Medical Examiner is now permitted to mark down COVID-19 as a cause of death “if they think that it’s possibly related and they just list it as a cause. That will be counted. So, no diagnostic testing is needed to be counted as a death related to COVID.” The health official emphasized upon questioning that no test is necessary. She stated that “it doesn’t matter how they arrange the cause of death, in this example, it’s listed at the third level. So it doesn’t have to be first, second. They had so many underlying conditions; if it is listed then they will count it [as a COVID-19 death.]”

I know it sounds strange, but it is true. The May 11, 2020, guidance given by John Hellerstedt, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services is that someone could be determined to have COVID-19 with no COVID-19 laboratory testing.

Indeed, according to the guidance from the Texas Department of State Health Services, if someone has traveled to or is a resident “in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2” and later has a simple cough, that is sufficient for the person to be considered a COVID-19 case if there is “no alternative more likely diagnosis.”

That means that if a person lives in an area where there is a COVID-19 breakout and he has a cough, a doctor could just guess that the person has COVID-19 if he doesn’t know what else could be the reason for the cough. Thus the statistics are self-fulfilling prophecies. If the area is considered a “sustained, ongoing community transmission” of COVID-19 then virtually anyone with a cough could be listed as among the COVID-19 statistics which spins up the COVID-19 statistics for the area, and ensuring the area remains one with “sustained, ongoing community transmission” of COVID-19 and accelerating the inclusion of more and more people who do not really have COVID-19 but who are falsely listed as COVID-19 cases. Presto-Chango, you get an instant COVID-19 statistical spike, with no real COVID-19 actual cases. But that statistical spike is then broadcast on the news as a new breakout in COVID-19 cases.

They are just making up the COVID-19 numbers. The COVID-19 statistics are lies.

We know that coronavirus death counts are being inflated – we just don’t know by how much. After all, how could they not be when there is a financial incentive for states and municipalities to report deaths as coronavirus deaths? And for some states, there may even be a political incentive…

Which is why it shouldn’t come as a total surprise when a man who suffered a fatal motorcycle accident in Florida last week was added to the state’s Covid-19 death count. 

Fox 35 did an investigation where they talked to Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino about two deaths of people in their 20s that were labeled coronavirus deaths. When they asked if the people who died had underlying conditions, Pino responded: “The first one didn’t have any. He died in a motorcycle accident.”

When he was asked about whether or not the motorcycle victim’s data was removed from the state’s Covid system, he responded: 

“I don’t think so. I have to double-check. We were arguing, discussing, or trying to argue with the state. Not because of the numbers — it’s 100…it doesn’t make any difference if it’s 99 — but the fact that the individual didn’t die from COVID-19…died in the crashBut you could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash. I don’t know the conclusion of that one.” (bold emphasis in original article)

The Orange County Health Officer Dr. Raul Pino did not seem to think it was unusual that a man who died from a motorcycle accident is being misrepresented as having died of COVID-19. Apparently, such public officials consider lying as just part of the job. He said he did not think that whether the COVID-19 deaths are 99 or 100 makes a difference. He is missing the point. His office was lying about the cause of death. He does not understand that if that is the kind of reporting that is being done throughout Florida, how do we know if any of the other reported COVID-19 deaths are really COVID-19 deaths.

How pathetic that Dr. Raul Pino even tried to make the irrational argument that it is okay to report a person who died in a motorcycle accident as having died from COVID-19 because “it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash.”

Why would the Florida Health Official make such an irrational argument? Because such judgments are being encouraged by the CDC. In written guidance, the CDC has told local officials to put on the death certificate “probable” or “presumed” death from COVID-19 based upon a clinical judgment (i.e., a guess) without any actual scientific test or diagnosis.

Dr. Pino was taking that guidance from the CDC as a license to guess that maybe the COVID-19 caused the motorcyclist to crash his motorcycle. That is just one example of the COVID-19 death statistic inflation that is going on all over the world. Doctors are making guesses as to the causes of death based upon probability or presumption instead of medical judgments as to the causes of death based upon actual scientific diagnoses of causation.

The motorcycle decedent being falsely reported as dying of COVID-19 is just one example that reveals how COVID-19 death statistics are a complete scam.

The Florida Department of Health Reveals a Rigged System

The Florida man who died in a motorcycle accident and then being falsely listed as a COVID-19 death is bad enough. People might be inclined to dismiss the event as an anomaly. But, in fact, it has implications beyond that one instance of a misreported death. In responding to the event, the Florida Department of Health has revealed a system of reporting COVID-19 deaths that calls into question the legitimacy of all of the COVID-19 death statistics being reported throughout the world.

Once the State of Florida got caught misrepresenting a motorcycle death as a COVID-19 death, they removed the motorcycle accident death from the COVID-19 death statistics. But that does not solve the problem. That is because the COVID-19 reporting system in Florida is designed to inflate the COVID-19 death rate. That is how the motorcycle death was reported as a COVID-19 death in the first place. The State of Florida has not revised its reporting system. The same kind of false reporting is very likely continuing today.

How in any rational reporting system could someone who dies in a motorcycle accident be listed as a COVID-19 death? That false reporting is caused by the system set up to count COVID-19 deaths. The reporting system is rigged. The Florida Department of Health, when attempting to explain how the motorcycle death should not have been listed as a COVID-19 death, inadvertently revealed the scam.

Why is COVID-19 being given such special treatment? Why is COVID-19 being automatically listed as the presumptive cause of death simply based upon a positive COVID-19 test at some time in the decedent’s past? Notice that the same is not done for cancer, diabetes, emphysema, heart disease, stroke, or any of a myriad of medical conditions. Only COVID-19 is being given as a presumptive cause of death, with it being necessary to exclude the person from the COVID-19 death statistics with a specific finding of some other cause. And that other cause must be found on a specific list of sudden trauma to be counted. Clearly, COVID-19 has become a political disease for which there is an all-out effort to inflate the death statistics.

All of the Florida COVID-19 statistics should be considered suspect. And if other states and countries are following the system in Florida, which no doubt they are, all COVID-19 statistics should be considered suspect. When I say that other states and countries are no doubt following this same false reporting system as Florida, I mean it.

Colorado Man Who Dies From Alcohol Poisoning is Listed as a COVID-19 Death

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has also followed the CDC guidelines to inflate their COVID-19 numbers. The CDPHE told NBC New 9 Denver that “[w]e classify a death as confirmed when there was a case who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) laboratory test and then died. We also classify some deaths as probable.”

With those standards in mind, they are able to classify virtually any death where a person tests positive for COVID-19 as a COVID-19 death, regardless of the actual cause of death, and they are doing so. A case in Montezuma County in Colorado illustrates that point.

The coroner of Montezuma County in southwestern Colorado couldn’t believe it when the state’s health department concluded a May 4 death in his county was the result of COVID-19.

“I know it’s not correct,” George Deavers told 9Wants to Know Thursday. “Nowhere on the death certificate is COVID even listed. It had nothing to do with his death.”

Deavers ought to know. The death certificate he signed just this week lists the official cause of death for the 35-year old man as “ethanol toxicity.”

In other words, Deavers said, he died because he drank too much alcohol.

“We did blood work. The blood work came back at 550 [mg/dL]. Anything over 300 is lethal,” he said. To be clear, Deavers did test the body for COVID after he received word that the man might have had recent contact with someone with the virus. That test showed the man did, in fact, have COVID-19, but Deavers said he’s “99.9% certain” the virus did not cause the man’s death.

Inflated British COVID-19 Death Statistics

Another example involves two research doctors in England, who reported that, according to the National Health Service (NHS) and Public Health England (PHE) statistical methods for reporting COVID-19 deaths, “[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.” That is precisely how a motorcycle accident death in Florida was falsely reported as a COVID-19 death. England and Florida are both using the same method for inflating COVID-19 death statistics.

False Positive COVID-19 Tests are Part of the Scam

That explains why there is such a push to test people for COVID-19. It is no accident that the false-positive COVID-19 test rate reportedly approaches approximately 80%. The more positive COVID-19 tests they have in the test bank, the more people that they can report as COVID-19 deaths as they die.

Researchers Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter concluded that the RT-PCR test used to detect COVID-19 is so inaccurate that there may be between 22% and 78% false positives. But there is no way to be sure because there is no gold standard against which to verify the accuracy of the tests.

The evidence establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the PCR test used in COVID testing is scientifically “meaningless.” Brian Shilhavy from Health Impact News describes the PCR COVID test as “more akin to a religious belief, than anything based on science.”

How To Determine the False Positive Rate For COVID-19 Tests

The problem with COVID-19 testing is that they are testing for antibodies to the COVID-19, not the actual COVID-19. Some manufacturers have inflated the accuracy of their tests; none of the manufacturers’ published accuracy tests have been independently verified. It is generally accepted that the tests on the market today are 96% accurate. That might sound high, but it is a real problem. Here is why. Suppose that there is an infection rate of 1% for the entire population (which is what many have estimated to be the case for COVID-19). If you test 1,000 people for COVID-19 you would expect to find 10 people who test positive for COVID-19. But since the COVID-19 test is only 96% accurate, you would also find another 40 who test positive who do NOT in fact have COVID-19. That would be a total of 50 people who test positive.

The WHO, however, is trying to throw a wet blanket on a positive COVID-19 test as a basis for an antibody passport. The WHO concluded:

“At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission.”

Why would they undermine the move for an antibody passport, which is based upon immunity? Because the WHO is pushing for a vaccine passport. They want proof of vaccination, not proof of immunity. This is a very sinister game.

Right now our political overlords are using the false positive tests for COVID-19 to spread irrational fear of its widespread infestation. Later, they will change gears and poo-poo those false positives, expose them as such, and push instead for vaccination as the only true way to ensure that a person is immune from COVID-19.

Mandatory vaccinations are on the way. Believe it. You will need proof of vaccination to travel or engage in what we consider normal freedoms today. That is their plan. Since the U.S. has withdrawn funding from the WHO, the single largest funder of the WHO is the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/07/22/the-president-of-the-aaps-exposes-the-strategem-by-the-cdc-and-state-health-authorities-to-deceptively-inflate-covid-19-deaths/

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/07/20/florida-man-who-died-in-a-motorcycle-accident-is-listed-as-a-covid-19-death/

Bombshell Disclosure from a Consultant at a Major Hospital

From 911 Keep Talking Group – July 10, 2020

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 it’s 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.

African president of Burundi calls COVID a hoax, expels the WHO

 ... and is then suddenly found dead

Excerpts:

While the people of the western world occupy themselves wearing masks, pointing fingers and using so much hand sanitizer it literally kills them, the big world of Geo-Politics still ticks along, following the same tired old patterns with only slight variations in method. A modern twist, if you will.

Here’s a little summary of Burundi’s recent history:

  • The president of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, dismissed covid19 as nonsense.
  • The president of Burundi was vilified in the Western press.
  • The president of Burundi expelled the World Health Organization from his country.
  • The president of Burundi died suddenly of a “heart attack”.
  • The NEW president of Burundi immediately reversed his predecessor’s Covid19 policies.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/14/coronavirus-and-regime-change-burundis-covid-coup/


Lockdown Deaths Not COVID Deaths

We have clear evidence that the Lockdown regime has caused, and will continue to cause, ill health and death. We also know that it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 had already spread around the world before any lockdowns were initiated. We also know that the virus lay virtually dormant and only decided to cause statistically significant mortality after the lockdowns began.

We can now add the observations that the harshest elements of the lockdown, namely the refusal to allow care and the dispatching of untested vulnerable people back into high risk communities, only relented as peak mortality began to wane. We can also see, as lockdown restrictions eased, so did the mortality rate.

Nothing discussed here suggests that there is no virus or that COVID-19 doesn't present a threat to health. It suggests that if your response to a public health crisis is to withdraw healthcare from those who need it the most, a spike in mortality is the only possible outcome. Not only are those affected by the disease more likely to succumb to it, but increased mortality from every other comorbidity is hard wired into that lockdown policy.

This would seem to account for the strong correlation between the imposition of healthcare limiting lockdowns and sharp increases in mortality. We can postulate that, prior to this, the virus was causing some mortality within the normal range and distribution of seasonable respiratory illness. Once the WHO identified the "novel" virus and declared a global pandemic, it was the ensuing Lockdown regimes which prompted unseasonable spikes in mortality. This was then attributed to a newly discovered disease that had long been present.

Italy's National Institute of Health (ISS) found that only 12% of reported COVID-19 deaths were actually attributable to the COVID-19 syndrome. Perhaps this explains why another aspect of many Lockdown regimes has been the creation of indecipherable mortality recording systems.

The immediate response will be that this is a circular argument. The Lockdown Regime responded to the conditions on the ground. Policies adapted to circumstances at the time. As mortality reduced some restrictions could be lifted. If lockdowns cause mortality then why is a similar pattern found in a non lockdown country like Sweden?

While Sweden didn't adopt the economic shutdown favoured by other European states, it did operate a policy of socially isolating the most vulnerable in poorly staffed, overcrowded care homes. Swedish care homes have been in a staffing crisis for many years, and this problem was compounded by the Swedish decision to tell all staff, who had any symptom ranging from a headache to a stiff knee, to stay at home. High mortality in the Swedish care system is an established problem and seasonal flu mortality in Swedish care homes is appallingly high.

The MSM, desperate to justify their own national lockdown regimes on behalf of their partners and leading advertisers, the government, have used Sweden's high mortality in care homes as a stick to beat them with. In reality, instead of MSM propaganda land, around 50% of all recorded COVID-19 deaths across Europe, including in the UK, have been in care settings.

Sweden has openly admitted its error. Lena Hallengren, Swedish Health and Social Affairs Minister, stated in a national television interview:

We failed to protect our elderly. That's really serious, and a failure for society as a whole. We have to learn from this, we're not done with this pandemic yet.

It remains to be seen if Sweden will address the systemic failings within it's care sector. Meanwhile Lockdown Regimes around the world persist with the lie that abandoning those most in need will "save lives."

In light of all the other factors we have discussed, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of deaths reported as COVID-19 mortality, by the world's mainstream media (MSM), were not attributable to the syndrome itself, but rather to the various national and statewide lockdown policies.

These were Lockdown regime deaths not COVID-19 deaths. By restricting access to health care for the most vulnerable, any claim that Lockdown Regimes save lives is patently absurd.

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/lockdown-deaths-not-covid-deaths


COVID-19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless

In Brief

  • The Facts:

The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is "scientifically meaningless." They cite an article explaining the science.

  • Reflect On:

Why is there so much controversy surrounding the coronavirus? Is it because there is actually a lot of controversy, fraud and corruption involved with this pandemic?

What Happened: The Bulgarian Pathology Association has taken the stance that the testing used to identify the new coronavirus in patients is “scientifically meaningless.” This comes after the president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Dr. Stoian Alexov, said that European pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies that are specific for  SARS-CoV-2.

He criticized the World Health Organization (WHO) and called them “a criminal medical organization” for creating fear and hysteria without, according to him, providing any verifiable scientific proof of a pandemic.  He made these statements sharing his observations in a video interview summarizing the consensus of participants in a webinar on COVID-19 on May 8, 2020, with the European Society of Pathology. It was conducted by Dr. Stoycho Katsarov, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens’ Rights in Sofia and a former Bulgarian deputy minister of health. The video is on the BPA’s website, which also highlights some of Dr. Alexov’s key points.

This may seem confusing as it goes against information that’s been published. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims that “Potent antibodies found in people recovered from COVID-19.” (source)

According to Alexov, himself and his colleagues have not been able to determine a different pathology of those whom they’ve examined that have said to have passed away from Covid-19 compared to those who passed away from the flu.

Things become more clear as to why the Association has taken the position it has, when we take a look at the science, and an article that goes into more detail.

Why This Is Important/The Science

Is this “fake news?” No, because it’s quite clear that the Bulgarian Pathology Association does take this stance. The fact that they said “COVID-19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless” is true. Whether or not they are correct, would obviously be heavily debated given the fact that again, it seems quite clear that antibodies have indeed been identified. Or have they?

So, what’s their reasoning for such a statement?

They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points. Below is a tidbit from what the article has in it, you really have to actually read the article to get a full understanding.  It’s extremely well-sourced, full of detail and uses not only a number of scientific publications to back up their claims, but also statements from a number of scientists in the field. Again, I recommend you read the entire article here to get the full scope of their reasoning.

In it, they state:

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

They go deep into the science as to why they believe what they do.

We also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:

I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2

They then go on to explain a little deeper the science of PCR testing.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”

And:

This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.

Again, it’s easy to see why the Bulgarian Pathology Association cited this article. Once again, to get the full reasoning and picture as to why the testing being used around the world is useless and can’t actually truly identify this virus and people who are infected with it here.

Part of the reason why this information is so shocking to people is that mainstream media has been choosing to only talk about certain topics, thus many people are not aware of how divided the scientific community is on this issue.

The Takeaway

What’s going on here? Prior to reading the article linked in this one, it seems that testing was simple, that you simply test, and get a result. You can test for a current viral infection, or test for antibodies. I was actually suspicious earlier on in the pandemic when I came across a publication suggesting that up to 75 percent of asymptomatic people are actually false positives. (source)

This was my first introduction to the thought that the testing may not be accurate. Then, there are other strange facts like fruit and animals testing positive for the virus, which also hints at foul play. You can read more about that here.

Now recently there are reports of manipulated data coming out of Florida as some labs had their numbers completely wrong.

Why is there so much controversy surrounding this pandemic? Why are experts in this area being censored if their views and research oppose that of the World Health Organization and our federal health regulatory agencies?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves, do we want to keep relying on corrupt organizations for important information about what’s happening? Why does humanity continue to trust organizations that have a lock track record of deceit, fraud and corruption?

Why do we believe that these organizations actually act in humanity’s best interests? Why are claims constantly made by these organizations, and simply believed, even when there is so much evidence that counters what we are getting from them?

Why do we continue to follow their instructions, obey and comply even when it’s not clear if these measures are for the best interests of the individual and the whole?

What is going on here?

These are all very important questions to ask, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a lot more people asking a lot more questions.

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/science-futures/covid-19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless-says-bulgarian-pathology-association


On the effectiveness of masks

"Seriously people stop buying masks.They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk" - Vice Admiral Jerome Adams (Surgeon General) - The surgeon general of the United States is the operational head of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and thus the leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the federal government of the United States.

"Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19" - Dr. Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-why-ever...

Dehumanizing masks have sadly become a part of the new normal in many states and nations around the world. Many local and state governments are forcing people to wear them, and many businesses are dutifully toeing the official line and refusing entry to customers who don’t wear them. Apart from the obvious truth that widespread mask usage has a deliberately dehumanizing effect

It is a commonsense scientific fact that wearing a mask blocks your airways and therefore leads to both hypercapnia (an increase in and accumulation of carbon dioxide in the body from breathing in exhaled air) and hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the tissues). Symptoms of hypercapnia include dizziness, drowsiness, excessive fatigue, headaches, feeling disoriented, flushing of the skin and shortness of breath. Symptoms of hypoxia include anxiety, restlessness, confusion, changes in the color of skin, cough, rapid breathing, shortness of breath and sweating. Not surprisingly, both conditions are similar, since they are both characterized by a lack of oxygen. In addition, hypoxia has been shown to lead to impaired immunity in general, and to be a forerunner to serious diseases such as atherosclerosis, stroke and heart attack. It is also the necessary precondition for the development of cancer.

Dr. Russell Blaylock warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer. The bottom line is that if you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.

Dr. Russell Blaylock highlights how wearing a mask is actually putting you at more risk of infection, because you are lowering your overall health, strength and immunity by under-oxygenation:

“It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries … A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance. The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome” - Dr. Russell Blaylock

“It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them.

One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make”. - Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of The Blaylock Wellness Report newsletter, is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored four books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, and his most recent work, Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

https://technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-...

Regardless of the comparatively low lethality of Covid19 in the general population (see above), there is still no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of masks in healthy and asymptomatic people in everyday life.

A cross-country study by the University of East Anglia came to the conclusion that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection.

Two US professors and experts in respiratory and infection protection from the University of Illinois explain in an essay that respiratory masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control). The widespread use of masks didn’t prevent the outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan, either.

A study from April 2020 in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine came to the conclusion that neither fabric masks nor surgical masks can prevent the spread of the Covid19 virus by coughing.

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 also comes to the conclusion that respiratory masks offer little or no protection in everyday life. The call for a mask requirement is described as an “irrational fear reflex”.

A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the U.S. CDC also found that respirators had no effect.

The WHO moreover declared in June that truly “asymptomatic transmission” is in fact “very rare”, as data from numerous countries showed. Some of the few confirmed cases were due to direct body contact, i.e. shaking hands or kissing.

In Austria, the mask requirement in retail and catering will be lifted again from mid-June. A mask requirement was never introduced in Sweden because it “does not offer additional protection for the population”, as the health authority explained.

Numerous politicians, media people and police officers have already been caught putting on their respirators in a crowd especially for the television cameras or taking them off immediately when they believed that they were no longer being filmed.

In some cases there were brutal police attacks because a person allegedly “did not wear her mask properly”. In other cases, people with a disability who cannot and do not have to wear a mask, are not allowed to enter department stores .

Despite this evidence, a group called “masks4all”, which was founded by a “young leader” of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos, is advocating worldwide mask requirements. Several governments and the WHO appear to be responding to this campaign.

Many critics suspect that the masks are more likely to have a psychological or political function (“muzzle” or “visible sign of obedience”) and that wearing them frequently might even lead to additional health problems.

A study from Germany empirically showed that the introduction of face masks had no effect on infection rates (see graph). Only the city of Jena appeared to experience a strong decrease in infections, but Jena simultaneously introduced very strict quarantine regulations.

You had better listen to this expert before you wear a mask:

https://youtu.be/WqhwwLbNZqo

Damage the Immune System

The following excerpt was taken from this article published by the Alachua Chronicle in Gainesville, Florida: Face masks can damage the immune system.

Stress can lower your immunity. A face-covering or mask that interferes with respiration can add to stress. Cortisol is a hormone closely linked with stress. It works as a key player in the body’s stress response and is often measured in research as an indicator of stress.

Cortisol plays a vital role in the body’s functioning; it’s secreted by the kidney’s adrenal glands. But high and sustained blood levels of cortisone in individuals stressed by the fear of COVID-19 can trigger serious and emergent health issues.

Higher and more prolonged levels of cortisol in the bloodstream (such as those associated with chronic stress) have been shown to have negative effects, such as:

  • Impaired cognitive performance
  • Suppressed thyroid function
  • Blood sugar imbalances such as hyperglycemia
  • Decreased bone density
  • Decrease in muscle tissue
  • Higher blood pressure
  • Lowered immunity and inflammatory responses in the body, slowed wound healing, and other health consequences
  • Increased abdominal fat, which is associated with a greater amount of health problems than fat deposited in other areas of the body. Some of the health problems associated with increased stomach fat are heart attacks, strokes, developing metabolic syndrome, higher levels of “bad” cholesterol (LDL) and lower levels of “good” cholesterol (HDL), which can lead to other health problems.

Uncomfortable and Depressing

Anyone who has ever worn a tight, scratchy, synthetic mask knows they are so uncomfortable they want to take it off as soon as they put it on (the much more comfortable 100% cotton masks simply don’t work). And, that the longer they feel compelled to wear the mask, the more depressing the whole experience becomes.

Not only is this discomfiting experience physically depressing for all the reasons explained above, it can also become emotionally distressing.

There is a LOT of anecdotal evidence that proves the longer the mask is worn throughout the day, the more dispiriting. Likewise, the more days or weeks of continuous mask-wearing, the more distressful life becomes.

The best example of this new fact of life can be found in the many stores where the employees have been forced to wear a mask during the entire work day. Clearly, they are not happy. Nor are they as helpful as they used to be. The usual courtesy and cheerfulness have been replaced with gloom and/or sadness and/or frustration and/or anger.

Inflammatory Wedge Issue

Whoever put out the official advice of wearing a mask in the manner which has been adopted nationwide has performed a tremendous disservice. Common sense tells everyone that when your immune response can be so compromised by constant mask-wearing, a case of Coronavirus syndrome becomes much more likely.

Dr. Judy Mikovits on Masks

Former NIH virologist, Dr. Judy Mikovits, said, “The unprecedented widespread use of masks is ineffective and harmful. If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person who is ill with COVID-19,” according to the WHO guidelines.

She added, “Masks weaken the body making the virus’ job easier. They also reduce the intake of oxygen and trap the exhaling of carbon dioxide at the mouth and nose so that the body’s ability to fight off infection can be diminished.”

Dr. Mikovits quoted Dr. Jim Meehan, MD:

“Medical masks [cloth] are single-use devices designed to be worn for a relatively short period. Once the mask becomes saturated with moisture from breath, which, if properly fit, takes about an hour, it should be replaced. The more moisture-saturated the mask becomes, the more it blocks oxygen, increases re-breathing of carbon dioxide, re-breathing of viral particles, and becomes a breeding ground for other pathogens.”

“I cannot recall any time in human history when nearly universal use of masks throughout society has successfully controlled the spread of disease,” Dr. Mikovits said. “The data support the opposite. That is, masks suppress the immune system, render the mist vulnerable to infection, and amplify more viruses in the compromised who become victims and further spread the disease among family and close contacts” - Dr. Judy Mikovits

The mask as a symbol of subjugation by Bill Willers, emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, USA:

 We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.

— The New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2020

They told us exactly what was coming, and advised us to shut up and follow orders. Tragically, most people have done just that.
— CJ Hopkins, 2020

It’s difficult to imagine a crueler attack on the human family than the insidious prevention of person-to-person contact. What amounts to house arrest, plus enforced wearing of masks, plus the order to stay a body length from others, has the stated aim of preventing contagion, but as philosopher Giogio Agamben put it recently, “It is political contagion, let it be understood”. He’s correct. The contagion that must be checked is not viral but political. The triad of official mandates hinders communication that cannot be monitored. If online, unauthorized political discourse and strategy can be recorded for the individual’s dossier. In the street not so, at least not yet. The 9/11 attack, which resulted in the Patriot Act (of ironic title) that trashes the U.S. Constitution, resulting in free rein for the nation’s intelligence organizations in concert with the social media giants. The First Amendment is being negated according to someone’s definition of “hate speech” or “community standards”, with entire sites of information and opinion being “deplatformed”. The Fourth Amendment is a hollow lie in that each citizen’s every act is recorded toward that planned-for day in which all activities are digitally recorded, and woe betide creative souls who offend the rules.The lockdown was never really about a pandemic. Covid19 was just the pretext. Bill Gates himself admitted (in an unguarded moment?) that earlier SARS and MERS were more “fatal,” i.e., more lethal, than Covid19, yet they came and went without crashing the economy. But more than just the economy, it was day-to-day existence as we all live it that was a prime target of the lockdown. Ending the lockdown tomorrow would not counter the damage already done. We’ve been psychologically mauled, and there’s no end in sight. Warnings of “spikes” and of future waves come daily. Yes, countless jobs and businesses are being lost, but it is the devastating psychological impact that permeates society throughout that is inescapable. The emotional and spiritual damage will not be healing anytime soon. As intended, we are disoriented and will be for decades as the “conspiring internationalists”, so-called by David Rockefeller, prepare us for a life according to their globalist design.The cloth masks seen everywhere now are symbolic. However useful in stopping airborne droplets, they do not hinder the passage of viruses, made clear by the warning on a box of the type of mask commonly seen. The media’s favorite expert, Anthony Fauci, stated flatly on CBS 60 Minutes in March that “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask”. Two months later, as lockdown demands intensified, his stance shifted to the mask as “a symbol for people to see”. Review articles indicating that masks are ineffective, or even counterproductive, rarely make it to mainstream viewers, or they are simply disappeared. But symbol the mask certainly is — a symbol of subjugation.Living fully and free carries a normal level of risk. In addition to assorted germs and parasites that are a part of nature, there are lightning strikes, auto collisions, falling down stairs and being victimized by criminals — primarily elements within our governing structures. We are being conned with a manufactured terror campaign by a power bloc that considers the bulk of ordinary society a herd to be manipulated. The many who understand this, but who nevertheless wear a mask simply to conform to what they assume to be majority agreement, are allowing themselves to become part of the con. Take the damned thing off! Breathe free! – by Bill Willers, emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh.

“Wearing a mask…offers little, if any, protection from infection” – Harvard doctors

In Brief

  • The Facts:

A study published in the New England Medical Journal outlines how it's already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting.

  • Reflect On:

Should we have the freedom to wear masks? Why are so many things we are doing right now contrary to data and evidence? Are these measures helping us thrive, or are they totalitarian type measures?

What Happened: Is this fake news? No, it’s a quote directly from a paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D. Whether or not it’s true may be up for debate, but these authors put it quite bluntly. According to the paper:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients.

That being said, the study acknowledge that the mask “may” provide some protection, and so do other published studies as well, but we can’t say this for sure. It might simply be a harmless precautionary measure in the minds of many as well. But to mandate them seems to be, in the minds of many, not the correct thing to do, especially when there is science on both ends of the coin.

The study goes on to examine whether a mask alone is even an effective health-care measure, and discusses its capability alone devoid of other, what seem to be more important practices, like washing your hands. Instead of a mandate, should the citizenry simply be encouraged to wear masks, with the government explaining the science and still giving people a choice?  Why are they saying it’s to protect other people when there is no evidence that it actually does that?

What’s interesting about this particular study is that it’s one of multiple that mention how masks are more of a symbolic representation. As mentioned above, the paper states that “in many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” Again, the study is an examination of the validity of masks in a health care setting (which is also questionable) with regards to the new coronavirus, and clearly states that it’s already known that they offer almost zero protection in a public setting.

It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and

11 Covid Assumptions Based on Fear not Fact

https://thefreedomarticles.com/busted-11-covid-ass...

Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.

Assumption 1: The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate

A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation (in nations all over the world) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense. Well, it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the virus as dying from the virus. This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the ‘official’ death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value.

Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate

As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it is able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool. COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch’s postulates. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws:

1. There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch’s postulates);

2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;

3. It generates many false positive results;

4. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive;

5. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and

6. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘virus’ is the cause of the disease!

In summary, the PCR test doesn’t identify or isolate viruses, doesn’t provide RNA sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample. That is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless:

“Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available. As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”“

Here is the admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms …this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions. Go figure.

Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate

If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don’t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:

1. Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired;

2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;

3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;

4. Antibodies don’t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and

5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you’re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you’re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It’s all about the interpretation.

Hhmmm … all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring, are they?

Assumption 4: The COVID Case Count is Rising

Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that dangerous, how come cases keep rising? The answer is simple: because there is more testing. The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this ‘virus’(really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows it’s not that dangerous). As discussed in previous articles, there is really no proof that people didn’t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.

That aside, a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud, and COVID testing is no exception. It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK, but probably happening in many places). This article explains that the “discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual twice.” Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this previously quoted article states:

” … it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results. For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.

A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

“It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.” ”

Assumption 5: Thermal Imaging/Screening for COVID is Effective

Taking people’s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit. On a practical level, taking people’s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature. Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about all the things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure, which could lead to an elevated temperature!

In this way it is similar to the antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although there is a very much a point in terms of control).

COVID-19 Testing: What Are We Doing? What Does “Positive” Test Really Mean?

Assumption 6: Asymptomatic People Can Spread the Disease

One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people’s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else. This has the effect of making people anxious, scared and even paranoid in just going about their daily life. However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about. This Chinese study A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of the 455 were infected!

WHO (World Health Organization) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM CNBC saying the following last month in June (though she later backtracked her comments):

““From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.””

Assumption 7: Making Schools Adopt Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread

Of the many COVID assumptions floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from WorldOMeter state that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths, which is essentially zero. Meanwhile, CDC stats show that “among 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 years” which is likewise a tiny fraction. With this in mind, why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines (pictured above and also found at this link in full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?

Assumption 8: It’s a Good Idea for Government to Take Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents

Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun. This article from June 17th 2020 reports how the “LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.”

Let that sink in for a minute. The State stole a child from his/her parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by WHO official Michael Ryan in March, that people would be removed from their families in a “safe and dignified” way. Ryan said:

“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”

Mercola.com reports that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing.

How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what is happening?

Assumption 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence

Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It’s not. Whether it’s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The article There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states:

“The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings.”

Meanwhile UK governmental advisor Robert Dingwall said:

“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.”

Of course, the assumption that social distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all the disease – which has not been proven.

Assumption 10: Mask Wearing for Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence

The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks, or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them. One of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is ‘respectful’ to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses. This is patently false. As covered in the previous article Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don’t Protect You, masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue, weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes … more susceptibility to disease. As I previously wrote, the masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10–9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won’t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here’s what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say:

“The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”

Assumption 11: We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses

The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people. In fact, the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma petrochemical drugs and vaccines). Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in earlier articles such as Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka exposed the truth that viruses do not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka writes:

“Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus … according to scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out … These control experiments have never been carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.

In other words, the cells die of starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture), not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature of Viruses is well worth watching. It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:

Viruses are created from within your cells; they do not come from outside the body

They arise as a result of systemic toxicity, not because the body has been invaded by an external threat

Viruses dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death. Without viruses, the human body couldn’t achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in the face of systemic toxicity

Viruses are very specific. They dissolve specific tissues in the body. They do this with the assistance of antibodies

The more toxicity you have in your body, the more viral activity you will have

The only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or vaccines; otherwise, viruses cannot infect you by jumping from one body to another

Viruses are discriminatory by nature, made by the body for a specific purpose. They are not indiscriminate killers

The RT-PCR test (PCR test for short) observes genetic material left over by the virus, not the virus itself (see assumption 2)

Conclusion: Time to Question all Your COVID Assumptions

The good news is that these are assumptions not facts. When you look closely, you will realize the entire official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand. It cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a COVID-crazed and brainwashed world. Spread the word. Evidence, information and knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance.

Written by Makia Freeman the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com - https://thefreedomarticles.com

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur pharetra dapibus pharetra. Donec interdum eros eu turpis pharetra et hendrerit est ornare. Etiam eu nulla sapien. Nullam ultricies posuere nunc, eget mollis nulla malesuada quis.

More Truth about Covid-19

The Covid-19 pandemic is an absolute Scamdemic and the following articles below confirm this with links to factual data.

Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment.

The 30 points below are from the Swiss Policy Research https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

Overview

1.According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).

2.In countries like the US, the UK, and also Sweden (without a lockdown), overall mortality since the beginning of the year is in the range of a strong influenza season; in countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, overall mortality is in the range of a mild influenza season.

3.Even in global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.

4.Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons develop at most moderate symptoms.

5.Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid-19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses). The initial assumption that there was no immunity against Covid-19 was not correct.

6.The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.

7.In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from weeks of extreme stress and isolation.

8.Up to 30% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.

9.Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.

10.Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.

11.Strong increases in regional mortality can occur if there is a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick as a result of infection or panic, or if there are additional risk factors such as severe air pollution. Questionable regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.

12.In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. Moreover, this year up to 15% of health care workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.

13.The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.

14.Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as JapanSouth KoreaBelarus or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.

15.The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.

16.Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. tiny particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles or smartphones). The main modes of transmission are direct contact and droplets produced when coughing or sneezing.

17.There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.

18.Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Millions of surgeries and therapies were cancelled, including many cancer screenings and organ transplants.

19.Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.

20.The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react positive to other coronaviruses.

21.Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups.

22.At no time was there a medical reason for the closure of schools, as the risk of disease and transmission in children is extremely low. There is also no medical reason for small classes, masks or ‘social distancing’ rules in schools.

23.The claim that only (severe) Covid-19 but not influenza may cause venous thrombosis and pulmonary (lung) embolism is not true, as it has been known for 50 years that severe influenza greatly increases the risk of thrombosis and embolism, too.

24.Several medical experts described express coronavirus vaccines as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions. In the testing of new coronavirus vaccines, too, serious complications and failures have already occurred.

25.A global influenza or corona pandemic can indeed extend over several seasons, but many studies of a “second wave” are based on very unrealistic assumptions, such as a constant risk of illness and death across all age groups.

26.Several nurses, e.g. in New York City, described an oftentimes fatal medical mis­manage­ment of Covid patients due to questionable financial incentives or inappropriate medical protocols.

27.The number of people suffering from unemployment, depressions and domestic violence as a result of the measures has reached historic record values. Several experts predict that the measures will claim far more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN 1.6 billion people around the world are at immediate risk of losing their livelihood.

28.NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the permanent expansion of global surveillance. Renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist Professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.

29.More than 600 scientists have warned of an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.

30.A 2019 WHO study on public health measures against pandemic influenza found that from a medical perspective, “contact tracing” is “not recommended in any circumstances”. Nevertheless, contact tracing apps have already become partially mandatory in several countries.


Studies of Covid-19 lethality

Stanford professor John Ioannidis published an overview of Covid-19 antibody studies. According to his analysis, the lethality of Covid19 (IFR) is below 0.16% in most countries and regions. Ioannidis found an upper limit of 0.40% for three hotspots.

In its latest report, the US health authority CDC reduced the Covid19 lethality (IFR) to 0.26% (best estimate). Even this value may still be seen as an upper limit, since the CDC conservatively assumes 35% asymptomatic cases, while most studies indicate 50 to 80% asymptomatic cases.

At the end of May, however, Swiss immunologists led by Professor Onur Boyman published what is probably the most important study on Covid19 lethality to date. This preprint study comes to the conclusion that the usual antibody tests that measure antibodies in the blood (IgG and IgM) can recognize at most one fifth of all Covid19 infections.

The reason for this discrepancy is that in most people the new coronavirus is already neutralized by antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or by cellular immunity (T-cells). In most of these cases, no symptoms or only mild symptoms develop.

This means that the new coronavirus is probably much more common than previously thought and the lethality per infection is up to five times lower than previously assumed. The real lethality could thus be well below 0.1% and hence in the range of strong seasonal influenza.

In fact, several studies have now shown that up to 60% of all people already have a certain cellular immunity to Covid-19, which was acquired through contact with previous coronaviruses (common cold viruses). Children in particular often come into contact with such coronaviruses, which could help explain their insensitivity to Covid19.

The new Swiss study may also explain why antibody studies even in hotspots like New York or Madrid found infection rates of at most about 20%, as this would correspond to an actual rate of nearly 100%. In many regions, the actual prevalence might already be well over 50% and thus in the range of herd immunity.

Should the Swiss study be confirmed, the assessment of Oxford epidemiologist Prof. Sunetra Gupta would apply, who predicted early on that Covid-19 is very widespread and its lethality below 0.1%.

Despite the comparatively low lethality of Covid-19 (deaths per infection), the mortality (deaths per population) can still be increased regionally and in the short term if the virus spreads rapidly and reaches high risk groups, especially patients in nursing homes, as indeed happened in several hotspots (see below).

Due to its rather low lethality, Covid-19 falls at most into level 2 of the five-level pandemic plan developed by US health authorities. For this level, only the “voluntary isolation of sick people” is to be applied, while further measures such as face masks, school closings, distance rules, contact tracing, vaccinations and lockdowns of entire societies are not recommended.

Regarding contact tracing, a WHO study on influenza pandemics from 2019 also came to the conclusion that from a medical point of view this is “under no circumstances recommended”, since it is not expedient for easily communicable and generally mild respiratory diseases.

It is sometimes argued that the rather low lethality was not known at the beginning of the pandemic. This is not entirely true, as data from South Korea, the cruise ships and even from Italy already showed in March that the risk to the general population is rather low.

Many health authorities also knew this, as leaked emails from Denmark in mid-March show: “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.”

Some media nevertheless continue to calculate an allegedly much higher Covid19 lethality rate of sometimes over 1% by simply dividing deaths by “infections”, without taking into account the age and risk distribution, which is absolutely crucial especially for Covid19.

The latest data from the European mortality monitoring Euromomo shows that several countries such as France, Italy and Spain are already entering a below-average mortality. The reason for this is that the average age of Covid19 deaths was very high and fewer people than usual are now dying in this age group.


The role of nursing homes

Nursing homes played an absolute key role in the Covid 19 pandemic. In most countries, one to two thirds of all Covid19 deaths occurred in nursing homes, and up to 80% in Canada and some US states. Even in Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown, 75% of deaths occurred in nursing facilities.

It is all the more worrying that some authorities have obliged their nursing homes to admit Covid patients from the clinics, which has almost always resulted in numerous new infections and deaths. This happened in northern Italy, England and the heavily affected US states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

It is also known from northern Italy that the widespread fear of the virus and the announced lockdown of the country led to the flight of the predominantly Eastern European nurses, which further accelerated the breakdown of elderly care.

In the United States, at least 42% of all Covid19 deaths are accounted for by 0.6% of the population living in nursing homes. Nursing homes require targeted protection and do not benefit from a general lockdown of society as a whole.

It is well known that even common corona viruses (cold viruses) can be very dangerous for people in nursing homes. Stanford professor John Ioannidis pointed out already in mid-March that coronaviruses may have a case mortality rate of up to 8% in nursing homes.

In addition, it is often not clear whether these people really died from Covid-19 or from weeks of stress and total isolation. For example, there were approximately 30,000 additional deaths in English nursing homes, but in only 10,000 cases, Covid19 is noted on the death certificate.

In April alone, around 10,000 additional dementia patients without corona infection died in England and Wales due to weeks of isolation. Investigations into the situation in nursing homes have been initiated or requested in several countries.

Nursing homes play an absolutely key role in the current corona situation. In most Western countries, 30% to 70% of all deaths “related to Covid” occurred in nursing homes (in some regions even up to 90%). It is also known from northern Italy that the crisis there began with a panic-induced collapse of nursing care for the elderly.

Nursing homes require targeted protection and do not benefit from a general lockdown of society. If one looks only at the deaths in the general population, in most countries these are in the range of a normal or even mild wave of influenza.

Moreover, in many cases it is not clear what people in nursing homes really died of, i.e. whether it was Covid19 or stress, fear and loneliness. From Belgium, for example, it is known that about 94% of all deaths in nursing homes are untested “presumed cases”.

new analysis of French statistics moreover shows the following: as soon as there is a “suspected case” in a nursing home (e.g. due to coughing), all deaths are considered “suspected Covid19 deaths”, and as soon as there is a “confirmed case” in a nursing home (even if symptomless), all deaths are considered “confirmed Covid19 deaths”.

A report from Germany vividly describes the extreme conditions under which hundreds of thousands of patients in care and nursing homes have had to live in recent weeks, often against their will. Many of the patients were barely allowed to leave their rooms, were no longer allowed to go out into the fresh air or receive visits from their relatives.

In several nursing homes, the error-prone PCR virus test moreover led to serious false alarms and panic. In one Canadian nursing home, employees fled in fear of the corona virus, resulting in the tragic death of 31 patients due to lack of care.

The former New York Times journalist and Corona critic Alex Berenson writes on Twitter: “Let’s be clear: the fact the nursing home deaths are not front and center every day in elite media coverage of COVID tells you everything you need to know about the media’s priority – which is instilling panic (and punishing Trump), not driving good health policy.”

 

The role of hospitals

The second central factor regarding infections and deaths, in addition to the nursing homes, are the hospitals themselves. A case study in Wuhan already showed that around 41% of hospitalized Covid patients had in fact contracted Covid in the hospital itself.

Contagion in hospitals also played a decisive role in northern Italy, Spain, England and other regions that were severely affected, meaning that the clinics themselves became the main place of transmission of Covid19 to already weakened people (so-called nosocomial infection) – an issue that had already been observed during the SARS outbreak from 2003.

Based on current knowledge, those countries that managed to avoid outbreaks of infection in nursing homes and hospitals had comparatively few deaths. The general lockdown of society, however, played no role or even a counterproductive role (see below).

An additional factor is the sometimes fatal medical mistreatment of Covid patients with aggressive drugs or invasive ventilation, the risks of which experts have been warning about for months. In the US, for example, there have been questionable financial incentives to connect Covid patients to ventilators, a practice that is now being investigated in several states.

See alsoAn undercover nurse reporting from the ‘epicenter’ in New York City (Video)


The clinical picture of Covid-19

The well-known Hamburg medical examiner Professor Klaus Püschel presented his study (English) on the first 12 of 190 detailed corona autopsies at a press conference (German).

Professor Püschel again emphasized that Covid-19 “is not nearly as threatening as was initially suspected”. The danger was “too much influenced by media images”. The media had focused on severe individual cases and fueled panic with “completely wrong messages”. Covid-19 is not a “killer virus” and the call for new medicine or vaccines is “driven by fear, not facts.”

The specific cause of death of the examined cases was pneumonia, but in about 50% of the cases there were venous thrombosis in the legs, which can lead to fatal pulmonary embolism. The kidneys and heart muscle were also partially affected. Professor Püschel therefore recommends the preventive administration of blood-thinning medication for serious Covid cases.

With regard to thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, Professor Püschel – like other experts before – emphasized that a “lockdown” with quarantine at home was “exactly the wrong measure”, since the lack of exercise itself promotes thrombosis. Indeed, US specialists have already been warning of this risk after even Covid-negative people developed unexpected thrombosis.

Many media again misinterpreted the autopsy findings and spoke of Covid-19 as a particularly dangerous disease which, unlike influenza, is said to lead to thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. This is not true, however: it has been known for 50 years that even severe influenza can greatly increase the risk of thrombosis and embolism and can affect the heart muscle and other organs. Even the recommendation regarding preventive blood thinner for severe influenza has been around for 50 years already.


Children and schools

Numerous studies have now shown that children hardly get Covid19 and do not or hardly transmit the virus, which was already known from the 2003 SARS outbreak. There was therefore no medical reason for the closure of schools at any time.

Accordingly, all those countries that reopened their schools in May saw no increase in cases of infection. Countries like Sweden, which never closed their primary schools anyway, had no problems with this either.

A preprint study by the German virologist Christian Drosten argued that the risk of infection from children is comparable to adults and schools should therefore remain closed. However, several researchers demonstrated methodological errors in the study. Drosten subsequently withdrew the recommendation regarding school closures.

In some schools, for example in France and Israel, alleged “corona outbreaks” are said to have occurred. However, it is likely that these are transmissions from teachers to schoolchildren that, to their dismay, are regularly tested, although they hardly show any symptoms and are themselves hardly or not at all contagious.

The British Kawasaki Disease Foundation again criticized the dubious and lurid media coverage of Kawasaki disease. In fact, there has been no significant increase in Kawasaki cases and no proven association with Covid-19. General inflammatory reactions in individual children are also known from other viral infections, but the number of cases reported so far is extremely low.

German medical associations have also given the all-clear: Covid-19 is imperceptible or very mild in almost all children. Schools and daycare centers should therefore be opened immediately and without restrictions, ie there is no need for small groups, distance rules or masks.


On the origin of the virus

In mid-March, some researchers argued in a letter to the journal Nature Medicine that the Covid19 virus must be of natural origin and not “from a laboratory”. They cited the structure of the virus and the fact that the binding to the human ACE2 cell receptor did not correspond to the theoretical maximum.

In the meantime, however, numerous renowned virologists have contradicted this argument. An artificial origin in the context of virological functional research is “at least as plausible” as a natural origin. In fact, coronaviruses of this kind have been intensively researched in several laboratories for almost 20 years (i.e. since the SARS outbreak in 2003), they say.

Arguments in favour of an artificial origin include in particular that the binding to the human ACE2 cell receptor is significantly stronger than in all common source animals and that no direct source animal could be identified so far. In addition, the virus contains some striking functional gene sequences that might have been inserted artificially (see graphic below).

The initial theory of the animal market in Wuhan has since been rejected because none of the animals there tested positive and a third of the very first patients had no connection to the animal market. The animal market is now seen as a secondary place of transmission.

It is known that the virological laboratory in Wuhan, in collaboration with the United States and France, researched coronaviruses and thereby also generated “potentially pandemic pathogens” (PPP) that are particularly easy to transmit and / or particularly dangerous. In addition, there have been several laboratory accidents with virus releases in China and the USA.

The unbiased observer must therefore continue to consider several realistic options: a natural origin of the virus (as assumed with SARS 2003), a laboratory accident as part of functional research (probably in Wuhan), or even a targeted release by a geopolitically interested actor in the East or West.

Nevertheless, the Covid19 virus is not a “biological weapon” in the classic sense: the virus is very easily transmissible, but not particularly dangerous for the general population. Animal studies have shown that much more deadly corona viruses can be generated.

Vaccines against Covid-19

Various politicians in Europe and the US have declared that the “corona crisis” can only be ended by a vaccine that is currently being developed.

However, many experts have pointed out that an express vaccine against the new coronavirus is not necessary or useful due to the overall low lethality (see above) and the already declining spread. The protection of risk groups, especially in nursing homes, could be much more targeted.

Some experts like the Swiss infectiologist Dr. Pietro Vernazza also pointed out that experience shows that the high-risk group in particular benefits the least from vaccination, since their immune system no longer reacts adequately to the vaccine.

Various experts have also pointed out the significant health risks of an express vaccine. In fact, vaccination against the so-called “swine flu” from 2009/2010, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage, particularly in children, and to claims for damages in the millions.

Nevertheless, several billion dollars of private and public funds have already been collected for the development of a vaccine. An “immunity certificate” for work and travel is still being discussed. However, contrary to most media reports, the two leading vaccine projects had some serious complications.

In the case of the Oxford University vaccine, in animal experiments all six rhesus monkeys fell ill with Covid19 despite vaccination and were as infectious as the unvaccinated monkeys. Nevertheless, the vaccine was moved on to the human test phase. However, the project manager explained that the coronavirus had already become so rare in the population that the clinical trial may deliver no result.

In the case of the novel RNA vaccine from Moderna, which was unusually tested directly in human experiments, 20% of the participants in the high-dose group had a “serious side effect”, although Moderna only allowed very healthy people to try it.

One of the Moderna participants was then presented and interviewed by CNN as a “hero”. However, it was agreed not to mention that the participant passed out after the vaccination and became “as sick as never before in his life”. Several experts also criticized Moderna for not disclosing their clinical data sufficiently.

The director of the US Corona Vaccine Rapid Development Program was himself previously a director at Moderna. President Trump also announced that the vaccine might be distributed nationwide with the U.S. military. Some countries, such as Denmark, have already created the legal basis for mandatory vaccination of the entire population. In Germany, too, various politicians have spoken out in favor of compulsory vaccination.

Proponents of compulsory vaccination, such as World Medical President Frank Montgomery, argue that the population must be vaccinated to protect those who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons. In view of the rather low lethality of Covid19 and the already wide prevalence, this argumentation seems rahter questionable, however. In addition, there are the serious vaccine risks outlined above.

Nevertheless, the head of the largest European ticket portal Eventim said that “major events may not return until there is a vaccine or a correspondingly effective medication.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who co-chaired the vaccine summit in early June with US billionaire Bill Gates, described the GAVI vaccine alliance as a kind of “health NATO”. Nevertheless, “immunity passports” are likely to fail since even antibody tests can only detect about 20% of all infections, as the study by Professor Boyman’s group has shown.

Below Dr. Carrie Madej’s Warning on 2020 Covid Vaccine.

https://www.brighteon.com/348cf68a-443f-4dd0-b411-...


Below is an article from Dr. Vernon Colemans website:

Why has Italy got such a high death rate from the coronavirus? There are several explanations but one is that many Italians smoke and there is much air pollution in areas such as Lombardy where there have been many deaths. Another explanation is that the majority of patients with the coronavirus in Italy are older and have serious underlying disorders. However, according to Professor Ricciardi, scientific advisor to Italy’s minister of health, another reason is that anyone who dies in Italy and who has the coronavirus will be listed as having died of the coronavirus. So, 80-year-olds who die of cancer or heart disease, but who tested positive for the coronavirus, are listed as having died from the coronavirus. Professor Ricciardi says, in the Daily Telegraph, that when the National Institute of Health re-evaluated the death certificates only 12% showed a direct causality from coronavirus whereas 88% of those who died had at least one, two or three underlying illnesses. A study published in JAMA (`Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid19) in Italy’) on 17th March 2020 showed that 87% of deaths in Italy occurred in patients over 70 years of age. All this inevitably pushes up the number of deaths in the country. It is surely dangerous to extrapolate from one country’s experience. It is, perhaps, surprising that more publicity hasn’t been given to these findings which seem to me extremely important. (If you remove just half of the Italian deaths from the global total the figure looks very different.) Yesterday, I said that I thought the Italian figures were wrong because they were putting down too many deaths as coronavirus. It looks as if I was right.  The figures from Italy are constantly being used to frighten us. But the average age of those dying in Italy was 78.5 years. And as I have previously explained most of the deaths were probably not caused by the coronavirus though that is what was put on the death certificates.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm



Watch the video below on Brighteon.  It is about the link between 5G and the CoronaVirus from a Vodaphone insider.  Youtube would not let me upload this video, they deleted it immediately, I wonder why?

https://www.brighteon.com/667ee7b5-cc78-4972-922c-...




Expert Opinion and Facts about Coronavirus (Covid-19): What the Media Does Not tell You!

Professor Klaus Puschel, head of forensic medicine in Hamburg, explains about Covid19: “This virus influences our lives in a completely excessive way. This is disproportionate to the danger posed by the virus. And the astronomical economic damage now being caused is not commensurate with the danger posed by the virus. I am convinced that the Corona mortality rate will not even show up as a peak in annual mortality. “In Hamburg, for example, „not a single person who was not previously ill, had died of the virus”, All those we have examined so far had cancer, a chronic lung disease, were heavy smokers or severely obese, suffered from diabetes or had a cardiovascular disease. The virus was the last straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak.Covid-19 is a fatal disease only in exceptional cases, but in most cases it is a predominantly harmless viral infection“- Professor Klaus Puschel

In addition, Dr. Puschel explains: “In quite a few cases, we have also found that the current corona infection has nothing whatsoever to do with the fatal outcome because other causes of death are present, for example a brain haemorrhage or a heart attack. Corona in itself is a ‘not particularly dangerous viral disease’, says the forensic scientist.

The German virologist Hendrik Streeck is currently conducting a pilot study to determine the distribution and transmission routes of the Covid19 pathogen. In an interview he explains: “I took a closer look at the cases of 31 of the 40 people who died in the Heinsberg district – and was not very surprised that these people died. One of the deceased was older than 100 years, so even a common cold could have led to death.“

German immunologist and toxicologist, Professor Stefan Hockertz, explains in a radio interview that Covid19 is no more dangerous than influenza (the flu), but that it is simply observed much more closely. More dangerous than the virus is the fear and panic created by the media and the authoritarian reaction of many governments. Professor Hockertz also notes that most so-called corona deaths have in fact died of other causes while also testing positive for coronaviruses. Hockertz believes that up to ten times more people than reported already had Covid19 but noticed nothing or very little.

The Argentinean virologist and biochemist Pablo Goldschmidt explains that Covid19 is no more dangerous than a bad cold or the flu. It is even possible that the Covid19 virus circulated already in earlier years, but wasn’t discovered because no one was looking for it. Dr. Goldschmidt speaks of a global terror created by the media and politics. Every year, he says, three million newborns worldwide and 50,000 adults in the US alone die of pneumonia.

Professor Julian Nida-Ruemelin, former German Minister of State for Culture and Professor of Ethics, points out that Covid19 poses no risk to the healthy general population and that extreme measures such as curfews are therefore not justified.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) reports that, according to the latest data from China, 78% of new test-positive individuals show no symptoms. An Oxford epidemiologist said that these findings are very, very important. He added that if the results are representative, then we have to ask, ‘What the hell are we locking down for?’“

Dr. Andreas Sonnichsen, head of the Department of General and Family Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna and chairman of the Network for Evidence-Based Medicine, considers the measures imposed so far to be insane. The whole state is being paralyzed just to protect the few it could affect.

In a world first, the Swedish government has announced that it is going to officially distinguish between deaths ‘by’ and deaths ‘with’ the coronavirus, which should lead to a reduction in reported deaths. Meanwhile, for some reason, international pressure on Sweden to abandon its strategy is steadily increasing.

The Hamburg health authority now has test-positive deaths examined by forensic medicine in order to count only real corona deaths. As a result, the number of deaths has already been reduced by up to 50% compared to the official figures of the Robert Koch Institute.

In a interview, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, a world renowned expert in medical microbiology, says blaming the new coronavirus alone for deaths is wrong and dangerously misleading, as there are other more important factors at play, notably pre-existing health conditions and poor air quality in Chinese and Northern Italian cities. Professor Bhakdi describes the currently discussed or imposed measures as ‘grotesque’, ‘useless’, ‘self-destructive and a ‘collective suicide’ that will shorten the lifespan of the elderly and should not be accepted by society.

The Italian National Health Institute ISS has published a new report on test-positive deaths:

The median age is 80.5 years (79.5 for men, 83.7 for women).

10% of the deceased was over 90 years old; 90% of the deceased was over 70 years old.

At most 0.8% of the deceased had no pre-existing chronic illnesses.

Approximately 75% of the deceased had two or more pre-existing conditions, 50% had three more pre-existing conditions, in particular heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

Five of the deceased were between 31 and 39 years old, all of them with serious pre-existing health conditions (e.g. cancer or heart disease).

The National Health Institute hasn’t yet determined what the patients examined ultimately died of and refers to them in general terms as Covid19-positive deaths.

Current test-positive death figures in Italy are still less than 50% of normal daily overall mortality in Italy, which is around 1800 deaths per day. Thus it is possible, perhaps even likely, that a large part of normal daily mortality now simply counts as Covid19 deaths (as they test positive). This is the point stressed by the President of the Italian Civil Protection Service.

Using data from the cruise ship Diamond Princess, Stanford Professor John Ioannidis showed that the age-corrected lethality of Covid19 is between 0.025% and 0.625%, i.e. in the range of a strong cold or the flu. Moreover, a Japanese study showed that of all the test-positive passengers, and despite the high average age, 48% remained completely symptom-free; even among the 80-89 year olds 48% remained symptom-free, while among the 70 to 79 year olds it was an astounding 60% that developed no symptoms at all. This again raises the question whether the pre-existing diseases are not perhaps a more important factor than the virus itself. The Italian example has shown that 99% of test-positive deaths had one or more pre-existing conditions, and even among these, only 12% of the death certificates mentioned Covid19 as a causal factor.

On March 20, Italy reported 627 nationwide test-positive deaths in one day. By comparison, normal overall mortality in Italy is about 1800 deaths per day. Since February 21, Italy has reported about 4000 test-positive deaths. Normal overall mortality during this time frame is up to 50,000 deaths. It is not yet known to what extent normal overall mortality has increased, or to what extent it has simply turned test-positive. Moreover, Italy and Europe have had a very mild flu season in 2019/2020 that has spared many otherwise vulnerable people.

According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, approximately 7,452 people die every day in the United States. In other words, a person dies in the US approximately every 12 seconds.That is 220,000 people who die every month in the USA from all causes and as of writing in the 3 months since this Coronavirus outbreak 22,000 have died of Coronavirus in the USA but in these same 3 months about 660,000 will have died from all causes.

In the U.K there are on average 42,000 deaths from all causes per month but in 3 months of 2020 February, March and April they say 10,000 have died allegedly of Covid-19 but in them 3 months about 120,000 will have died of all causes.Suppose the 10,000 was part of the 120,000 but they have just reassigned the 10,000 as dying from this new deadly disease even though most of them will have already had underlying health conditions such as cancer, heart or lung disease or any other respiratory illness.

Do you also count as a corona death if you are infected with the virus but die of something else? Yes, say Rudi Anschober and Bernhard Benka, members of the Corona Task Force (Austria) in the Ministry of Health.“There is a clear rule at present: Died with the corona virus or died from the corona virus both count for the statistics.No difference is made as to what the patient actually died of. In other words, a 90-year-old man who dies with a fracture of the femoral neck and becomes infected with corona in the hours prior to his death is also counted as corona death. To name but one example”.

Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 have proven to be false upon closer inspection. Many of these people either did not die from Covid19 or they in fact had serious preconditions (such as undiagnosed leukaemia).Spanish football coach Francisco Garcia has passed away at the age of 21 after contracting coronavirus.The younger test-positive deceased almost always had severe pre-existing conditions. For example, Garcia the 21-year-old Spanish soccer coach had died test-positive, making international headlines. However, the doctors diagnosed an unrecognized leukemia, whose typical complications include severe pneumonia.

German doctor Dr. Bodo Schiffmann - A specialist in pathology comments on this as follows: “Who might think evil of it! Up to now, it has been a matter of course for pathologists to carry out autopsies with appropriate safety precautions even in the case of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, PRION diseases, etc. It is quite remarkable that in a disease that is killing thousands of patients all over the world and bringing the economy of entire countries to a virtual standstill, only very few autopsy findings are available (six patients from China). From the point of view of both the epidemic police and the scientific community, there should be a particularly high level of public interest in autopsy findings. However, the opposite is the case. Are you afraid of finding out the true causes of death of the positively tested deceased? Could it be that the numbers of corona deaths would then melt away like snow in the spring sun?

Professor John Oxford of Queen Mary University London, one of the world’s leading virologists and influenza specialists, comes to the following conclusion regarding Covid19: “Personally, I would say the best advice is to spend less time watching TV news which is sensational and not very good. Personally, I view this Covid outbreak as akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. In this case we have had 8000 deaths this last year in the ‘at risk’ groups viz over 65% people with heart disease etc. I do not feel this current Covid will exceed this number. We are suffering from a media epidemic! “

An extensive survey in Iceland found that 50% of all test-positive persons showed no symptoms at all, while the other 50% mostly showed very moderate cold-like symptoms. According to the Icelandic data, the mortality rate of Covid19 is in the per mille range, i.e. in the flu range or below. Of the two test-positive deaths, one was a tourist with unusual symptoms

As Professors Ioannidis and Bhakdi have shown, countries like South Korea, Japan and Sweden that introduced no lockdown measures have experienced near-zero excess mortality in connection with Covid-19.


12 Medical Experts Contradict the Coronavirius narrative

https://www.globalresearch.ca/12-experts-questioni...

Below is a list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the Mainstream Media.

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

What he says:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.

The best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and "run" society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.

- "Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure", Washington Post 21st March 2020

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.

...there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

- Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

What he says:

We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal Science, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.

In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often - similar to the flu season - it affects people who are at the end of their lives.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

What he says:

Politicians are being courted by scientists...scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it [...] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like "How did you find out this virus was dangerous?", "How was it before?", "Didn't we have the same thing last year?", "Is it even something new?"

That's missing.

Dr Joel Kettner is professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

What he says:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I'm not talking about the pandemic, because I've seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don't always know what they are. But I've never seen this reaction, and I'm trying to understand why.

Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research. In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research. He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.

What he says:

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.

If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to "influenza-like illness" would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

What he says:

The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.

You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

- Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020

Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. - A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the 'Investments for the Future' programme.

What they say:

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.

Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

What he says:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.

- "Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?", New York Times 20th March 2020

As far as Vitamin C treatment for Covid-19 goes, regardless of what some media outlets are claiming, Medicine in Drug Discovery, of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. The article was written by Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist, from Shanghai, China. Dr. Cheng served in the United States Army as a commissioned officer (Major) and an Army physician. While in the Army, Dr. Cheng served in various positions including Chief and Medical Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. It’s safe to say that he’s probably a much more trusted source on the topic given his background and recent peer-reviewed publication about it than an article claiming that this is false information.

In his article, he states the following:

High-dose intravenous VC has also been successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions. The oxygenation index was improving in real time and all the patients eventually cured and were discharged. In fact, high-dose VC has been clinically used for several decades and a recent NIH expert panel document states clearly that this regimen (1.5 g/kg body weight) is safe and without major adverse events.

His article was published on the 26th of March, but prior to that, Dr. Cheng was providing updates with regards to multiple clinical trials that have been underway in China for treating covid-19 patients with intravenous vitamin C. The US National Library of Medicine posted the information about their clinical trials on their website.

“The COVID-19 (SARS-2-Cov) pandemic, first reported in Wuhan, China, is now spreading to many continents and countries, causing a severe public health burden. Currently, there is no vaccine or specific antiviral drug for this deadly disease. Early use of large dose antioxidants, such as vitamin C (VC) may become an effective treatment for these patients. Clinical studies also show that high-dose oral VC provides certain protection against viral infection. Neither intravenous nor oral administration of high-dose VC is associated with significant side effects. Therefore, this regimen should be included in the treatment of COVID-19 and used as a preventative measure for susceptible populations such as healthcare workers with higher exposure risks.High-dose intravenous VC has also been successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions. The oxygenation index was improving in real time and all the patients eventually cured and were discharged [18]. In fact, high-dose VC has been clinically used for several decades and a recent NIH expert panel document states clearly that this regimen (1.5 g/kg body weight) is safe and without major adverse events” - Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist, from Shanghai, China. Dr. Cheng served in the United States Army as a commissioned officer (Major) and an Army physician. While in the Army, Dr. Cheng served in various positions including Chief and Medical Director of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.

Could the hidden agenda behind the CoronaVirus scare be the collapse of the economy.  Suppose the world banks (Federal Reserve, IMF, bank of England) and the economy was on the verge of collapse and the ones who owned the banks such as the Rothschilds did not want to be blamed.  So they concoct a virus which closes down nearly every business in every country which will send the world into an economic collapse.  But now the Banksters can claim it was the Coronavirus that caused the economic collapse and not them.

Below is an article from Dr. Vernon Colemans website

Neil Ferguson – Imperial College

The UK Government’s policy on the coronavirus (and the prediction of 500,000 deaths and the most draconian controls on our freedom in history) came from Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London. Professor Ferguson (who appears to be a mathematician and does not seem to have a medical degree) has criticized those (like me) who have compared the coronavirus to flu. `It is ludicrous, frankly, to suggest that the severity of this virus is comparable to season flu – ludicrous and dangerous,’ he is reported to have said though, as a qualified doctor, I find it difficult to understand why he says this. He criticized Professor Sunetra Gupta and her team who suggested that half the UK’s population could have been affected. Professor Gupta’s suggestion was also criticized because it hasn’t been peer reviewed. But as far as I can see the work done by Imperial College hasn’t been peer reviewed either.It is Ferguson’s theories which have led to the lockdown which is causing so much distress. But another academic, Professor Michael Thrusfield of Edinburgh University has pointed out that Ferguson was `instrumental’ for the modelling which led to the cull of more than six million animals during the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001. Professor Thrusfield, an expert in animal diseases, claimed that the cull was a result of incorrect assumptions and that Imperial’s report was `not fit for purpose’ and `severely flawed’. Professor Ferguson defended Imperial’s work on foot and mouth, claiming that they were using `limited data’ at the time. But now, with coronavirus, they are again using limited data.

There has been very little debate about Professor Ferguson’s `models’ for the coronavirus. There should be a great debate because if Professor Ferguson is wrong then incalculable damage being done to whichever countries are following the Imperial College thinking. The Imperial College `model’ should be closely examined and dissected. Has anyone outside Imperial taken a look at it? I’d love to see precisely how Professor Ferguson and his team reached their conclusions. If they are wrong then they must surely take responsibility for the biggest cock up in history. If the Imperial College advice was overly pessimistic, as I believe it was, then Boris Johnson is surely toast. The nation will be damned near destroyed for nothing. Vast numbers of people will have been forced to wait for essential medical treatment. Vast numbers of people will be left unemployed. Vast numbers of businesses will go bust. The education of millions of children will have been savagely disrupted and probably permanently damaged. And, as I showed on www.vernoncoleman.com on 26th March the Government has now passed a Bill which takes away almost all our traditional freedoms.

The UK now appears to be quoted as giving mortality rate figures for `people who have died after testing positive for coronavirus’. `If you died with it then you died of it.’ This is exactly what was done in Italy – resulting in a much higher death rate than in other countries. As I have said many times before, people who test positive for the virus and who die have not necessarily died because of the virus. They may have died of heart or lung disease. They may have fallen out of bed and cracked their skulls. This is a schoolboy mistake. Or it isn’t a mistake at all, but a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth.

Has the Government delayed mass testing because they fear what the tests will show? The Government is going to be vilified if it is proven that the lockdown was unnecessary. Boris Johnson and the Tory Government appear to have put their faith in Professor Ferguson and Imperial College.

The coronavirus will stop being a problem when enough people in the country have immunity. That’s the principle behind mass vaccination. But locking people in their homes means that people will not acquire immunity. Once we are allowed out of our homes then the number of people with the virus will increase. And the lockdown will be reintroduced. 

This could go on for years!

‘We are in the midst of a live exercise’ according to US Secretary of State and former CIA head Mike Pompeo, who only a year ago openly boasted that “we lied, cheat and stole.” Pompeo admitted on CNN that “we’re in a live exercise here” when referring to COVID-19 during a press conference. This is yet more evidence that the entire coronavirus crisis has been scripted, planned for and orchestrated. The language that Pompeo used – “live exercise” – is eerily reminiscent of language used in false flag operations when the exercise or drill “went live”, i.e. when the very scenario that the authorities were planning for actually happened (see 9/11, 7/7 and numerous US mass shootings) as they were in the middle of their exercise.  Implications of Pompeo’s Comment


There are already various clues this whole pandemic – really a fake pandemic – was planned in advance. There is the 2010 Rockefeller Foundation paper which talked about it. There is the Illuminati insider who revealed secret plans to release a bioweapon on the Chinese by saying that “China will catch a cold.” There is the Bill Gates/Big Pharma/CDC Event 201 Simulation. There is possible Chinese Government foreknowledge. There is the simple fact that this pandemic is allowing the social engineers to simultaneously and rapidly roll out almost every conceivable NWO (New World Order) agenda, including censorship, surveillance, quarantine, martial law, the cashless agenda, governmental emergency powers, the 5G rollout, social isolation as the “new normal“, mandatory vaccinations and the human microchipping agenda.

Makia Freeman, editor of alternative news / independent media site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy

The below article is from Michel Chossudovsky a Canadian economist and author.He is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

First of all, I should mention – and this is where all the lies come in – is that on the 30th of January the global public health emergency was declared on the orders of the Director-General of the WHO (right). There have been recent statements that this public health emergency has been declared but, in fact, it was declared on the 30th of January, but nobody wants to talk about that for the simple reason that at that time there were only 150 confirmed cases outside of China. In other words, we’re talking about a population of 6.4 billion, (excluding China which is 1.4), out of a world population of 7.8 billion, and there they go ahead and declare a global health emergency. 150 cases does not justify it. But in fact, it did, but it was dictated by very powerful economic interests. So we’re starting with a lie.

This is not a biological war against China or against of anybody else; it is the use of the coronavirus as a pretext to implement drastic changes which affect economic activity, trade, transportation, which ultimately has an impact on national economies. It sort of pushes national economies into a situation of crisis. At the outset, we were dealing with economic warfare supported by a media campaign, and this was coupled with the deliberate intent by the Trump administration to undermine the Chinese economy.

But I think we should be clear that the media disinformation campaign was fundamental, because first of all, they never mentioned that it was 150 cases to start with, and they’ve always distorted the figures with regard to the extension of this health threat throughout the world.

Michel Chossudovsky: The WHO Emergency Committee is a committee made up of specialists – and I should mention that they first met on the 22nd of January and there were divisions within the committee as to whether they had the justification to actually declare a global emergency [the pandemic was declared on March11]. And then, when they met on the 30th, the meeting on the 30th took place shortly after the Davos World Economic Forum, which took place from the 21st to the 24th of January. And at that meeting there were important discussions between different partners including the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and various entities linked up to Big Pharma.

Those consultations at the World Economic Forum were essentially instrumental to the decision taken on the 30th. It happened just about a week later. It was essentially the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, a body called CEPI, which is this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for the Development of Vaccines – already there were discussions with Big Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, which is also integrated into this group. There were discussions with the IMF and the World Bank, with the State Department, with US Intelligence. And one suspects that the decisions were taken a few days before, because when they met on January 30th in Geneva there was virtually no discussion. The WHO Director-General, who had been in Davos just a few days earlier, determined that the so-called outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and, as I mentioned, that decision was taken on the basis of 150 confirmed cases outside China.

Now, anybody who takes cognizance of that should not trust anything else that they say because at the beginning is a big lie, and it’s a big lie which is instrumented by very powerful people. It’s the combination of what I call Big Money and Big Pharma. And essentially they initiated this process. They also have a vaccine program and, ironically, the vaccine program was – in a sense also announced at Davos before even having pandemic. It was announced at Davos and discussed, and it was only much later in February that the vaccination campaign was announced by the World Health Organization. In fact, it was February 28th. It was a month later. Dr. Tedros of WHO announces that a massive WHO vaccination campaign has been approved by the World Health Organization. And who is behind that campaign? GlaxoSmithKline in partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which is a Gates/World Economic Forum partnership.

Now, what I am suggesting, without necessarily drawing conclusions, is that the organizations involved in the simulation, which was a detailed simulation with videos and so on examining what would happen to financial markets, what would happen to the media, to the independent media and so on – essentially the people involved in the simulation were also involved in the actual management of the pandemic once it went live.

So the people who were simulating actually went live on January 30th, 2020, which was the day when that [global health emergency was launched] [Officially the pandemic was launched on March 11]. I should mention that the people who actually were behind the WHO meeting on the sidelines of Davos are the same people who organized and financed the [global health emergency]: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Above article from Michel Chossudovsky

https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufactured-pandemic-testing-people-any-strain-coronavirus-not-specifically-covid-19/5707781


Below Insider Account from Julian Rose

“The below was sent to me by a widely respected professional scientist in USA. While we may know it’s a scam – this insider evidence on the methodology of the madness is second to none. Please use!! The following is from a medical forum. The writer prefers to stay anonymous, because presenting any narrative different than the official one can cause you a lot of stress in the toxic environment caused by the scam which surrounds COVID-19 these days.

I work in the healthcare field. Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply cannot make accurate assessments.

This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues.

The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or serology/antibody tests which do not detect virus as such). PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.

The problem is the test is known not to work.

It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.

The Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals, at best, tell analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time? It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.

And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load.

If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Everyone will have a few virus(es) kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if a(n) osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.

If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness which leads to false diagnosis. And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen.

Do you see where this is going yet? If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus.

They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people who have become sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common. There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.

All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease. Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.

You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on. Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.

Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically. Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people, you are mislabeling your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.

But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.

1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.

2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.

3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.

4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen).

Take these 4 simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks.

They cannot “confirm” something for which there is no accurate test.”

BOOM.

Click to see detail of visits and stats for this site