21st Century Wire | March 7, 2021
Increasingly, there are serious questions being asked about the factual basis for declaring a pandemic and the growing number of mitigation policies being implemented by governments and corporations. When is a COVID-19 “case” really a case? Moreover, do the case numbers and death numbers that have been touted over the last 12 months by governments in UK, EU, USA, and numerous governments around the world, accurately reflect actual COVID cases and COVID deaths?
In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) itself has admitted that the entire basis for collating “case” numbers since the beginning of this ‘global pandemic’ is effectively null and void. In its directive published in late January, the organization stated that medical professionals should not be using PCR Testing with high Cycle Threshold (CT) levels due to the high likelihood of generating false positives in people, and also that the PCR Test should not be used as the sole metric for diagnosing and should be accompanied by a professional clinical diagnosis. In other words: the PCR Test cannot rightly be used as a medical diagnostic tool, and yet, it has been widely used as such for the last 12 months. This admission should have grave implications for every public health official, politician and media editor on the planet, but the silence is deafening – as most are simply ignoring this fact.
The following directive was issued on January 20, 2021 by the WHO:
Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.
Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
In addition, from the beginning of the ‘pandemic,’ arbitrary and broad guidelines for symptom diagnosis for COVID were being encouraged, and not surprisingly this corresponded with a complete disappearance of season influenza.
Former Minnesota state legislator, Dr Scott Jensen MD, explains why this is absolutely crucial and how we’ve all been played over the last 12 months. Watch:
Video Credit: Coronavirus Plushie
March 7, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
By Hilda Labrada Gore with Dr. David Martin | Weston Price Foundation | February 8, 2021
Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Dr. David Martin.
There is much frustration and confusion surrounding everything that’s happened related to COVID-19. Lockdowns, shuttered businesses, curfews and more have left a lot of us scratching our heads and asking important questions. This is Episode 294 and our guest is Dr. David Martin. He is the Founder and Chairman of M·CAM Inc, an international leader in innovation, finance trade and asset finance. He is an author, a public speaker and a man who has done a lot of research on current events.
In this episode, David offers key facts that help us understand our state of emergency from a very different perspective. He reveals how the CDC filed a patent application on SARS-CoV in the early 2000s. He explains why this is important. He discusses the evidence that indicates that SARS-CoV-2 has been manipulated to limit freedom and compromise our health. He unpacks the legal and health contradictions of new COVID treatments like masks and vaccines, and he offers insights on what each of us can do to fight for health freedom.
Welcome to the show, David.
Thank you so much. It’s great to be here
You’re not a health guy, you’re a legal guy, right?
No, my training was in medicine. I was on the faculty of the University of Virginia Medical School, Radiology Orthopedic Surgery. I ran the FDA clinical trials program for the medical devices for UVA for a decade. I have a lot of backgrounds but I have a legal background as well, but my professor position was in the medical school at the University of Virginia.
What’s your take on what’s happening with the virus right now?
Let’s start with I don’t think something’s happening with the virus right now. I think this is a very significant criminal operation, which is an act of terrorism. I think that’s what this is. The reason why I think that is because I’ve been monitoring since 1999. In 1999, we noticed that for the first time, the United States officially started funding work to what effectively was amplified biological toxins. They used the Coronavirus model as a way to do that. From 1999 to 2002, there was an explicit program to figure out how to get the coronavirus, which historically has been a nuisance to humans but not a big problem. It’s been a big problem to animals.
In fact, the fundamental research for a decade before the ‘90s was in cardiac myopathy in rabbits, not in people. The guy who was leading this program under the funding of NIAID with Anthony Fauci had gotten money to amplify the pathogenicity of a part of Coronavirus. He made it more toxic. Not surprisingly, the places where he was researching and the places where he was collaborating are where the Coronavirus outbreak allegedly started with the SARS outbreak in 2002 going into 2003. I have always said, I find it interesting that the official story we’re supposed to believe is that somehow or another, this mysteriously came out of the blue and it happened to come out of the blue where biological weapons labs were also happening.
It’s amazing how nature backed into the, “There’s a weapons lab. Why don’t we go ahead and have an outbreak there?” The fact of the matter is we, as humans, manipulated Coronavirus and then we had SARS. Here’s the funny thing. After 2003, the problem was Coronavirus resolved itself. It went through the population, had an effect and it resolved itself. Rather than celebrating, “We survived this thing,” some people got sick, some people died, that’s a tragedy but it was not the pandemic everybody thought it was going to be.
We survived it without a vaccine.
No vaccine, no intervention at all and they seriously publicly lamented the fact that it wasn’t virulent enough. Starting in 2005, there was an active program with the DARPA and with NIAID to begin work on figuring out ways to amplify the pathogenicity of this biological substance. They specifically focused on two pieces. One was the S1 spike protein and one was the ACE2 receptor. The ACE2 receptor is important because it’s the thing that makes lung tissue sensitive to this. That was the mysterious piece because it didn’t used to be a lung problem. It used to be a vascular problem but they amplified the ACE2 receptor component and they amplified the S1 spike protein, which is a very toxic component.
Those two amplifications started being amplified and funded through NIAID in 2005. In 2012 going into 2013, when we had the MERS outbreak in the Middle East, the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, NIAID and others started going, “Maybe we’re doing something we shouldn’t be doing.” There was a question of the ethics and the morals of doing this Gain-of-Function research leading to the 2013, 2014 decision to stop Gain-of-Function research is what the public was told. What the public wasn’t told was the people who were involved in the BSL-4 defense labs were allowed to keep amplifying this viral pathogen.
Let me interrupt you to ask a question. What was the justification they were giving for amplifying this virus?
The cover story is this. Biological weapons could be developed by some rogue nation or by some bad actors. If that happened, we should be prepared to develop vaccines. That’s what we were told. As early as March of 2005, I wrote in a public briefing to law enforcement intelligence agencies that this was not a just in case problem. It was, in fact, a program that included the dispersion of explosive biological material, such that you could put toxins into rocket-propelled grenades. I don’t know about you, but when I hear that, it doesn’t sound like a public health program to me. I published this book in March of 2005.
It doesn’t sound defensive. It sounds offensive.
When people tell me, “It’s all in the interest of public health. It was all about making sure we were safe from potentially rogue actor states.” I’m sitting there going, “That smells like BS,” because it is. We have the evidence that in fact these programs were dual-use programs. These were programs that in fact did have a public health vaccine development treatment program. That’s true but they also had an offensive military application as well. We’re tracking all this stuff and we’ve been tracking it since 1999. Lo and behold, we started looking at the fact that coming into the spring of 2019.
This is nine months before they’re supposed to be a thing, we start seeing a lot of documents start showing up with the language about an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen. If that came out in one document and we go, “Somebody was concerned about that,” when it starts showing up in a bunch of documents, it shows up in March 2019, it shows up again in May 2019, it shows up again in September 2019 in the World Health Organization Global Preparedness Monitoring Board Program, you start going, “Hold on a minute, we’re being told something’s happening.”
It’s like they were hinting somehow.
Except they are not very much hinting. They are going, “You keep saying an accidental or intentional release of respiratory pathogen.” We were not surprised when we expected to see something happen in Wuhan or in Italy or in North Carolina or in any of the places where we know the BSL labs were manipulating the Coronavirus. For me, the whole idea that this was somehow an accidental thing fails on its face because you can’t get an accident with premeditated planning and then have nature come along and go, “By the way, humans are talking about doing something. Why don’t I fly a bat over a wet food market in Wuhan and somehow make this mysteriously happen?” The amount of improbabilities to land an accident of nature in a place where you also have a biological weapons lab is zero.
What are the implications of something being done deliberately?
This is an act of war is what it is. It’s war in the new way we’re doing war because the new way we’re doing more is with financial, biologic, health and living standards and everything else. War in the old lineup the muskets and shoot people, it’s not how we’re doing war anymore. We’re doing war by depriving people of their liberty, of their livelihoods, of their access to medicine, the access to health, to life and to whatever they’re doing. That’s the new war.
Who is coming to war against us?
This is a massive transition between what used to be what I refer to as the Westphalian Nation-State Model, where it used to be you took the map and you drew lines on the map and you said, “That’s France. That’s Britain.” That era has come to an end quite a long time ago, probably around the time that Nixon took us off the gold standard. What’s happened is slowly corporations and corporate interests and financial interests have moved in as the thing that makes the difference. This is a war against the Westphalian Nation-State Model. It’s a coup of that model where corporations and financial interests have said, “We’re the ones that call the shots.”
Now we know that there are hosts of individuals who manipulate elections, who buy politicians and who buy everybody. We know that those organizations don’t officially have nation-states standing. When you know that a person like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Anthony Fauci, never elected, never appointed, never anything that has a legal democratic process around it. When you have those people who show up on every head of state stage, whispering in the ear of every head of state and saying, “This is how you’re going to act,” that’s not they’re advising and giving their best input. They’re running the show.
What we’re experiencing right now is the most insidious form of what is effectively a civil war where the democratic nation-states are being erased by corporate interests and financial interests who have decided they are going to be taking the position that they’ve already paid for. They bought Congress and legislatures. They bought Governor’s offices all over the country. They’ve bought heads of state around the world and now they’re moving in and taking what they bought.
It’s not the sickness that’s the element of war as much as also the collapse of the economy and fear that is running rampant. I see these as tools as well.
This is more a financial crisis than a health crisis. Now we could both agree that our definition of health has been corrupted a long time ago. Health as a construct probably was hijacked somewhere around the 1770s when we started manipulating and this is Thomas Jefferson and others started manipulating pathogens to try to figure out how to control the epidemic-type and plague-type experiences. Whether it’s the poxes that came over from Europe, whether it’s the animal to human transfers that were a concern at the end of the 18th century, what happened was we decided that somehow or another chemistry was the basis of health. We stopped looking at the vitality like we’re standing out in the cold.
Our bodies have adapted for the cold. What has happened? Our blood supply is out of our faces. It’s going into our core because that’s how bodies were designed to deal with cold. That’s not a bad thing. That’s health. In fact, we would be unhealthy if that didn’t happen but that’s not a chemistry thing. That’s neurologic. That’s physiologic. That’s all kinds of systems engaged. The problem is you can’t meter those systems. You can’t dose those systems, which means you can’t monetize them. What happened was we started saying health was about things you could monetize because if I can dose you something, then I can charge you something. If your body is working, my body’s working, then nobody can make any money off it.
I’ve thought of that before. The hospitals only make money if they’re full of sick people.
By the way, all the nonsense about wellness and all this stuff that you hear about, that is a cover story. It’s a fraction of a fraction of a percent of what’s spent in what we call healthcare. Healthcare is about end-of-life extension. It’s not about living, it’s not about health. It’s about disease management. It’s not about living in health. I am 53 years old, almost 54 in 2021. I have the vitality that I had when I was in my twenties. Why? It’s because I care about my health and my vitality. How often do I go to a doctor? With the exception of trauma surgeries that I’ve had a couple of times where I’m very grateful that there were doctors, I just don’t go. Why? It’s because I’m not consuming a dependency on chemistry or consuming a dependency on a metered version of what health is.
I’m actually living health, which means I’m walking and I’m cycling and I’m doing yoga. I’m doing exercise. I’m eating well. I’m doing all the things I’m doing because that’s health. The problem is you can’t meter people like me. You can’t put a tax on me because I’m not getting a syringe every day for my diabetes. I’m not taking a pill every day for my other chronic disease and because of that, I’m not controllable. What we’re doing now in the guise of health is we’re saying, “If you don’t have something that needs metering, you’re not healthy and you’re going to have to get something that needs metering.”
This helps me understand the asymptomatic carrier BS, if you will. I’m like, “How can someone who has no symptoms be sick?” It’s like a mental game they’re playing on us.
If you think of women who get pap smears and they get an abnormal cell. For a long time, you just had a hyperplastic cell or you might have atypical cell, but now what do you call it? It’s precancerous. It’s not cancer. It’s not pre-something. It’s not the thing. What’s to happen, just like an asymptomatic carrier. What’s an asymptomatic carrier? What a crazy notion. I don’t not have a thing. I don’t not have cancer. I don’t not have a thing and I’m an asymptomatic, soon-to-be something patient. I’m a healthy person. My immune system is working and my body was working.
This whole idea of asymptomatic pathogen vector that is now what each one of us is supposedly is so nonsensical but it’s there so that we have to now be a consumer of face masks, social distancing, hand sanitizer or whatever else. Even if we’re perfectly healthy, we still have to buy something, which is the metered definition of health. That’s the big breakthrough and we need to call it what it is. This is the manipulation of health for metering commerce around an illusion built on chemistry.
Now that we’re aware of it or at least starting to become aware of it, the fact that we’re in a war right now, how do we fight against it, David?
What I’m doing here in DC, what we’re doing all over the world right now is we’re exposing all of the evidence that’s required for people to take legal action from both criminal and civil statutes. The majority of even legal experts fail to understand the complexity of these laws simply because the average person has no experience with anti-trust, terrorism, terrorism finance and with all of the kinds of laws that are germane to what’s going on here. A huge amount of our efforts right now is to educate people on what the law is to help them support their cases that they are filing. Gradually, what we’re doing is we’re getting the legal side of this conversation along the lines of where it needs to go. The other thing is we have to ask people to start talking about health the right way.
We’re not doing that. We’re still in this politically correct era where it’s unfashionable to be well. We supposedly are supposed to be, “We can’t say obese anymore. We can’t say a lifestyle disorder because that’s being insensitive.” That’s nonsense. We need to model what health is. We need to live what health is. We need to experience what health is and we then have to go forward with a lived experience of what good health and vitality is all about. There’s an individual role each one of us plays and there’s the community role that we’re trying to lead right now which is to say, people who’ve violated the laws need to be held accountable for what they’ve done to hijack your and my experience of living.
In The Weston Price Foundation, we are always talking about health and how to take our health back into our own hands. As you’re saying, living empowered, healthy lives that are vibrant, not just disease-free but living optimally. Speak to us a little bit about this legal bit because our folks don’t know what the legal implications are of what’s happening right now.
There’s a bunch of things. First of all, the Center for Disease Control in 2003 violated the law. They patented the Coronavirus isolated from humans. A lot of people have had issues with me saying that but here’s the problem. The problem is under Section 101 of US Code 35, you are not allowed to patent nature. That’s a statement. That’s a fact. You can’t alter that fact. One of two things occurred, either SARS Coronavirus was made in a lab, in which case it violated biological and chemical weapons laws, or it was natural and CDC should never have filed a patent on it. The actual sequence ID in which the patent includes not only the whole genome but also all nucleic acid sequences associated with SARS.
This is a thing where one of two things happened and both of them are illegal. You either patented the genome, and if you did that, that’s a violation of law or you made it, in which case you’ve also violated laws. Neither way is acceptable. Why would the CDC want a patent on the genome of the virus? It turns out that if you control the genome, you control the ability to test for it. You control the ability to trade it. You control the ability to develop vaccines for it. All of which they, in collusion with NIAID, controlled for eighteen years. For eighteen years, they have manipulated and controlled 100% of this entire campaign, which means that we get to 2020, we’re told how we are going to measure Coronavirus. It turns out, the only thing we could do is use CDC’s patented RT-PCR technology because they controlled the technology and they could never get it approved without Emergency Use Authorization.
When Alexander Azar in January of 2020 declared a national emergency, what happened in the first week of February is that all of a sudden the FDA comes along and says, “What never was legal to use RT-PCR as a diagnostic, because of the emergency, it now has become legal.” This is the most egregious violation of the law you could hope for. The fact of the matter is that’s what happened. If we wanted to end this epidemic, by the way right now, lift the state of emergency because the minute you lift the state of emergency, you can’t use the RT-PCR test. You can’t use the vaccine. You can’t use any of these things because they’re only legally used if the state of emergency is in place. If anybody wanted to change this right now, like literally now, lift the state of emergency and now it’s illegal to use RT-PCR. It’s illegal to use what is being called vaccines that aren’t vaccines that are genetically-modified toxins that are going into your cells. It’s illegal to do it. It’s solvable and no one is solving it.
I feel like the medical professionals and government officials have been persuaded that this is a legitimate virus. They may be doing the lockdown and all of these restrictions in the state of emergency because they think they’re protecting the public that way.
I don’t believe any of that. I can accept maybe a few people here and there might accidentally be doing the wrong thing because they’re trying to do the best thing. I think this is a criminal collusion and I’ve got all the evidence that says that it is. Let’s start with the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission makes it illegal to say that you can treat or diagnose a disease with the medical technologies unproven. Face masks have never been proven to stop a single viral transmission ever. That has never happened. Every governor is telling you that your face mask is somehow going to stop a viral transmission. It turns out that’s empirically false and it violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says you’re not allowed to say something has a treatment that does not in fact have medical, empirical proof that says it’s a treatment.
I feel like I’m living in an upside-down world right now.
You are and we are. The cool thing is we’re going to turn it on the right side.
You said you have all this evidence. I have to ask, are you pursuing any lawsuits to rectify things?
We are involved in several lawsuits and we’re working right now to build out a case, which is in fact, the Federal criminal case, which is going to be the Federal criminal case against Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Alexander Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We’re building that case right now.
Who is that ‘we’ that you keep referring to?
Me and the team of lawyers that are doing it. I’m leading it.
We will look for that. Is there anything else, David, that you can tell the ordinary citizen right now who’s like, “How can I fight for my freedoms and my right to live healthily right now?”
Two things. One is stop talking about vaccines that aren’t vaccines. The thing that’s being sold by Pfizer and Moderna is not a vaccine. It’s a pathogen that is injected into your cell to elicit the creation of a toxin. That’s what it is. Vaccines are legally defined as a thing that interrupts the immune process in your system and prevents transmission. Neither one of those things is what’s happening. What they’re calling a vaccine isn’t and we need to stop calling it a vaccine. That’s number one. Number two, about your own life, what you need to be is you need to take the legal documents, including things that I’ve posted on Inverted Alchemy, which is a place where I posted a legal action.
Every single person in America can download and use that which says you cannot violate the Federal Trade Commission Act by saying that my mask works, my social distancing works, any of these things work because it violates the law. 21 Code of Federal Regulations, 18 US Code, 8 US Code, tons of US codes, 15 US codes, all being violated and all of those are itemized. If anybody wants to take action, take action. Go make the effort. Inverted Alchemy’s not hard to type into the browser. It’s all there. People can do stuff. They need to be doing it, not wait for somebody else.
I want to wrap up by asking the question I always ask my guests. If the reader could do one thing to improve their health, and you talked about meditation and the things that you do, what would you recommend they do?
There’s no question. Take your shoes off and put your feet back on the ground. Find a place where you can put your feet on the ground. Remember what it’s like to be human. Feel the Earth, feel your ecosystem. Once you do, let yourself breathe into that because the minute you do, you realize you’re a wonderful human being. You’re on a beautiful planet and you can make the best of it.
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
You’re most welcome. Thanks very much.
March 7, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
By Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | March 6, 2021
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
1: ‘The Concept of Coronavirus Herd Immunity Is Deadly and Dangerous’ https://www.self.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity
Since COVID19 first hurtled over the horizon, before landing upon us all with great force, I find that I have been asked to believe in many impossible things. First, I was told that attempting to create herd immunity was not achievable. It would also be extremely dangerous and would inevitably result in many hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Then the vaccines arrived at fantastical speed and I was told that mass vaccination, by creating herd immunity, would be the factor that would allow us to conquer COVID19 and return to normal life. I am not entirely sure which of these things is impossible, but one of them must be.
2: ‘Vaccines, on the other hand, are believed to induce stronger and longer lasting immunity.’ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/does-the-vaccine-give-better-protection-than-having-fought-off-the-virus_uk_601c0663c5b62bf30754c563
I was then told the vaccine would provide greater immunity than being infected with COVID19. Which was interesting. I am not sure if this is actually impossible, but it seemed unlikely that anyone could make such statements after about three hundred people had actually been studied, and just two months had passed.
At the time I was aware of two people proven to have been re-infected with COVID19, out of about ten million cases. So, getting infected certainly seemed to provide a pretty good degree of immunity. A re-infection rate of 0.00005%
I also know that vaccinations can only ever really create an attenuated response. Whereas a full-blown infection triggers a full-blown immune response. So, I think it is pretty close to impossible that vaccination can provide greater protection than that from getting the actual disease. Which is why I think it is utterly bonkers we are actually vaccinating people who have circulating antibodies in their blood.
3: ‘Universal mask use could save 130,000 U.S. lives by the end of February, new study estimates.’ https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/23/universal-mask-use-could-save-130000-lives-by-the-end-of-february-new-modeling-study-says/
I am also being asked to believe that face masks are essential to stop the spread of COVID19 and prevent millions of deaths worldwide. The use of masks to prevent viral spread is something I actually researched in depth before COVID19 arrived (for various reasons), as did the WHO. They looked at non-pharmaceutical interventions for prevention of influenza, and produced a hefty report, which covered the use of masks.
Yes, I agree, influenza is not exactly the same as COVID19. But it is pretty much the same size of virus, and it is thought to spread in much the same way. Anyway, the WHO reported their views on masks in 2019, using data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – the gold standard.
‘Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf?ua=1
Since then, there has only been one RCT done on COVID19 transmission, in Denmark. It did not find any significant benefit from masks in reducing spread. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/
Never has a trial been subjected to such immediate and hostile reporting. Fact-checkers (whoever exactly they might be, or what understanding they have of medical research) immediately attacked it. One such, called PolitiFact, made the following judgement, which amused me.
“Social media posts claim, “The first randomized controlled trial of more than 6,000 individuals to assess the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.”
The study concluded that wearing masks did not offer a very high level of personal protection to mask wearers in communities where wearing masks was not common practice. The study noted, however, that the data suggested masks provided some degree of self-protection.
We rate this claim Mostly False. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205991/”
So, according to PolitiFact, masks provided self-protection, but not personal protection. An interesting concept. Note to self, try to find out the difference between these two things.
In fact, this was just one of hundreds of critical articles, with self-anointed fact checkers clearly desperate to pull it to pieces. Yes, we have now entered a world when political fact checkers feel free to attack and contradict the findings of scientific papers, using such scientific terms as ‘Mostly false.’ Maybe they should have called it ‘very unique’ at the same time. Or, like the curate’s egg, that was good in parts.
Ignoring the modern-day Spanish Inquisition, and their ill-informed criticisms, I will simply call this study. More evidence that face masks don’t work. Perhaps someone will come along with a study proving that face masks work. So far … nada. Another impossible thing.
4: As of the 2nd March 2021 there have been 122,953 deaths from COVID19 in the UK.
Unlike many people I have actually written COVID19 on death certificates. Mostly they have been educated guesses. On at least five of them, early last year, there had been no positive swab to go on. So, I was just going on probable symptoms. As were many other doctors at the time.
Which means that you can take five off that number for starters. Although, of course, once written, that is very much, that … when it comes to death certificates. In fact, early on in the pandemic, we were probably underdiagnosing as often as over diagnosing deaths from COVID19. Although no-one will ever know. With no positive swab – and few swabs were being done – and almost no post-mortems – you were simply guessing.
As for now … NOW we have the very strange concept that any death within twenty-eight days of a positive COVID19 swab is recorded as a COVID19 death. Simultaneously, I am told that if I have a positive test at work, and then take some time off work (I can never remember the latest guidance). I am not to have another swab for ninety days.
How so? Because it now seems (I actually knew this a long time ago), that swabs can remain positive for months after the infection has been and gone [or was maybe never there to begin with]. Or to put this another way, you can have a positive swab long after you have been infected – and recovered. There are just some bits of virus up your nose that can be magnified, through the wonders of the PCR test, into a positive result.
Which means that an elderly person, infected months ago, can be admitted to hospital for any reason whatsoever. The they can have a positive swab – everyone is swabbed. Then they can die, from whatever it was they were admitted for in the first place. Then, they will be recorded as a COVID19 death.
In truth, this is just the start of impossible things when it comes to the number of COVID19 deaths. Do not get me started on PCR cycle numbers, and false positives. We would be here all day.
Equally, how many people have truly died of COVID19, instead of simply with COVID19? If I painted a blue circle on your forehead, then you died, I would not say that you died of a blue circle painted on your forehead. I would say that you died with a blue circle painted on your forehead.
5: The Swedish COVID-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World
This was actually the headline title from an article in TIME magazine. The article went on to state that ‘The Swedish way has yielded little but death and misery. And this situation has not been honestly portrayed to the Swedish people or to the rest of the world.’ https://time.com/5899432/sweden-coronovirus-disaster/
Death and misery. Hmmmm, I might make this the title of my next book. Bound to be a best seller.
Yes, Sweden has been attacked from all sides with terrific venom, for holding out against imposing severe lockdown. How dare they… follow the WHO’s initial advice. That everyone else ignored.
So, have they done well with regard to COVID19 deaths? Not particularly. Have they done badly? Not particularly. On Worldometer they rank twenty fourth highest for deaths per million of the population. Which is pretty much bang on average for Western Europe.
One reason why they might not have appeared to do better is that, in the year 2019, they had their lowest rate of death for at least ten years. Three and a half thousand less in total than in 2018 https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ . In Norway, a country used to beat Sweden with, due to their very low COVID19 deaths there was no difference in death rate between 2018 and 2019. To be blunt, the elderly population in Sweden had some catching up to do.
Once you factor this in, the much-lauded difference in deaths, between Norway and Sweden, kind of disappears.
‘Our study shows that all-cause mortality was largely unchanged during the epidemic as compared to the previous four years in Norway and Sweden, two countries which employed very different strategies against the epidemic. Excess mortality from COVID-19 may be less pronounced than previously perceived in Sweden, and mortality displacement might explain part of the observed findings.’ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v1.full
In absolute figures. Sweden had
A drop, then a rebound. Perhaps another way to look at the figures is to compare 2020 with a bad Swedish year in the past. In 2012, 91,938 people died. However, the population was lower at 9.5 million vs 10.2 million. So:
The difference between 2012 and 2020 is 0.012%. That is 120 extra deaths per million of the population, which is 1,224 people in population of 10.2 million. The statistics tell us that twelve thousand people died from COVID19 in Sweden. Maybe you can make all that add up. Frankly, I find it impossible.
6: Lockdowns have worked.
Before COVID19 came along, no country had ever attempted a lockdown – ever. So, no-one had any idea if such a thing could possibly work. There was no evidence, from anywhere, to support its use.
It was the Chinese who started it, and who claimed great success for their jackboot lockdown tactics. Well, they convinced me… not. Frankly, if I had to choose a country from which to obtain high quality, unbiased information, about anything, China would not feature in my top one hundred and ninety-four countries
But there you go, lockdown worked under the control of the kind and caring CCP. Hoorah, cheering all round, and the first person to stop cheering gets shot. Well, we don’t want any damned nay-sayers, do we? After that, according to almost everything I have read, everywhere, it worked for everyone else too. Remarkable.
Yes, it is certainly true you can find countries that locked down, closed their borders, and kept the rates low. That, however, is not proof of anything at all. The scientific method requires a little more rigour than this.
In fact, the main thing that scientific rigour requires is that you specifically do not go around looking for facts that support your hypothesis. Because that, I am afraid, is the exact opposite of science. What you need to do, instead, is to go around looking for facts that disprove your hypothesis. This is what Karl Popper called falsification.
For example, my hypothesis is that “all swans are white”. I seek, and find, only white swans. So, this makes my hypothesis is correct? No. What science requires you do is to hunt tirelessly for black swans. If you never find one, fine. However, you need to be aware that the moment you do, your hypothesis has just been disproven. In real life things are very rarely as simple as this, but that is the basic principle.
However, with lockdown (and I recognise that no two countries locked down in the same way) the hypothesis is that countries which did not lockdown will have higher rate of death for COVID19 than those that did.
So, let us look, first, at the countries with the highest rate of COVID19. Excluding very small countries e.g., San Marino, or Gibraltar, we have, in descending order of deaths per million of the population https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ .
Every single country in this list carried out fairly strict lockdowns. The UK, apparently, has the strictest lockdown in the world, this winter.
Four countries that have been roundly criticized for having far less restrictive lockdowns are: Sweden, Japan, Belarus and Nicaragua (Realistically there are others, in poorer countries, where lockdowns have not happened – because they can’t afford it)
In these four ‘non-lockdowns’ countries, the death rate is, on average 391 per million.
In the top twenty ‘lockdown’ countries, the death rate is, on average 1,520 per million.
The only non-lockdown country in the top ninety for death rates is Sweden. It comes just below France, at number twenty-four.
Now, if the difference between lockdown and non-lockdown countries were ten per cent, or even fifty per cent, I would fully accept that there are many other variables that could explain such finding away. Although, of course, we should really look at a higher rate in the non-lockdown countries, not a lower rate.
Yet although this evidence is out there, I am being asked to believe that lockdowns work. At least the WHO agrees with me on this impossible thing. As Dr David Nabarro, the WHO special envoy on COVID19 said:
“We really do appeal to all world leaders, stop using lockdown as your primary method of control,” he said.
“Lockdowns have just one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-12/world-health-organization-coronavirus-lockdown-advice/12753688
Lockdowns, according to the WHO, in unguarded moments, have just one consequence. They make poor people an awful lot poorer.
‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If this is granted all else follows.’
March 6, 2021 Posted by aletho | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine | Leave a comment
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 5, 2021
The Governor of TX announced he’s opening up The Lone Star State 100%, enraging the mainstream media. The motivation may be political, but numbers don’t lie. Del breaks down the data on three key states, California, New York, and Florida, to reveal what possibly led Gov. Abbott to make such a controversial decision.
ER doc, Richard Bartlett, made waves last year with a viral video about his incredible success treating #Covid19 patients with a common asthma inhalant. After being vilified by the media and Fauci himself, recent studies, including one out of Oxford University, have validated his claim, stating that 90% of hospitalizations could have been avoided with this simple, early treatment.
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
By Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews | March 4, 2021
I covered the Zika outbreak extensively in 2016. It was yet another fraud, and it collapsed under the weight of warnings to women to avoid pregnancy. Women wouldn’t obey in great enough numbers.
Basically, the official position was: an outbreak of microcephaly was occurring, worldwide, starting in Brazil. Babies were being born with smaller heads and brain damage. The cause was the Zika virus, carried by mosquitoes.
When I was exposing the lies, in 2016, I wasn’t questioning the existence of the Zika virus. Now, in 2021, I would be demanding proof that the virus had actually been isolated.
Here are excerpts from the many articles I wrote during the “Zika crisis”. There is more, much more to the story, but what I’m publishing here is enough to reveal the standard pattern of pandemic ops: pretend the “medical condition” is entirely the result of a germ; fake the exact cause; cover up ongoing government/corporate crimes.
EXCERPT ONE, 2016: There is no convincing evidence the Zika virus causes the birth defect called microcephaly.
Basically, Brazilian researchers, in the heart of the purported “microcephaly epidemic,” decided to stop their own investigation and simply assert Zika was the culprit. At that point, they claimed that, out of 854 cases of microcephaly, only 97 showed “some relationship” to Zika.
You need to understand that these figures actually show evidence AGAINST the Zika virus as the cause. When researchers are trying to find the cause of a condition, they should be able to establish, as a first step, that the cause is present in all cases (or certainly an overwhelming percentage).
This never happened. The correlation between the presence of Zika virus and microcephaly was very, very weak.
As a second vital step, researchers should be able to show that the causative virus is, in every case, present in large amounts in the body. Otherwise, there is not enough of it to create harm. MERE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IS NOT ENOUGH. With Zika, proof it was present in microcephaly-babies in large amounts has never been established.
But researchers pressed on. A touted study in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed Zika infected brain cells in the lab. IRRELEVANT. Cells in labs are not human beings. The study also stated that Zika infected baby mice. IRRELEVANT. Mice are not humans. And these mice in the lab had been specially altered or bred to be “vulnerable to Zika.” USELESS AND IRRELEVANT.
EXCERPT TWO, 2016: Millions of bees have just died in South Carolina, because Dorchester County officials decided to attack Zika mosquitoes from the air, from planes, with a pesticide called Naled.
The Washington Post reports, in an article headlined: “‘Like it’s been nuked’: Millions of bees dead after South Carolina sprays for Zika mosquitoes.”
“The county acknowledged the bee deaths Tuesday. ‘Dorchester County is aware that some beekeepers in the area that was sprayed on Sunday lost their beehives,’ Jason Ward, county administrator, said in a news release. He added, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, ‘I am not pleased that so many bees were killed.’”
That’s the highest degree of outrage County Administrator Ward can muster? He’s not pleased?
If you want to dig further, you can discover that, despite assurances to the contrary, Naled, like other toxic organophosphate pesticides, harms humans as well. Organophosphates are neurotoxins. The original research was done in Germany, in the hunt for nerve-agent weapons.
And how about this? The cure for the problem causes the problem…
Naled, the organophosphate pesticide now being sprayed on Miami to kill “Zika mosquitoes,” has dire effects.
Reference: a 2014 study, “Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential proximity to agricultural pesticides: the CHARGE study.” [Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014 Oct;122(10):1103-9.]
Key quotes from the study:
“Gestational exposure to several common agricultural pesticides can induce developmental neurotoxicity in humans, and has been associated with developmental delay and autism.” [Emphasis added]
“We evaluated whether residential proximity to agricultural pesticides during pregnancy is associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or developmental delay (DD)…”
“Approximately one-third of CHARGE study mothers lived, during pregnancy, within 1.5 km (just under 1 mile) of an agricultural pesticide application. Proximity to organophosphates at some point during gestation was associated with a 60% increased risk for ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorders], higher for third-trimester exposures… and second-trimester chlorpyrifos [an organophosphate pesticide] applications…”
“This study of ASD strengthens the evidence linking neurodevelopmental disorders with gestational pesticide exposures, particularly organophosphates…”
The pesticide spraying affects pregnant mothers by raising the risk of neurological damage to their babies.
EXCERPT THREE: Here’s an “oops” Zika revelation:
“New doubts on Zika as cause of microcephaly.” ScienceDaily, 24 June 2016.
Source: New England Complex Systems Institute
“Brazil’s microcephaly epidemic continues to pose a mystery — if Zika is the culprit, why are there no similar epidemics in other countries also hit hard by the virus? In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500 confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame for microcephaly, where are the missing cases?”
FOUR: It makes far more sense to listen to what South American doctors are saying about the areas where birth defects are occurring. These would be doctors who actually care about what is destroying lives and the lives that are being destroyed.
We have such reports passed along to us, thanks to Claire Robinson of GM Watch. She is one of those people who still makes the profession of journalism mean something.
Here are quotes from her most recent article, “Argentine and Brazilian doctors name larvicide as potential cause of microcephaly.”
“A report from the Argentine doctors’ organisation, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, challenges the theory that the Zika virus epidemic in Brazil is the cause of the increase in the birth defect microcephaly among newborns.”
“The increase in this birth defect, in which the baby is born with an abnormally small head and often has brain damage, was quickly linked to the Zika virus by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. However, according to the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, the Ministry failed to recognise that in the area where most sick people live, a chemical larvicide [pesticide] that produces malformations in mosquitoes was introduced into the drinking water supply in 2014. This poison, Pyriproxyfen, is used in a State-controlled programme aimed at eradicating disease-carrying mosquitoes.” [Emphasis added]
“The Physicians added that the Pyriproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese ‘strategic partner’ of Monsanto. Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae, which alters the development process from larva to pupa to adult, thus generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and killing or disabling them. It acts as an insect juvenile hormone or juvenoid, and has the effect of inhibiting the development of adult insect characteristics (for example, wings and mature external genitalia) and reproductive development. It is an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic (causes birth defects).”
“The Argentine Physicians commented: ‘Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added Pyriproxyfen to drinking water are not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on the Zika virus for this damage.’”
“They also noted that Zika has traditionally been held to be a relatively benign disease that has never before been associated with birth defects, even in areas where it infects 75% of the population.”
“… The Argentine Physicians’ report…concurs with the findings of a separate report on the Zika outbreak by the Brazilian doctors’ and public health researchers’ organisation, Abrasco.”
“Abrasco also names Pyriproxyfen as a likely cause of the microcephaly. It condemns the strategy of chemical control of Zika-carrying mosquitoes, which it says is contaminating the environment as well as people and is not decreasing the numbers of mosquitoes. Abrasco suggests that this strategy is in fact driven by the commercial interests of the chemical industry, which it says is deeply integrated into the Latin American ministries of health, as well as the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organisation.”
“Abrasco names the British GM insect company Oxitec as part of the corporate lobby that is distorting the facts about Zika to suit its own profit-making agenda. Oxitec sells GM mosquitoes engineered for sterility and markets them as a disease-combatting product – a strategy condemned by the Argentine Physicians as ‘a total failure, except for the company supplying mosquitoes’.”
“…Abrasco added that the disease [microcephaly, other birth defects] is closely linked to environmental degradation: floods caused by logging and the massive use of herbicides on (GM) herbicide-tolerant soy crops – in short, ‘the impacts of extractive industries’.”
FIVE: In a recent greenmedinfo article—“What is the Zika Virus Epidemic Covering Up?” by Jagannath Chatterjee—the author traces other Gates-Brazil connections. For example:
“While investigating the procedures directed at pregnant women in the year 2015, shocking facts emerged. Acting as per a WHO [World Health Organization] decision to inject pregnant women with vaccines despite contraindications the Brazilian Government had allowed its pregnant women to become the equivalent of guinea pigs. Besides the tetanus vaccines (provided as Diphtheria Tetanus vaccines), the women had also received the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine in pregnancy. What is worse a DTaP vaccine was mandated for pregnant women in 2014. Citing a shortage of the DTaP vaccine the highly reactive [dangerous] DTP vaccine was also administered. Clearly huge risks had been inflicted on the unsuspecting women. None of these vaccines are known to be safe during pregnancy and the MMR and the DaPT/DPT vaccines are lapses that cannot be condoned. The rubella virus in the MMR vaccine and the pertussis component in the DPT vaccine are known to cause microcephaly…”
“The DTaP vaccine initiative to vaccinate pregnant women was financed by BMGF [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] funds…”
SIX: For example, every year in the US, there are 25,000 cases of microcephaly. And the literature is very clear about causes: any insult to the fetal brain during pregnancy can result in microcephaly. Severe malnutrition, falling down stairs, a blow to the stomach, a toxic street drug or medical drug or vaccine or pesticide, and so on.
SEVEN: For science bloggers who live in mommy’s basement and love the statements of the experts, try this. I’ll give you the full citation. Ready?
“Practice Parameter: Evaluation of the child with microcephaly (an evidence-based review)”; Neurology 2009 Sep 15; 73(11) 887-897; Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society.
Here’s the money quote:
“Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth… Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly…”
Bang.
Let me take apart that quote. Microcephaly can result from any early insult to the brain. Any.
That could mean a highly toxic pesticide, for example. It could mean severe and prolonged malnutrition of the mother. It could mean a toxic substance injected into the mother—a street drug or a vaccine. It could mean a physical blow. It could mean a mother’s chronic high fever. And so on.
Moving on: 25,000 cases, not just once, but every year in the US, means what? Christopher Columbus actually brought the Zika virus to America in 1492, and it lay dormant for a very long time and then, in the modern age, exploded on the scene in the US?
No. 25,000 cases a year in the US means we’re being treated to an unsupported major bullshit story right now about the Zika virus.
That’s what it means.
EIGHT: Now we have a January 27, 2016, Associated Press story out of Rio, published in SFGate :
“270 of 4,180 suspected microcephaly cases confirmed.”
That’s called a clue, in case you’re wondering. Of the previously touted 4,180 cases of microcephaly in Brazil, the actual number of confirmed cases so far is, well, only 270. Bang.
But wait, there’s more. AP :
“Brazilian officials said the babies with the defect [microcephaly] and their mothers are being tested to see if they had been infected. Six of the 270 confirmed microcephaly cases were found to have the [Zika] virus.”
Bang, bang, bang. Out of all the microcephaly cases re-examined in Brazil, only six have the Zika virus. That constitutes zero proof that Zika has anything to do with microcephaly.
—end of my excerpts from 2016—
Getting the picture?
In 2015-16, the World Health Organization and the press whiffed on the Zika virus-microcephaly hustle.
But they re-grouped, analyzed their mistakes, and prepared a wall-to-wall messaging campaign for the next fake pandemic.
China would provide the model:
LOCKDOWNS.
House arrest of a major percentage of the global population. Economic devastation.
COVID.
As I’ve been demonstrating for the past year, the COVID story is as full of holes as Zika.
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Gates Foundation, Latin America, Monsanto, Pyriproxyfen | Leave a comment
By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | March 4, 2021
I had hoped to be able to announce today or tomorrow that the English language version of my book about covid-19, titled “Covid: why most of what you know is wrong”, would be out and available for purchase. The Swedish language version (titled “Varför det mesta du vet om covid-19 är fel”) came out last week and is available for purchase here. Unfortunately, Amazon, in a bizarre act of censorship, have decided that they will not be selling it on their platform. Here is what Amazon wrote to my publisher:
Hello,
We’re contacting you regarding the following book(s):Covid: Why most of what you know is wrong by Sebastian Rushworth (AUTHOR) (ID: PRI-PVV8BRDXPZJ)
Due to the rapidly changing nature of information around coronavirus, we are referring customers to official sources for advice about the prevention or treatment of the virus.
Amazon reserves the right to determine what content we offer according to our content guidelines. Your book does not comply with our guidelines. As a result, we are not offering it for sale.
You can find our content guidelines on the KDP website: https://kdp.amazon.com/help/topic/G200672390
If you have questions or believe you’ve received this email in error, reply to this message.
Amazon KDP
My publisher is now trying to find an alternate solution to get the English language version of the book out.
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Book Review, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
By Richie Allen | March 4, 2021
The Telegraph is reporting this morning that pupils are facing “mask apartheid” after parents were told that children who refuse to wear one will have to sit at the back of the class. They will also be banned from eating lunch with their friends.
The government has recommended that all secondary school students wear face coverings during class, but it is not legally enforceable. Schools were told that students who refused to wear a mask, or take a twice weekly rapid covid test, must not be sent home.
But, according to The Telegraph today:
… parents fear their children will be discriminated against and forced to miss out on lessons if they come to school without a face mask.
Pupils at The Stonehenge School in Amesbury, Wiltshire were told that if they refuse to wear masks they will be “asked to sit near open doors or windows and must understand that their peers may not wish to sit with or work with them”.
Meanwhile, students at The Warwick School in Redhill, Surrey were advised that if they do not wear a mask in the classroom, the school will “make alternative arrangements” for them to continue learning “where we can maintain social distancing”.
Another secondary school said pupils without masks will have to enter the school through a separate entrance and sit at a table alone at the back of the class by an open window. They will also be banned from sitting with their peers at lunch time and blocked from group activities such as PE lessons, drama or after-school clubs.
One parent said: “I am appalled and feel blackmailed into accepting these measures so that my children can partake in exercise, class learning and their social groups at school.”
Coombe School for Girls in London warned parents that girls who came to school without a mask would be sent home to get one. Park Academy, also in London, told youngsters that if they arrived without a mask, they’d have to wait outside until one was brought for them. Failing that, they’d have to go home.
This is outrageous. The government was explicit in telling head teachers that children who refused to wear a mask could neither be sent home, nor discriminated against. Allyson Pollock, a professor of public health at the Newcastle University told The Telegraph :
“This is not informed consent, its coercion and other harms are emerging as a result – psychological trauma, isolation, segregation stigmatising children and its a form of abuse and harassment and intimidation of children and parents.”
March 5, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK | Leave a comment
16 states are now following the science
By Jordan Schachtel | March 2, 2021
It took an entire year, but lockdowns and mask mandates are officially incredibly unpopular with half of the country, to the point that governors are rapidly making sweeping changes to their year-long COVID-19 policies.
Jumping onto the coattails of pro-individual freedom leaders like governors Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) and Kristi Noem (R-SD), the governors of Mississippi and Texas decided Tuesday to announce an end to business restrictions and statewide mask mandates.
Both Tate Reeves (R-MS) and Greg Abbott (R-TX), who had long taken a nanny state approach to the COVID-19 crisis, acted almost simultaneously to announce the end of statewide restrictions.
The centrally planned solutions to COVID-19 have failed spectacularly, and the American people have taken notice of this reality. Hundreds of millions have now been through a full year of government-imposed tyranny on both a federal and state level. Whether it was a travel ban, an endless series of lockdowns, mask mandates, countless emergency orders, business closures, and the like, not a single top-down order from the federal or state level did anything productive for the wellbeing of Americans.
None of it worked. All of it served as a net negative. The people have noticed.
Now that their constituents have had enough, politicians on the Right are fast departing from the COVID tyranny, and attempting to secure what is left of their political aspirations.
Abbott and Reeves are not the only GOP governors moving fast in ending the restrictions, several other governors have recently acted to roll them back.
On February 12, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte lifted his statewide mask mandate.
On February 8, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds lifted Iowa’s statewide mask mandate along with several other restrictions.
On February 22, North Dakota took it a step further. Its legislative body took the bold step in voting to make mask mandates illegal.
As of March 2, there are now 16 states that no longer have statewide mask orders.
However, across the political divide, there remains no end in sight to the corona madness. Much of the Left continues to embrace and root on endless COVID-19 restrictions, and the hijacking of individual rights in the name of a virus.
Governor Gavin Newsom of California took to Twitter in describing the end of restrictions as “absolutely reckless.”
It took long enough, but it’s now official: Governors who continue to impose lockdowns and mask mandates are fast becoming as popular as Red Sox fans in the Yankee Stadium bleachers, at least in half of the country. The internal polling is out, and the draconian restrictions are being abandoned in droves. History will not be kind to the remaining high-handed holdouts.
March 3, 2021 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, United States | Leave a comment
The Antibody Deception from Rosemary Frei on Vimeo.
By Rosemary Frei, MSc | March 2, 2021
The world has been fixated for months on novel-coronavirus PCR testing, contact tracing and vaccination.
Meanwhile, another major part of the Covid biomedical complex has received far less attention: the use of antibodies for detecting, diagnosing and treating infection with the novel coronavirus.
Hundreds of antibodies have been approved for these purposes since January 2020. And hundreds more are poised to start being marketed soon.
This is part of the biomedical gold rush: by last summer already, antibodies were on track to become the most lucrative medical product, with global revenue projected to reach nearly half a trillion dollars by 2024. Profit margins in the range of 67% aren’t uncommon.
Pharma giants such as AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly are among the companies grabbing the largest chunks of the novel-coronavirus-antibody market. And some of the most muscular government agencies, including Anthony Fauci’s US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, are part of the action (see, for example, the second-last section of this article, on antibodies used to treat Covid).
Virtually every study and piece of marketing material related to Covid is premised on scientists having positively and correctly identified the presence of the novel coronavirus (also known as SARS-CoV-2) in the material they’re working with.
The job of that identification is usually given to antibodies that are said to bind to the novel coronavirus. The assumption is these antibodies are able to pick out the virus and only the virus from among every other organism and substance surrounding it.
Unfortunately it turns out that the antibodies rarely (if ever) do that. This is because of, among other things, inadequate verification of the antibodies’ accuracy in targeting the virus by the companies that manufacture and sell them. And there’s even less verification by government regulators.
Let’s take a 30,000-foot tour of a couple of the main features of the antibody-industry landscape, which is awash in complexity and cash.
Can Antibodies be Created That Only Bind to One Type of Virus or Another?
Antibodies are tiny, finely-tuned, parts of our immune system. One of their main functions is to seek out viruses and bacteria that may have the potential to cause disease. Antibodies bind to and neutralize these microbes so they can’t multiply and spread.
Humans and our ancestors have been making antibodies in our bodies to fend off infections for millions of years. Then a few decades ago companies got involved in the discovery and manipulation of antibodies, partnering with university labs.
There are two main categories of antibodies. One is ‘polyclonal’ antibodies. These are garden-variety antibodies that bind to a variety of different substances and/or organisms.
The other is monoclonal antibodies. As the name implies, cloning is involved in their creation. First an antibody that is specific to a particular amino-acid sequence (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins) of interest – for example, one from a protein on the surface of a virus or bacterium — is identified. Then the immune-system cell which produced that antibody is ‘cloned’ in the lab. As a result, each set of monoclonal antibodies binds to that particular amino-acid sequence.
I emailed one of the English-speaking world’s leading authorities on monoclonal antibodies, Harvard Medical School professor Clifford Saper, to get clarity on this. I asked him if it’s true that, as most in the antibody-commercializing arena claim, a monoclonal antibody can be created that’s specific for (that is, binds to) just one type of virus or just one other type of organism.
Saper replied [bolding and italics added by me for emphasis]: “No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”
The implication of Saper’s statement is that any attempt to use a monoclonal antibody to verify the presence of the novel coronavirus will yield a large rate of false-positive results. That is, they will indicate that the novel coronavirus is detected when in fact it hasn’t been. That’s because there’s a high probability that the monoclonal antibody is binding to something else besides the virus (this is known as ‘cross-reacting’).
(I recommend this review paper by Saper, and this one and this one co-authored by Yale pathology professor David Rimm, to anyone wishing to learn about antibody validation.)
And in fact, the vast majority of antibodies and monoclonal antibodies marketed as being specific for the novel coronavirus were developed years ago for detecting SARS-CoV-1. They were then simply repurposed for identifying SARS-CoV-2 — with very few if any checks for whether they also cross-react to other organisms or substances.
I sought confirmation of this repurposing from Zhen Lu. She’s the North American marketing manager for Sino Biological, a Beijing-headquartered company that develops and sells, among other things, hundreds of antibodies. Lu replied to me via email, “Yes, antibodies are repuposed [sic].”
I also checked and received confirmation from Pratiek Matkar, a senior staffer from BenchSci, an antibody-database company. And to see for myself, I logged into the BenchSci database (Matkar granted me a guest account), selected all antibodies for the novel coronavirus, and looked to see which organisms had been used in cross-reactivity tests for them. SARS-CoV-1 was the only one that came up in this check.
This all explains something I observed last week: Sino Biological had just changed the content of its home page for the section of their website on antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The page now announces that they’ve introduced new “matched antibody pairs” that work better at finding the virus. The pair consists of a “capture antibody” and a “detection antibody.”
And they claim these pairs are more accurate at finding the novel coronavirus: that they “have high specificity without cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV, [or with the common human coronaviruses] 229E, NL63, HKU1, [and] OC43.”
The only way I can interpret that is they know the antibodies they’ve been marketing for months as being specific for the novel coronavirus bind to other things, such as common human coronaviruses.
How Are Antibodies Harnessed in Tests for the Novel Coronavirus?
One of the main types of tests for the virus contains antibodies that are ostensibly specific for the novel coronavirus. The way they’re designed to work is that if the virus is present in a blood sample the antibodies bind to it and, as a result, the test gives a positive signal.
The other type of test contains sequences of protein from the novel coronavirus; if antibodies to the virus are present in a blood sample, they bind to the protein sequences and produce a positive result.
The manufacturers are supposed to conduct accuracy checks of their test kits before they put them on the market. These checks largely consist of estimation of the rates of false positives and false negatives (the latter is a negative result when the antibody or protein of interest is contained in the sample being tested by the kit).
However, companies do this cursory accuracy check with only very few samples of a small number of viruses — and rarely on bacteria or any other of the millions of biological substances that can be present in the blood.
Despite this very inadequate validation and the strong incentive for the companies to make their products look good, as documented last May by David Crowe, the manufacturers often record a significant rate of false positives. The false positives are to everything from West Nile virus to various types of human coronaviruses.
Usually the companies and governments wave that off as insignificant. Occasionally though, the test kits are so bad that they’re taken off the market.
For example, an antibody-testing kit sold by a company called Chembio Diagnostics was launched on March 31, 2020. It was almost immediately granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An EUA allows companies to rush products onto the market with very minimal oversight. Brazil and the European Union also gave the nod for the Chembio test to be sold in their jurisdictions in April and May 2020, respectively.
Then in June 2020 the FDA pulled it off the market. The agency said ”this test generates a higher than expected rate of false results.” (Note that the top table on page 13 of the product insert for that “revoked” Chembio test indicates it cross-reacts to the human coronavirus 229E.)
But in November 2020 the Chembio antibody test again was approved for use in Brazil. And on January 14, 2021, the test got the nod in the European Union, the UK and Ireland.
Is it identical to the rest that was so inaccurate it was pulled off the market last June? It’s hard to tell. There is no product insert for it that I could find. In fact there’s very little information about it on the webpage for the test; you have to request the information. I submitted a request on Jan. 23 and haven’t received it yet.
Two of the heads of the FDA branch that approves testing devices penned a February 18, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine article. In it, the pair admitted that the FDA’s EUAs allowed too-loose approvals for serology tests.
They indicated the FDA has tightened its criteria for approval of these tests. They also point to efforts by other government agencies to evaluate serology tests. But the pair don’t say a word about the need to move toward objective, thorough test validation. They also are mute on the fact that EUAs are still being issued.
(Also note that the FDA and Health Canada listings of the 65 serology tests approved to date in the US and 19 approved to date in Canada continue to give the sensitivity [correct identification of positive samples] of the tests by ‘positive percent agreement’ and specificity [correct identification of negative samples] by ‘negative percent agreement.’ These are relative measures of accuracy – that is, compared to other tests – rather than objective/absolute accuracy, and therefore are poor facsimiles of accuracy.)
One of the many major figures in the Covid-biomedical complex who are priming the pump of the antibody pipeline is Ian Lipkin. He’s director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University in New York. Lipkin is involved at high levels in many global organizations including the World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well in pharmaceutical companies. (And he is quoted in a ‘fact-check’ of a July 2020 article I co-authored with Patrick Corbett titled, “No one has died from the coronavirus.” Lipkin states, among other things, in the fact-check piece that “Conspiracy theorists are not persuaded by data.”)
Lipkin co-authored a Feb. 12, 2021, paper in which he and his team claimed to have identified, using a new ‘peptide-microarray’ technology they invented, 29 amino-acid sequences unique to the novel coronavirus. They assert that antibodies specific to the sequences could be created – and that these in turn could be harnessed “to facilitate diagnostics, epidemiology, and vaccinology” for Covid. (The only conflict Lipkin and some of his co-authors disclose in the ‘competing interests’ paragraph at the end of article is that they invented the peptide-microarray technology described in the article.)
Do Antibodies Used to Treat Covid Fare Any Better?
Antibodies are also being marketed to treat Covid. Some are sold singly (known as ‘monotherapy’) and others in pairs. They are deemed to confer ‘passive immunity.’
Among the most-reported-on set of antibodies for treating Covid is the Regeneron monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab. This pair reportedly was used in October 2020 to treat then-U.S. President Donald Trump. The combo subsequently was granted an EUA by the FDA on November 21, 2020. It also is being considered for approval by Health Canada.
I’d like to focus on a somewhat lesser-known monoclonal antibody called bamlanivumab. It’s being used both singly and as one half of a pair for treatment of symptomatic Covid patients early in the course of their infection. The antibody was discovered, and clinical study of it started, by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which is headed by Anthony Fauci) and a Vancouver, British Columbia-based company called AbCellera Diagnostics. The antibody is being manufactured and sold by Eli Lilly. It costs more than $1,200 a vial.
AbCellera is developing a significant pipeline of other antibodies. Its capabilities for this were developed over the past two-plus years as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Pandemic Prevention Platform program.
(AbCellera also has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canadian government, including for building an antibody-manufacturing plant. And Peter Thiel, who co-founded both PayPal and Palantir, is a board member. So is John Montalbano, who’s also on the board of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and until 2015 was CEO of RBC [Royal Bank of Canada] Global Asset Management. This and significant positive media coverage helped propel the company to the biggest Canadian-biotech-company Initial Public Offering to date, on Dec. 11, 2020.)
Bamlanivumab was given an EUA by the FDA on November 9, 2020, for treatment of mild to moderate Covid. And Health Canada gave the monotherapy an interim authorization on November 17. It’s not getting much traction in clinical practice so far in Canada, though, perhaps because of the less-than-stellar results from clinical trials (see below).
But this hasn’t deterred the Canadian and US federal governments, which combined have purchased close to half a million of these tests. For example, most recently, on February 26, the US government bought 100,000 vials.
The only study on bamlanivimab made public prior to the November 9 FDA approval was one posted October 1, 2020, on the website of the online-only journal bioRχiv. [My Feb. 3, 2021, and Feb. 11, 2021, articles — on the new variants and the associated modelling papers, respectively – noted that the journal and its sister publication medRχiv contain only non-peer-reviewed articles and were created by an organization headed by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.]
The study used rhesus monkeys and provided very extensive details about how the antibody was discovered and checked for specificity to the novel coronavirus. The researchers concluded that the antibody – at that time known as LY-CovV555 — has “potent neutralizing activity” against SARS-CoV-2.
On January 14 I emailed the lead author of that paper, Bryan Jones. He’s a researcher in Lilly’s Biotechnology Research Program. I asked Jones where in their paper is the proof the antibody is specific to SARS-CoV-2 (and therefore isn’t binding to something else instead of, or in addition to, the novel coronavirus).
He responded promptly, as follows [bolding added by me for emphasis]: “While we did determine that LY-CoV555 is specific to SARS-CoV-2 (and doesn’t bind to the spike protein of SARS-CoV), that is not specified or detailed in any of the figures or tables [in the paper].”
Jones pointed me to several parts of the paper and supplemental material published with it that he said show, via indirect extrapolation, that the antibody is specific for the novel coronavirus.
That’s not exactly convincing.
Then on December 22 a study in the New England Journal of Medicine gave a thumbs-down to the usefulness of bamlanivimab in people hospitalized after receiving a Covid diagnosis. The paper noted that in late October the study was stopped because the antibody didn’t help the patients any more than did placebo.
But this didn’t deter Lilly.
On January 21, 2021, the company issued a news release about a study of bamlanivumab in residents and staff of nursing homes. They claimed their research showed that the antibody “significantly reduced the risk of contracting symptomatic COVID-19.”
However, they didn’t back this up with much information. The study hasn’t been published in a journal or presented at a scientific/medical meeting. And there’s no word on when it will be.
Despite that, on the same morning the release was sent out by Lilly, glowing articles appeared in major media outlets stating that the study showed bamlanivumab appears to significantly reduce Covid symptoms in the frail elderly.
For example a Bloomberg article was posted at 8 a.m. on Jan. 21 with the headline, “Eli Lilly Antibody Cuts Covid-19 Risk Up to 80% in Nursing Home Study.” The article was carried in many other media outlets such as the Globe & Mail.
The article quoted Lilly’s Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky as saying, “This is an urgent situation. Where there’s an outbreak in nursing homes and people haven’t yet received the vaccine, this could be a potential way to protect them before they get it.”
And January 21 New York Times piece by senior science journalist Gina Kolata quotes a vaccine expert at Boston Children’s Hospital, Ofer Levy, who wasn’t one of the scientists involved in the study, as saying, “I see only positives here. This is a win.”
Kolata also reported that Lilly plans to ask the FDA for an EUA for bamlanivimab for prevention of Covid in the frail elderly, focusing on those in nursing homes and long-term-care homes.
In parallel, Lilly is pivoting to using bamlanivumab in combination with another monoclonal antibody called etesevimab. A study on this combination in people with mild or moderate Covid was published on January 21, 2021. The results indicate it doesn’t reduce symptoms, but only lowers the viral load of people.
This didn’t deter Lilly either; it’s spinning this in the media as a very positive result. And so is the FDA: on February 9 the agency issued an EUA for the combination of the two antibodies for treating mild or moderate COVID.
Then the next twist in the plot happened, on February 16: a paper published that day in bioRχiv indicated that bamlanivumab doesn’t neutralize the South African and Brazilian variants of the novel coronavirus.
I’ll Leave the Last Words to Scott Adams
Dilbert-cartoon creator Scott Adams makes this observation on page 13 of his book Loserthink: “One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”
This perfectly describes the situation with antibodies for the novel coronavirus.
Buyer beware, follow the money, and stay tuned.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.
March 3, 2021 Posted by aletho | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
By Jonathan Turley | March 2, 2021
We have been discussing erosion of free speech and academic freedom protections at colleges and universities around the United States. Most faculty have been conspicuously silent as their colleagues are attacked, suspended, or even fired for taking opposing views on systemic racism, police brutality, or movements like Black Lives Matter. In Sweden, the response has been quite different after Professor Jonas Ludvigsson, announced that he would stop all further research on Covid-19 after a campaign of abuse and harassment following his study on the low threat that the virus poses to children and teachers. The country is ramping up protections for academics to combat such cancelling campaigns.
Ludvigsson researches and teaches clinical epidemiology at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. His research is consistent with studies that have long found a low risk to students and teachers. This research was highlighted during the Trump Administration in a call for the resumption of classes but largely ignored by the media. The argument for reopening schools, particularly for young children, was portrayed as political and “not following the science.” Commercials ran [stating] that calls to returning to the classroom were tantamount to “murder.” However, the science has been overwhelmingly supportive of such reopening. Indeed, Catholic and other private schools in many states never closed without surges in the virus.
Ludvigsson looked at children from age 1 to 16 during the first wave of COVID-19 and found that only 15 children went to the ICU, for a rate of 0.77 per 100,000. Moreover, in the 1-16 age group, there was only a slight increase from the four-month period before the pandemic to the four-month period following the period.
Such studies contradict the media narrative and the position of teacher unions, including many which continue to oppose a return to the classroom despite the science. Accordingly, Ludvigsson was attacked and hounded out of further research.
The response of the country however has been different from the response in the United States. Various academic leaders and groups are pushing for legislation designed to protect academic freedom. They are citing a Swedish government study in 2018 found “21 out of 26 universities said that there is a risk that researchers will be exposed to harassment, threats and violence.”
The response in the United States is strikingly different. We have been discussing efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views on various issues including an effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as a leading linguistics professor at Harvard and a literature professor at Penn. Sites like Lawyers, Guns, and Money feature writers like Colorado Law Professor Paul Campus who call for the firing of those with opposing views (including myself). Such campaigns have targeted teachers and students who contest the evidence of systemic racism in the use of lethal force by police or offer other opposing views in current debates over the pandemic, reparations, electoral fraud, or other issues.
Faculty have largely stayed silent as campaigns targeting these professors and teachers. While some may relish such cleansing of schools of opposing voices, many are likely intimidated by such campaigns and do not want to be the next targeted by such groups. We have often defended the free speech rights of faculty on the left who have made hateful comments about whites, males, and conservatives. Yet, there is an eerie silence when conservatives are targeted for their own views. Sweden has shown how this is a global issue but that the response outside of the United States has been markedly different.
March 3, 2021 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, United States | Leave a comment
Ivor Cummins | March 2, 2021
The New York Times, WSJ and all of the media have mused about the origins of this virus – well here we explain the actual science and data, and what IT actually tells us.
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…
Alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins
March 2, 2021 Posted by aletho | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
By Leo Hohmann | February 28, 2021
Should the technocrats who pushed governments to lockdown their citizens be tried for crimes against humanity?
One prominent German lawyer, who is also licensed to practice law in America, thinks they should. And he is organizing a team of thousands of participating lawyers who want to prosecute a “second Nuremberg tribunal” against a cadre of international elites responsible for what he calls the “corona fraud scandal.”
Targeting the Davos, Switzerland-based World Economic Forum and its devotees among global political leaders, attorney Reiner Fuellmich says they are guilty of crimes against humanity for their perpetration of COVID-response policies that led to forced shutdowns, destroyed businesses, impoverished families, broken lives and a spike in suicide rates.
He has formed the German Corona Investigative Committee to pursue civil charges against the main perpetrators, among them being the head of the United Nations World Health Organization Dr. Tedros Adhanom. He hopes a successful class-action lawsuit will also lead to criminal charges.
Fuellmich was on the legal team that won a major lawsuit against German automaker Volkswagen in a 2015 case involving tampered catalytic converters in the U.S. He also was involved in a lawsuit that exposed one of Germany’s largest banks, Deutsche Bank, as a criminal enterprise. The bank was recently ordered by the U.S. Justice Department to pay $130 million to resolve corrupt practices that included money laundering, bribery and fraud between the years 2009 and 2016.
Fuellmich is licensed to practice law in Germany and the state of California.
He believes the frauds committed by Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank pale in comparison to the damage wrought by those who sold the Covid-19 crisis as the worst viral outbreak to hit the world in more than a century and used it to cause media-driven panic, government overreach and human suffering on a scale still not fully quantified.
The truth is revealed in the numbers, Fuellmich said, citing figures that show COVID-19 has not caused any statistically significant increase in the 2020 death counts over previous years.
The scam perpetrated on humanity hinged on one dirty little secret, he said – the PCR Test.
Not only are these tests not approved for diagnostic purposes but the inventor of the PCR Test, the late Kary Mullis, explicitly stated in an interview that this was never the purpose of his test.
Fuellmich explains in the video below how the coronavirus response of governments worldwide working in cahoots with the Bill Gates-funded U.N. World Health Organization “are probably the biggest crimes against humanity ever committed.”
[If YouTube removes the above video you can watch the full version here.]
“A number of highly respected scientists [he names several in the video including a Nobel Laurette from Stanford University] have concluded there has never been a coronavirus pandemic but only a PCR test pandemic,” he says.
“If someone tests positive it does not mean they are infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-COV-2 virus,” Fuellmich says in the video.
“Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests, or intentional misrepresentation, that can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this translates into intentional infliction of damage.”
He said persons harmed by the PCR-induced lockdowns are entitled to full compensation for their losses.
“The crimes committed by Mr. Christian Drosten [an epidemiologist and Germany’s version of Dr. Anthony Fauci] and Mr. Lothar Wieler, a veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of the CDC, and Tedros Adhanom, head of the WHO, must be legally qualified as actual crimes against humanity as defined in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code.”
He said the class-action lawsuit is the best avenue to try the case.
In a Feb. 24 article about Fuellmich’s effort, the journal Principia Scientific International quoted him saying “this COVID-19 crisis should be renamed the ‘Covid-19 Scandal,’ and all those responsible should be prosecuted for civil damages due to manipulations and falsified test protocols. Therefore, an international network of business lawyers will plead the biggest tort case of all time, the COVID-19 fraud scandal, which has meanwhile turned into the biggest crime against humanity ever committed.”
Here is a summarized translation of the most-recent update Fuellmich put out on his German website on Feb. 15:
“The hearings of around 100 internationally renowned scientists, doctors, economists and lawyers, which have been conducted by the Berlin Commission of Inquiry into the COVID-19 affair since 10.07.2020, have in the meantime shown with a probability close to certainty that the COVID-19 scandal was at no time a health issue. Rather, it was about solidifying the illegitimate power (illegitimate because it was obtained by criminal methods) of the corrupt ‘Davos clique’ by transferring the wealth of the people to the members of the Davos clique, destroying, among other things, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. Platforms such as Amazon, Google, Uber, etc. could thus appropriate their market share and wealth.”
Was the vaccine the reason for the virus?
Perhaps the most egregious outgrowth of the coronavirus scam has been the fear-mongering that not only led to devastating and non-scientific shutdowns but also the rush to market of an unproven, experimental vaccine, which is now making billions of dollars for Big Pharma.
Just like the lockdowns, the vaccine is unnecessary because there are already several well-documented treatments involving long-established drugs that are proven safe and widely available. Also just like the lockdowns, this vaccine carries potentially devastating long-term effects on human health. There are questions about its effects on the fertility of men and women, and it has already led to more than 600 deaths in the U.S. and more than 250 deaths in the U.K.
To make matters worse, it is becoming plainly obvious that the intent is to make this experimental vaccine mandatory for all of humanity. It was billionaire vaccine investor Bill Gates who originally floated the idea, in April 2020, that humanity could never return to “normal” until “we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.”
This reporter predicted last April that the vaccine would eventually be made mandatory, largely by corporations using coercive tactics.
Israel takes the lead in instituting medical tyranny
Among the nations considered to be part of the “free world,” Israel is taking the lead in pushing forward with a new type of society in which corporations and governments work together to coerce and eventually force every human being on the planet to get an injection of experimental vaccine treatments.
Not since the Nazi Third Reich has there been so little respect for citizens’ rights of individual health autonomy in a Western nation.
Whether you live in America, the U.K., Australia or Europe, if you wish to see what your future holds under the “new normal,” just look at Israel.
The Israeli government has announced that people will not be allowed to participate in a host of life functions without showing papers offering proof that they have either been vaccinated or that they have had and recovered from COVID.
A host of Israeli businesses including shops, malls, markets, pubs, gyms, museums, synagogues, hotels and libraries were allowed to reopen Sunday, Feb. 21, the Times of Israel reports. But only those Israelis who have been vaccinated or have recovered from COVID will be able to use gyms and pools, attend synagogues, sporting and culture events, board a flight or stay at hotels.
To be allowed to open their doors, all relevant businesses have been ordered by the government to scan their customers for the so-called “Green Pass,” barring from entry anyone who cannot produce such documentation.
Watch video below of Israel supermarket guard requiring shoppers to show their COVID papers before they can enter the store.
There are three ways for Israelis to get the Green Pass:
Europe also moving toward vaccine passports
The European Union also appears to be on the cusp of embracing similar draconian measures. German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated this week that the concept of a digital vaccine passport has achieved “unanimous support within the E.U.“
“Everyone agreed that we need a digital vaccination certificate,” Merkel said last Wednesday after a meeting with European leaders.
E.U. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also praised Israel’s new Green Pass system.
The Telegraph reports that the government of the U.K. is nearing an announcement of new rules similar to Israel’s in which no Brit will be allowed to enter pubs, gyms, large-venue events or hotels without showing their special COVID vaccine passport.
Since when do we take away freedom in order to restore it under a new set of terms defined by unelected “experts” at the United Nations World Health Organization? This is the twisted way in which the globalist technocrats think. Always perverting the language to sell their lies and enticing ill-informed masses to walk straight into their devious traps.
Forcing people to accept a medical treatment and to “show your papers” proving they have received the treatment in order to participate in society is a violation of the well-established international norms.
The Nuremberg Code came out of the Nuremberg tribunals that convicted leading German Nazis. The Code states that any experimental medical treatment must not only be voluntary but must include “informed consent,” meaning the person not only volunteered but was informed of exactly what the treatment entailed and the risks involved.
Global power elites have already used COVID as cover to clamp down on free speech, assembly, religious gatherings and small business operations, creating a world of the haves and have-nots. Big-box stores like Walmart and online retailer Amazon have thrived, raking in record profits, while small businesses are dying.
So the class-action lawsuit appears justified, at least in theory. A small cabal of globalist corporations and “experts” at the WHO created the problem, made it impossible for people to live their lives as normal human beings, leading to mass anxiety and huge spikes in suicide.
Now that everyone is miserable and desperate to get back to normal, the technocrats introduce an experimental gene therapy, the mRNA vaccine, and are holding that out as the salvation, making it oh so tempting for many to line up and roll up their sleeve.
Tempting, that is, if you haven’t done your research to find out who is promoting the vaccine, what are their long-held motives and goals, and what their previous track record has been.
Such research would lead you straight to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has invested billions into an ever-growing lineup of vaccines through the GAVI global vaccine alliance and other organizations. Gates has bragged about the tremendous 20-to-1 “return on investment” he has reaped by investing in vaccine therapies. His net worth has increased by $17 billion since making the shift in focus from computers to vaccines.
U.S. companies bribing employees to take the shot
A number of U.S. companies are now bribing their employees, offering cash bonuses of $100 to $150 if they get the shot. Meijer, Kroger, Publix, Dollar General, Aldi, JBS Meat Processing and Trader Joe’s, among others, have all jumped on the bandwagon. They are being highly praised by “health experts” for doing this, so look for more companies to follow suit.
Those who refuse the vaccine, which is their right under the Nuremberg Codes, will become the new untouchables in a caste system that divides people along medical lines. Those getting the shot will be allowed to re-enter something closer to normalcy while those rejecting it will be left behind.
The dots are all there – with the virus, the fear-mongering, the lockdowns and mask mandates, and the coming vaccine mandates. All you have to do is connect them.
Leo Hohmann is an independent journalist whose work is 100 percent reader supported. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Send c/o Leo Hohmann, PO Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264
March 1, 2021 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | Covid-19 | Leave a comment
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
‘World is not secretly run by elites’
Free West Media | August 5, 2022
UNESCO says it is seriously concerned about the increase in “disinformation” and “conspiracy theories”. And they plan to put an end to it through a network of informants.
“Conspiracy theories can be dangerous,” the UN agency warned. “Often they ignore scientific evidence and polarize society with dire consequences. This has to stop.”
Unesco’s director-general warned that “conspiracy theories” could cause damage to people as well as to their health. “They reinforce misconceptions about the pandemic, reinforcing stereotypes that can fuel violence and violent, extremist ideologies,” said Audrey Azoulay.
The UN agency has launched a campaign to help people identify, debunk and report “conspiracy theories” to prevent them from spreading further.
This campaign is being carried out in collaboration with the European Commission, Twitter and the World Jewish Congress. The UN has created a toolkit to “debunk” such theories and smear anyone who dares to claim that governments are not fair and transparent.
The UN also warned that George Soros, the Rothschilds and Israel should not be linked to “alleged conspiracies”.
World events “are not secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful players with malicious intent,” the UN agency maintained.
And if anyone therefore comes across someone who believes that the world elite is plotting to consolidate power or direct events, then that person needs to take action. According to the UN agency, when meeting a “conspiracy theorist”, under no circumstances should one enter into a discussion. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zoneatheonews (at) gmail.com
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
