Tag Archives: fighting for your rights

National Security Alert: COVID Tests Scientifically Fraudulent, Epidemic of False Positives

Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) tests are used worldwide to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection. An in-depth investigation reveals clear scientific evidence proving that these tests are not accurate and create a statistically significant percentage of false positives. Positive results more likely indicate “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.”

In fact, American biochemist Kary Mullis, now deceased, who won the Noble Prize in chemistry for creating PCR technology, repeatedly stated throughout his career that it should not be used to test for viruses. This technology is designed to replicate DNA sequences, not test for coronavirus infections.

Executive Action Required

President Trump must take immediate action to investigate and hold members of the FDA, CDC and WHO accountable for scientific fraud and Crimes Against the Humanity.

If he does not take immediate action, he is thereby complicit in what clearly amounts to Crimes Against Humanity, as this report will detail.

Multiple U.S. Intelligence Community contacts have verified the accuracy of the extensive investigative report, conducted by award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht, featured below. While they do take issue with some of the reports verbiage, they corroborate the main findings: PCR tests should not be relied upon for accurate results and create a significant percentage of false positives.

We also feature a New York Times report from 2007, entitled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” which also clearly reveals how scientifically inaccurate PCR tests are, featuring many shocking statements from medical experts on the use of these tests, clearly laying out how they result in false positives and lead to dangerous exaggerations and false alarms.

Note: We are NOT reporting that the coronavirus is a complete hoax. You should take precautions and consult your doctor for best safety practices.

We are reporting, as the evidence reveals, that the number of COVID-positive results and the number of COVID-related deaths have been significantly exaggerated.

Based on our findings, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration should not be trusted or relied upon for accurate information, and needs to be immediately investigated and held accountable for Crimes Against Humanity.

 

*

Before reading Engelbrecht’s investigation into the science that proves how fraudulent “COVID-19 testing” is, let’s recap the overall state of what can accurately be defined as an “attack” on us.

For your family’s sake, please do not instinctively dismiss any of these facts. Please read this entire post before it gets deleted by corrupt censors.

Fact 1) As thousands of Doctors worldwide have proven, there are several effective treatments for this coronavirus. (source onetwothreefourfivesix)

Fact 2) The effective treatments have been censored and suppressed for reasons including but not limited to:

a) They are inexpensive, i.e. Big Pharma can’t profit off of them;

b) They completely derail the wider-agenda of those interests who are exploiting this virus to implement the most oppressive economic, “health” and surveillance system ever;

c) There is an FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) law which only allows the mass “vaccination” program to continue if there are no other effective treatments. There is also a EUA “National Security” stipulation that requires a significant percentage of the population to be at risk of death, which is another reason why fraudulent false-positive testing is being used, as you will see below. (source)

For all of these reasons, the effective treatments have been suppressed; leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people.

Fact 3) The handling of this virus has resulted in an all-out economic disaster that has destroyed the livelihood and financial security of billions of people worldwide, leading to unprecedented rates of debt, depression, drug abuse, overdoses and suicides. Meanwhile, the CARES Act and global central banking operations in response to this “crisis” have resulted in an unprecedented consolidation of wealth by the world’s richest 0.01%. (source onetwothreefour)

Fact 4) The lockdown, quarantine and closer of schools, religious services, sports, recreational activities, social events, shopping, food and workplaces, along with social distancing measures and mandatory mask use, in combination with criminally negligent 24/7 mainstream media virus fear propaganda, amounts to psychological torture and abuse on an unprecedented scale, which has torn apart and separated many families, and has done significant damage to the psychological wellbeing of billions of people, particularly young children, worldwide. (source)

Fact 5) Underfunded and cash-strapped hospitals have been financially incentivized to record as many COVID-related deaths as possible, resulting in a statistically significant number of falsely reported COVID-related deaths. On top of that, hospitals have also been heavily incentivized to put people on ventilators, which has also contributed to thousands of additional unnecessary deaths. (source onetwo)

*

Now that we have a better understanding of the overall situation, of the Crimes Against Humanity that have been strategically implemented thus far, let’s look at the science that reveals the fraudulent testing process. Here’s is Torsten Engelbrecht’s report:

COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

By Torsten Engelbrecht & Konstantin Demeter

Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

However, when looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by SARS-CoV-2.

Unfounded “Test, test, test” Mantra

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

“We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on May 3, the moderator of the Heute Journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television — was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

“Test, test, test — that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

As Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

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

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

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

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

Lack of a valid gold standard

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” [1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. As Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

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

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

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard.’” But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us. [2]

If there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard, but she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. She has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

[She never replied.]

No proof for the RNA being of viral origin

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

Because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health,” Nature Medicine, March 2020

Replying Author: Malik Peiris

Date: May 12, 2020

Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19,” Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020

Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han

Date: May 6, 2020

Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea,” Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020

Replying Author: Wan Beom Park

Date: March 19, 2020

Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China,” 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020

Replying Author: Wenjie Tan

Date: March 18, 2020

Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.

That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral.

[In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused.]

Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.

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

[Modern virus detection methods like] “sleek polymerase chain reaction… tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint..” [3]

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

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

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

In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.

In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.

The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.

One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.

For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. The slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.

Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.

Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question:

If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?

Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.

It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test, which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.

But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.

Regarding our question: “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.

Although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:

“RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany).”

That means they just assumed the RNA was viral.

Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.

Irrational test results

It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.

For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.

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

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

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

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

In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.

This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).

The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).

With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.

In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.

The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.

But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.

In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically….

All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

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

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

And:

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

And the FDA admits that: “positive results… do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics. [5]

To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche, we read:

“These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection.”

And:

“For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “viral load”?

There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.

Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.”

If these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.

That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.

That is to say, the CDC, WHO, FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.

This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question, “What is viral load?”, at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.

Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out, which has not happened yet:

You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found.

Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?

With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.

But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes.” Instead, the Charité wrote:

“If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are… limited to qualitative detection.”

Furthermore, the “Drosten PCR test” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay.

According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2.”

Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) gives a “positive” result.

This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.

That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by RocheTIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.

High CQ values make the test results even more meaningless

Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test,” even have a Cq of 45.

The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.

“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.

MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments,” a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.

The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:

“If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR, which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”

In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”

According to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at, and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.

If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.

Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase — hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”

But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.

Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.

For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).

Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.

So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests — even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?

Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.

Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.

Experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown” since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.

Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.

A “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations.

Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”

Without doubt excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

[1] Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.

[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020

[3] Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24

[4] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020

[5] Creative Diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit

Featured image is from CDC

gilSource:
Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

TRUMP: MILITARY IS GOING TO DELIVER VACCINE IN A VERY POWERFUL MANNER

The military in the business of killing people soooo this sounds about right.

Operation Warpspeed for Agenda 21 , The Biometric tracking implanted Chip Vaccine Monitored all day every day Wireless Control Restrictions living in Herd Immunity Cities , Death Mask Wearing 🐑 will Comply.

America is gone already. Prepare for tribulations.

Trump is finally showing his true colors part of the New World Order divide and conquer.

If you want your next stimulus check we ask that you go to your local military base, jail, prison or FEMA reeducation camp to receive your experimental vaccine. We strongly encourage you to do so if you have any intentions of buying or selling in the coming years.

 

 

It’s all staged! Propaganda etc…They are deleting everything on fb as well. Before it’s all over there won’t be no internet, cell phones, etc..

 

I don’t watch the news, every news channel EVERY ONE OF THEM LIES! they are controlled by the same one’s who controls ALL Presidents, banks, bankers, the NWO, etc….folk’s might as well set & listen to Lucifer himself. It’s all staged! Propaganda etc…They are deleting everything on Facebook as well. Before it’s all over there want to be no internet, cell phones, etc….I’m old school, grew up without all this crap, & I want to miss it. Let em censor all they want, more power to these nut jobs.

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyright

Health Freedom Lawyer Patricia Finn and Supreme Court Case

Health Freedom Lawyer Patricia Finn will shortly present a case to the US Supreme Court that could end Vaxx Mandates in the US (they are already in violation of US Law, but this case could nail that coffin shut – with a lot of syringes inside!)

How many shares do shadow entities associated with Bill Gates, George Soros, Chase, Jeff Bezos, Monsanto and its owner, Bayer, Pfizer, Sanofi, Hoffman La Roche, the Queen of England, Mark Zuckerberg… and the others known or unknown own in these privatized censorship corporations?

14 days. $15,000 dollars. Perhaps our best chance to end the horrifying intent of the Vaxx Masters — vaccine mandates for all here in the US is the SCOTUS Vaxx Case. The Vaxx Masters have all the money in the world to attack us. But we can do something about that.

Source:

Vaxx SCOTUS Case Sabotaged?

US Supreme Court to Receive Counsel Finn’s Vaccine Freedom of Choice Case

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

Five Battles We Cannot Afford to Lose

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, describes how we can fight against masks, media lies, lockdowns, social distancing and the disappearance of cash.

Five Battles We Cannot Afford to Lose

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA
The masks we are being encouraged to wear are useless. The virus goes through the mask like a wasp through chain link fencing.

So, what is the point?

Are the English being forced to wear masks because Scotland’s diminutive dictator made mask wearing compulsory north of the border? Is Boris the Bullock being led by the nose by the Sturgeon woman?

When Sturgeon made mask wearing compulsory in Scotland she created a clear division between the two countries and threatened to turn the border with England into a quarantine zone. This seemed to me to be political – and part of the Scottish Nationalists’ plan to declare independence. So did Boris, desperate to prevent a split, make masks compulsory in England to keep the two countries united? Whatever next? If Sturgeon makes kilt wearing compulsory will Boris do the same? Boris likes to think of himself as Churchillian. He is more a Prime Minister in the Chamberlain mode.

Is it just to humiliate us, oppress us and take away our identity? To create fear and make us demand the new vaccine? Or is it to prepare us for the one world religion which has long been planned?

Is it a coincidence that July 24th – the day when masks became compulsory in English shops, is the special day of St Charbel Makhluf – a monk and priest who had links with both the Christian and Muslim worlds?

When your own government and the mass media continually lies to you, nothing can be counted as impossible.

Talking of mass media, it is important to realise that the whole of the mass media is now our enemy. I have read articles arguing that the Government and its experts couldn’t possibly be wrong because they are all singing from the same hymn sheet. This is such blatant nonsense that it makes me want to weep. Governments everywhere are involved in a conspiracy and they have passed laws forbidding dissent or discussion or the publication of information that doesn’t fit the official line.

It is no secret, for example, that in the UK doctors and nurses working in the NHS are forbidden to talk about anything relating to the coronavirus. All whistle blowing is now banned. Anyone who breaks this law will be fired and probably lose their licence to practice. But what a pity that doctors and nurses have failed to speak out. Any doctor or nurse who still thinks this virus is a plague should be struck off for incompetence. Health professionals should have the guts to speak out at a time like this. And before anyone accuses me of asking others to do what I need not do just remember that I have been viciously attacked and lied about endlessly because I have spoken out. And I would add that I have twice resigned from well-paid jobs on principle. I resigned as a GP in the early 1980s because I disapproved of having to put diagnoses on sick notes. And I resigned from a job as a newspaper columnist when my column condemning the Iraq War was censored.

Let me just give a couple of examples of how blatant the mass media has become in distorting or hiding the truth.

First, a few days ago the British Government admitted that the number of deaths for Covid-19 had been dramatically exaggerated. Anyone who had tested positive for the coronavirus and who subsequently died was officially counted as having died of the coronavirus. I’ve been saying this for months now but it was good to see the Government admit that the death total for coronavirus had been wildly exaggerated in order to bring the total up closer to the annual number of respiratory disease deaths. If you had the coronavirus in February and were then run over by a bus in July, you officially died of the coronavirus not the injuries caused by the bus. This was, in my view, one of the biggest news stories of the whole fiasco. I wonder how many murders were covered up that way. Dr Harold Shipman would have had a great time. But, as far as I could see, the BBC did not even mention the exaggeration on its website. The story wasn’t there. The BBC did, however, have a story dismissing those who didn’t want to wear a mask as `socially obnoxious’. The BBC has given up even pretending to be fair or even handed in its reporting.

Incidentally, the BBC has a `reality check’ item on its website. If you go to that part of the website you can find a form on which you can ask the BBC to check on something that seems inaccurate or misleading. I suggest you go there and ask this question: `How corrupt is the BBC? Has the BBC’s bias become more obvious since it forged financial links with the EU and with Bill Gates?’

Second, an editorial in the Economist said this about Donald Trump: `he seems to be wrong about almost everything. He has promoted a dud malaria drug, said the virus would disappear and even that 99% of cases of Covid-19 are harmless’. Well, Trump was right about all those things and the Economist was, as it usually is, wrong about everything.

I think it is vital to swamp all mainstream media with messages reminding their readers that the mass media is often providing a biased viewpoint. Ask their readers to look at these videos to find the truth.

Whatever the truth may be I think the war we are fighting against our own governments, and their agents and manipulators, can be divided into five specific battles.

First, there is the battle against face masks. Since the WHO changed its collective mind and started recommended masks, just as infections fell, there has been massive confusion around the world as more and more politicians have followed the party line, defied the science, and made mask wearing compulsory. There is a let out in some countries such as the UK. Anyone who has a physical or mental health problem which makes mask wearing difficult can refuse to wear one. So, if you have a respiratory problem such as asthma or you suffer from anxiety when wearing a mask you are, as I understand it, legally entitled to refuse to wear one. And I don’t believe you should have to tell a shop assistant or policeman precisely what your confidential health problem might be. On the other hand if you tell the police officer that you are asthmatic and will suffer if you have to wear a mask then you would presumably have a good reason to appeal against a fine whereas if you insist on not explaining your condition you would undoubtedly still have to tell the magistrate the nature of your problem.

In the UK, children under the age of 11 don’t have to wear a mask and since masks can cause hypoxia and can kill, parents who do put masks on children under 11 should, in my opinion, be arrested for child abuse. Where are the damned social workers when you need them? All sitting at home wearing six masks and with their feet in a bucket of disinfectant since the BBC (the taxpayer funded home of fake news) seems to have suggested that you can catch it through your feet.

Second, there is the battle to retain cash. I think this is absolutely crucial. If they succeed in removing cash from our society then we will all become slaves to the electronic system – easy to track and trace whatever we do and wherever we go. Implanted chips will be the next step and we will all bear a tattoo. The banks have wanted to get rid of cash for a long time and they’ve been closing branches and cash machines in an attempt to force us to use plastic cards. The solution is to refuse to shop in establishments which won’t take cash. If you know a shop won’t take cash then take a pile of purchases to the counter and then refuse to pay for them if your cash is refused. The shop will lose the sale and will have to put all the items back on the shelf. And make sure that the manager knows why you are going elsewhere.

Third, we need to make sure that anti-social distancing is ended – particularly in schools. Parents should contact their child’s school and make it clear that they do not want their child to attend a school which insists on anti-social distancing. They should make it clear that if a school puts anti-social distancing measures in place then they will hold the headmistress or headmaster personally responsible for any psychological damage their child might suffer. Petty bureaucrats hate being held personally accountable.

Fourth, we don’t want any more lockdowns. Now that local politicians and bureaucrats have been given the authority to introduce local lockdowns we do at least know where we need to put pressure. Contact your local councillor and make it clear that you will never vote for him or her again if lockdowns are introduced in your area. And demand that executive staff be fired if they try introducing lockdowns.

Fifth, vaccines. Why are the authorities so desperate to force a vaccine on us just to deal with a mild disease no worse than the flu? We have to make it clear that we won’t accept mandatory vaccinations. We aren’t going to be able to end the vaccination programme – it is far too well entrenched within the system – and the zombies will be rolling up their sleeves and holding out their arms in eagerness the minute a vaccine is available. They don’t care whether it works, causes brain damage or kills them stone dead. The zombies are as desperate for the needle as heroin addicts after two days of cold turkey. If you don’t want to be vaccinated then make this clear on message boards and in letters to newspapers and radio programmes. Point out that in the USA the authorities have paid out over $4 billion to vaccine injured patients. In the UK, the Government has a standard payment of £120,000 for those injured by vaccines. Why pay out all that money for vaccines which are supposed to be perfectly safe? If the authorities realise that there are many people who will not accept mandatory vaccination, in any form, then they will not try to force their damned vaccination on us.

May your God go with you in these difficult times.

Copyright Vernon Coleman July 18th 2020

Vernon Coleman’s book Coming Apocalypse – the story of the Covid-19 hoax from the start – is available on Amazon as a paperback and an eBook. Coming Apocalypse also includes Dr Coleman’s forecasts.

Vernon Coleman’s novel about a doctor who has concerns about vaccination is called The Truth Kills and is available as a paperback and an eBook on Amazon. 

Source:

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

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

covid-19 – Is Totalitariam The New Normal?

We cannot go back to the pre-coronavirus world, they tell us. Everything has changed and we must accept a “new normal.” What does this “new normal” look like? It looks a lot like a dystopian horror film, where privacy is destroyed, property is subject to political whim, surveillance is to be accepted, medical treatments can be forced on people. Should we accept totalitarianism as our “new normal”? Plus in today’s program: the real story of Houston’s “round two hospital crisis.”
Hello, everyone and thank you for tuning into the Liberty report today with me today is Daniel McAdams good to see you Daniel.
00:19
How are you this morning fry I’m doing quite well?
Thank you, yeah ready and raring to go.
Hopefully you had something positive to the world, but you know when we talked every once while we could bring up negative things.
We have a few negative things to do, because we’re gonna follow up on the usual subject that we’ve dealt with so much in these last several weeks, and that is coronavirus, and I was just mentioning to you.
Guy said, you know, there’s a lot of pros and cons, an argument about how serious this is.
I said it has nothing to do with the virus.
It has to do with government power and authority, and using the coronavirus has an excuse, and I think a lot of what we’ve discovered and others are starting to discover is that the statistics, you know, have been fudged all along and all of a sudden.
01:05
Now they have dropped this whole idea.
How bad it is by measuring how many people died yeah, because there are, as many people die and they don’t talk about that, but they’ve been out searching and they get rewarded for finding it.
It’S like finding Easter eggs out there, yeah and they’re finding him and a lot of positive tests are coming up and the way they operated, hospitals, everybody gets tested and their red gets marked down, and that is for the line weathers for admissions or whether it’s for Death certificates or whatever, no matter what the real causes are coronavirus and there’s money involved and and and we are continuing with this after it closed down and things got better, I thought maybe we’re over the hump and oh, we have a second way.
A second wave of coronavirus, no a second wave of totalitarianism, rearing its ugly head again and coming back, and I have a sense of fulfilling that things are every bit as bad from the government this time as it was a few weeks ago.
Even though the statistics are much better, but I found shoot every shirt us again once today that you got to be concerned because we heard there’s a new virus coming worst worse than everyone’s, probably either Russia or China created that Center they’re gonna find find an Enemy but the totalitarians, the ones who use this as a way of encroaching on our liberties very early on they were very honest.
It’Ll never be the same.
We can’t go back and all I thought to thinking.
02:37
Well, I don’t like people going down a lot of people used to tell me.
We talk about the gold standard and I say I don’t want to go back to the gold standard.
We can improve on the one we had ever shortcoming, so we don’t want to just go back, because there were things that we didn’t like.
We didn’t like the whole idea that, and we talked about it, was the abuse of police powers, and but they assured to us in the announcement of the need to crack down and once they discovered how serious it was.
They said.
It’Ll never be the same, and now we’re getting some reports out that are showing how much has changed, and yet there are still a lot of people don’t like it.
A lot of people would like to hear the message and I hope that’s what we can provide is an answer to the people who say that we have to be totalitarians, because it’s so serious and people are dying.
So somebody has to say it and there’s more and more people saying it, and we were delighted this week that three major hospitals in Houston refuted the national headlines, Texas, that national healing they’re running out of spaces there’s an epidemic worse than ever.
It wasn’t even true, and but the doctors, the physicians, the CEOs and other put up and said it’s not that bad.
You know there are problems, but I they would even bring up the subjective of measurements instead of just you know, avoiding talking about deaths and just talking about people who get the label and then do millions and millions of tests somebody’s making some money on that.
One way or another, and lo and behold all you have to do is say if you have a positive, you know you’re put in that category, but I’ve had a couple.
No statements made and we’ve read about it and I can’t verify this, but I sort of believe it is that when you test them, you know, do a blind test with the testers.
You get more positives and then you have by testing it by somebody else.
So and this is part of the problem we have is is it built in a system where there’s so much distrust and anger, and so we can’t even trust what our government says, though, we’ve known that for a long time and and yet they have an agenda And the agenda is not Liberty, the agenda is obedience and that’s what this is all about, and the things that we’re going to mention now is we have to we as a people have to toe line.
We have to be obedient and if you see somebody that doesn’t have a minute, I get a mask on it’s best.
You call somebody quickly, you know turn them in.
That is a suggestion that totalitarianism is alive and well and something we can’t ignore ignore I never would have believed this kind of mask hysteria, but yeah they call it the new normal.
05:34
You can’t go back to your own lives.
You’Ve got to go to a new normal and things are gonna be very different, but you just have to get used to it.
You know the new normal based on Watt and we take, for example, Texas.
In 2018 flu season, 11,000 people died in Texas, the 2020 kovat flu 2005 little over 2,000 have died.
So how can you have 11,000 die here?
No big deal just another flu season, then you have a little bit 2,000 people, including only 16 people in brasilia county, and then they tell us.
06:07
You can’t go back to your normal life.
You know, and now they’re saying with this new wave, that it’s all the fault of the people who wanted to go back to work because they opened too soon and even even our own governor said well looks like i opened too soon people in California in Arizona.
It’S all your fault, you open too soon.
Of course, these are the people who were still collecting their paycheck throughout those two months.
06:32
When nobody was getting paid, nobody else was getting paid, people were losing their houses, people were, you know, losing their mortgages losing their businesses.
The people who still collecting a paycheck are now sitting back in smirking, saying: well, you open too soon got to close it down.
But, as you say, and we’ve said it, you know quite a few times, there’s a massive increase in testing.
There’S a massive incentive to test a lot of these tests are covered by state governments now because they want to get those numbers up, because it’s very political, California has just announced unprecedented levels of testing and guess what they have a lot of new cases.
The same is true with Arizona, so it’s all political.
I didn’t think it would work to do the same thing again, but with even less merit, but unfortunately, thus far it seems to be working.
You know, you know what that made me.
Think of when you said we left too soon, but what about in foreign policy?
Wasn’T that always excuse another New York?
I was like.
07:28
Well, you left too soon.
You know Liberty, because persons, people, individuals, are unimportant in a totalitarian society other than obedience and what we hear and deal with, and what we’re so frustrated with is the effort to push the obedience on it.
Government told us to wear masks and it’s so strong.
It really scares me and we’ve talked about it is that when your neighbors turn you in yeah or that police is called that, one picture still bothers me to no end when the priest wouldn’t let a father and a daughter, pray in an empty church, and he Called he called the police and the police came and you know wouldn’t allow it to happen.
I mean this is that is, and it’s an attack on a church just think they’ve changed it a little bit on this lockdown, because the point was, you know: you’re closing the churches, but you can still go to the bar yeah and now, oh, no, you can’t Even go to the bar, so so I don’t know it’s it’s the authoritarianism that was in fighting this problem, but it’s made much worse prior to coronavirus and the collapse of the financial system.
There wasn’t this big push but we’re in the middle of it.
I say the financial correction is the big one.
The coronavirus is in addition to it and black lives matter.
08:51
That’S an addition.
It all brings it together that those people were you know, even I was hesitant to put in those terms that you know we’re on a merger on the verge of military conflict here in this country.
I said you know a war going on in here in there artist the more I look at this in a more language I hear there are some people that are very nasty and and they’re killing each other, but we’ve always known you know an inner city.
There’S been a lot of killing going on and though they wouldn’t pay any attention, so it wasn’t the life they were concerned about, but there was an article today is sort of help make my point.
I came from the Seattle, Police Chief and, and she said you know that’s where they had the the little covet.
What was the job?
They had the chop organization and she must have believed we got what we won for all the police out and magic is going to happen.
This is what she said asked why black people keep dying in the black lives matter zone.
She’S asking a question like shit: I have any idea: why does happen, what they were doing it before and maybe maybe she thought it was just the police that were the cause, but the police are gone so men why maybe she’ll figure it out?
10:07
The problem remains.
I know a lot of times you like to you like to compare, what’s happening here with foreign policy, and I think it’s an interesting conceptual thing, and one of the things that I was thinking about is the the idea of requiring mass and unfortunately, here in Lake Jackson and include next they’ve mandated masks and businesses all throughout Texas, now masks are being mandated in California and Arizona too, and it really strikes me that masks mandating mass is sort of like sanctions.
You know when we put sanctions on a country, they want to be politicians who want to be seen doing something, but they don’t want to start a war.
They don’t want to drop a bomb necessarily, but hey we got to do something, it seems like the masses.
It’S kind of like sanctions, you know, but I put together a little list: we’ve brainstormed before the show about the new normal in in our title.
Hence the totalitarianism.
Is it the new normal and here are some things that they want us to accept as our new?
Nor, first of all, is the mass surveillance with the contact tracing.
We’Ve talked about that before, where, if, if you happen to test positive they’ll, look on your phone or they’ll interview, you or they’ll come knock at your door.
Hey, we want to know everyone you, anyone you’ve talked to where you’ve been what you’ve been doing and we’re gonna get those people we’re gonna put them in quarantine.
That’S something that we’re expected to accept and that’s never been something that we’ve had before and we have a picture up now: mass surveillance and here’s a here’s, a here’s, an article from MIT.
We need mass surveillance to fight kovat, but it doesn’t have to be creepy.
Oh, it’s like Uncle Joe Stalin.
Totalitarianism doesn’t have to be so creepy, but that’s one of them, and you know there’s there are so many others of the new normal is compromised.
11:52
Immune systems.
Doctor Senator Goethe at Oxford talked about how the lockdowns weaken our immune systems.
We’Re not getting exposed to germs that were supposed to be so we were going to be perpetually weaker immune systems, and that, of course makes us more vulnerable to the new viruses that come down the fight right.
I don’t know what you think about those well they’re.
One question I had when you are mentioning these things: is there mandates, they tell me they have to do it, but what about the legality of it are these mandates?
12:22
Do they have any sense of reality as far as being legal, legal, locally local laws, legal constitutionally?
I don’t think they are, you know and that’s an extreme view.
You know that we have, but they don’t have the authority to do this.
So how do they get away with it?
You?
The people are going along with it we’re outnumbered yeah, and it has to do with fear, because you have to be scared to death that if they don’t do it, you have two things: you’re going to get the virus and die or you’re going to be in Trouble with the law or are you going to be or are you’re gonna receive a fine?
So you have to have fear and then intimidation, there’s going to be serious repercussions if you don’t go along, and that also is necessary to maintain the totalitarian state.
Yeah yeah this this is just temporary.
This is a conditioning exercise for the masses and I don’t.
I cannot think for a minute that there isn’t some connection worldwide and I don’t think it’s just the virus, because we’ve had many infections have been worldwide in many, and this is less serious than some others, even some other influenza, but this never happens, but this is Worldwide, so it’s a lot of intimidation.
It has spread and when you look at what’s happening in our streets, when you can to get to see the banding together that the that the people who are tired of the lockdown and the people who are tired of police brutality and that brings out you know support from very good people, so I think it’s bad Ron Paul said that it was too much a police brutality, but they never followed through his a well.
What’S the alternative and that’s what we’d like to talk about yeah absolutely well, there are a few other things that just come up when you just start thinking about it.
14:13
Oh cashless society kills privacy.
The idea, the concept that you can have a forced vaccination and you can be forced to accept other medical treatments against your will.
Permanent state of emergency is another one.
Paul Ryan McMakin has a piece on Mises site today about the legality of extending emergency.
You know in Texas, you only get 30 days, calc Colorado.
14:39
You only get 30 days Florida 60 days.
Those have passed long since the legislators did not go back in and meet in, pass and say: okay, you can extend it the person who initially declared it the governor’s who now rule by decree of just you know expanded.
So the idea that we have a permanent state of emergency is another one of these ideas, these these that the new normal.
You know the idea that said the churches are subject to the whim of politicians.
15:08
You can close it.
It will low threshold for lockdowns.
The merger of business and the state and this is one we should talk about because remember the new updates for your Apple, your iPhone and your and your other phones.
They have a built in their the contact tracing the code.
15:25
Would contact tracing built into your private phone?
That’S gonna help the government follow you.
Oh, I know it’s.
It’S scary and a lot of people know about this, but they totally helpless and I have that feeling myself a help.
How what do you do?
How do you get out of this because we do become dependent?
We can we depend on on our televisions.
We are dependent on our internet services and getting out of our program, so there’s good and bad that exists there and to sort it out.
But there are people now trying to prepare for the day when our First Amendment rights are totally destroyed and there’ll be others that were fulfill the role and that’s why some freedom has to be maintained so that free markets and free minds can give us an alternative And that’s the same way with this, this idea of defunding the police.
Let’S say that we go along with it.
We have a coalition okay.
What do you fund the police, because some of these police departments are so corrupted they’re, so bad, we’ll defund the police?
Well, if, if you, if you don’t look to what you’re creating, then you have something like what they have in Seattle, it doesn’t really solve the problem.
The killing goes on, but you have to replace the authoritarianism that isn’t working the taxes and all the messes in the inner cities and the welfare state.
What you have to do is is not to go back exactly the way it was, but to think about what positive things you can do and that is honor and respect private property honor and respect the contract honor and respect the whole principle of the Second Amendment And I think that in no time, if you did it with a transition, say look in no time you’re on your own.
Why don’t you talk to your neighbors and find out how you’re in and defend your neighborhood?
Why couldn’t the business people in a city get together and do that?
But right now I don’t think because, right now, if you do it, you think you’re defending the defender of the property is the one: does who’s the biggest who’s the most guilty problem?
Well, we should we want to switch a little bit and you touched on it earlier.
We want to focus a little bit because I think this is really important.
The whole new lockdown he’s not quite a lockdown yet, but the governor threatened yesterday Abbot, the governor of Texas threatened and I’m sure other governors are following suit: hey if numbers keep, if we keep getting more cases, we’re gonna go back to lockdown, so you better Put your mass on: don’t you dare go to those bars?
The mayor of Houston said: I’m gonna make a list of all you naughty businesses and shame you, which is?
17:55
Can you map public servant doing this?
You know paid by these businesses, but it’s all based on these reports coming out of primarily Texas, but also California and elsewhere, that hospitals are being overrun.
That’S the reason: that’s the scare they’re at 95 capacity and I wanted to do a couple of things.
This is a couple of this is a message sent by one of the directors of emergency rooms in Houston, but first there’s a couple more Clips before we get to that, because I think it’s important.
This is one Paul we liked it.
We like to talk about what really matters, and these are deaths.
Each line represents a specific age group in the US for kovat, 19 and, of course, the bottom axis is the time axis.
We’Re here just past were looking ten days out of this, which is updated on 620 of 20/20.
That chart says everything: coronavirus is, if not completely dead is dying, people aren’t dying from it and that’s why they’re hyping the new cases, it just says it all.
Let’S go to the next one, and this is I’m gonna be quick, but this is sent to Alex Berenson who’s, doing a terrific job he’s a former New York Times reporter.
That does a lot of great work onto it.
Let’S leave that up.
Please a lot of great work on Twitter.
He got an email from the managing partner, general counsel of a Texas based company that owns and operates 13 emergency clinics in Texas.
19:16
He wrote to Alex Berenson.
I follow you reporting one to share some information on Texas.
19:22
I want to hear people.
I want people to hear this.
He said you know I’m gonna skip down.
In June, we tested over 20 231 patients.
The positive rate is now close to 20
In May, the vast majority of the cases are mild to very mild symptoms, average age of people getting tested as mid-30s a very different patient in terms of age than we’ve seen before June.
Most of these patients would not have met the strict criteria that we previously had for testing right now, that can all of a sudden they can get testing with more testing kits.
20:01
We can do a broader group.
He says: we’ve had very few Hospital transfers because of CO.
Vid and vast majority of the patients are better within two to three days of the visit and most would be described as having a cold, a mild one at that or symptoms related to allergies.
Usually we provide a steroid shot and some antibiotics and it seems to get better.
They say it makes a difference to do that in terms of the ER we’re almost done Paul, but in terms of driving them.
The ER roughly haven’t been told by their employers to get a test.
Let’S go to the next one.
They had a sneeze, something like this and their employer said: hey, go, get a test need to get a test because tests are easier to get now.
Essentially, it’s what’s happening, he says the average stay of kovat patients is three to five days much lower than the patients that were seen in April and May their symptoms are also milder.
Most of these patients are not in the ICU.
20:52
The ICU units are filled with really sick people and they’re non kovat issues.
They didn’t come in earlier, and this is what you’ve said before Paul, because they were too afraid to go in and now they’re super sick is what this administrator said.
Let’S go to the next one.
This is, I think, almost the last one and he said no real brief breakdown on the patients.
Who’Ve had kovat, who are not in hospital because of kovat.
So we’ve heard stories of how discharge planners are being pressured to put kovat as primary diagnosis and that pays significantly better hospitals want to avoid this discussion, but if they don’t, they risk another shutdown.
It may be an explanation for why there’s a gap in executives that just threw the final one.
Now this is the last his conclusion overall, based on what we’re seeing in our facilities.
21:43
The above information is really more of a positive story.
You have more people who are testing positive with minimal symptoms.
That means the fatality rate is less than commonly reported.
I’M sorry that was long, but that’s very fascinating.
This guy’s in the business he’s saying this is what we’re seeing well to me.
That’S all very important, but I think the most important chart that appeals to me is the one where it goes up and down to zero.
And I was thinking if we could take that chart and not label anything and show it to ten independent epidemiologists and tell them.
This is a this.
Is a record of an infection?
Tell us where we are on this.
It’S over yeah.
I mean it’s down to the baseline and and they haven’t quite admitted that yet but death thats what they should there should realize, but I think it should be announced.
22:36
Why don’t we announce today?
It’S essentially over and it’s come back to sanity, because it was essentially never as bad as they claimed.
Although it was bad because of some of the things that the way they were treated the misunderstanding, how it was politicized and yet that lockdowns are now turning out to have been every bit, if not worse than the epidemic, so this is the reality that has come About, but I I think that you know people will wake up and they are waking up and the epidemiologists are coming.
We were very impressed with the doctors in Houston, three major hospitals, saying that the headlines are not telling a story, even even a paper here.
The headline was saying one thing, but the next line said something else that it wasn’t nearly as bad as the headlines are saying.
But I guess that’s how that’s how some people you know, get people’s attention, but it’s also some people who see they can’t get support where people are intimidated and frightened.
I say please save me, we need the government who love.
What do you mean?
You don’t need the government for this well, they’re, not they’re, not very good at practicing medicine matter of fact: they’ve done a lousy job practicing medicine here and the more removed they are from the medical care system from the payment on down it.
It would be much better for all of us and I think truth is breaking out.
It was way overblown we’re moving in the other direction at Lee and yet the headlines haven’t changed, but they are already preparing for the next crisis.
The next virus so be the totalitarians, feel like they’ve, got a foot hole in the door and they’ve had that foothold in the door for a while, but it looks like got it up to their right now.
We need to do whatever we can to make sure that the totalitarians who believe that they have to run our lives and to run the world and that they know what’s good individuals, do not know what’s right for themselves.
They don’t know what’s right for their children.
It’S on and on so we need a better understanding and more confidence and more support for the principles of Liberty.
Then we can move on to a society where we will have more peace and more prosperity.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty report.
24:53
Please come back.
Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).

UK: From the Plandemic to Dictatorship

From someone who lives in the UK…

Health Act 1984 in UK 🇬🇧 which was recently updated in April 2020 to add Coronavirus Act 2020, takes human rights away. They can take you an entire family based on reasonable assumptions you have an infectious disease and quarantine you in a hospital or other place and cease your properties. Secondly, no permission is required to enter your property as long as they suspect you of the virus🦠 This Act is now active and being used to quarantine and shut everything down including your God-given rights to go for a walk…soon they will be telling you when to shop, when to work, how to dress in public. How to greet people, how to worship etc…I don’t know about you but for me, that’s not living life…after all, the economy is gone and the rich just got a little richer whilst me and you have become more founded in our peasant life. No job no money no food no shelter after we reopen the world 🌍

Govern means control. Ment means mind. Government means mind control. They know average people are just cattle.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. The content in my videos and on the WORDPRESS – WORDPRESS channel are provided for informational purposes only. Use the information found in these videos as a starting point for conducting your own research and conduct your own due diligence BEFORE making any significant investing decisions. WORDPRESS assumes all information to be truthful and reliable; however, I cannot and do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this information. Thank you!

Motto of the Month

‘When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.’ – Unknown.

Even though many websites attribute this quote to Socrates, it is confirmed he never said it. It is still a nice quote and I’m sharing it with you this month.

 

Fair Use Notice: Images/logos/graphics on this page contains some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).