This one-hour documentary movie follows investigative reporter Simone Gao’s inquiry into critical questions about the pandemic: What did the Chinese Communist leadership do at the early stages of the outbreak? What significant truth have they concealed from the world, and why did they do that? The documentary also casts light on who has let the the CCP run rampant, and what can be learned from the western world’s history of dealing with Communist China.
Source: YouTube & The Epoch Times
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
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 Jon Miltimore
In April 2005, Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, admitted in the CIA’s final report that after an extensive search, no weapons of mass destruction could be found.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Duelfer, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group. “As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
Today it’s generally accepted that the presence of WMD was the primary basis for the Iraq War. Naturally, the absence of such weapons shook the world. The media blamed the politicians, the politicians blamed US intel, and the intelligence actors involved mostly defended their work.
The official word, chronicled in the Robb-Silberman report, concluded that “the Intelligence Community didn’t adequately explain just how little good intelligence it had—or how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.”
The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “fail” in generations. The holy triumvirate—lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—all failed to sniff out the truth. If any of them had, a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided.
It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq blunder, but emerging evidence on COVID-19 suggests the experts—again: lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions.
A new NPR report suggests the global response to COVID-19 may have been reached on a flawed premise.
Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.
The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person’s blood rather than the virus itself.
The tests are finding large numbers of people in the US who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.
“The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
That’s in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person’s body.
Many people will recall the fatality risk debate that took place prior to and in the early stages of the lockdowns. There was much discussion over how deadly the virus was and what the collective response to the virus should be.
Some voices exercised caution.
“The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2–3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people,” Jeremy Samuel Faust an emergency medicine physician and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in Slate. “Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold.”
Similarly, on March 5 vaccine expert Paul A. Offit, who holds the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, told Factcheck.org that he believed that the World Health Organization’s 3.4 percent fatality rate figure was too high, suggesting it was well below 1 percent.
“We’re more the victim of fear than the virus,” Offit said, adding that the world was witnessing a “wild overreaction” to the disease.
Voices like those of Faust and Offit were quickly drowned out, however. The 24-hour news cycle fanned collective fear and outrage that more was not being done. Runs on toilet paper and masks ensued. Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, predicted millions would die in the “best-case scenario.”
Following the example of China, one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, most of the developed world was placed in indefinite lockdown by their own governments.
The social and economic costs of the lockdowns soon became apparent. The US alone has seen 40 million jobs lost, many of which aren’t coming back. Recession looms. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have already been wiped away. The federal debt has surged to $26 trillion.
Unfortunately, the COVID disaster and the aforementioned Iraq War fit a familiar pattern. As the historian Paul Johnson has observed, most of the worst events of the 20th century were perpetrated by experts who used collective power to shape world events in a direction they believed was beneficial.
“One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is—beware intellectuals,” Johnson wrote in The Intellectuals. “Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”
Nobody denies the immense cost of the lockdowns, but what was gained by them remains a subject of contention.
A May report from JP Morgan, as well as other evidence, suggests the lockdowns had little to no impact on the spread of COVID-19.
Marko Kolanovic, a physicist and strategist for JP Morgan, pointed out that a majority of nations saw declines in infection rates after the lockdowns were lifted.
“Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than Covid-19 itself,” Kolanoviche said.
Similarly, a Bloomberg analysis in May found “little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.” Meanwhile, Norway’s top health official recently stated that lockdowns were not a necessary step to tame the virus.
On the other hand, the Washington Post this week cited studies claiming the lockdown orders prevented hundreds of millions of COVID-19 infections and saved millions of lives.
These findings come with caveats, however. First, one of the studies was submitted on March 22—well before the vast majority of COVID cases had even occurred. The other study was conducted by researchers at the Imperial College of London, the same school from which Ferguson hailed. (He has since resigned after it was discovered that he broke the lockdown protocol he helped design by allowing his married lover to come to his home.)
Ferguson, who in 2005 said up to 200 million might die from bird flu (about 100 did), was asked by The New York Times in March what the best-case scenario was for the US during the COVID pandemic.
“About 1.1 million deaths,” he responded.
As of June 10, Ferguson is off by about a factor of ten. Why we should continue to listen to schools that have already proven to be so disastrously wrong is anyone’s guess. The “chicken little” story comes to mind.
In 2003, state actors led the world into a bloody, years-long struggle in Iraq to protect the world from nuclear weapons that didn’t exist—only to eventually learn how little US intel experts actually knew about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities.
In 2020, central planners from around the world decided to shut down the global economy to protect people from an invisible, highly contagious virus that will result in no or mild symptoms for up to 90 percent of its carriers.
Some lessons, it seems, are hard to learn.
Editor’s Note: An Associated Press article by Michael Biesecker and Jason Dearen that includes a description of the 600-physician letter is headlined “GOP fronts ‘pro-Trump’ doctors to prescribe rapid reopening,” which has led to criticism of Gold and her colleagues on social media. However, as the article acknowledges in the text, “Gold denied she was coordinating her efforts with Trump’s reelection campaign.” Gold echoed those comments to us, saying, “This was 100% physician grassroots. There was 0% GOP.”
More than 600 of the nation’s physicians sent a letter to President Trump this week calling the coronavirus shutdowns a “mass casualty incident” with “exponentially growing negative health consequences” to millions of non COVID patients.
“The downstream health effects…are being massively under-estimated and under-reported. This is an order of magnitude error,” according to the letter initiated by Simone Gold, M.D., an emergency medicine specialist in Los Angeles.
“Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%,” the letter said. Other silent casualties: “150,000 Americans per month who would have had new cancer detected through routine screening.”
From missed cancer diagnoses to untreated heart attacks and strokes to increased risks of suicides, “We are alarmed at what appears to be a lack of consideration for the future health of our patients.”
Patients fearful of visiting hospitals and doctors’ offices are dying because COVID-phobia is keeping them from seeking care. One patient died at home of a heart attack rather than go to an emergency room. The number of severe heart attacks being treated in nine U.S hospitals surveyed dropped by nearly 40% since March. Cardiologists are worried “a second wave of deaths” indirectly caused by the virus is likely.
The physicians’ letter focuses on the impact on Americans’ physical and mental health. “The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.
“It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown,” the letter says. “Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million [now 38 million] other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.”
While all 50 states are relaxing lockdowns to some extent, some local officials are threatening to keep stay-at-home orders in place until August. Many schools and universities say they may remain closed for the remainder of 2020.
“Ending the lockdowns are not about Wall Street or disregard for people’s lives; it about saving lives,” said Dr. Marilyn Singleton, a California anesthesiologist and one of the signers of the letter. “We cannot let this disease change the U.S. from a free, energetic society to a society of broken souls dependent on government handouts.” She blogs about the huge damage the virus reaction is doing to the fabric of society.
Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, also warns that restrictions are having a huge negative impact on non-COVID patients.
“Even patients who do get admitted to hospital, say for a heart problem, are prisoners. No one can be with them. Visitation at a rare single-story hospital was through closed outside window, talking via telephone,” she wrote us. “To get permission to go to the window you have to make an appointment (only one group of two per day!), put on a mask, get your temperature taken, and get a visitor’s badge of the proper color of the day.”
How many cases of COVID-19 are prevented by these practices? “Zero,” Dr. Orient says. But the “ loss of patient morale, loss of oversight of care, especially at night are incalculable.”
Virtually all hospitals halted “elective” procedures to make beds available for what was expected to be a flood of COVID-19 patients. Beds stayed empty, causing harm to patients and resulting in enormous financial distress to hospitals, especially those with limited reserves.
Even states like New York that have had tough lockdowns are starting to allow elective hospital procedures in some regions. But it’s more like turning up a dimmer switch. In Pennsylvania, the chair of the Geisinger Heart Institute, Dr. Alfred Casale, said the opening will be slow while the facility is reconfigured for COVID-19 social distancing and enhanced hygiene.
Will patients come back? COVID-phobia is deathly real.
Patients still are fearful about going to hospitals for heart attacks and even for broken bones and deep lacerations. Despite heroic efforts by physicians to deeply sanitize their offices, millions have cancelled appointments and are missing infusion therapies and even chemotherapy treatments. This deferred care is expected to lead to patients who are sicker when they do come in for care and more deaths from patients not receiving care for stroke, heart attacks, etc.
She waited almost a week before going to the hospital where doctors discovered she had a brain bleed that had gone untreated. She had multiple strokes and died. “This is something that most of the time we’re able to prevent,” said her neurosurgeon, Dr. Abhineet Chowdhary, director of the Overlake Neuroscience Institute in Bellevue, Wash.
As the number of deaths from the virus begin to decline, we are likely to awaken to this new wave of casualties the 600 physicians are warning about. We should be listening to the doctors, and heed their advice immediately.
Source: Forbes & Associated Press
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
As the COVID-19 crisis continues to drift on, western governments are looking for more excuses to extend what is now known to be a disastrous lockdown policy. One of the hooks which politicians and health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci continue to dangle in front of the public is the promise of a “cure” for the Coronavirus, or more specifically – a vaccine. The sheer scale of the corruption between industry and government is difficult to fathom. Masterminding the public campaign for a Coronavirus vaccine ‘panacea’ is billionaire Bill Gates and his funding machine, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who are now partnering with Big Pharma to roll-out a global vaccine program for 7 billion people worldwide. This incessant rush to market means that this new ‘miracle vaccine’ will not go through the normal research, development and safety procedures. With such a well-connected and well-financed corporate and ideological cartel now in control of western governments, there’s a very real danger of unprecedented corruption on a global level – a clear and present danger to the health and well being of many millions.
Source: 21 Century Wire
Editor’s Note: The National Library of Medicine (NLM), on the campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has been a center of information innovation since its founding in 1836. The world’s largest biomedical library, NLM maintains and makes available a vast print collection and produces electronic information resources on a wide range of topics that are searched billions of times each year by millions of people around the globe. It also supports and conducts research, development, and training in biomedical informatics and health information technology. In addition, the Library coordinates a 6,500-member National Network of Libraries of Medicine that promotes and provides access to health information in communities across the United States.
Background: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world. It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers.
Material and methods: 455 contacts who were exposed to the asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carrier became the subjects of our research. They were divided into three groups: 35 patients, 196 family members and 224 hospital staffs. We extracted their epidemiological information, clinical records, auxiliary examination results and therapeutic schedules.
Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.
Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.
Keywords: Asymptomatic carrier; Contacts; Infectivity; SARS-CoV-2.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Features, Evaluation and Treatment Coronavirus (COVID-19).
The Coronavirus Pandemic: What Does the Evidence Show?
Source: National Library of Medicine
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 Pam Vernon
In 2019 Senator Richard Blumenthal grilled wireless industry representatives, who admitted the industry has done ZERO health & safety studies on 5G technology. Meanwhile, dozens of independent studies indicates that 5G is a risk to all biological life. Watch the video below.
During today’s Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of 5G wireless technology and their impact on the American people and economy, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) raised concerns with the lack of any scientific research and data on the technology’s potential health risks.
Blumenthal blasted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—government agencies jointly-responsible for ensuring that cellphone technologies are safe to use—for failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5G technology, and instead, engaging in bureaucratic finger-pointing and deferring to industry.
In December 2018, Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At today’s hearing, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and instead, just echoing, “the general statements of the FDA, which shares regulatory responsibility for cell phones with the FCC.” Blumenthal also decried the FDA’s statements as “pretty unsatisfactory.” A PDF of Carr’s complete response is available here.
Source: Envirowatch Rangitikei & Take Back Your Power
Liberty International News 