By Sharyl Atkisson, Investigative Reporter
It’s easy to find articles claiming that there was no election fraud, or that it was “not widespread,” or that it was not enough to “make a difference.” It is less easy to find some of the actual complaints and allegations, unfiltered and undistorted.
Here is a (fairly) complete list of (some of) the most significant claims involving 2020 election miscounting, errors or fraud.
Please note that this resource lists allegations. It is intended neither to validate nor disprove any particular claim. The information and links help provide counterpoints to widespread, one-sided media reporting so that you can research and make your own judgements. All elections officials accused of improper counting or fraud have denied any improprieties.
The legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan and Arizona are among those who have been holding public hearings on election fraud issues.
An anonymous email sent to the Justice Department criminal division and Arizona legislature alleged that in Pima County, 35,000 votes were fraudulently embedded in advance of the election on behalf of each Democratic candidate at the local and federal level. The allegation coincides with a spike or “injection” of 143,000 votes noted at 8:06 p.m. on election night.
According to the email, discussed at a hearing, Pima County Democrats held a meeting on Sept. 10, 2020 in which plans were detailed to illegally inject 35,000 votes for each Democrat at the outset in statistically adjusted embeds that could be written off as human error if audited.
There was no proper validation of 1.9 million signatures on mail in ballots.
Dominion machines were connected to the internet, according to a witness at a GOP hearing, raising serious security issues.
A hearing witness states she was instructed to allow people to vote who were not registered in the state, who were not on the voter rolls, who had out of state driver’s licenses, who not had been residents long enough, who had not registered in time or who said they were registered in another state. However, pro-Trump voters from other counties were sent away, she says. She also says somebody apparently brought homeless people from outside the precinct in to vote. She also says 13,000 votes, when counted, were unobserved by Republicans.
She says just what she personally observed over five hours in one day impacted approximately 2,000 votes. She also said a poll observer for Democrats from California told her he was there “to help turn this precinct blue… this is one of our problem ones.” He told her they were also focusing on Maricopa County.
Republican Party leader in Arizona Kelli Ward says she watched votes for Trump be changed to or counted for Biden once they were place in the machine. In a lawsuit, she also says in parts of Maricopa County there were not proper safeguards verifying that mail-in ballots came from registered voters. She also says Republicans were not allowed a proper view of the counting process. (More to come from Arizona hearing soon…)
State officials blame “a data error” for conflicting and fluctuating results in one county that dropped the appearance of Biden’s lead by 6,000 votes, and then posted it back again.
Two men are charged with voter fraud after they allegedly submitted more than 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications for homeless people between July and October 2020.
There were illegal votes from as many as 2,560 felons; 66,247 underage residents; 2,423 people who were not registered; 4,926 people who registered in another state after Georgia; more than 395 people who voted twice; 8,718 dead people; 2,664 who received absentee ballots outside the deadline; illegally blocked observers; failure to properly match signatures and verify identify and eligibility. That’s according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of President Trump on Dec. 4.
Statistical analysis shows Biden pulling from behind in improbably consistent increments in Georgia and other states. “On Wednesday, Nov. 4, the New York Times reported President Trump was leading in Georgia by 103,997 votes. Then the Times’ continuous voting updates showed ballots arriving for Biden in multiples of 4,800 votes over and over again. In some vote dumps, the President actually lost votes.” This continued until Biden pulled ahead by almost exactly 1,000 votes, gaining 104,984 votes in multiples of 4,800.
In Fulton County, all 900 military ballots went for Joe Biden. The 100% military vote rate for Biden seems improbably in conflict with the 2016 split, where Trump reportedly won the overall military vote 60% to 34%, according to attorney Lin Wood.
On election night, Georgia election officials suspended the vote count, citing a water leak in a master pipe. When Republican observers left, thousands of votes were counted, exclusively for Joe Biden. When people inquired, there was no work order for any leak. The only reported leak that night was a small leak in a toilet that “had nothing to do with a room with ballot counting,” according to a lawsuit filed by attorney Lin Wood.
Election workers put masses of ballots in the wrong stacks and blocked Republican observers; there were suspiciously “pristine” “pre-printed” ballots; thousands of voters registered at specific, fraudulent addresses; 20,311 absentee or early votes were cast by people who were registered as having moved out of state; 96,000 votes were illegally counted for Biden; absentee ballot signatures were not properly matched. That’s according to attorney Sidney Powell’s lawsuit. The lawsuit also states that Dominion voting machines allowed for manual manipulation of vote tallies and alteration of settings to put ballots in a “question” pile where they can be deleted.
Attorney and registered Democrat Carlos Silva says he observed “widespread fraud” in several precincts, always benefitting Biden. At one precinct, a stack of absentee ballots had perfectly filled out black bubbles and, as poll workers went through the stack, he heard them call out Biden’s name “more than 500 times in a row.” At a second precinct, he observed similarly filled in black bubbles for Biden on absentee ballots and poll workers moved him away from his observation position. He observed absentee ballots for Trump counted for Biden; says the required signature verification process was not being followed; and thousands of the “perfect bubble” ballots were for Biden, with no state or local candidates selected. The claims are filed in a sworn declaration.
Government data indicates “well over 100,000 illegal votes [in Georgia] were improperly counted, while tens of thousands of legal votes were not counted.” That’s according to the Thomas Moore Society’s Amistad Project, which has filed litigation questioning more than 200,000 Georgia ballots.
Gov. Brian Kemp illegally authorized election officials to open outer envelopes of absentee ballots three weeks before the election, which is prohibited by state law, according to a lawsuit.
A Project Veritas video claims observers heard votes for Trump being counted for Biden.
Some voters who requested a mail-in ballot but instead decided to vote in person on Election Day were denied the chance to vote in person, according to a witness. The witness also said many such voters were denied the opportunity to cast a “provisional” mail-in ballot on Election Day. Signatures on mail-in ballot envelopes weren’t verified during the recount, says a witness. Some counties didn’t recount ballots by hand, but improperly used machines. One observer said he saw a batch of ballots that was suspiciously “pristine,” almost all for Biden, and “there was a difference in the texture of the paper.”
At a Milton, Georgia, precinct, poll workers were asked to sign a chain of custody letter a day and a half before the voting machines arrived, according to a witness. She also said the machines were not sealed or locked as required, and the serial numbers didn’t match.
One observer described many batches of ballots in which every vote was for Biden, and says he saw that the watermark on some ballots differed from the rest.
More than 1,000 early/absentee votes were cast by people whose registered addresses are at post offices, UPS, and FedEx; willfully disguising the box numbers as ‘Apt,’ ‘Unit,’ etc. in violation of state election law. That’s according to Matt Braynard, former data and strategy director for President Trump’s 2016 campaign. (A sample of 15 such address entries in a Nov. 24 tweet):
The hand recount was not legitimate because pro-Trump observers were not allowed proper access, according to multiple observers. Some votes for Trump were placed into piles for Biden. Some ballots from the “No Vote” and “Jorgensen” candidate trays were moved to the “Biden” tray, according to one witness.
A recount monitor flagged a 9,626-vote error in the hand recount in DeKalb County, according to the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party in a declaration. One batch had 10,707 votes for Biden and 13 for Trump. But the true count was 1,081 for Biden and 13 for Trump. Two official counters had signed off on the miscounted batch.
A post-election audit and recount discovered memory cards with thousands of uncounted ballots, most of them for Trump, two weeks after the election: 508 in Walton County, 2,600 in Floyd County and 2,755 in Fayette County. The discovery cut Biden’s lead in the state by more than 1,400 votes.
In one county, 3,300 votes were found after the election on memory sticks that had not been loaded into the central vote tally system. There are no procedures to ensure the security of the USB drives reporting vote tallies, according to a lawsuit.
Georgia election officials allegedly intended to alter and/or wipe machines. A judge granted attorney Lin Wood’s emergency request to preserve the machines as-they-are while other motions are considered (Sunday, Nov. 29).
Security camera video presented at a hearing in Georgia purports to show while a room was emptied and counting paused, a few officials pulled groups of ballots out of four suitcases and counted them without legal observers present.
Multiple poll observers claim they were not allowed close enough to do proper observation or were moved out of the counting rooms entirely.
Supervisor Marcia Ridley of the Spalding County Board of Elections said a “technical glitch” in two Georgia countries that caused machines to crash for several hours on Election Day was triggered by something Dominion Voting Systems uploaded the night before. However, the Secretary of State’s office contradicted that information when questioned under oath stating: “It’s not true … I’m not really sure why she said that.”
An analysis of a Dominion voting machine shows 37 votes were moved from Biden to Trump in one small county, according to information presented at a state hearing. Trump attorneys claim when extrapolated statewide, it would add up to 14,000 votes, while Biden won Georgia by 10,000 votes.
Live online election results from Associated Press (AP) appear to show some sort of glitch, with Trump seeming to lose 6,000 votes in a span of two minutes.
Forensic analysis by a former military intelligence analyst alleges proof of foreign interference and/or access in the election. It shows Dominion’s voting machine server connected to Iran, China and Serbia. Also, the analyst says records show HongKong Shanghai Bank became collateral agent for Dominion voting systems on Sept. 25, 2019. The declaration is contained in the lawsuit filed by attorney Sidney Powell and includes screen shots and a summary of the evidence.
Detroit worker Jessy Jacob states in a declaration that she and others were directed to backdate about 100,000 absentee ballots, or about 10,000 per day to make them appear legal even though they were not in the Qualified Voter File and had not arrived by the deadline. She also testified that leading up to Election Day, Detroit poll workers skipped voter ID checks.
Wayne County Board of Canvassing member William Hartmann, a Republican, says in a sworn declaration that Michigan’s largest county certified results knowing there were massive discrepancies between the approved voter files and the ballots cast and counted in Detroit. 71% of Detroit’s 134 absentee voter counting boards were “left unbalanced” and many unexplained, he said in a statement. He also said birth dates in voter ID files were “altered.”
Pre-Order “Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism” by Sharyl Attkisson today at Harper Collins, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books a Million, IndieBound, Bookshop!
In an Oakland County commissioner race, incumbent Republican Adam Kochenderfer was told he lost, but a later review determined he won. The director of elections blamed the mistake on “a computer issue” that caused Rochester Hills to incorrectly send in results for “seven precincts as both precinct votes and absentee votes” when they should only have been counted once, as absentees.
Results were reversed in Antrim County after it first appeared Biden beat Trump in a landslide by 6,000 votes there. Michigan officials later blamed “user error” for the incorrect results, and declared Trump actually won the county. The state blamed an Antrim County clerk for failing to properly “update software used to collect voting machine data.” The reason the information got a second look is because people who know the county thought the initial Biden landslide seemed unlikely. But officials say the mishap never affected totals.
An observer in Detroit told a Michigan State Senate hearing that numerous military ballots that looked like “Xerox copies” and were all marked for Democrat Joe Biden. She said election workers manually entered fake birthdates on the records of non registered voters to override the system and allow their votes.
A lawyer for the Trump campaign alleges that 40,000 people voted twice in Nevada.
Voting machines were not secure or password protected, according to a Trump campaign attorney at a Dec. 3 court hearing, and votes disappeared on machines between logging off and logging in. However, they point out they cannot get access to the machines to examine and figure out why.
There was an inexplicable jump in voter registrations with unusual addresses and incomplete information. That’s according to an affidavit filed by a data scientist who said there was a “historically strange” spike of 13,000 voters who registered with missing information, such as gender and age. There were also registrations that used casinos and RV parks as their address.
The Trump campaign claims gift cards and other incentives given away in a a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at Native Americans was illegal. The organizing group says it is not.
Republicans say they identified several thousand voters who appear to have cast ballots after they moved from Nevada.
The Voter Integrity Project says 8,443 people who voted in Nevada did not meet the legal residency requirements.
At a hearing, the Trump campaign said over 1,500 ballots were cast by dead voters, 42,248 people voted more than once, of those who are on record as not voting: 1% actually did, and 2% of those who supposedly voted by mail say they never got a ballot.
Ballots of approximately 1,400 voters illegally listed postal facility addresses as residential. That’s according to Matt Braynard, of Trump’s 2016 election campaign. Braynard also says large percentages of registered Republicans say they voted absentee, while the state data indicates they didn’t.
A statistical analysis of New York Times data in Philadelphia claims a suspicious string of voting “ratios” benefitting Biden, as also happened in Georgia. By 11pm Election Day, Trump was leading Biden by about 285,000 votes. Then, 347,768 votes from somewhere dumped into the system in 44 batches in increments of approximately 6,000, 12,000, or 18,000 additional net votes for Biden. As a result, Biden came back from an election night deficit of 285,000 to a 46,000 vote win four days later.
1.8 million absentee ballots were mailed out for the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, but 2.5 million were counted, according to testimony at a Pennsylvania state hearing.
One incident recorded on video indicates 2,600 to 2,700 votes were not initially counted, that “ballots didn’t transfer over like they should have.” The voting machine company, Dominion, was troubleshooting, but nobody could explain.
Dominion Voting Systems’ executives canceled a planned appearance at a hearing in Pennsylvania on Nov. 20.
Registered Republicans requested 165,412 ballots that ultimately were not returned or counted. A statistical analysis determined up to nearly 54,000 ballots were improperly requested by someone other than the registered voter and sent to people who did not request them; and Republicans mailed up to nearly 45,000 ballots that did not ultimately get counted.
A poll watching attorney in Pittsburgh, David Shestokas, says observers were kept from observing the ballot tabulations, saying the ballots are therefore illegal.
There were 47 missing USB cards, according to a poll worker.
A truck driver for a subcontractor with the U.S. Postal Service claims that a trailer he was driving with as many a 288,000 ballots disappeared from its parked location, at a Lancaster, Pa., USPS depot, after he dropped it off. He says he transported them from New York.
Gregory Stenstrom claims he saw a Dominion Voting Systems vendor inserting flash drives into voting aggregation machines in Delaware County, and co-mingling flash drives from aggregation machines, possibly hurting the ability of auditors to properly certify results, according to a Pennsylvania legislature hearing.
A social worker at the Mexia State Supported Living Centers in Texas is charged with illegally submitting 67 voter registration applications for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities without signatures or meaningful consent, including some who are not eligible because they are totally mentally incapacitated.
Affidavits and statistical analyses allege more than 318,000 illegal ballots were counted, 15,000 mail-in ballots were lost, 18,000 were “fraudulently recorded” in the name of voters who never asked for mail-in ballots, 7,000 ineligible voters who had moved out of state voted illegally, Biden over performed in places using Dominion voting machines, and elections officials directed workers to “cure” or fix ballots with no witness address, or with voter certification missing on absentee ballot certificates and envelopes even though the law states such ballots are not to be counted, according to a lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell.
A USPS subcontractor claims he was told the postal service planned. to improperly backdate tens of thousands of ballots after the Nov. 3 election.
Elections officials twice found batches of missing ballots in voting machines.
A disability service coordinator who works with adults in assisted living facilities and group homes in and around Milwaukee, says every one of her more than 20 clients told her that they were either pressured to vote for Biden or had a vote cast for Biden before they ever had a chance to see their ballot.
There were illegally altered and illegally issued absentee ballots; and government officials gave illegal advice to voters. That’s according to a Trump campaign filing.
The Trump campaign questions an estimated 238,420 ballots from two counties, Dane and Milwaukee, where election clerks filled in missing information on the certification envelope; where voters declared themselves “indefinitely confined”; and roughly 69,000 absentee ballots cast in person before Election Day. Biden won Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes.
There was a suspicious spike in voters registering as “indefinitely confined,” which allows them to be exempt from presenting a photo ID to vote. Year to year, the number of voters calling themselves “indefinitely confined” increased 238% from 72,000 to 243,900.
Nearly 400 absentee ballots that were not initially counted were later found. Officials blame “human error.”
A trickle of votes that had Trump in the lead all night suddenly shifted when 170,000 votes, 5% of the total state count, came in one giant dump 17 times larger than average. Before the dump, Trump was ahead by 108,000 votes. He fell behind by 9,000 votes an instant later.
Allegations about Dominion voting machines
Dominion machines can be altered to manipulate tallies in just a few minutes, using malicious code, according to Princeton professor of computer science and election security expert Andrew Appel.
A ballot can be spoiled or altered by the Dominion machine because “the ballot marking printer is in the same paper path as the mechanism to deposit marked ballots into an attached ballot box,” a study by University of California–Berkeley said.
The voting machines are susceptible to hacking or remote tampering because they are connected to the internet, even though they’re not supposed to be, according to a lawsuit. “If one laptop was connected to the internet, the entire precinct was compromised.”
There is evidence of remote access and remote troubleshooting, “which presents a grave security implication,” according to Finnish computer programmer and election security expert Hari Hursti. His declaration also claims the activity logs of the voting machines can be overwritten by hackers to erase their steps.
Dominion machine operators can change settings to exclude certain ballots from being counted. The ballots can be put in a separate file and deleted simply, according to Ronald Watkins, a software and cyber-security expert who reviewed the Dominion software manual. He also said final vote count involved machine operators copying and pasting the “Results” folder onto a USB drive, a process he calls “error-prone and very vulnerable to malicious administrators.”
Source: Sharyl Atkinsson
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.
Join the movement. ChildrensHealthDefense.org
Created by the team behind the game-changing Plandemic video segment from Mikki Willis featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits that went viral and was banned on every major social media platform for exposing the truth about Covid-19, this new FEATURE LENGTH PIECE which is the most revelatory film on what is driving the vaccine agenda, the various roles of the WHO, Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom, Anthony Fauci and more.
Going deep into what is really happening with mainstream media, Silicon Valley tech giants, big pharma and our health protection agencies, Mikki’s new film finally connects the dots… And we are excited to be able to share this with you…
We believe that this film will fundamentally shift the discourse around Coronavirus, the lockdown and the vested interests involved.
Source: Freedom Platform & London Real
“A Columbia Journalism Review expose reveals that, to control global journalism, Bill Gates, has steered over $250 million to the BBC, NPR,NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian, The New York Times, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, Center for Investigative Reporting, Pulitzer Center, National Press Foundation, International Center for Journalists, and a host of other groups.
To conceal his influence, Gates also funneled unknown sums via sub-grants for contracts to other press outlets.
His press bribes have paid off. During the pandemic, bought & braindead news outlets have treated Bill Gates as a public health expert—despite his lack of medical training or regulatory experience.
Gates also funds an army of independent fact checkers including the Poynter Institute and Gannett —which use their fact-checking platforms to “silence detractors” and to “debunk” as ‘false conspiracy theories’ and ‘misinformation,’” charges that Gates has championed and invested in biometric chips, vaccine IDS, satellite surveillance, and COVID vaccines.
Gates media gifts says CJR author Tim Schwab, mean the “critical reporting about the Gates Foundation is rare.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation declined multiple interview requests from CJR and refused to disclose how much money it has funneled to journalists.
In 2007, the LA Times published one of the only critical investigations on the Gates Foundation, exposing Gates’s holdings in companies that hurt people his foundation claims to help, like industries linked to child labor. Lead reporter Charles Piller, says: “they were unwilling to answer questions and pretty much refused to respond in any sort of way”
The study showed how Gates’s global health funding has steered the world’s aid agenda toward Gates’ personal goals (vaccines and GMO crops) and away from issues such as emergency preparedness to respond to disease outbreaks, like the Ebola crisis.
“They’ve dodged our questions and sought to undermine our coverage,” says Park.”
Source: Columbia Journal Review
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. “
$25 PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=QCQQL3JUTVURE (includes PDF Version with 670 Live Links)
$25 AMAZON PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FSR3NJG
Season 1, Episode 1
Like a television series straight out of science fiction films, such as, V for Vendetta, Pandemic and The Matrix, the mainstream media narrative relentlessly broadcast at “We the People” seemed at first as surreal and as strange as an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Now, suddenly, and apparently without warning, we are living in a strange hybrid between George Orwell’s novel 1984, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and The Matrix. Science fiction has now become real.
George Orwell wisely observed that, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” In 1958, Aldous Huxley warned that, “Pharmacology and propaganda will make the masses love their slavery. As the world is forced into accepting greater and greater levels of government control in all areas of life, remember that nothing in politics happens by chance. There is a science to creating empires.”
As the lead character Orpheus revealed in The Matrix film, “The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”
These perspectives reflect a deeper sense of what may be happening in our world today. For those open-minded enough to consider the truth as more important than convention and its lies, that sobriety is more essential than distorted states of consciousness, that the Earth and all of its natural wonders are more beautiful than any virtual reality, this book may just break open the possibility of a transformation of our understanding of this “pandemic”.
In truth, this may be the “crowning” of a “new age” of consciousness emerging from the rubble of an old world dying around us. A “Corona” age may very well be on the horizon if we act from a higher understanding of our own existence as true human beings instead of from our limited perspectives of material existence.
“Do not believe in what you have heard; do not blindly believe in traditions just because they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe in anything just because it is rumored and spoken by many; do not believe merely because a written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in conjectures; do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached from habit; do not believe merely
the authority of your teachers and elders,
or news sources or books.
Question all authorities and truisms.
Decide for yourself what is the veracity of your perceptions.
Ponder what is not true. Even more so, ponder what is true, deeply and continuously.”
$25 PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=QCQQL3JUTVURE (includes PDF Version with 670 Live Links)
$25 AMAZON PRINT ORDER LINK: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08FSR3NJG
THE PANDEMIC: COVID-19, Season 1, Episode 1
- Preface and Introduction (PDF)
- Seven Known Strains of Coronavirus (PDF)
- COVID-19 Did Not Naturally Occur By Animal to Human Contact
- China’s COVID-19 Coverup
- Faulty Computer Simulations & Projections
- Skepticism of Mainstream Narratives & Projections
- Herd/Individual Immunity, Lockdowns & Quarantines
- The Immune System is Your Primary Defense
- How Contagious is COVID-19?
- “Exosomes” as a Natural Release of the Human Body
- Masks or No Masks?
- Invalid Testing & Inconclusive Diagnosis for COVID-19
- Inflated Death Rates & Asymptomatic Cases
- Hydroxychloroquine is an Effective Treatment
- Emerging & Effective Treatment Protocols
- Questioning the Need, Safety & Efficacy of a Vaccine for COVID-19
- Dangers of Vaccines Laced with Toxic Materials
- Germ Theory is the Wrong Approach, Look to the Biome
THE LOCKDOWN: Season 1, Episode 2
- International, National & State Declarations of Emergency
- COVID-19 & The 5G Factor
- Total Surveillance State & The Right to Privacy
- Legal Authorities for U.S. Public Health Officials & State Governors
- Stimulus Bills Are Fast Tracks to Socialism & U.S. Bankruptcy
- Chinese Coverup & Propaganda
- Undeclared War Between China & United States
- Global Goals of the Pandemic
- The New World Order
- Big Pharma Funding Regulatory Agencies Providing Oversight & Developing Public Policy
- Internet Censorship & Medical Fascism
- The Global Health Protection Racket
- The Future Ain’t What it Used to Be
THE CORONA AGE: 2020 & BEYOND, Season 2
- Dawning of the Corona Age
By Ryan McMaken
Six weeks ago, when thousands around the nation took to state capitols to protest the human rights abuses inflicted by coerced “stay-at-home orders,” lockdown supporters reacted with sanctimonious outrage.
Declaring the protestors to be “covidiots” who failed to appreciate the virtue and necessity of police-enforced lockdowns, news outlets and lockdown advocates on social media declared the protests would cause outbreaks of disease, and nurses declared the protests were “a slap in the face” to those trying to treat the disease. One political cartoon featured an image of an emergency room nurse saying “see you soon” to anti-lockdown protestors.
Now, with far larger numbers of protestors amassing in larger groups, we hear none of the lofty moralism coming from the media or lockdown enthusiasts in social media. Yes, there are still some token attempts to express worry over how the riots and protests of recent days might spread the disease. But the tone is quite different. Concerned over COVID-19 are now phrased in the formula of ” if you protest, take these measures to minimize risk. ” It’s all very polite and deferential to the protestors.
Politicians like Kamala Harris have even joined the protestors in the streets, thus doing what she demanded other avoid just a few weeks earlier. Where are the nurses denouncing these protests as a “slap in the face”? They’re nowhere to be seen.
Of course, those who support the current protests, but oppose last month’s protests, claim there is no equivalence. Many would likely say “we’re now protesting against people being killed in the streets!” followed by “those other protestors just wanted haircuts!”
The reality, of course, was far different. Most of those who oppose the COVID lockdowns are well aware that the lockdowns kill. They lead to severe child abuse, to more suicide, and to more drug overdoses. They lead to denial of medical care because lockdown edicts have ridiculously labeled many necessary medical procedures to be “elective.” Lockdowns have rendered tens of millions of Americans unemployed while robbing people of their social support from family and community groups. Lockdowns increased police abuse and harassment of innocent people who were guilty of no crime but leaving their homes or trying to earn a living.
Lockdown advocates, however, declared all of this to be “worth it” and demanded that their ideological opponents just shut up and “#stayhome.”
Lockdowns for Thee, But Not For Me
But now the current spate of protests and riots have made it clear that lockdowns and social distancing are all very optional so long as the protestors are favored by a leftwing narrative.
While the pro-lockdown/anti-lockdown conflict can’t be defined by any neat left-right divide, it is nonetheless largely true that the most enthusiastic advocates of COVID lockdowns are found on the left side of the spectrum.
And that’s why things have now gotten so interesting. It was easy for the pro-lockdown left to oppose protests when those protest were seen as a rightwing phenomenon. But now that the protests are favored by the left, then it’s all perfectly fine outside of a handful of politely expressed “concerns” that protests might spread disease.
The left’s about-face on the sacredness of social distancing will have significant effects on the future enforcement of stay-at-home orders and social distancing laws.
After all, on what grounds will governors, mayors, and law enforcement officers justify continued attacks on religious groups who seek to assemble in the usual fashion? If one group of people are allowed to gather by the hundreds to express one set of beliefs, why are other groups not allowed the same?
Politicians will no doubt soon invent new rationales for this inconsistency. Indeed, we already have one case. New York mayor Bill DeBlasio has come right out and said people who protest racism are allowed to assemble. DeBlasio likes them. But how about religious gatherings? DeBlasio doesn’t like those, so they’re still prohibited.
The Moral Authority of the Lockdown Advocates Is Gone
The current riots and protests have accelerated this sort of disregard for coerced social distancing, although things were already headed in this direction anyway.
The lockdowns initially were imposed with so little resistance because the legacy media and government bureaucrats managed to convince a sizable portion of the public that virtually everyone was in grave danger of death of serious disability from COVID-19. Many people believed these experts.
By May, however, it had become clear the doomsday scenarios predicted by the official technocrats greatly overstated the reality. Certainly, there were many vulnerable groups, and many died of complications from disease, just as many died during the pandemics of 1958 and 1969. But there’s a difference between a spike in total deaths, and a civilization-stopping plague. The experts promised the latter. We got the former. And we would have gotten the former even without lockdowns. Those jurisdictions that imposed no general lockdowns — such as Sweden — never experienced the sort of apocalyptic death predicted by lockdown advocates. Yes, they had excess deaths, but Sweden’s hospitals never even went into “emergency mode.” In the US, those states that imposed limited lockdowns for only a short period never experienced overloaded hospitals and overflowing morgues and was claimed would happen.
Could this yet happen in the future? It’s certainly possible, but how will we know? The lockdown advocates have already been so wrong about masks, about fatality rates, about the models, and about so much more, that we have no way of knowing if we should believe them the next time they show up and swear “this time, the situation is truly dire!”
But we’re not out of the lockdown woods yet. This fall, politicians and other lockdown advocates are likely to start up again with demands that new laws be passed requiring people to stay home, shut down their businesses, and otherwise put life on hold in the name of stopping COVID-19.
But it’s unlikely the public will fall for the same routine twice in a row. At least not to the same extent. The reaction of many will likely be “we’ve heard this song and dance before. Besides, social distancing didn’t matter to these experts very much back during the riots. Why should we believe them now?”
It’s a good question.
Source: Ron Paul Institute & MISES
Social media giant Facebook has announced that its fight against fake news will involve third-party fact checking organizations, however there are grave concerns about the legitimacy of those groups after it was revealed George Soros and Bill Gates, as well as other Clinton donors are funding the fact checking drive.
Many people are taking it for granted that these fact checkers are the quintessence of neutrality and unbiased reporting. Well, judge for yourself.
Facebook released a statement on December 15 advising users that they were starting a program to “work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles (IFCN)”.
Here’s an interesting fact about Poynter, the self-proclaimed “global leader in journalism”. They are funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (which has financial links to the State Department), Ebay’s Omidyar Foundation, and Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist who donated a massive $1 million to Poynter to create this anti fake news mechanism.
Craig Newmark is also a Clinton campaign donor. As is George Soros and Bill Gates, both big time supporters of the Clinton Foundation as well as Hillary’s election campaign fund. And another Poynter donor, Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar, is also a massive donor to Clinton, giving millions of dollars to the Foundation.
Danish journalist Iben Thranholm said she was shocked that such obviously partisan fact checkers would be allowed to control the narrative in United States politics. “It gave me goosebumps to hear those names because they have actually a very strong political agenda. It’s like there are a lot of people who think that its dangerous not to be able to control the media, so to sort out what is supposedly the real news and the fake news is actually a way to control the narrative. So if you want to be in opposition to these political powers then you are going to be censored. Of course this is a kind of censorship.”
Welcome to 1984’s Ministry of Truth, where only selected facts are allowed to exist while other facts that don’t fit Washington’s neoliberal narrative will be labelled “fake news” and suppressed.
Source: Australian National Review
Johnny Liberty, Editor’s Note: This is the third and final interview between Brian Rose and David Icke. After the first and second interviews which he exposed the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity for the Global Power Structure, or cult as he calls it, to impose their decades long New World Order (NWO) agenda to destroy the sovereignty of nations.
Their ultimate goal is to undermine freedom, destroy independent small businesses, reduce the human race to a starving population fighting each other for survival and impose a an absolute totalitarian control system which includes mandatory vaccines laced with microchips/nanobots. All this is run robotically with the rollout of 5G networks.
Immediately after the second interview, David Icke was banned from Facebook and YouTube for violating “community” standards (and daring to air a controversial perspective the Global Power Structure doesn’t want you to hear about).
You can believe Icke’s perspective or not, but it’s your sovereign right (i.e., human right) to be able to hear his perspective and decide for yourself. For anyone knowledgable in his field of research, you would know Icke is speaking truth if the technocrats have to go to the extreme measures of squashing/censoring the message to stop his message from getting out to the uninformed. Friends of Liberty, do listen and decide for yourself, but under no circumstances bury your head in the sand. This is the turning point of human civilization and our individual awareness and collective decisions will determine the fate of all humanity.
By David Rose & David Icke
The Broadcast They Don’t Want You To See… The Ideas They Don’t Want You To Hear…
On May 3, 2020 at 5pm UK time, David Icke is LIVE on the DIGITAL FREEDOM PLATFORM for the largest LIVESTREAM of a conversation in human history. This single broadcast could change the course of humanity.
If we get the information now, we can act on it, we can change course.
If We Are Silenced, It Could Be The End of Humanity As We Know It.
WE NEED YOU!
Based on the popularity of our previous Icke I and II interviews, we expect to have a MILLION PEOPLE ACCESSING THIS LIVE.
As a member of the London Real Army you can make a difference by sharing this link and sharing this video.
Be Brave. Stand Up. Fight For Your Freedom.
What Will You Tell Your Grandchildren You Did During The Removal Of Civil Rights During The Great Pandemic?
Did You Stay At Home And Did What You Were Told? Or Did You Fight For Your Freedom Of Speech?
Join Us And Let’s Change The World.
WE WILL NOT BE CENSORED.
WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED.
WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED.
JOIN THE RESISTANCE.
JOIN LONDON REAL.
Source: London Real
By Denise Minger
Long time no blog, fam!
So, I had this hope that the next thing I posted here would be a grand explanation about my extended absence, all the weird stuff that’s happened over the past few years, my loss of faith in nutrition as a front-line approach to healing, and various other sundries I’ve been storing up in my brain-attic.
But then COVID-19 happened, and if that isn’t the biggest cosmic plan-changer that ever did plan-change, then I don’t know what is. So we’re gonna roll with it. And at the risk of writing something that’ll already be outdated by the time I hit publish (such is the nature of current events), I’m hoping this post will stay evergreen (or at least ever-chartreuse) by sheer virtue of its universal core theme: navigating conflicting, emotionally charged narratives in which objectivity behooves us but doesn’t come easy.
So LET US BEGIN.
In case you didn’t notice, the cyber-world (and its 3D counterpart, I assume, but we’re not allowed to venture there anymore) is currently a hot mess of Who and what do we believe? This is zero percent surprising. Official agencies have handled COVID-19 with the all grace of a three-legged elephant—waffling between the virus being under control/not under control/OMG millions dead/wait no 60,000/let’s pack the churches on Easter!/naw, lockdown-til-August/face masks do nothing/face masks do something, but healthcare workers need them more/FACE MASKS FOR EVERY FACE RIGHT NOW PLEASE AND THANK YOU/oh no a tiger got the ‘rona!; on and on. It’s dizzying. Maddening. The opposite of confidence-instilling. And as a very predictable result, guerrilla journalism has grown to fill the void left by those who’ve failed to tell us, with any believability, what’s going on.
Exercising our investigative rights is usually a good thing. You guys know me. I’m all about questioning established narratives and digging into the forces that crafted them. It’s literally my life. Good things happen when we flex our thinking muscle, and nothing we’re told should be immune to scrutiny.
But there’s a shadow side here, too—what I’ll henceforth refer to as “lopsided skepticism.” This is what happens when we question established narratives… but not the non-established ones. More specifically, when we go so hog wild ripping apart The Official Story that we somehow have no skepticism left over for all the new stuff we’re replacing it with.
And that, my friends, is exactly what’s happening right now.
I’ve been watching homegrown theories about COVID-19 spiral through various social platforms, born from a mix of data (sometimes) and theory (usually) and anecdote (always). They’re generally a pushback against the mainstream narrative about the coronavirus’s timeline, severity, concern-worthiness, fatality rate, treatment, infection breadth, classification guidelines, origin… round and round we go. Some theories are reasonable (“Has the virus been here longer than we think?”), some are untenable (“The ‘virus’ is actually radiation poisoning from 5G towers!”), and many more lie somewhere between.
Most importantly, they all have one thing in common: a tendency to embrace any and all supportive data without, well, making sure it’s true.
Y’all know what I’m talking about. Evidence we’d never give the time of day if it didn’t work in our favor. The “I remember reading somewhere…”, the “I have a friend who knows someone who…”, YouTube interviews that are impossible to fact-check (but please just trust this person’s top-secret info from an organization they can’t name without the Feds beating down their door), crowdsourced anecdotes, retracted papers, retweeted screenshots of Facebook comments from people whose names and profile pictures are blacked out, the whole shebang.
This stuff. Is. EVERYWHERE.
Unfortunately, throwing a bunch of really bad evidence together can create the illusion of a well-supported theory. And this is what’s happening, my dudes. This is what it’s come to. In our rabid quest to undermine the Powers That Be and figure out what’s really going on, we’ve thrown quality control out the window and become that which we loathe: loyalists to narrative over data.
Case in point, let’s look at what might be the most popular COVID-19 theory circulating right now: that mortality stats are getting padded by assigning deaths to COVID-19 that are really from other causes—thereby making this whole thing seem worse than it actually is. Depending on the sub-theory, this might be due to financial incentives for hospitals (more COVID-19 patients = more $$$); a coordinated government hoax to trick people into relinquishing their sovereignty; a way to butter us up for mass ID microchipping; something something lizard people; and so on.
And from what I’ve seen—and by all means correct me if I’m missing something—this theory draws on the following claims:
- The CDC has literally issued guidelines telling doctors and medical examiners to classify deaths as COVID-19 if they “presume” the patient has it—no test results needed.
- CDC data shows a precipitous drop in pneumonia deaths right around the same time COVID-19 became a thing—suggesting pneumonia deaths have been getting reclassified as COVID-19 deaths, and creating the illusion of a pandemic.
- People who die with coronavirus, but not from coronavirus, are getting counted as COVID-19 deaths—again inflating the body count.
- Despite COVID-19 mortality skyrocketing, total mortality is staying the same (or even dropping)—suggesting a “cause of death” shuffle, if you will, and betraying the idea that we’re seeing additional deaths from a new disease. (Alternatively: “Only people with preexisting medical conditions are dying and they were gonna keel over any minute anyhow.”)
This theory would be pretty awful if it’s true. We’d have been got. Duped. Manipulated AF. But how solid is the evidence? Have we actually peeled this thing apart piece by piece before getting all ragey about the injustice of it all?
Oh, we haven’t? Well GUESS WHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO NOW?
Let the unpeeling commence.
1. First, the whole “CDC is telling people to report COVID-19 deaths without testing!” ordeal. The damning bits come from the CDC’s COVID-19 reporting guide (PDF), which gives permission to use COVID-19 on a death certificate if it’s “suspected or likely” and “‘probable’ or ‘presumed’”:
And also says it’s okay to report COVID-19 without testing confirmation:
And the WHO’s “Emergency use ICD codes for COVID-19 disease outbreak” gives a whole death code for COVID-19 cases that aren’t confirmed via test:
And finally, this National Vital Statistics System document says COVID-19 can be put on a death certificate when it’s “assumed” to have caused death:
The point of contention here, which has sparked something of an outrage in important places such as Twitter, is that these guidelines allow a level of guesswork that could mess things up real bad. Especially if there’s already some sort of incentive to bend data in the direction of more coronavirus deaths. What if people assign COVID-19 willy nilly to anyone who has a cough or fever? Or who had a poorly-timed bout of allergies? Where does the line get drawn? For sure, “probable,” “presumed,” “suspected,” and “likely” aren’t very reassuring words when it comes to a disease we’ve shut down the whole globe to contain.
But is this actually conspiracy worthy? And, in a clinical setting, with actual doctors doing doctor things rather than us internet-dwelling oafs imagining how it all might go, would these guidelines really lead to a significant over-reporting of COVID-19 deaths?
For starters, let’s look more closely at that CDC reporting guide. Although it does say COVID-19 deaths can be assigned without a positive test result, it also emphasizes the importance of drawing from all available evidence in order to make an informed judgment:
And it turns out, this is really no sketchier than the CDC’s guidelines for certifying pretty much any cause of death. Seriously. According to the agency’s Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting (PDF), it’s okay to use personal “judgment” when there’s uncertainty:
And yes, medical examiners and coroners are invited to give their “opinion”:
So are physicians, according to the CDC’s Physician’s Handbook on Medical Certification of Death—note also the use of “probable”:
And medical examiners are broadly allowed to list “causes that are suspected,” and to “use words such as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed’”—again, for any death-cause:
And here we see the CDC’s Instructions for Completing the Cause-of-Death Section of the Death Certificate telling us again that a condition can be listed as “probable” even if there isn’t a definitive diagnosis (and also the words YOUR and OPINION written in CAPS because the CDC successfully learned how to yell on the internet; good job, CDC):
*I know it’s tiny; click for bigger
Are you sick of this yet? Guess what? Alzheimer’s deaths can get the same code whether the disease is confirmed or “probable”:
Oh hey, remember 83 seconds ago when we were so mad that COVID-19 deaths could be listed as “probable” or “presumed”? Because it seemed like some unique-to-coronavirus word twist intended to help pad the death stats? REMEMBER?
No. Just no. This same language is consistent through all the cause of death guidelines, no matter the killer in question. It’s been that way for years. And COVID-19 is even lucky enough to get separate codes for “probable” versus “confirmed” cases, which is more than we can say for some other diseases. (And to boot, some places were already seeing COVID-19 mortality explode before reporting the “probable” deaths at all.) Heck, the guidelines for coronavirus deaths are far more straightforward than the maze-like estimation formula the CDC takes for flu mortality.
In short—and please make me eat my words if I’ve overlooked something important here—this really isn’t outrage-worthy. Certifying any form of death is an imperfect, partly subjective process, and concessions for that reality are baked into all sorts of official guidelines. If overzealous COVIDing is happening (and you’re welcome to investigate any theory-offshoots that it is), it’s not because the CDC told death certifiers to cook the books.
2. As for pneumonia deaths getting classified as COVID-19 deaths? This graph of CDC data has been making the rounds as evidence that something very shady, very shady indeed, is going on. As you can see, around week 10 of this year (starting March 2nd), pneumonia mortality told its wife it loved her and then jumped off a cliff:
If we’re already primed to think the COVID-19 numbers are being doctored, we might take this graph at face value and add it to our stash of outrage fodder. But that would not be smart, friends. Face value is where critical thinking goes to die. And so, in the spirit of questioning literally everything, we must ask: could anything else explain what we’re seeing?
As a matter of fact, yes! So much yes! We only have to venture as far as the CDC’s Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) page to see what’s up. Go take a look. Especially the “Delays in reporting” section. Thar be some gold.
Basically, the CDC’s death-certificate-processing system is a slow, laborious beast that ensures any recent mortality data is always incomplete. They give a decent rundown of how death certificates get handled from start to finish:
Provisional counts of deaths are underestimated relative to final counts. This is due to the many steps involved in reporting death certificate data. When a death occurs, a certifier (e.g. physician, medical examiner or coroner) will complete the death certificate with the underlying cause of death and any contributing causes of death. In some cases, laboratory tests or autopsy results may be required to determine the cause of death. Completed death certificate are sent to the state vital records office and then to NCHS for cause of death coding.
And here we have a special shoutout to our favorite infectious diseases, noting that pneumonia, flu, and COVID-19 certificates take extra long to trickle into the data pool due to manual coding (emphases mine):
At NCHS, about 80% of deaths are automatically processed and coded within seconds, but 20% of deaths need to manually coded, or coded by a person. Deaths involving certain conditions such as influenza and pneumonia are more likely to require manual codingthan other causes of death. Furthermore, all deaths with COVID-19 are manually coded. Death certificates are typically manually coded within 7 days of receipt, although the coding delay can grow if there is a large increase in the number of deaths. As a result, underestimation of the number of deaths may be greater for certain causes of death than others.
Zooming in even further, the CDC gives some stats conveying just how incomplete their recent data is, and boy howdy is it a sorry sight. At any given moment, data from two weeks ago is likely to be barely over a quarter complete, while data from eight weeks ago is still less than three-quarters complete:
Previous analyses of provisional data completeness from 2015 suggested that mortality data is approximately 27% complete within 2 weeks, 54% complete within 4 weeks, and at least 75% complete within 8 weeks of when the death occurred. Pneumonia deaths are 26% complete within 2 weeks, 52% complete within 4 weeks, and 72% complete within 8 weeks (unpublished). Data timeliness has improved in recent years, and current timeliness is likely higher than published rates.
The CDC even slaps this little disclaimer after each table of COVID-19, pneumonia, and flu death counts:
Once again, with feeling: CDC mortality figures are initially very incomplete, low-balled-as-all-get-out, and retroactively fill in over time. Which means a weird pneumonia death-drop will show up any time we check the most recent data, COVID or No-vid.
To illustrate, Joseph Dunn graphed the CDC’s pneumonia data as it appeared on the same mid-March week of each year since 2013. Behold:
Look at all them swan dives!
And data scientist Tyler Morgan even went to the trouble of graphing the data from every weekly CDC pneumonia report published in the last decade, to show how the lines shift as data gets back-filled. Click here or on the image below for the really cool animation (it’s weirdly beautiful and absolutely worth the 30 seconds of your life):
In other words, there’s nothing anomalous at all about 2020’s pneumonia trends. Nothing. The popular graph up top is a meaningless piece of hooey and it’s sad that it went viral.
Note: there’s an issue here I’m cognizant of, but intentionally not touching on yet, which is that some people believe the CDC (and any other government organization) literally makes up data from thin air, thus rendering all of the above irrelevant. This level of conspiracy is beyond the scope of this post, but I may try to address it at some point later on. Not from a data angle, but from a psychological one.
3. Here we have the wildly popular claim that people are dying with COVID-19, not really from COVID-19. At least, not in the numbers we’re being told. It’s basically a steroided-up version of Claim #1—just with more trickery and plot-thickness and finger-tenting.
The evidence for this one is a lot harder to fact-check, because there are actually no facts to check. Its trueness rests on us believing that doctors and death-certifiers are being marionetted by evil forces and/or just plumb don’t know what they’re doing.
The closest thing we’ve got to “evidence” are citationless social media statements like the above, which we’re expected to trust because LOOK AT ALL THOSE RETWEETS!, a few well-publicized examples of allegedly mis-assigned COVID-19 deaths, and Youtube interviews with people who are pretty sure they know what’s going on. Like this one, featuring Dr. Annie Bukacek, with nearly 750,000 views at the time of writing.
Apparently, she knows her stuff. And the stuff she knows is that the coronavirus figures are being manipulated!
Serious question: how many of us bothered to look Dr. Bukacek up before thrusting her atop a pedestal of trustworthiness? And sharing her video far across the lands? And assuming she’s an impartial commentator on the whole situation (her praiseful introducer was literally her pastor)? Should we really put faith in someone we didn’t even know existed ten seconds ago just because 1) they’re telling us what we want to hear and 2) an internet headline made them sound prestigious?
By the way, to state the obvious, this is me intentionally and very shamelessly cherry-picking to make a point. Not all of her reviews are bad. Nor do the existing ones necessarily prove she isn’t credible. And if we wanted to be truly fair, we could prod deeper and ask whether she might be getting bad-review-bombed due to her vocal pro-life activism or religious affiliation or anti-vaccine stance (she’s definitely got some haterz). There’s a lot of sticky tricky gray-zone business in evaluating reputation, which is why—whenever possible—we should investigate a person’s claims rather than their character.
But the issue here is that with Dr. Bukacek, we can’t “investigate her claims” without installing cameras into every death certifier’s brain and watching what unfolds within their basal ganglias. So we’re left with only her word. And one person’s word is not useful data. Even if it’s the best of persons and the best of words.
Now, to play devil’s advocate with my own arguments here, there’s another popular video—this one featuring Coronavirus Response Coordinator Deborah Birx—that seems more genuinely suspect. I saved this one for last because it might actually have some merit. In it, Dr. Birx talks about the USA’s “very liberal approach to mortality” and outright states that people who die with COVID-19 are counted as COVID-19 deaths:
Transcript: There are other countries that if you had a preexisting condition, and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem, some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now we’re still recording it and we’ll—I mean the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection, the intent is right now that those—if someone dies with COVID-19 we are counting that [as a COVID-19 death].
It’s not surprising this clip went gangbusters! It seems like a deal-clinching A-ha for anyone who suspected COVID-19 was getting slapped onto every death possible.
However, here and always, context matters. After all, this segment was carefully cropped from a much longer coronavirus briefing from April 7th. And if we listen to the full segment—the audience question that came before this clip, and the follow-up question that came after it, and the follow-up answer Dr. Birx gave, and the addendum answer Dr. Anthony Fauci gave—we can better orient ourselves in the conversation that was happening.
Go have a listen. The relevant stuff starts at the 1:39:07 mark:
Could it be that Dr. Birx thought the question-asker was wondering if lack of testing might cause under-reporting, and tried to reassure her by explaining that the current COVID hotspots are flush with tests? And that people with “heart or kidney problems” wouldn’t be reported as dying from those things if they’d ended up in the ICU from coronavirus? (Especially given that COVID-19 itself can cause cardiac injury and kidney damage?)
It sounds to me like the thrust of the asker’s question—which was more along the lines of “Are we sure we’re not over-counting deaths?!”—went over the heads of the task force, and they addressed a different issue than the one she was trying to get at.
But I can’t read minds. And I can’t prove that it’s not all just political doublespeak and of course they understood the question. And I think there’s far too little information in this video alone to assess it from a “scam vs. not-scam” angle. And most importantly, in the absence of actual mortality data that could clue us in to potential over-reporting, I doubt analyzing this thing to smithereens can bring us any closer to the truth.
But, you be the judge. And speaking of mortality data…
4. Lastly and not leastly: the claim that COVID-19 isn’t actually causing excess mortality; we’re just reshuffling death causes to stack up higher for COVID-19 and lower for everything else. Boom, insta-pandemic!
First, a note. This is a Very Important claim. It’s the supreme ruler of all the claims that came before it and perhaps all those incipient ones that will come after. It has executive power and a VIP card for entry into the most highly guarded chambers of our brains. This is because, unlike causes of death, actual body counts can’t be fudged. This is the one true test. If COVID-19 really is taking lives en masse above and beyond what we’d expect from normal death trends, total mortality is where it’ll show up. If it’s not, then our game of death-code musical chairs will be revealed for the con that it is.
Again: Very Important claim. This is the crux of it, my dear readers.
Fortunately, there’s an easy way to test this claim: looking at total mortality trends in areas that COVID-19 has purportedly ravaged, and comparing that to historical mortality in the same location. An absence of anomalous death spikes—taking into account, of course, delays in processing death certificates and the lag time between infection and dying—would suggest we’re over-reporting COVID-19. And if excess mortality does appear, then we either have to concede that COVID-19 isn’t a nothingburger after all, or propose that some other ghastly, unnamed entity is stealing lives very coincidentally at the same time we have a made-up pandemic.
*Keep in mind, too, that our current near-global quarantine should slash deaths from accidents and certain crimes and infectious disease—and thus “normal” mortality rates for right now would likely be lower than for previous years.
So let’s dig into this. The “COVID-19 is overblown” theory asserts that total mortality isn’t doing anything unusual. At least not significantly so. No more than a bad flu year, let’s say. And depending on the source, we may be furnished with graphs that seem to demonstrate this truth to our hungry, data-seeking eyes, such as the following for England and Wales:
There’s one very big problem here. Check the dates.
Almost universally, the “See, it’s nothing!” graphs use data from mid to late March, when COVID-19 was just starting to pick up steam in the areas it’s most recently terrorized. And in March, there really weren’t massive mortality spikes, except perhaps for Italy. Nothing to see here, folks was true. And no one in the infectious disease world was claiming otherwise. In March, the rumblings of upcoming mortality explosions was what people were getting worried about, not the numbers as they then stood. The whole deal with “exponential growth” is that it’s—wait for it—exponential. This is how we went from 0 reported COVID-19 deaths in the USA on February 15th, 65 deaths one month later, and 30,000 deaths yet another month later.
So let’s see what happens when we look, instead, at more recent data from countries with known COVID-19 outbreaks. (This site is a great starting resource for raw mortality data and some visuals.)
First, here’s what’s up with England and Wales now (source):
London, OMG (source):
Excess mortality in Spain as a whole, from December 2019 to April 15 of this year (source):
Madrid, in particular, got clobbered:
And Bergamo, Italy, in which March deaths far surpassed anything seen locally within the past decade (source):
Heck, northern Italy as a whole (source):
Switzerland looking pretty wonky for the 65-and-olders (source):
Total mortality in the Netherlands (source):
A big chunk o’ Europe getting excess-mortalitied (source):
New York City, graphed by the New York Times (article here; viewable with free subscription) (NOTE: this data is almost two weeks outdated and the the April deaths are now many magnitudes higher):
We could do this all day, but you get the point.
Here’s the deal, folks. People. Are. Dying. The mortality trends for COVID-19-affected areas look like what happens when you’re trying to draw a straight line and then sneeze. This is not normal. This is not how things “should” look. We can argue all we want about how accurate the COVID-19-specific data is—and indeed, there’s plenty to argue about— but total mortality doesn’t lie. This is real.
By all means, the above peel-apart is far from complete. I’m sure there are more viral videos we could assess, more statistics to double-check, more anomalies to ponder. The point isn’t to reach a final conclusion here—just to demonstrate the process. The level of detail that must go into investigating a theory before we let ourselves fully entertain it. And if that process seems exhausting, excessive, excruciatingly nit-picky, too time consuming—well, it’s the price of admission for calling ourselves “informed.” Anything less and we’re operating on faith. Which is okay, if that’s our goal. But we must call it what it is.
Now maybe you’re thinking, “Okay, the ‘COVID-19 deaths are getting padded’ theory didn’t really hold up. But what about G5 radiation causing virus symptoms? What about mandatory vaccine agendas getting pushed on the world? What about COVID-19 being a bioweapon? What about what about what about?”
To which I say, Yes! Great! What about them indeed! Put on your best-tailored thinking cap and go find out. Marinate in all the data you can find. Watch out for claims that seem sciencey but trace back to a 4chan post. Be mindful of the universal human tendency to filter out things we disagree with and embrace any evidence that we like. Dig in, first and foremost, with the goal of proving yourself wrong. If you can’t, then perhaps there’s something there.
Of course, I realize the type of deep-dive we did in this post isn’t always possible, and not everyone can sit at home all day opening so many browser tabs that their MacBook freezes with a “System Has Run Run Out of Application Memory” error (anyone else? No? Just me?). Sometimes we need shortcuts. So for anyone who really wants to do the work, to prioritize truth-seeking over ideology, to stay oriented in reality, to let go of false narratives, but who doesn’t have infinite time to do so: here are some questions to ask whenever a new or alternative theory presents itself. Especially a theory we find ourselves enamored with. None of these questions can substitute for ruthlessly investigating, but they can help us stay grounded in situations where our minds easily lead us astray.
- Am I claiming to see through the media’s fear-mongering, but falling prey to conspiracy fear-mongering instead?
- Am I being pressured to accept this theory in order to be “woke” or “not sheeple”?
- Have I read the full context of this quote, clip, or screenshot before assuming I know what it means?
- Does the group promoting this theory invite questions and critiques? Or does it flippantly dismiss those things and/or attack its doubters?
- If this same form of evidence (Youtube interview, social media comment, etc.) was used to support the “other side” instead of mine, would I still consider it trustworthy?
- Am I taking time to research counter-arguments to these ideas, even when I want them to be true?
- Am I looking for good vs. evil narratives as a distraction from my immediate reality? Is getting worked up about hypothetical injustice easier than being present with what is?
- Am I embracing this theory as a way to feel like I have control—by naming an enemy in a situation where I’m otherwise helpless?
- Does seeing myself as a “good guy” on the side of “truth” or “justice” make me feel validated, empowered, and important?
It’s easy to trick ourselves into thinking we’re being Good Skeptics when we’ve really only lifted one veil of many. There’s nothing “woke” about rejecting the official story while gullibly swallowing its alternatives.
Rather, waking up means waking up to ourselves. It’s recognizing that the battle of good and evil we project onto the world is playing out daily within ourselves. It’s committing to seeing “what is,” instead of stories about “what is.” It’s spreading our skepticism evenly across the info-scape instead of saving it for the things we already distrust.
So here it is, you guys. This is me groveling at the collective feet of the internet, with one thing to say: to anyone—everyone—listening, we need to reflect on how we’re processing the claims we hear. If we’re going to question official narratives, we need to question alternative narratives with the same degree of rigor. There’s no use retiring our sheeplehood from the mainstream only to rejoin the herd on a different pasture.
Source: Denise Minger