What we found was that all of the 1500 samples were mostly Influenza A and some were influenza B, but not a single case of Covid, and we did not use the B.S. PCR test. We then sent the remainder of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a few of the University of California labs and they found the same results as we did, NO COVID. They found influenza A and B. All of us then spoke to the CDC and asked for viable samples of COVID, which CDC said they could not provide as they did not have any samples. We have now come to the firm conclusion through all our research and lab work, that the COVID 19 was imaginary and fictitious.
The flu was called Covid and most of the 225,000 dead were dead through co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, emphysema etc. and they then got the flu which further weakened their immune system and they died. I have yet to find a single viable sample of Covid 19 to work with. We at the 7 universities that did the lab tests on these 1500 samples are now suing the CDC for Covid 19 fraud. the CDC has yet to send us a single viable, isolated and purifed sample of Covid 19. If they can’t or won’t send us a viable sample, I say there is no Covid 19, it is fictitious. The four research papers that do describe the genomic extracts of the Covid 19 virus never were successful in isolating and purifying the samples. All the four papers written on Covid 19 only describe small bits of RNA which were only 37 to 40 base pairs long which is NOT A VIRUS. A viral genome is typically 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs.
With as bad as Covid is supposed to be all over the place, how come no one in any lab world wide has ever isolated and purified this virus in its entirety? That’s because they’ve never really found the virus, all they’ve ever found was small pieces of RNA which were never identified as the virus anyway.
So what we’re dealing with is just another flu strain like every year, COVID 19 does not exist and is fictitious. I believe China and the globalists orchestrated this COVID hoax (the flu disguised as a novel virus) to bring in global tyranny and a worldwide police totalitarian surveillance state, and this plot included massive election fraud to overthrow Trump.
So much misinformation and exaggeration about the lethality of the CCP virus—also known as the novel coronavirus—has been broadcast by government officials and the media that many Americans are suffering from a “delusional psychosis,” according to Los Angeles child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr. Mark McDonald.
What began as fear of a then-unknown disease called COVID-19 has since evolved into what McDonald described to The Epoch Times on Dec. 1 as a national condition in which “there is a delusional psychosis that has taken over where people are impervious to rational thinking.”
“They don’t want to give up the mask, they don’t want to give up the social distancing,” he said. “[People] are impervious to reason, to logic, to education at this point. They are psychotically managed by their fear.”
McDonald says the condition is most prevalent in Los Angeles, where he practices, and New York, places that he described as “ground zero for this.”
The government-imposed controls that were initially temporary in March have been repeatedly extended for months and have now “become social controls exercised by us,” he said.
“It’s actually coming from us, our parents, our children, our neighbors; it’s coming from businesses, corporations.”
McDonald noted that several of his friends were banned out of fear of the contagion from being with their families during Thanksgiving and will be at Christmas as well, despite having no symptoms of the disease.
“I have shopkeepers who have assistants who will not step forward to the counter to hand food to people, including me if I’m not wearing a mask,” he said.
“I have people who are yelling at me if I get into an elevator without a mask to go 10 seconds up to another floor, so we don’t need policing any more, we just need each other.”
Noting that approximately 268,000 people have died because of the CCP virus in the United States, compared to an annual average of 45,000 flu deaths and about 600,000 cancer deaths, The Epoch Times asked McDonald how he puts such figures in perspective.
“Well, first, I think the keyword here is perspective,” McDonald said. “When New York Mayor Bill de Blasio started to shut down New York City, close restaurants, bars, schools, basically put everybody in a state of house arrest, he said, ‘If these policies that I am enacting save one life, it will be worth it.’
“That is idiocy. We do not ever make public health policy based on saving one life. We look at perspective, we look at cost, we look at assets.”
McDonald said federal data on CCP virus deaths “are highly suspect” because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged that “94 percent of the deaths had an average of three co-morbidities, meaning they were probably going to die within the next 6 to 12 months anyway.” The 94 percent figure refers to coronavirus death cases, in which the official certificate of death named the disease.
McDonald said more than half of those who died were 80 years old or older, while the average life expectancy, based on all causes of death, in the United States is currently 79 years.
“So, if half of the people who have died purportedly of coronavirus are over the age of 80 and they had three or more co-morbidities, that speaks to the fact those people died with it rather than of it,” he said.
How deaths of individuals with both coronavirus and co-morbidities should be classified statistically has been an area of debate among officials, statisticians, and public health policymakers since the onset of the disease.
McDonald also pointed to a recent lecture by a Johns Hopkins University economist who, based on CDC data, suggested total deaths due to all causes in the United States for 2020, compared to the previous eight years, don’t reflect a massive increase attributable to the disease.
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers,” said the lecturer, professor Genevieve Briand.
Shortly after the school’s student newspaper reported the lecture, however, the story was retracted because, the editors said, the study “has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.”
The editors further claimed that the lecturer’s claim that the data shows no excess deaths attributable to the disease contradicted a CDC claim of 300,000 such deaths. The CDC page from the agency’s COVID Data Tracker cited by the editors didn’t make such a claim.
McDonald said he views the CDC “as no longer credible, [because] they have issued so many reversals of their own policies and decisions.” He was referring to the agency’s initial denials that masks are effective at preventing the disease spread and subsequent reversal from that position.
Similar reversals have occurred by the CDC regarding the effectiveness of social distancing and on the issue of whether surfaces should be repetitively cleaned to avoid spreading the disease.
McDonald said that in a recent CDC study, “Eighty-four percent of the people they studied who contracted coronavirus reported to the people running the study that they wore masks ‘all of the time or most of the time.’”
Today, October 24, 2020, there are many rallies around the world. Activists in these countries are joining in a common voice: Argentina; Bolivia; Peru; Uruguay; Italy; Germany; Poland; Belgium; Netherlands; United Kingdom; Ireland; Sweden; Denmark; France; and Austria. Citizens of all countries are paying an enormous price for the epidemic.
They have not only lost their loved ones, but their freedoms, their livelihood, their joy. Children and youth are suffering due to this crisis too. Without their friends and social activities, mental health problems in our young is at an all-time high. People around the world are demanding to be spared from the devastating consequences of the epidemic.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of Children’s Health Defense, provides an inspirational message for freedom and hope to activists around the world.
In short, Newsom now faces a “heads you win, tails I lose scenario.” If the Court agrees with our statutory arguments, Newsom will be found to have overstepped the Emergency Services Act and violated the Constitution. On the other hand, if the Court buys his statutory arguments, the entire Act must be found unconstitutional.
Reading the Michigan Court’s opinion was a surreal experience since it so closely resembles our own briefing to the California Court. In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court uses the exact quote from the Federalist Papers with which we began our dispositive brief:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
(Recall that Newsom has actually argued the Emergency Services Act “centralizes” all of the “the State’s powers in the hands of the Governor.”)
The other similarities are striking:
Our Brief: no statute can “give the Executive Branch a roving authority to create any and all new laws in any California code.”
Michigan Decision: no statute can “confer upon the governor a roving commission to repeal or amend unspecified provisions anywhere in the entire body of state law.”
Our Brief: “a statute that gives the Governor ‘discretion as to what the law shall be’ amounts to an unlawful delegation.”
Michigan Decision: the statute “is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Constitution.”
Most importantly, the Separation-of-Powers provision of Michigan’s Constitution is almost identical, word for word, to the one in California’s Constitution.
Editor’s Note:Johnny Freedom just finished this newly released expose’ of COVID-19 with pertinent facts to educate folks about this alleged viral “pandemic”, which as it turns out, wasn’t what was initially projected. Instead, as we predicted months ago, the COVID-19 social engineering and psychological operation that lock downed much of the world, destroyed millions of businesses and livelihoods, put hundreds of millions at the risk of starvation, was done as a pretext for global regime change. Inform yourself, take off your masks and blindfolds and step into freedom once again. Get the real story and order your copy today (PDF or PRINT). $25 PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=QCQQL3JUTVURE (includes PDF Version with Live Links to Sources)
By Makia Freeman
The assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it – are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this ‘pandemic’ has achieved its aim.
Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights.
Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the New Normal – screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.
ASSUMPTION 1: The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate
A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had confirmation after confirmation after confirmation (in nations all over the world) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense.
Well, it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those who died with the virus as dying from the virus. This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the ‘official’ death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value.
ASSUMPTION 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate
As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist Kary Mullis as a manufacturing technique (since it can able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool. COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch’s postulates. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws:
1. There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch’s postulates); 2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin; 3. PCR is not detecting a virus per se, but rather a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left, because the PCR method amplifies the tiniest fraction of the viral genetic material. The virus may be deactivated or dead, but the PCR test won’t tell you; 4. It generates many false positive results; 5. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive; 6. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and 7. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered ‘virus’ is the cause of the disease!
In summary, the PCR test doesn’t identify or isolate viruses, doesn’t provide RNA sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample. That is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article “COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless”:
“Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” 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. But 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.”“
Here is the admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms …this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions. Go figure.
ASSUMPTION 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate
If you realized by reading the last section that the COVID PCR tests are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the COVID antibody tests. They are also known as serology or serological tests. As I covered in the article COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don’t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:
1. Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test finds antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired; 2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results; 3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID; 4. Antibodies don’t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and 5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you’re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you’re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It’s all about the interpretation.
Hhmmm … all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring, are they?
ASSUMPTION 4: The COVID Case Count is Rising
Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that dangerous, how come cases keep rising? The answer is simple: because there is more testing. The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this ‘virus’ (really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows it’s not that dangerous).
As discussed in previous articles, there is really no proof that people didn’t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.
That aside, a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud, and COVID testing is no exception. It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK, but probably happening in many places). This article explains that the “discrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual twice.”
Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this previously quoted article states:
” … 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 and 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 S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
“It has been widely reported in the social media 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.” ”
ASSUMPTION 5: Thermal Imaging/Screening for COVID is Effective
Taking people’s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit. On a practical level, taking people’s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature.
Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about all the things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure, which could lead to an elevated temperature!
In this way it is similar to the antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although there is a very much a point in terms of control).
ASSUMPTION 6: Asymptomatic People Can Spread the Disease
One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people’s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else. This has the effect of making people anxious, scared and even paranoid in just going about their daily life.
However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about. This Chinese study A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of the 455 were infected!
WHO (World Health Organization) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was reported by MSM CNBC saying the following last month in June (though she later backtracked her comments):
““From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.””
ASSUMPTION 7: Making Schools Adopt Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread
Of the many COVID assumptions floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from WorldOMeter state that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths, which is essentially zero. Meanwhile, CDC stats show that “among 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 years” which is likewise a tiny fraction. With this in mind, why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines (pictured above and also found at this link in full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?
ASSUMPTION 8: It’s a Good Idea for Government to Take Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents
Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun. This article from June 17th 2020 reports how the “LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.”
Let that sink in for a minute. The State stole a child from his/her parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by WHO official Michael Ryan in March, that people would be removed from their families in a “safe and dignified” way. Ryan said:
“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
Mercola.com reports that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing.
How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what is happening?
ASSUMPTION 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence
Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It’s not. Whether it’s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The article There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule states:
“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.”
Meanwhile UK governmental advisor Robert Dingwall said:
“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population …I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere … Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.”
Of course, the assumption that social distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all the disease – which has not been proven.
ASSUMPTION 10: Mask Wearing for Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence
The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks, or face diapers and face nappies as many have started calling them. One of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is ‘respectful’ to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses. This is patently false. As covered in the previous article Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don’t Protect You, masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue, weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes … more susceptibility to disease. As I previously wrote, the masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10–9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won’t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here’s what Dr. Russell Blaylock had to say:
“The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”
ASSUMPTION 11: We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses
The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people. In fact, the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma petrochemical drugs and vaccines). Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in earlier articles such as Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole – Question Everything, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka exposed the truth that viruses do not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka writes:
“Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus … according to scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out … These control experiments have never been carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.
In other words, the cells die of starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture), not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature of Viruses is well worth watching. It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:
– Viruses are created from within your cells; they do not come from outside the body
– They arise as a result of systemic toxicity, not because the body has been invaded by an external threat
– Viruses dissolve toxic matter when body tissue is too toxic for living bacteria or microbes to feed upon without being poisoned to death. Without viruses, the human body couldn’t achieve homeostasis and sustain itself in the face of systemic toxicity
– Viruses are very specific. They dissolve specific tissues in the body. They do this with the assistance of antibodies
– The more toxicity you have in your body, the more viral activity you will have
– The only vector transmission of a virus is through blood transfusion or vaccines; otherwise, viruses cannot infect you by jumping from one body to another
– Viruses are discriminatory by nature, made by the body for a specific purpose. They are not indiscriminate killers
– The RT-PCR test (PCR test for short) observes genetic material left over by the virus, not the virus itself (see assumption 2)
CONCLUSION: Time to Question all Your COVID Assumptions
The good news is that these are assumptions not facts. When you look closely, you will realize the entire official narrative on COVID is a house of cards built on sand. It cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This knowledge is the key to remaining sane and free in a COVID-crazed and brainwashed world. Spread the word. Evidence, information and knowledge will dispel assumptions and ignorance.
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and Parler. His articles are regularly syndicated and featured on sites such as David Icke, Wake Up World, Activist Post, Waking Times, Global Research, The Sleuth Journal and many more.
An Ohio citizens group has filed a lawsuit in federal court to remove Gov. Mike DeWine’s emergency health order, which was signed on March 9 and remains in place today.
Ohio Stands Up! describes itself as a grassroots organization composed of Ohio citizens focused on restoring the rights of Ohio’s 11.69 million residents and educating the public about the realities of COVID-19 data. Download PDF
Ohio Stands Up! said it has filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio Federal Court in Toledo to remove DeWine’s emergency order. The group is represented by attorneys Thomas Renz of Fremont and Robert Gargasz of Lorain.
DeWine was asked about the lawsuit during a press conference Tuesday.
“I’ve been sued many times. [The Ohio Department of] Health has been sued many many times. They have been in many different counties,” he said.
“We’re doing what we know will make a difference. We’ve been very thoughtful of what we’ve done,” he said. “None of these decisions are made in a vacuum…I just have to stay focused on what we need to do in Ohio.”
According to the Ohio Department of Health website on Tuesday, there have been 124,610 positive COVID-19 tests since the pandemic began with 4,165 deaths.
Organizers said the lawsuit is solely funded by donations from Ohio citizens. As of Aug. 30, donations reached $34,055. For more information, visit www.ohiostandsup.org.
“We believe that the response to COVID-19 has been the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public,” Renz said in an email press release.
“The objective of this legal action is to force the state to honor the Constitution and to stop the lies, manipulation and fear-mongering intentionally being promoted by public health officials and elected officials.”
The attorneys said they are determined to “restore the Constitutional rights that have been stripped away by the State of Ohio’s unjustified actions regarding COVID-19.”
Renz and Gargasz said they will release the extensive evidence that chronicles the case to the public to offer transparency and insight.
“The State of Ohio has consistently lied to and manipulated its citizens from the earliest stages of this pandemic,” Gargasz explained. “We insist that this nonsense end, our rights be restored, and that the actual truth be shared.”
Recently, the CDC confirmed that 94 percent of the deaths attributed to the coronavirus were from people who had as many as two to three other serious illnesses. The majority of those deaths are individuals 75 and older. Six percent of the deaths are directly from COVID-19, according to the CDC.
“The entire U.S. economy was shut down based on fraudulent models that predicted 2.2 million American deaths,” Renz said. “The State of Ohio violated the U.S. Constitution with an emergency declaration that ignores the fundamental rights of all Ohioans. As a result, millions of Ohioans are suffering financially, physically, and mentally.”
Renz and Gargasz stated that:
Hundreds of thousands of businesses are struggling, and many will never re-open.
Drug overdoses and suicides have increased as have domestic violence and child abuse cases – directly as a result of the unconstitutional emergency order.
Many Ohioans were unable to get treatment for conditions not related to COVID-19 because hospitals were closed to accommodate the rush of COVID-19 patients who never arrived.
Children are struggling emotionally as many are forced into the continued isolation of remote learning while two income households must find solutions to manage young children at home.
Masks are dangerous, prevent proper breathing, and provide no real protection against this virus, according to multiple studies.
People living alone, of all ages, have been forced into solitary confinement and are dying at tremendously increased rates due to loneliness and lack of self-care.
Gargasz said a rapidly growing number of Ohioans recognize this and understand that, if they don’t stand up and speak out, it could be too late because a precedent has been set.
“There is zero basis for a state of emergency,” Renz said. “Based on what we know about the consequences the emergency order has caused to the physical, financial, and mental well-being of Ohioans, and the vitality of Ohio communities, this is truly a crime against humanity, and it must not be allowed to continue.”
Six months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health—first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy. The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections.
Considering that lockdowns are economically costly and create well-documented long-term public-health consequences beyond Covid, imposing them appears to have been a large policy error. At the beginning, when little was known, officials acted in ways they thought prudent. But now evidence proves that lockdowns were an expensive treatment with serious side effects and no benefit to society.
TrendMacro, my analytics firm, tallied the cumulative number of reported cases of Covid-19 in each state and the District of Columbia as a percentage of population, based on data from state and local health departments aggregated by the Covid Tracking Project. We then compared that with the timing and intensity of the lockdown in each jurisdiction. That is measured not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but rather by observing what people in each jurisdiction actually did, along with their baseline behavior before the lockdowns. This is captured in highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute into a “Social Distancing Index.”
Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.
It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use.
We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding.
The lesson is not that lockdowns made the spread of Covid-19 worse—although the raw evidence might suggest that—but that lockdowns probably didn’t help, and opening up didn’t hurt. This defies common sense. In theory, the spread of an infectious disease ought to be controllable by quarantine. Evidently not in practice, though we are aware of no researcher who understands why not.
We’re not the only researchers to have discovered this statistical relationship. We first published a version of these findings in April, around the same time similar findings appeared in these pages. In July, a publication of the Lancet published research that found similar results looking across countries rather than U.S. states. “A longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases,” the study concludes. Those findings have now been enhanced by sophisticated measures of actual social distancing, and data from the reopening phase.
There are experimental controls that all this research lacks. There are no observable instances in which there were either total lockdowns or no lockdowns at all. But there’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little. So where’s the science that would justify the heavy lockdowns many public-health officials are still demanding?
With the evidence we now possess, even the most risk-averse and single-minded public-health officials should hesitate before demanding the next lockdown and causing the next economic recession.
Mr. Luskin is chief investment officer of TrendMacro.
Author’s Note: Five months of intensive research, collating 670 research and news sources, are compacted in this succinct, readable and entertaining 167-page compendium about the “pandemic”. It provides a comprehensive overview for those with an open mind, still willing to learn, to expand perspectives far beyond media tidbits. This is the Dawning of the Corona Age.
May we remove our masks – and blindfolds – to take notice of what is actually rapidly happening around us to navigate how we can still “live free in an unfree world”.
This newly released book is dedicated to You. Thank you for educating yourself, “thinking twice before you think”, calmly sharing your insights, acting wisely and thereby reclaiming authority over your life! Enjoy the first chapter of thirty-two below.
“A compelling exploration far beyond the immediate impacts of the “pandemic”, Dawning of the Corona Age imagines how our human world may be altered long into an uncertain future. “Order your PDF copy for $10 today!
Season 1, Episode 1
3. COVID-19 Did Not Naturally Occur By Animal to Human Contact
The “naturally occurring from a bat” story originated in China, the undeniable source of the COVID-19 virus. U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo said there is evidence that the Coronavirus outbreak was from a Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Curiously, the mainstream media didn’t check their facts with serious investigative journalism or to question the Chinese Community Party (CCP) propaganda machine, therefore they promulgated the “bat” theory for weeks during the early phases of the pandemic. They also promulgated the “pangolin” theory. Why is it that an innocent animal gets the blame for our own species shenanigans?
The Chinese Community Party, or CCP, covered up the severity of COVID-19 and delayed telling the World Health Organization (WHO) in order to import more medical supplies, according to a report by the U.S. Department for Homeland Security, seen by the Associated Press. Other sources in Australia confirmed this proposition.
For anyone familiar with China or its propaganda (e.g., China Daily), their version of the bat story temporarily shielded China from responsibility, scrutiny or blame by promoting the theory that the COVID-19 virus arose accidentally from a meat market in Wuhan.
Now, that these bat stories have been discredited by may expert scientists around the world, China’s credibility and the ability for the West to trust China’s narrative is being seriously questioned. A new documentary “Tracking Down the Origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus” demonstrated there were no bats for sale at the alleged market in Wuhan.
In these times, the credibility of the mainstream media, and Big Pharma’s corrupt relationship with scientific research, must always be questioned especially when having to distinguish between “true science” and “marketing propaganda”. Many of these bought and paid sources are disinformation pieces.
The question is, “If COVID-19 wasn’t source by animal to human contact, then from where did it arise?”
On May this year, the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), a “medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic”, produced a report regarding the pilot study which appeared in the Journal of Translational Sciences. The study compared unvaccinated children (261 subjects) to partially or fully vaccinated (405 subjects) homeschooling kids and results concluded that the vaccinated were more likely to develop neuro-developmental disorders (NDD) and allergies. The nearly 700 subjects were “assessed based on their mothers’ reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses”.
Contrary to what the actual studies say, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) assure the public that vaccines are safe and effective and that all children should get vaccinated. But ironically, there are also instances that they tell the opposite; that they accept they have no real data to back that up, either short-term or long-term.
This isn’t difficult to understand as these vaccines contain dangerous adjuvants and heavy metals (aluminum, mercury, etc.), plus formaldehyde and other chemicals and preservatives which usually have unknown health risk. In addition, there are also no real study figuring what could be the long-term effects of importing contaminants of DNA from fetal cells (aborted) to your body, and of various animal DNA and so-called retroviruses. Yet the WHO and other government agencies recommend “50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six, 69 doses of 16 pharmaceutical vaccines containing powerfully immune-altering ingredients by age 18”.
The CMSRI also reported:
“In the 80s, autism occurred one in 10,000 children; by the early 1990s, one in 2,500.Five years ago, one in 88 children were diagnosed. And today it is one in 68. In the homeschooler study, the risk of being diagnosed on the spectrum was more than four-fold higher among vaccinated children (OR 4.3). The CDC still quotes a 2004 Pediatrics study claiming to debunk a link between autism and vaccines even though one of its authors, their own top scientist William Thompson, admitted that he and colleagues colluded to obscure and then shred data (he kept copies) showing a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Thompson confessed in one taped telephone chat to Brian Hooker, a bioengineer professor at Simpson University and the father of an autistic child.”
“The UK Government has paid out about £73million to nearly 1000 children and adults, representing 1 in 8 claimants who were minimum 60% injured by a vaccine between 1979-2014. Vaccines have been accepted by most governments to cause a multitude of devastating injuries, including brain damage, seizure disorders, deafness, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) and death.”
In addition to these disturbing likely outcomes, here is more worrisome finding:
“Allergic rhinitis (hay fever) is another one of those current inexplicably soaring pediatric plagues; in 2012, it affected 6.6 million children. It is strongly associated with another spiking childhood disorder, asthma. More than three million American kids have a food allergy and one in four children have eczema. Worldwide, allergies have been increasing and they now affect almost half of all American school kids. All this allergic disease was leading to more medication. The vaccinated children in the study were 22-fold more likely to have taken allergy medicine than the unvaccinated.”
Meanwhile, deeprootsathome.com concluded in their report:
“…in spite of public health hysteria over outbreaks of measles at Disneyland and mumps resurgence, there was no evidence that vaccinated children were any more protected against these so-called “vaccine-preventable diseases”. Children in both groups had about the same rates of infection with measles, mumps, Hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus and meningitis (both viral and bacterial. Unvaccinated children in the study were actually better protected against some “vaccine-preventable diseases” than children who got the shots. Since 2000, the CDC has recommended four shots against seven different strains of pneumococcal infections before age 15 months (13 strains since 2010), but vaccinated children in the study were 340 percent more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia compared to unvaccinated children.”
If this isn’t frightening enough, it might be more helpful to the public to hear that earlier this year, there was another new peer-reviewed study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children. The results concluded that “unvaccinated children have better health outcomes than their vaccinated peers within the conditions examined”. It showed that vaccination before one year of age “led to significantly increased odds of medical diagnoses of developmental delays, asthma and ear infections in children”. The study was done in three U.S. medical practices and showed that unvaccinated kids are less-susceptible to diseases and infections. Based on medical records of over 2000 children, born between November 2005 and June 2015, the study followed the subjects incessantly for a minimum of three years from birth. The vaccination status of the subjects “was determined based on any vaccination received prior to one year of age which yielded 30.9% of the children in the unvaccinated group”.
According to the press release:
“The study, coauthored by Dr. Brian Hooker and Mr. Neil Miller, is unique in that all diagnoses were verified using abstracted medical records from each of the participating pediatric practices. Lead author of the study, Dr. Hooker, stated, “The results definitely indicate better health outcomes among the conditions studied in children who did not receive vaccines within their first year of life. These findings are consistent with additional research that has identified vaccination as a risk factor for a variety of adverse health outcomes. Such findings merit additional large-scale study of vaccinated and unvaccinated children in order to provide optimal health as well as protection against infectious diseases.”