Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

National Institutes Of Health Say Moist Masks Are Good For You!

By Dr Joseph Mercola | March 1, 2021 

A study from the National Institutes of Health claims wearing a moist mask is actually good for you because inhaling through the wet mask hydrates your lungs and boosts your immune system. However, it’s important to realize that the humidity inside the mask will rapidly allow pathogenic bacteria to grow and multiply. This is a documented fact not addressed by the NIH.

Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face, “mask mouth” (bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections are all on the rise.

By breathing through a bacteria-infested mask, you risk inhaling bacteria deep into your lungs, and according to recent research, the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung cancer pathogenesis and contribute to advanced stage lung cancer.

Face masks can also reduce oxygen intake, leading to hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia), along with rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts.

Research1 also shows asymptomatic individuals pose virtually no risk, as they rarely ever spread live virus, thereby undermining the idea that everyone must be masked simply because you don’t know who’s infectious and who’s not.

Despite all of that, government officials insist that universal mask wearing is an essential strategy to combat COVID-19, now even recommending wearing two,2 three3,4 or even four5 layers of face masks. And, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Americans may have to wear masks all the way through 2022.6

Is Wearing A Wet Mask Good For You?

Just when you thought mainstream propaganda could not propose a greater irrational perversion of the truth, a new study7 from the National Institutes of Health claims wearing a moist mask — which is a breeding ground for harmful bacteria — is actually good for you because inhaling through the wet mask hydrates your lungs and boosts your immune system. As reported by Healthing.ca, February 16, 2021:8

“The study, published in the Biophysical Journal, tested an N95 mask, a three-ply disposable surgical mask, a two-ply cotton-polyester mask and a heavy cotton mask, measuring the level of humidity by having a volunteer breathe into a sealed steel box.

When the person did not wear a mask, the water vapor of the exhaled breath filled the box, leading to a rapid increase in humidity inside the box. When the person wore a mask, the buildup of humidity inside the box greatly decreased as most of the water vapor remained in the mask, became condensed, and was re-inhaled. The researchers conducted the tests at three different temperatures ranging from 7 to 36 degrees Celsius.

‘We found that face masks strongly increase the humidity in inhaled air and propose that the resulting hydration of the respiratory tract could be responsible for the documented finding that links lower COVID-19 disease severity to wearing a mask,’ said Adriaan Bax, Ph.D., a NIH Distinguished Investigator and the study’s lead author.

‘High levels of humidity have been shown to mitigate severity of the flu, and it may be applicable to severity of COVID-19 through a similar mechanism.’”

However, it’s important to realize that the humidity inside the mask will allow pathogenic bacteria to rapidly grow and multiply — a documented fact not addressed by the NIH — and since the mask makes it more difficult to breathe, you’re likely to breathe heavier, thereby risking inhaling the microbes deep inside your lungs. As you’ll see below, this can have significant health risks that vastly outweigh any benefit you might get from breathing more humid air.

Occupational Respirator Testing Expert Speaks Out

In June 2020, Schaefer wrote an open letter9 addressed to the chief medical officer in Alberta, Canada, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, pointing out the errors of recommending universal wearing of N95 masks, surgical masks or nonmedical masks as protection against SARS-CoV-2. In it, he writes:10

“I have been teaching and conducting respirator fit testing for over 20 years and now currently for my company SafeCom Training Services Inc. My clients include many government departments, our military, healthcare providers with Alberta Health Services, educational institutions and private industry. I am a published author and a recognized authority on this subject.

Filter respirator masks, especially N95, surgical and non-medical masks, provide negligible COVID-19 protection for the following reasons:

1. Viruses in the fluid envelopes that surround them can be very small, so small in fact that you would need an electron microscope to see them. N95 masks filter 95% of particles with a diameter of 0.3 microns or larger. COVID-19 particles are .08 – .12 microns.

2. Viruses don’t just enter us through our mouth and nose, but can also enter through our eyes and even the pores of our skin. The only effective barrier one can wear to protect against virus exposure would be a fully encapsulated hazmat suit with cuffs by ankles taped to boots and cuffs by wrists taped to gloves, while receiving breathing air from a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).

This barrier is standard gear to protect against a biohazard (viruses) and would have to be worn in a possible virus hazard environment 24/7 and you wouldn’t be able to remove any part of it even to have a sip of water, eat or use the washroom while in the virus environment. If you did, you would become exposed and would negate all the prior precautions you had taken.”

Face Masks Pose Several Health Hazards

In his letter, and in the video above, Schaefer also stresses that these kinds of face masks pose “very real risks and possible serious threats to a wearer’s health” for a number of reasons, including the following:

1. Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions need to be screened by a medical professional to make sure they won’t be at risk of a medical emergency if wearing a face mask.

This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks, breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease, fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.

2. Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).

3. They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. That said, there is some evidence to support that this may be one of the few benefits of mask wearing, as slightly elevated CO2 levels can also contribute to health benefits as per my interview with Patrick McKeown. (We’re not talking about dangerously high levels, however.)

4. Wearing a face mask increases your body temperature and physical stress, which could result in an elevated temperature reading that is not related to infection.

5. All face masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections in the user as warm, moist air accumulates inside the mask. This is the perfect breeding ground for pathogens. “That is why N95 and other disposable masks were only designed to be short duration, specific task use and then immediately discarded,” Schaefer notes.

Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face,11 “mask mouth” (symptoms of which include bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections12 are all on the rise.

What’s worse, a study13,14 published in the February 2021 issue of the journal Cancer Discovery found that the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung cancer pathogenesis and can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer. As reported by Global Research :15

“While analyzing lung microbes of 83 untreated adults with lung cancer, the research team discovered that colonies of Veillonella, Prevotella, and Streptococcus bacteria, which may be cultivated through prolonged mask wearing, are all found in larger quantities in patients with advanced stage lung cancer than in earlier stages.

The presence of these bacterial cultures is also associated with a lower chance of survival and increased tumor growth regardless of the stage.”

6. With extended use, medical masks will begin to break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study16 being published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Schaefer also points out that to provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately protect against larger particles.

Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, “do not filter anything,” Schaefer notes. These types of masks are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose an infection risk.17 After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.

Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective but also particularly dangerous as they’re not engineered for “easy inhalation and effective purging of exhaled carbon dioxide,” making them wholly unsuitable for use.

In the video, Schaefer demonstrates the only type of mask that is actually safe to wear — the gas mask kind of respirator you’d use to protect yourself against painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust.

Real respirators are built to filter the air you breathe in, and get rid of the carbon dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring there’s no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen inside the mask.

I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence showing that face masks do not prevent viral illnesses. To these we can now add an updated Cochrane review,18 which summarizes randomized trial evidence from studies that looked at face masks, hand-washing and/or physical distancing as prevention against respiratory infections.

There are many limitations to the included studies, including the facts that none was specific to COVID-19 and most had questionable adherence. They did not include the one COVID-19 specific trial that also included adherence parameters. With regard to medical and surgical masks, they found that:

“Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people).”

Four health care studies and one small community study looked at the use of N95/P2 respirators. Here they found that:

“Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people).”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed To Prove Benefit

Cochrane’s review certainly would have been more complete had they included the only COVID-19-related study to date. Unfortunately, they only included studies published before April 1, 2020. The trial in question, which was done in Denmark, was published November 18, 2020.

This COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial19,20 confirmed and strengthened previous findings, showing that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.


This article was brought to you by Dr. Mercola, a New York Times bestselling author. For more helpful articles, please visit Mercola.com today and receive your FREE Take Control of Your Health E-book!

March 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Massive number of flu cases are re-labeled COVID cases

By Jon Rappoport | March 1, 2021

The number of COVID cases has been faked in various ways.

By far, the most extensive strategy is re-labeling. Flu is called COVID.

We don’t need charts and graphs to see this. It’s right in front of our eyes.

The definition of a COVID case allows flu in the door. There is nothing unique about that definition. For example, a cough, or chills and fever, would constitute “a mild case of COVID.” [1] [2]

A positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 would also be required, but as I’ve shown in my recent series on the test, obtaining a false positive is as easy as pie. [3]

All you have to do is run the test at more than 35 cycles. Most labs run the test at 40 cycles. A cycle is a quantum leap in magnification of the swab sample taken from the patient. When you run the test at more than 35 cycles, false-positives come pouring out like water from a fire hose. [4] [5] [5a] [5b]

So… with ordinary flu symptoms plus a false-positive PCR test… voila, you have a COVID case.

Keep in mind that, overwhelmingly, most COVID cases are mild. In other words, they’re indistinguishable from ordinary flu.

But there is a rabbit hole here, and we can go down that hole much farther. The next question is: what is a flu case? What is it really?

Researcher Peter Doshi did much to answer that question. In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published his shocking report, which created tremors through the halls of the CDC, where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412): [6] [7]

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom.

You see, the CDC creates one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could only say, with assurance, that 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the old parroted 36,000 figure.

However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of annual flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

But we’re not finished yet. Because…what test were researchers using to decide there were 18 cases of honest flu, in which a virus was found and identified? Answer: unknown.

It’s quite probable the test didn’t really isolate a flu virus at all. It only identified some marker that was ASSUMED, without proof, to be unique to a flu virus.

If so—ZERO cases of actual flu were found in the population.

Instead, what we had was “flu-like illness.” Chills, cough, congestion, fever, fatigue; the ubiquitous symptoms that describe about a billion cases of illness, every year, worldwide.

The cause of those billion cases? There is no single cause. Instead, there are many factors, ranging from sudden weather changes to air pollution, to malnutrition, to sub-standard sanitation…on and on.

That being the case, we can now say: Many, many cases of FAKE FLU are being relabeled FAKE COVID.

Now we’re getting real.

The medical cartel “discovers” (markets) huge numbers of so-called unique diseases—each disease with a purported specific cause: virus A, virus B, virus C…

For each virus, there must be at least several highly profitable drugs that supposedly kill the germ. And for each germ, there must be a vaccine that prevents the disease.

Billions and trillions in rewards follow.

And so does CONTROL. Control of minds.

Because the population is tuned up by ceaseless propaganda to believe in the rigid one-disease one-germ notion.

And when the time is right, the medical cartel can even claim a new germ is decimating the world, and they must “destroy the village in order to save it.”

Which is the psychotic fiction we are in the middle of, right now.

The Holy Church of Biological Mysticism needs your support. Give them your time, your money, your livelihood, your future, your loyalty, your faith.

If you do, you are their most important product.


SOURCES:

[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/08/03/covid-case-numbers-far-lower-than-claimed/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/02/03/covid-a-disease-in-name-only/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/pcr/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE (starting at 3m50s)

[5] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[5a] CDC-006-00019, Revision: 06, CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 12/01/2020; see: https://web.archive.org/web/20210102171026/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[5b] CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05, CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 07/13/2020; see: https://web.archive.org/web/20200715004004/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[6] https://www.bmj.com/content/331/7529/1412

[7] https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/331/7529/Reviews.full.pdf

March 1, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga Analysis

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 19, 2021

For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.

An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.

Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,1 or ACU),2,3 intends to do.

They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.”

FDA Demands Higher False Positives

An interesting case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in January 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.

Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.

In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5 for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.”

However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.

In December 2020, Curative submitted that data,6 showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.7

The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.9

This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12

From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.13 This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives.

Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.

The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health. However, in reality, it’s far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health. It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher “caseload” to keep the illusion of widespread infection going.

When Are You Actually Infectious?

A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness.

Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.

The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.

As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying live virus at all.

These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis. Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data14 from 9,899,828 individuals have shown.

Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As noted by the authors:15

“Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.

In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”

PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has Cleared

Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important. One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,16 in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea.

Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.

In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others.

This then means that testing patients beyond, say, Day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false. But there’s more. As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:17

“Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever … Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less. The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value.”

This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable beyond Day 3 after your fever ends, it’s probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond Day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious.

Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re highly likely to be wrong. Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus. As noted by the authors:18

“Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing.”

Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting Lockdowns

To circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed :19

“If you’re screening for a return to work and you’re picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago, no one’s going to return to work. If you want to detect active COVID, what the ‘early’ study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that.”

Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing. What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a “case.”

In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”20

Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”21

While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.22

The Lower the CT, the Greater the Accuracy

While the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don’t end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small. We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It’s not a sane trend, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.”

According to an April 2020 study23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.

Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic review24 published in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.

“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24.

In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture. This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.

PCR Testing Based on Erroneous Paper

In closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.

November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review25 challenging the scientific paper26 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”).

According to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”28 one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available. The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:29

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper … When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate.

They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology … the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks …

There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …

There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the November 20, 2020, study30 in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases. I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.

But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding.

On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life.


This article was brought to you by Dr. Mercola, a New York Times bestselling author. For more helpful articles, please visit Mercola.com today and receive your FREE Take Control of Your Health E-book!

February 28, 2021 Posted by | Deception | | Leave a comment

World Economic Forum – “Lockdowns Improving Cities Around The World.”

By Richie Allen | February 27, 2021

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Tweeted yesterday that “Lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world.” The tweet was accompanied by a video showing deserted streets, empty factories and grounded planes. It’s not very subtle.

The WEF’s rather blunt point is that air pollution and Co2 emissions are down due to lockdowns. Further into the video, the viewer is shown packed motorways and a caption that reads; “the drop (in traffic) won’t slow climate change unless we lock in emissions cuts.” Like I said, not very subtle. The WEF is saying that lockdowns are good for the environment.

Talk Radio breakfast presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer wasn’t amused. She tweeted;

“The WEF are stark raving insane if they think lockdowns are quietly improving our cities. Genuinely scary.”

The barrister Francis Hoar tweeted;

Isn’t it lovely to see all these quiet, dead cities, closed factories and grounded aircraft. Take this as a warning that if lockdowns are accepted in any circumstance, they will be imposed for climate reasons before long. Lockdowns should be prohibited in any circumstances.”

I said on The Richie Allen Show last summer, that lockdown type restrictions to tackle climate change are an inevitability. Last year, World Economic Founder Klaus Schwab declared that the pandemic was a; “narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world and our economic and social foundations.”

Every single one of us needs to acquaint ourselves with Klaus Schwab, The Great Reset and The Fourth industrial Revolution. Writing in The Sociable, journalist Tim Hinchcliffe had this to say about Schwab and The WEF:

Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society.

But the coronavirus pandemic has opened a “narrow window” for a “golden opportunity,” and once this crisis is over, the Davos club fears that the window may be shut forever.

Tyranny arrives in subtle stages. It’s slow at first, but before you realize it even exists, it has already won. That is what I see happening with the unholy merger of “the great reset” with “the new normal.”

Those who pull the strings have been begging for a global crisis to unleash their worldwide restructuring of society and the economy.

For more on The Great Reset, .listen to The Richie Allen Show Monday – Thursday from 5 pm – 7 pm.

February 27, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

DEAR IRISH PEOPLE, IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP

Computing Forever | February 23, 2021

Subscribe to Way of the World on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/OfuiQUsplm1H/
Subscribe to Millennial Woes on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/OUbfw7ulVP2n/

Musings from Dystopia on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKf/
Musings from Dystopia on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ComputingForever:9/Musings-From-the-dystopia-Broadband-High:4

Support my work here: https://computingforever.com/donate/
Support my work on Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/dave-cullen
Follow me on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM74uIHJKf/
PayPal Donations Welcome. Click here: http://goo.gl/NSdOvK

http://www.computingforever.com

KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: https://tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen

February 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Coronavirus Fact-Check #10: Why “new cases” are plummeting.

OffGuardian | February 26, 2021

The scary red numbers are all going down. Check any newspaper or covid tracking website you want. Cases. Deaths. Hospitalisations. They’re all going down, sharply, and have been for weeks, especially in the US and UK.

So, why would that be?

Pundits across the media world have made suggestions – from vaccines to lockdowns – but there’s only one that makes any real sense.

IT’S NOT VACCINES

The assumption most people would make, and would be encouraged to make by the talking heads and media experts, is that the various “vaccines” have taken effect and stopped the spread of the “virus”.

Is this the case? No, no it’s not.

The decline started in mid-January, far too early for any vaccination program to have any effect. Many experts said as much:

Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said the falling case numbers can’t be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine, because not even a tenth of the population has been vaccinated, according to the CDC.

Further, the drop is happening simultaneously in different countries all around the world, and not every country is vaccinating at the same rate or even using the same vaccine. So no, the “vaccines” are not causing the drop.

IT’S NOT LOCKDOWN EITHER

Another suspect is the lockdown, with blaring propaganda stating that all the various government-imposed house arrests and “distancing” measures have finally had an impact.

That’s not it either.

Sweden, famously, never locked down at all. Yet their “cases” and “Covid related deaths” have been dropping exactly in parallel with the UK:

Clearly, if countries that never locked down are also seeing declines in case numbers, the lockdown cannot be causing them.

So what is?

THE WHO PCR TEST GUIDELINES

Maybe for our answer, we should look at the date the decline started.

Observe this graph:

As you can see, the global decline in “Covid deaths” starts in mid-to-late January.

What else happened around that time?

Well, on January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated.

This followed up their previous memo, instructing labs around the world to use lower cycle thresholds (CT values) for PCR tests, as values over 35 could produce false positives.

Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.

In short, logic would suggest we’re not in fact seeing a “decline in Covid cases” or a “decrease in Covid deaths” at all.

What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.

Just as we at OffGuardian predicted would happen the moment the memo was published.

February 26, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Tony Blair’s anti-freedom project continues, but ‘War on Terror’ is replaced by ‘War on Covid’

By Neil Clark | RT | February 25, 2021

The ‘War on Terror’ seems to have morphed into a ‘War on Covid’. And guess what? Serial warmonger Tony Blair is a key figure in both, seeking to curtail our civil liberties with the excuse that it’s all for the “greater good.”

The date: Monday November 6, 2006. The place: Downing Street news conference. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair dismisses the civil rights argument against ID cards, which his government is keen to introduce. He says it is an issue of “modernity” and “modern life.”

“We are building a new part of our infrastructure here. And like other such projects the gains to citizens will be much larger and more extensive than anyone could say at the time.”

Sound familiar?

Fast forward fourteen years, and the same Tony Blair is saying much the same thing about Covid vaccine passports. There’s been no more zealous British advocate of vaccine passports than the man the anti-lockdown journalist Peter Hitchens calls ‘The Blair Creature’.

“Prepare for a health passport now,” he said in December. “I know all the objections, but it will happen. It’s the only way the world will function and for lockdowns to no longer be the sole course of action.”

Last week it was reported that ´The Blair Creature’ had been lobbying hard for vaccine passports to be included in Boris Johnson’s so-called ‘road map’ out of lockdown. And they were. The government has announced a review. Michael Gove, a man who once wrote a piece entitled ‘I can’t fight my feelings any more; I love Tony (Blair)’, is heading it.

Tony must be  delighted.

Back in 2006, ID cards were promoted as a way of tackling the ‘terrorism’ threat and keeping us all ‘safe’. Vaccine passports are presented today in the same reassuring manner. The War on Terror and the War on Covid have so much in common. They both have five level ‘alert’ systems. ´The Blair Creature’ is the key linking figure.

Both wars (Terror and Covid), have been used as smokescreens to pursue elite, globalist and extremely illiberal agendas. Under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism‘, the US, UK and their allies embarked on a series of regime change wars.

First up was Afghanistan, on the grounds that the Taliban-ruled country had been sheltering Bin Laden. But while you could make a case for linking this to a ’war on terror’ there could be no such excuses for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Ba’athist Iraq – whose long serving Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was a practising Christian – was actually a bulwark against extremist groups like Al-Qaeda. The assault on Iraq proved to us that the ‘war on terror’ was a sham. Far from making us safer, the invasion actually greatly boosted global terrorism by spawning ISIS.

In short ‘the war on terror’ made the global terrorism situation much worse, and that’s before we get on to the reduction in civil liberties at home. Air travel has never been the same. Restrictions that were imposed – such as prohibitions on bringing liquids on board flights – and which were billed as ’temporary measures’ are still with us. ‘Anti-terrorism’ legislation has been regularly strengthened while at the same time there’s been covert British action in Libya and Syria on the side of the terrorists, which has led to domestic blowback.

We know for instance that the Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi, responsible for the horrific attack in 2017 which killed 22 people, more than half of them children, and his father Ramadan, had links with the anti-Gaddafy Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, allegedly used by the UK authorities as part of their regime change operation. As I noted in a previous op-ed, Abedi Jnr was even rescued from Libya by the Royal Navy.

The ‘War on Terror’ was based on a fundamental deceit. It was a deep state/neocon con trick. Not only was it a war that could never be won, it was never meant to be won. It was meant to be permanent. But in 2020 it was superseded by a new war – the ‘War on Covid’.

Again, we see much the same Manichean rhetoric. George W. Bush famously stated “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” And so it is today, with ‘virus control’ and not ‘terrorism control’ the focus.

If you oppose oppressive lockdowns, restrictions on free movement, and the introduction of vaccine passports, then you are on the side of the virus. You want to ‘let it rip’. You have ‘blood on your hands’ just like the millions who marched against the Iraq War. Support a more nuanced, proportionate approach with people allowed to make their own risk assessments? No, that’s not allowed. You’re either with the ‘War on Covid’ or against it.

The ‘War on Covid’ gives the Western elites the opportunity to strip away our freedoms and complete the building of the digital ‘infrastructure’ that began under the ‘War on Terror’ and which Blair referred to in 2006.

‘Health passports’ are a key part of that infrastructure, as I noted last summer. The WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ is heavily dependent on their introduction.

Of course, it won’t just be your ‘Covid’ status that’ll be on them; they will be extended into full, digitalised bio-ID cards. Vaccine passports are the gateway to a Chinese-style social credit restricted access control system being rolled out in the West.

Blair, the great authoritarian, hopes to get in 2021 or 2022 what he couldn’t get fifteen years ago. “I think you’re going to the stage where it’s going to be very hard for people to do a lot of normal life unless they can prove their vaccination status… Vaccination in the end is going to be your route to liberty,” he said in a recent interview. And of course he is working  hard to make sure we do get to that stage.

Will he succeed? His plan for ID cards fifteen years ago failed because of the strength of opposition. When Labour lost power in 2010, the scheme was ditched. But the Tony Blair Institute (which has received considerable funding for its work from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) boasted on Twitter last May that its ‘teams’ were “embedded in governments around the world, helping them to keep their people safe”.

We know that Blair has been ‘advising’ Health Secretary Matt Hancock and that the secret talks reportedly covered vaccines and mass testing. What is scary today is that the parliamentary opposition – now led by the uber-Blairite Sir Keir Starmer – seems to be even more pro-health passports than the government.

But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet. A petition against Covid-19 vaccine passports has raised almost 200,000 signatures. The campaign against health passports needs the support of the anti-war, anti-imperialist left and hopefully the fact that it’s Tony Blair who is pushing them will cause people to wake up and see the bigger picture. War on Terror, War on Covid. ‘Only connect!’, as the great novelist E.M. Forster might say.

February 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

FAUCI IN HOT WATER

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | February 26, 2021

The one-time hero of the pandemic, Tony Fauci, is losing the trust of mainstream America after flip flopping on critical #Covid19 information one too many times. His latest admission is the final straw for many public figures, including avid pro-vaxxers.

February 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Teacher: I Won’t Force Kids To Wear Masks & I Won’t Wear One Either

By Richie Allen | February 24, 2021

The Telegraph newspaper, to its credit, has published an opinion piece by a secondary school teacher who is based in Essex. The teacher believes that forcing kids to wear masks in the classroom is “Dystopian and abhorrent.”

The teacher has been reading “The Handmaid’s Tale with Year 11’s and described a class full of masked children as “like something out of Gilead.” Expressing concern that masks would make it seem to youngsters that schools are not safe when they desperately need some normality the teacher wrote:

They are already being flooded with messages in the media and the outside world which fill them with fear on a daily basis. The government’s whole campaign is built on fear and children have absorbed that. They have also faced a year of disruption to their learning and been kept apart from their friends. What sort of message does it send to them if we then make them wear a mask in the classroom too?

As well as being physically uncomfortable, it’s going to be almost impossible for them to communicate with me as their teacher. It will have a detrimental impact on their confidence, make them even more reluctant to put their hand up in class to ask questions and engage in the lesson. Many of them, especially those who were already struggling, have fallen massively behind during lockdown and will find it difficult or even impossible to catch up.

I’ve also seen very little evidence to suggest that masks are effective anyway. I am cynical about this idea of asymptomatic transmission. Schools aren’t necessarily the cleanest places in the world but children are meant to be exposed to a few germs to build up their immune systems.

The teacher is absolutely right. It’s dystopian and disturbing in the extreme. Of course it will unsettle children but it will also do them serious harm. Wearing masks for eight hours a day may have a seriously detrimental effect on their physical health. Dozens of studies have found that masks make breathing more difficult, especially for children.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that:

… inhaling high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be life-threatening. Hypercapnia (carbon dioxide toxicity) can also cause headache, vertigo, double vision, inability to concentrate, tinnitus (hearing a noise, like a ringing or buzzing, that’s not caused by an outside source), seizures, or suffocation due to displacement of air.

Parents wise up and wise up fast. You must not allow your children be forced to wear a face covering when they return to the classroom.

February 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Hazardous Mask Wearing

By Stephen Lendman | February 24, 2021

Masks don’t protect and risk harm to health from long term use.

They’re porous to permit breathing. If not, masks would hermetically seal wearers and suffocate them.

Peer-reviewed studies of mask-wearing showed no relationship between their use in public and protection from seasonal flu-renamed covid.

Earlier I quoted Professor of Physics Denis Rancourt, an expert in his field, explaining that no study exists that shows mask-wearing effectiveness.

Based on what’s known about viral respiratory diseases, they’re mainly transmitted by “too fine to be blocked… aerosol particles” able to penetrate all face masks.

“No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator.”

Yet public health authorities in the US and West — in cahoots with dark forces — falsely claim otherwise.

Long term use of masks is hazardous from pathogens accumulating on and inside them.

According to the peer-reviewed Primary Doctor Medical Journal, a study titled “Masks, false safety and real dangers” showed that their use achieved no reductions in covid outbreaks — just the opposite.

Long term mask-wearing increases the risk of contracting the illness.

Nations with the lowest incidence of mask-wearing had fewer outbreaks.

A separate Danish mask study found no “statistical difference” in outbreaks with or without their use.

By accumulating pathogens, masks can spread infections instead of protecting against them.

Mask-wearing also decreases oxygen to less than what OSHA in the US requires.

According to critical care physician/public health expert Dr. Pascal Sacre, extended mask-wearing increases the risk of infection, not the other way around as falsely claimed by governments, their public health officials and press agent media.

(S)cientific and medical analysis” proved it, he stressed.

“(A)ir, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2.”

“It becomes a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses).”

Their longterm use “is a scientific and medical aberration!”

Dr. Joseph Mercola agrees, saying the notion that mask-wearing prevents contraction of covid and saves lives is pseudo-science nonsense.

A year ago, Surgeon General Jerome Adams argued against their use, saying they’re “not effective.”

Even huckster/profiteer Fauci said last March that “people should not be walking around with masks (because they’re) not providing the perfect protection that people” believe.

By mid-2020, heavily promoted mask-wearing in the US and West became the norm.

Mercola cited a large-scale Chinese study involving millions of individuals that showed “not a single case of covid… traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive,” adding:

“Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.”

The bottom line on mask-wearing is they don’t protect and risk harm to health.

Yet their use is increasingly mandated in the US and West.

Biden earlier defied science, saying wearing them “save(es) American lives (sic), so let’s institute a mask mandate nationwide, starting immediately.”

He mandated their use in federal buildings and on its land by executive order.

His EO falsely claimed that he’s “relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures (sic),” adding:

“Such measures include wearing masks when around others, physical distancing, and other related precautions (sic).”

“(T)o protect the federal workforce and individuals interacting with the federal workforce, and to ensure the continuity of government services and activities, on-duty or on-site federal employees, on-site federal contractors, and other individuals in federal buildings and on federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures (sic).”

His order also “encourag(es) masking across America. Will mandating it follow?

Is mandatory mass-jabbing with hazardous to health toxins coming?

Will refuseniks be criminalized or otherwise punished?

Is what’s unfolding too unbearable for most people to bear?

Mass resistance to what’s unacceptable is the only alternative.

Otherwise free and open societies in the US and West may be lost forever in our lifetimes.

February 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Summary of findings on covid, February 2021

Mathematical Modelling Company of France

Bernard Beauzamy PDG chez Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (CEO at Société de Calcul Mathatique SA, Mathematical Modelling Corporation of France. )

The overall mortality data (all causes combined) for the year 2020 show that the covid epidemic did not have any particular severity.

As of 02/20/2021, there are approximately 3,300 intensive care beds occupied (all causes), for approximately 13,000 existing ones: we are very far from saturation.

There is no indication (let’s not speak of proof!) Allowing to conclude to any effectiveness of any of the decisions taken by the government since the beginning: confinement, social distancing, masks, curfew, etc. All this is entirely devoid of a rational basis and health efficiency. Already in 1910 the astronomer Camille Flammarion had advocated confinement during the arrival of Halley’s Comet.

This is the first time that we have tried to follow an epidemic in its details: how many people affected at any given moment, how many positives, how many tests, etc. If we had done this for previous epidemics, we would have references, which is not the case. The figures published every day by a press hungry for sensations serve to frighten the public.

The government, from the start, wanted to give this epidemic the most anxiety-inducing character possible, by publishing figures taken out of context and by banning existing treatments. This is not an initial error as one might have thought, but a deliberate will whose effects can still be seen today: grotesque, incoherent decisions intended to establish the authority of the government and to harm economic activity.

The various institutions responsible for limiting the powers of government (Parliament, Council of State, etc.) accepted the decisions taken, even though they were scientifically unfounded. This attitude still persists today and, except for popular revolt, we do not see how, in the near future, we could get out of the absurd “state of health emergency” in which we are today legally locked up.

The full list of our publications on these issues is available here:

http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_Coronavirus.pdf

Above is translated from the original French language by Google Translate.

Les données de mortalité globale (toutes causes confondues) pour l’année 2020 montrent que l’épidémie de covid n’a eu aucune sévérité particulière.

Il y a, au 20/02/2021, environ 3 300 lits de réanimation occupés (toutes causes confondues), pour environ 13 000 existants : on est très loin de la saturation.

Il n’existe aucune indication (ne parlons pas de preuve !) permettant de conclure à une quelconque efficacité de l’une quelconque des décisions prises par le gouvernement depuis le début : confinement, distanciation sociale, masques, couvre-feu, etc. Tout ceci est entièrement dépourvu de base rationnelle et d’efficacité sanitaire. Déjà en 1910 l’astronome Camille Flammarion avait prôné le confinement lors de la venue de la Comète de Halley.

C’est la première fois que l’on s’efforce de suivre une épidémie dans ses détails : combien de personnes atteintes à chaque instant, combien de positifs, combien de tests, etc. Si on l’avait fait pour les épidémies précédentes, on disposerait de références, ce qui n’est pas le cas. Les chiffres publiés chaque jour par une presse avide de sensations servent à effrayer le public.

Le gouvernement, depuis le début, a voulu donner à cette épidémie le caractère le plus anxiogène possible, en publiant des chiffres sortis de leur contexte et en interdisant les traitements existants. Il s’agit là, non pas d’une erreur initiale comme on a pu le croire, mais d’une volonté délibérée dont on constate les effets aujourd’hui encore : décisions grotesques, incohérentes, destinées à asseoir l’autorité du gouvernement et à nuire à l’activité économique.

Les différentes institutions qui sont chargées de limiter les pouvoirs du gouvernement (Parlement, Conseil d’Etat, etc.) ont accepté les décisions prises, quand bien même elles étaient scientifiquement dépourvues de fondement. Cette attitude persiste encore aujourd’hui et, sauf révolte populaire, on ne voit pas comment, dans un futur proche, nous pourrions sortir de l’absurde “état d’urgence sanitaire” où nous sommes aujourd’hui légalement enfermés.

La liste complète de nos publications sur ces questions est disponible ici :

http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_Coronavirus.pdf

February 23, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Signs of life: Are the masses awakening from COVID psychosis?

By Jordan Schachtel | February 23, 2021

Over the course of the past year, a coalition including the corporate media, international “health” institutions, a maniacal mega billionaire, Big Pharma oligarchs, and power drunk governments consumed massive amounts of power left and right, with little to no observed resistance in sight.

With COVID mania in full swing, they moved the goalposts as they pleased. Free of any science, data, or logical reasoning, the ruling class had the terrified masses completely under their thumb. Under the spell of a mass social psychosis, we willingly surrendered our liberties and even happily enforced draconian edicts on our own peers, despite the global trampling of our basic rights.

The ruling class moved seamlessly from “15 days to stop the spread” to “30 days to stop the spread” to “Zero COVID.”

From “everyone needs to wear a mask” to “everyone needs to wear two masks” to “maybe we should wear three masks.”

From “lockdown to preserve healthcare capacity” to “lockdown to slow/stop the spread” to “lockdown until we have a vaccine.”

All of these aforementioned restrictions and guidelines were abided by without resistance. Across the globe, citizens remained firmly trapped in perhaps the most self-destructive mass social psychosis in human history, convinced that a respiratory virus (that causes a disease with a 99.8% recovery rate) was responsible for their economic and societal devastation. The authoritarians did as they wished, without a hint of pushback.

However, it seems we have finally reached one particular narrative that has been met with firm resistance.

People are rightfully outraged by another ongoing narrative shift attempt led by the likes of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, countless government health bureaucracies, and other leaders of the corona hysteria movement. We’re now being told that the vaccine is not in fact a ticket to normalcy. Instead, we’ve been told that even with the vaccine, people still need to wear a mask, social distance, and act as if fellow human beings are nothing more than mere vectors of disease.

They initially told us lockdowns would solve our COVID problem. They then told us masks would end the pandemic. Soon after, the “experts” went all in on the vaccine narrative. It seems that the new narrative is one of “forever COVID,” or a permanent safety regime that stresses prioritizing avoidance of a virus over anything else in life. Fauci and the gang is now demoting the vaccine’s status as no longer a way out, but just another tool to help you mitigate the threat posed by the “deadly virus.”

And many finally seem to be pushing back against the ruling class plan for a permanent COVID state.

Will the vaccine rug pull attempt awaken the masses to the reality that they’ve been conned for an entire year? That is too soon to tell, but we are finally seeing signs of widespread pushback against the latest demands from the ruling class. Many of us wished this hopeful revival of rational thought had occurred a full year ago, but it’s more important right now to build a coalition around restoring our rights and quashing the power grab, even if that coalition includes the same individuals and groups that were once on the side of the totalitarians.

February 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment