Editor’s Note: What’s happening in America today is a clear and present danger to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Wake Up or lose your freedoms forever.
You’re being scammed by enemies of America who occupy powerful positions in government and the media. November 2020 is the way we, the people, can fight back. Know your enemy. Ditch the masks. Rise.
Source: YouTube
If you’ve been looking for proof on whether this entire lock-down etc… is just one big lie, then this should open your mind! “How do you know the government/Big Media is lying? They’re moving their lips!”
Source: YouTube
By Patrick Wood
Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups or even entire societies.
Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet.
The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.
Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” The Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.“
Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was most inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.
In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states that cloth face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work.Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed most.
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks.
The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.
But, what about asymptomatic carriers?
On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of a number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated “From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”
It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” (Blaylock represents real science.)
Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face masks for preventing disease,
Face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available for inhaling.
Normal fresh air contains 20.95% oxygen. OSHA defines an oxygen deficient atmosphere as an “atmosphere with an oxygen content below 19.5% by volume.” The reason we breathe air is only for our lungs to harvest the oxygen it contains so that we don’t suffocate and die.
OSHA documents the effects of the first level of oxygen deficiency from 16% to 19.5%:
At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). Increased breathing rates, accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment. Even a momentary loss of coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing a ladder.
This writer has already encountered several store employees, forced to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit one or more of these exact symptoms. When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.
Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks are required to do two things: first, they must provide atmospheric testing to each person to measure average oxygen levels inside the mask when it is being worn and second, if oxygen is below 19.5%, they must be provided with an oxygen enriched breathing system.
To this writer’s knowledge, there has been zero testing of oxygen levels anywhere in the country even though it is plainly clear that many people are experiencing symptoms of oxygen deficiency.
Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for all citizens in public places. That they have fallen prey to pseudo-science is now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.
Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.
Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph (UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule.
According to these scientists,
The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants do not remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies look back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they stood from others.
More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting Covid.
Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,
On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.
This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results.
What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences.
Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.
Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.
In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.
Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.
The Center for Disease Control website states that “Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”
Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.
If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now required to record the contact information of every patron, you might not have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.
Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.
Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first, the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is bogus.
So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people.
The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.
Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.
This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.
In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover, they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population…
It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack of real and verified science behind their actions and mandates. Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous to personal liberty.
This writer suggests that you print multiple copies of this report and deliver it to every political leader, every commercial establishment, all family and friends, etc.
Patrick Wood is editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.
He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order (2018), Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Professor Antony C. Sutton.
Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development and Technocracy on a global scale.
Source: Technocracy News
By Tristan Justice
It was just more than a week ago that crowds gathered at Missouri’s Lake of the Ozarks to enjoy the Memorial Day weekend. With the celebrations however, came sharp criticism over the lack of social distancing featuring fearmongering elites shaming those relishing the springtime sunshine.
Former Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill was among those quick to demonize the apparent selfish behavior as “embarrassing” for her home state.
“Hope none of them have parents fighting cancer, grandparents with diabetes, aunts and uncles with serious heart conditions. Because clearly they could care less,” McCaskill wrote on Twitter.
When it comes to the massive protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody however, McCaskill is cheering them on, retweeting somber images of the demonstrations and calling Missouri’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Washington D.C. after days of rioting as “disgusting.”
The densely crowded protests would soon draw the attendance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both over the age of 65 putting them at higher risk of serious complications from the Chinese virus.
The sudden disregard for social distancing from avid lockdowners expose the extreme measures that tanked the nation’s economy and destroyed the nation’s psyche to be nothing more than deeply unserious methods to combat a virus that poses nearly no danger to low-risk groups.
More than 40 million Americans have now filed for unemployment. An estimated 100,000 small businesses have already permanently shut down. About 1 in 3 Americans are experiencing signs of clinical anxiety and depression. Thousands of others have put of critical health procedures so hospitals could build adequate capacity for an overwhelming surge in cases that never came in most of the country.
Yet while thousands gather in protest against police brutality across the country, no one seems to care about the ongoing public health pandemic after chastising those who dared break social distancing rules to reopen their states and reclaim their livelihoods.
In today’s America, churches can’t host socially distanced sermons including more than ten people but a violent mob can burn it down in the name of social justice. States had already made their priorities clear providing bars and casinos with greater freedom than houses of worship it deems nonessential, illustrating just how far we’ve strayed from faith even as millions of Americans desperately need it.
Floyd’s funeral is slated to take place in Houston on June 9 and is expected to draw an attendance of thousands, including prominent figures such as former Vice President Joe Biden. Many in the rest of the country however, were barred from properly saying their goodbyes to lost loved ones because the government declared it too dangerous, even this week and in the coming days.
But the media doesn’t care. Before downplaying the violence from days of lawless anarchy terrorizing a dystopian nation because the message fit their own progressive agenda, legacy media painted the anti-lockdown protestors as heartless grandma killing rubes. These Americans, the media said, were reckless, selfish, dangerous, suicidal, racist because they could spread the virus to black people, and didn’t deserve medical attention. One would be hard pressed to find that kind of reporting on even larger protests today, because it doesn’t exist.
If nothing else is clear in the aftermath of these time-defining protests, it’s past time to end the lockdowns. Shut down the nursing homes, insulate the at-risk population and move on.
Source: The Federalist
By Ryan McMaken
Six weeks ago, when thousands around the nation took to state capitols to protest the human rights abuses inflicted by coerced “stay-at-home orders,” lockdown supporters reacted with sanctimonious outrage.
Declaring the protestors to be “covidiots” who failed to appreciate the virtue and necessity of police-enforced lockdowns, news outlets and lockdown advocates on social media declared the protests would cause outbreaks of disease, and nurses declared the protests were “a slap in the face” to those trying to treat the disease. One political cartoon featured an image of an emergency room nurse saying “see you soon” to anti-lockdown protestors.
Now, with far larger numbers of protestors amassing in larger groups, we hear none of the lofty moralism coming from the media or lockdown enthusiasts in social media. Yes, there are still some token attempts to express worry over how the riots and protests of recent days might spread the disease. But the tone is quite different. Concerned over COVID-19 are now phrased in the formula of ” if you protest, take these measures to minimize risk. ” It’s all very polite and deferential to the protestors.
Politicians like Kamala Harris have even joined the protestors in the streets, thus doing what she demanded other avoid just a few weeks earlier. Where are the nurses denouncing these protests as a “slap in the face”? They’re nowhere to be seen.
Of course, those who support the current protests, but oppose last month’s protests, claim there is no equivalence. Many would likely say “we’re now protesting against people being killed in the streets!” followed by “those other protestors just wanted haircuts!”
The reality, of course, was far different. Most of those who oppose the COVID lockdowns are well aware that the lockdowns kill. They lead to severe child abuse, to more suicide, and to more drug overdoses. They lead to denial of medical care because lockdown edicts have ridiculously labeled many necessary medical procedures to be “elective.” Lockdowns have rendered tens of millions of Americans unemployed while robbing people of their social support from family and community groups. Lockdowns increased police abuse and harassment of innocent people who were guilty of no crime but leaving their homes or trying to earn a living.
Lockdown advocates, however, declared all of this to be “worth it” and demanded that their ideological opponents just shut up and “#stayhome.”
Lockdowns for Thee, But Not For Me
But now the current spate of protests and riots have made it clear that lockdowns and social distancing are all very optional so long as the protestors are favored by a leftwing narrative.
While the pro-lockdown/anti-lockdown conflict can’t be defined by any neat left-right divide, it is nonetheless largely true that the most enthusiastic advocates of COVID lockdowns are found on the left side of the spectrum.
And that’s why things have now gotten so interesting. It was easy for the pro-lockdown left to oppose protests when those protest were seen as a rightwing phenomenon. But now that the protests are favored by the left, then it’s all perfectly fine outside of a handful of politely expressed “concerns” that protests might spread disease.
The left’s about-face on the sacredness of social distancing will have significant effects on the future enforcement of stay-at-home orders and social distancing laws.
After all, on what grounds will governors, mayors, and law enforcement officers justify continued attacks on religious groups who seek to assemble in the usual fashion? If one group of people are allowed to gather by the hundreds to express one set of beliefs, why are other groups not allowed the same?
Politicians will no doubt soon invent new rationales for this inconsistency. Indeed, we already have one case. New York mayor Bill DeBlasio has come right out and said people who protest racism are allowed to assemble. DeBlasio likes them. But how about religious gatherings? DeBlasio doesn’t like those, so they’re still prohibited.
The Moral Authority of the Lockdown Advocates Is Gone
The current riots and protests have accelerated this sort of disregard for coerced social distancing, although things were already headed in this direction anyway.
The lockdowns initially were imposed with so little resistance because the legacy media and government bureaucrats managed to convince a sizable portion of the public that virtually everyone was in grave danger of death of serious disability from COVID-19. Many people believed these experts.
By May, however, it had become clear the doomsday scenarios predicted by the official technocrats greatly overstated the reality. Certainly, there were many vulnerable groups, and many died of complications from disease, just as many died during the pandemics of 1958 and 1969. But there’s a difference between a spike in total deaths, and a civilization-stopping plague. The experts promised the latter. We got the former. And we would have gotten the former even without lockdowns. Those jurisdictions that imposed no general lockdowns — such as Sweden — never experienced the sort of apocalyptic death predicted by lockdown advocates. Yes, they had excess deaths, but Sweden’s hospitals never even went into “emergency mode.” In the US, those states that imposed limited lockdowns for only a short period never experienced overloaded hospitals and overflowing morgues and was claimed would happen.
Could this yet happen in the future? It’s certainly possible, but how will we know? The lockdown advocates have already been so wrong about masks, about fatality rates, about the models, and about so much more, that we have no way of knowing if we should believe them the next time they show up and swear “this time, the situation is truly dire!”
But we’re not out of the lockdown woods yet. This fall, politicians and other lockdown advocates are likely to start up again with demands that new laws be passed requiring people to stay home, shut down their businesses, and otherwise put life on hold in the name of stopping COVID-19.
But it’s unlikely the public will fall for the same routine twice in a row. At least not to the same extent. The reaction of many will likely be “we’ve heard this song and dance before. Besides, social distancing didn’t matter to these experts very much back during the riots. Why should we believe them now?”
It’s a good question.
Source: Ron Paul Institute & MISES
This article is just a quick run-down of the Top Twelve Lies.
1. People dropping dead in the streets.
Guardian January
Metro January 31st
The Sun January 31st
This is how the media portrayed COVID-19 at the beginning: a disease so dangerous that people walking along the street suddenly dropped down dead. Virtually all the UK media carried these photos. It’s very odd that in the first two pictures, and variants of them in other papers, those emergency workers have no equipment with them, and appear to be just standing around doing nothing. Are these faked photos? There have been no reports of people dropping dead in the street anywhere since then. And if it had been true in China, the virus would have been noticed very quickly. We now know that the symptoms are indistinguishable from colds, flu or pneumonia. These photos were the start of the Coronapanic lies.
2. Three Percent Will Die.
The WHO put out this 3% death rate figure early on. You don’t need to be a maths wizard to know that’s one person in thirty. That’s a serious reason to panic. We now know that the death rate is around 0.1%. That’s about one in a thousand, and comparable to seasonal flu. But just as important, the figures are massively skewed towards people around eighty who have at least two existing serious conditions, and are already in a care home: people who have minimal quality of life, and little remaining expectation of life. For younger, healthy people, and younger here can mean under seventy, never mind twenty or thirty, the risk of death is vanishingly small.
3, Herd Immunity is a Dangerous Idea.
This is one of the most serious corruptions of science ever. You don’t need a degree in Epidemiology to know that epidemics come and go. The very definition of the word implies that. (Conversely, a disease which stays around for many years is called endemic.) You do need to know just a smidgen of Epidemiology to understand why epidemics come and go. It’s not rocket science. When the new disease arrives, everybody is susceptible to it, because it is new and therefore nobody has any immunity. The disease can race through the population, but as it does so it leaves immune people in its wake. As the number of immune people grows, the disease finds it harder and harder to spread. When the number of immune people reaches a certain point (which varies with different diseases) the bug can find no new people to infect, so the bug itself effectively dies. That point is called herd immunity. It is the only way to defeat a new virus. But see number 4.
4. We Need a Vaccine to Give us Herd Immunity.
Vaccines work by creating artificial herd immunity, but that’s no better than natural herd immunity. And the simple fact is, as everyone knows, we don’t have a vaccine. How long will it take to make one, test it properly, and roll it out? Eighteen months? Three years? Never? In any event, even if we use a vaccine before proper safety testing, it will still take longer than it does to reach herd immunity naturally. (And note that the Common Cold is also often caused by some other Coronaviruses. Still no sign of a vaccine for any of those.)
5 Lockdowns Work.
The evidence here is very, very weak. It is common sense that they must have some effect. But we have New York, with a hard lockdown and massive deaths, while Tokyo with a minimal lockdown has hardly any. Or Sweden with a very mild lockdown having a lower death rate than Britain with a draconian one. Or Spain and Portugal, which together make up the Iberian Peninsula, having massively different death rates. There is another factor, or factors, involved here, and the mass media seem to have no concern as to what they might be. Happily there are some scientists who do seek to explain the differences. Several factors have been put forward with good evidence:
One could tease out many other factors, but not one comes close to the Grand Deal-Breaker in Epidemiology, which is immunity. Immunity is the principal reason people do not get sick with any disease. Hence the primary factor in differential death rates must be how long different countries had the virus before they realised. As the infection travelled through populations, confused with colds and flu, it was steadily building immunity. China has a truly miniscule number of deaths given its huge population. The virus there was on the rampage right through Winter Flu Season, before they realised there was something new. When they did, they locked down, and the lockdown appeared to be very effective; but only because they were already close to herd immunity. The countries surrounding China, which have a great deal of intercourse with it, have similarly low death rates (Vietnam, nobody at all!) How and when the virus got into other countries is difficult to unravel now; but one should be aware that Wuhan Airport is a major hub, with flights all over the World. We can reasonably infer that Norway, for example, was infected early, yielding the much lower recorded deaths later. Such a conclusion is borne out by the fact that, having now eased its lockdown, cases are still going down. In other words, there is no sign of a “Second Wave”. After a tight and effective lockdown preventing transmission, and also therefore preventing the growth of immunity, there should indeed be a second wave. The lack of one points very strongly to previously acquired immunity. (In all of this New York remains the ultimate outlier, and I’m no more prepared to attempt a complete explanation of NY statistics at this stage than anybody else.)
6. Lockdown Does Not Cause More Deaths than it Saves.
The leaked figure of 150,000 lockdown-caused deaths has never been refuted by the UK Government. It is only common sense that with the NHS shut down to almost everyone, there will be more deaths from other causes. Also more suicides, more domestic violence, and the array of problems that increase mortality when poverty increases. The economic crash is going to have a big effect there. And do we regard the suicide of a healthy 20-year-old as equivalent to the death of an ailing 85-year old? Lockdown is not a One-Way Street when it comes to saving lives; more likely a Wrong-Way Street.
7. Being Infected May Not (or Does Not) Make You Immune.
This is a truly bizarre assumption to make about any specific infection. (Note that the Common Cold, which is endemic, is caused by a number of different viruses.) This “fact” was allegedly based on some people who seemed to be infected twice. But the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between Colds, Flu, Covid19 and Pneumonia means this was always a ridiculous conclusion to reach. And if it were true it would be a one shot kill of the “Race for a Vaccine.” Vaccines only work because they stimulate the immune system in the way a natural infection does. If Covid19 did not provoke a normal immune response, any vaccine would be useless.
8. Having Covid Means Having Serious Symptoms.
In the beginning of this sorry saga, the most serious symptom, as noted in Lie 1 above, was instant death. Now we know that it mostly has no symptoms at all, or presents like a Common Cold. All the World’s highly-paid and endlessly-promoted “experts” somehow didn’t notice this.
9. Masks Work.
If they do, why can’t we all wear them and get back to normal? If they don’t, why are we ever recommended to use them? The effectiveness or otherwise of masks has been a controversial matter for months. Some Doctors have said that healthy people wearing them outside of a clinical setting is definitely a bad idea. Is the mask controversy just another way to ramp up fear and confusion?
10. Two Meter Social Distancing is Necessary.
There is no good science behind this. In Norway, with its incredibly low death rate, they use one metre. And there is never a reference to whether you are indoors or out. If you breathe out virus indoors, it has little choice but to hang around in the room for a while. If you are outside in fairly still air, which has a speed of about 2 metres per second, the virus you breathed out 2 seconds ago is already 4 metres away. And because the air you breathe out is always warmer than the surrounding air, and warm air rises, that potentially virus-laden air will rise up outside with no ceiling to stop it. So two metres is not necessary in Norway, but it is in England, whether you are in a small room or on a breezy beach. Is this fear-mongering nonsense, or science? It is certainly not the latter.
11. Money has Nothing to do with Any of This.
The influence and mega-bucks of Bill Gates and Big Pharma is supposedly not skewing the debate. Bill Gates’s donations to Prof Lockdown Ferguson’s Imperial College, or to the WHO, make no difference, and Bill Gates’s desire to produce seven billion doses of vaccine does not give him a financial interest. Bill Gates is a nice guy who knows a lot about computer viruses, so we should all look to him as our Saviour from this virus. I fancy there’s more logic in Alice in Wonderland.
12. The Destruction of Basic Human Rights is a Price Worth Paying.
People being under virtual House Arrest, with Freedom of Movement, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Work, Freedom to attend School, all curtailed, is OK? The introduction of mass personal surveillance is a good thing? If a foreign invader threatened our Rights like that we would fight for them, and accept casualties in the process. Why are we suddenly turning that logic on its head, and deciding to give up Rights to (possibly) save lives? Do we all fondly imagine that we will soon have our Rights back? History shows that Rights are generally hard won, and once lost they are very hard to get back. And if you think you still have Freedom of Speech, try as I and others have, to put across a view that is different to the Government. Yes, you can get it across to a few. But if it reaches many more, Google, or YouTube, or Facebook will soon censor it. If you are reading this article, it is because you are one of a small number, meaning the article is still below the censor’s radar, or the popularity level that triggers censorship.
In those wonderful days before Covid19, we all knew that Politicians, Journalists and Salesmen are inveterate Purveyors of Porky Pies. Now these same people are regarded as Saints and Saviours, with absolutely nothing but our best interests and well-being in their hearts. It is a fact, meaning a real one, not a fake one, that I can think of no topic ever that has had so many utterly bizarre lies told about it. It is also a fact that I cannot think of any matter where politicians around the World all suddenly started braying like donkeys with the same awful hoo-ha. And also a fact that I cannot think of any occurrence which has simultaneously destroyed human rights and wrecked the economy across the entire Globe. Is it not odd that all of those three extreme observations should apply to the very same little virus? If anyone can’t see a problem here, it can only be that Coronapanic has totally obliterated their thought processes.
Source: The Lockdown
Amazing Polly puts the pieces of the puzzle together and graphs out the relationships between various corporate, Big Pharma and non-profit foundation players in the global public health scheme.
Source: Amazing Polly & YouTube
By Brian Shilhavy
With the nation currently gripped by the Coronavirus crisis, and with most of the public lauding the fact that the FDA is fast-tracking a new vaccine to supposedly fight the Coronavirus, with testing beginning already on humans with the experimental vaccine while bypassing animal testing, unknown to most of the public, a meeting was held on March 6, 2020 with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV), under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
These are quarterly meetings held every 3 months, as required by law, but seldom, if ever, publicized or reported on by the corporate “mainstream” media.
Health Impact News might be the only place where these quarterly meetings are reported, and you can review past reports here. We have been accused of publishing “Fake News” when we publish these reports, but all of the information is available to the public and posted on the Federal Government’s websites.
The Big Tech companies that control so much of the Internet’s traffic, work hard to suppress this information. If you visit one of Health Impact News‘ Facebook Pages, for example, you are likely to see this notice inserted to the top of our page:
The March 6th meeting by the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines included a report from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on cases settled for vaccine injuries and deaths as mandated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
The NVICP was started as a result of a law passed in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies legal immunity from being sued due to injuries and deaths resulting from vaccines.
If you or a family member is injured or dies from vaccines, you must sue the federal government in this special vaccine court. Many cases are litigated for years before a settlement is reached.
The March, 2020 DOJ report states that 288 petitions were filed during the 3-month time period between 11/16/19 – 2/15/20, with 181 cases being adjudicated and 146 cases compensated.
The March, 2020 DOJ report lists 74 of these settlements for vaccine injuries and deaths, and 60 of those were for damages caused by the flu vaccine. Read more…
Editor’s Note: This is a fine overview and summary of the film about the origins of the Wuhan virus.
By Jo-Est B. Tan
Part 1. The Story of The Seafood Market
The Wuhan Health Commission released an internal notice on December 30, 2019 saying, “There has been a continuous occurrence of pneumonia cases of unknown cause at Huanan Seafood Market”
Shortly afterward, the Wuhan Health Commission issued a public notice saying that new pneumonia cases were related to the seafood market, but did not transmit virus from human to human.
“Some medical institutions found a link between the pneumonia cases and the Huanan Seafood Market” but that “there was no evidence of ‘obvious human to human transmission’ and no infection among medical personnel.”
So on January 1, 2020, the Huanan Seafood market posted a notice of closure, and had a thorough clean up. Guan Yi, a Hong Kong expert mentioned that it was like they were trying to cover up a crime scene. Officials in Wuhan said that most of the pneumonia cases have had a history in the Huanan Seafood.
On January 26, 2020, the Institute of Virology of China, CDC said that 33 of the 585 environmental samples from Wuhan market had the novel coronavirus nucleic acid, and added that the virus came from wild animals in the market.
On January 24, The Lancet produced an article called Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China that suggested the virus might not have originated from the market.
The first author of the paper was Huang Chaolin, the Deputy Director of Jin Yin-tan Hospital, and this facility was the first to treat patients with the unknown pneumonia in Wuhan.
Dr. Sean Lin, former Lab Director of the Viral Disease Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research said the symptom onset of the first patient was on December 1, 2019, and had no relation to the Huanan Seafood Market, and no epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases.
On December 10, 2019, there were 3 more cases, and 2 of the 3 cases had no relation to the Huanan Seafood Market.
Since December 15, 2019, a cluster of cases with a history of seafood market exposure have been reported. Soon after the December 10, 2019 analysis of 3 patients, there were 14 of 41 patients studied that were found to not have been to the Huanan Seafood Market.
Judy A. Mikovits, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and former Director of Lab of Antiviral Mechanism NCI, pointed out that a Lancet article said that patient zero was did not even go to the seafood market, and that there are no bats at the market or anywhere close. However, a high similarity of SARS CoV-2 nucleotide sequences were found with bat-related viruses.
But reports from NBC and Fox News have stated that bats are a likely source of the Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic.
On Janaury 29, The Lancet said 50 of the 99 cases from Jin Yan-Tan, were unrelated to the market.
The New England Journal added that the 45 cases confirmed before January 1st have not been to the market. This information came from two authors who are doctors and medical experts from China.
Daniel Lucy, an epidemiologist from the University of Georgetown said that if the Lancet paper was accurate, the first case would have been infected as early as November 2019 because due to the incubation period of the virus.
This can only mean that the virus was spreading in different areas in Wuhan before the reports suggested that the pneumonia cases had a history of exposure to the seafood market that reportedly started on December 15.
The first panel of experts from the National Health Commission arrived in Wuhan on December 31, 2019. After investigating cases in Jin Yin-Tan hospital, they said that the initial criteria for a confirmed case are fever, history to the seafood market, and whole-genomer sequencing.
The second group of experts that consisted of Zhong Nanshan arrived on January 18th and revised the criteria. They questioned why exposure to the seafood market would be a criterion when one third of the cases were unrelated to that area.
Dr. Lin pointed out the existence of a clear outside source of the infection and possible malfeasance involved in the Chinese information that the CPP is trying to cover up.
“It can go a long way to covering up the actual source by imposing a false place and you’re not looking at the actual victims, then you’re only allowed to find your keys under the light post,” said Mikovits.
Asian Affairs Experts Columnist Gordon Chang thinks the reports of deaths and cases by China are highly ‘suspicious’.
“Beijing for six weeks, in December, in January, suppressed information of the epidemic and then when they officially acknowledged it on January 20, they then started a campaign of suppression of information.
“We know that because the central leading group that was announced on January 26 has a nine person roster, and it’s very heavy with propaganda officials.
“The vice chairman of the group is the Communist Party’s propaganda czar. It appears that the Party’s main goal here is suppression of information, controlling the narrative. That’s more important to them than actually ending the epidemic,” he said.
Part 2 The Mysterious Gene Sequence
China released the full genome sequence of the Wuhan novel coronavirus on January 10, and virologists worldwide started analyzing it.
On February 3, a paper by Zhang Yongzhen from the National Institute of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention and his team, along with the School of Public Health of Fudan University was published by Nature which claimed that the Wuhan coronavirus is closely related to CoVZC45 and CoVZXC21, which are viruses sampled from bats in Zhoushan by the People’s Liberation Army.
The Wuhan coronavirus has an 89.1% nucleotide similarity to the CoVZC45 and exhibits 100% amino acid similarity in the NSP7and E proteins.
Other scientists then used Blast, a program developed by the National Institute of Health and the National Center for Biotechnology Information to compare the viral sequence based on the data released by Chinese authorities on January 12, and the results match with Zhang’s findings.
Scientist Lu Roujian from Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a paper in The Lancet on January 30 saying the Wuhan Virus has an 88% similarity to two bat-derived SARS-like coronaviruses collected in Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province.
Additionally, a 2018 paper says that scientists from the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command have confirmed that there are many SARS-like coronavirus in Zhoushan City which are referred to as Zhoushan virus.
Philipp explains that the Wuhan coronavirus is highly similar to a bat SARS-like coronavirus discovered by the Nanjing Military Research Institute with 100% amino acid similarity in NSP7 and the envelope protein (e protein).
With that information out, Dr. Lin thinks that this might have been created somewhere, just not in a natural environment.
“Hard to see a protein is 100% identical when the virus jumps species. That’s suggesting maybe the virus could be generated with a reverse engineer process.”
Mikovits says the similarity “can’t possibly be a natural mutation.”
“It almost certainly is a recombination event that was laboratory driven,” she said.
Philipp discovered that on January 21, “researchers from the Institute Pasteur Shangai Chinese Academy of Sciences published a paper in Science China Life Sciences suggests that a key part of S protein of Wuhan virus has high homology with the SARS virus.”
The S proteins allow the virus to enter human cells.
“The S proteins are like little mushrooms attached to the surface of the virus. These are also known as spine proteins or spike proteins and are an important tool for the coronavirus to invade human cells.
“The S protein acts as a key which can unlock the lock on the surface of the cell and then invade the cell to propagate and destroy it.”
Dr. Lin says this is the reason for multiorgan failure.
“That’s probably one of the important reasons contributing to multiorgan failure. They can spread out in the human body much faster.”
Mikovits says the virus couldn’t possibly enter human cells without the S protein.
“That’s the lock and key. That’s going to be what drives it right through human cells.
“So now you’re allowing that access to human tissues because the spike proteins of the natural evolutionary strains don’t infect human cells at all.
“And clearly if that spike protein from SARS weren’t on the new COVID-19 or SARS2, it wouldn’t be able to enter human cells.”
This only shows that the virus was modified in a laboratory,
“This is evidence that it couldn’t’ go through the seafood market because how did you get that spike protein off the original SARS from bats or any other way.”
“It’s lab-derived,” she added.
The Shanghai P3 laboratory, which first shared the Wuhan coronavirus genome, was then ordered by authorities to stop operating on February 28. Professor Zhang Yongzhen and his team worked on this laboratory.
A February 26 report on Caixin, a media company associated with the CPP, says Zhang and his team isolated and completed the genome sequence of the unknown virus on January 5.
On the same day, the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center this to the National Health Commission, and recommended prevention measures.
No response was given as of January 11, so the team publicized the sequence on virological.org, which is the first worldwide.
On January 1, the Hubei Health Committee ordered genome sequencing organizations saying “Existing virus samples must be destroyed. Information about the samples, related papers and related data are all prohibited from release”
The Chinese science community was basically told to keep quiet.
Chang thinks that the CPP is just plain dangerous.
“It’s the response to this virus is extremely troubling. It ignored it for six weeks. It allowed it to spread around China. This is dangerous, irresponsible behavior.”
Former US Air Force brigadier general Robert S. Spalding says that China is responsible for every COVID-19 case.
“Every person that it harms is directly attributable to the Chinese Communist Party.”
Part 3 The Discoveries of Dr. Shi Zhengli
Dr. Shi Zhengli, virologist from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has been studying bats and coronaviruses for many years and was the first to locate the key to how cross-species transmission can happen that would infect humans.
Zhengli has been researching about coronavirus since the 2003 outbreak. Since 2010, Zhengli and her team have been studying how coronaviruses can be transmitted to humans.
In 2010, Zhengli and her team finally published a paper showing how they discovered “the passageway for coronaviruses to enter human bodies.”
Another paper published by the same team in 2013 showed that they were able to successfully isolate 3 viruses from bats, and one of those had an S protein that integrated with human ACE-2 receptors, which only suggested that “direct human infection of SARS-like viruses to humans without the need for an intermediate host.”
Furthermore, in a 2015 paper, her team discussed a synthetic, and self-replicating Chimeric virus. This virus basically had the ability to allow for cross-species infection. Animals trials were also done on mice and subjects had lung damage that had no cure.
“Zhengli’s successful splicing of the SARS virus was a key to open the door to the cross-species transmission.”
Zhengli then mentioned she wanted experiments on primates.
“Her move to research on primates suggest this was to more closely simulate the infection of humans, with this new synthetic virus.”
This had the academic community concerned.
Simon Wain-Hobson of the Pasteur Institute in France told Nature, “If the new virus escaped, nobody could project the trajectory.”
Mikovits thinks that this is just evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory.
“Her work proves the hypothesis that it could not possibly have been generated in a natural, zoonotic transmission but had to come from a hospital setting, the laboratory setting, the bio safety level 4 Wuhan research facility.”
On November 14, 2018, Zhengli gave a presentation called “Studies on Bat Coronavirus and its cross-species infection”. The Shanghai Jiao Tong University has since deleted reports of the study on their website.
Chang thinks that since China is blaming the US for the virus, the latter should just lay out the facts.
“The US needs to defend itself because China is propagating this narrative that we [US] spread the coronavirus to China.”
“The US needs to just come out with the facts about how China took coronavirus samples from Canada and the US, they sent them to Wuhan.”
Part 4 The Secret of the Wuhan P4 Laboratory
On February 3, Zhengli published a paper on Nature on February 3 saying the virus was of “probable bat origin”, and used the same key as SARS to infiltrate human bodies.
Zhengli added that the 2019-nCov genome sequence was 96.2% consistent with a bat coronavirus originating in Yunnan, China called RaTG13, suggesting the Wuhan virus comes from a natural source.
But it drew skepticism, as the outbreak started in Wuhan, the place where the P4 laboratory is located that has various similar viruses and might leakage might have happened. But the government decided to blame the seafood market, which doesn’t even sell bats.
Chinese authorities prevented international experts from joining the investigation and attacked doctors such as Li Wenliang who disclosed the outbreak for spreading rumors.
The big question is why would the CCP censor information if the virus did actually come from a natural source?
Chang says that the alleged origin of the virus is peculiar to say the least.
“Almost every disease that starts in China begins in Guangdong Province that surrounds Hong Kong in the south, but Wuhan is in the central portion of the country, and so this was extremely unusual.”
The Lab Origin theory can’t even be considered a conspiracy since no there is no definitive answer regarding the origin of the virus.
“It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that the coronavirus came from the Wuhan lab. And until we know [the truth], the theory about the lab origin is certainly something that we should consider.”
On January 2, an email from the Director-General from the institute said, “Notice regarding the strict prohibition of disclosure of any information related to the Wuhan unknown pneumonia. “
“National Health Commission clearly mandates that all detection, empirical data, results, and conclusions related to this outbreak cannot be published on self-media or social media, nor disclosed to any media (including state media) or collaborative organizations (including any technical services companies”
On January 21, ”a new drug, “Remdesivir” provided to China by the US for Wuhan Coronavirus treatment was patented by the Wuhan Institute of Virology”
During the month of February, a lot of things happened regarding the P4 laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Francis Boyle, famous for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said, “The novel coronavirus we’re facing here is an offensive biological warfare weapon.”
In 1999, the People’s Liberation Army published a book called “Unrestricted Warfare” discussing how weaker nations can fight against stronger nations in the context of modern warfare.
Author Qiao Liang wrote “After the first Taiwan Strait crisis, we realized that if Chinese and American military fought head on, we are at a disadvantage. Therefore we need a new strategy to help our military tilt the balance of power”
The Federation of American Scientists expressed concern saying that the CCP has advanced chemical warfare projects, including research, development, manufacturing, and weaponizing capabilities.
Spalding thinks China wants to be the best in biological weapons.
“I believe they have them. I think they want to be the most advanced nation on earth when it comes to biological weapons.”
Anthony Shaffer, former CIA trained officer says that China has some big plans.
“There’s a lot of concern about what China’s ambitions are regarding long term global domination.
“Their military doctrines indicated that they intend to be the dominant political and military force to Pacific Rim”
Chang says that the US should start defending itself since China has declared ‘war’,
“Last May, the communist party, through People’s Daily, carried a piece which said there was a “people’s war” against the United States. There is a war. China told us there’s one.”
Part 5 Facing The Pandemic
The virus has spread to 190 countries. Europe is now the center of the outbreak, and the US has called a state of national emergency.
Spalding emphasizes that China has a strong influence on many organizations, including the World Health Organization.
“All you have to do is look at the photo of Tedros (Adhanom, Director-General of WHO) and Xi (Jin Ping, Chinese president) shaking hands. It really is indicative of how China controls many of these international institutions.”
“You can see that the WHO is essentially following Chinese communist party’s guidelines.”
Chang similarly acknowledges how China is willing to go the extra mile to conceal essential information.
“From the very beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, the communist party has done its best to prevent the CDC and others from studying the origin of the disease.”
Mikovits says that the real fight is not against the virus, but against the CPP.
“The biggest issue is fighting a system that is determined to cover up and persecute anyone who reveals the truth behind.”
Chang thinks the same.
“Every country has diseases, but in China they become national emergencies and global emergencies because the real disease here is communism.”
Philipp also added that the scientists who suggested the lab theory declined to be interviewed and avoided questions regarding the virus.
Shaffer thinks the media such as those In the US have also been influenced by China because they wouldn’t discuss subjects that are sensitive to China being responsible for the deaths of thousands.
“In this case there is a lot of things not being said.”
Spalding says that this is because those media companies make a lot of money from China, and if they go against the country’s wishes, then they would suffer great consequences.
“Chinese communist party suppressing speech in the West because these companies make money from China. The CCP is going to punish them if they essentially publish this stuff. There is no other reason”
Chang thinks that China’s influence alone contributed to the spread of the virus.
“Communist Party is maligned and is grossly irresponsible. It has pressured governments to keep their borders open and it had to know that would result in the fast spread of coronavirus to other countries.”
“Chinese communism is evil.”
Source: MSN
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense
Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.
Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.
Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously\
The most frightening [polio] epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines.
In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.
In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.
In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.
During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”
In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade. Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.
A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.
Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas. They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.
In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.
Source: Children’s Health Defense
Liberty International News 