Opposition to Decoupling From China Misses the Problem of 5G | The Epoch Times

FILE PHOTO: A 3D printed Huawei logo is placed on glass above displayed US flag in this illustrationJohnny Liberty, Editor’s Note: After reading this expose’ I realized why the race for 5G dominance is also a race for which political system will prevail – capitalism or communism. China has taken the lead in 5G and already dominates the marketplace. Unless the USA steps up along with its telecommunications partners and has the ability to compete in a free market with China, it will lose the battle for freedom as well. This does not imply that I wholeheartedly support 5G especially with regards to the untested health and safety issues. Already we know that millimeter radiation damages human health, but the industry refuses to study or mitigate these. It’s a grand experiment which has already resulted in tens of thousands of deaths which were falsely attributed to COVID-19.

By Bonnie Evans

As calls to decouple U.S. industries from dependency on manufacturing in China are growing, President Donald Trump has helped prepare the ground for a shift from China by taking a more skeptical approach to relations with the regime in Beijing than his predecessors.

While globalists are pushing back against the efforts to decouple, the key telecommunications technology of 5G shows the limitations of their approach, according to one expert.

Opposing Views

The argument for protecting the deeply intertwined U.S.–China economic relationship is widely supported in some circles.

Last December, former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, who served the George W. Bush administration as U.S. trade representative, asked a gathering of the U.S.–China Business Council, “Are you ready for this?”

“The 20th century painted a shocking picture of industrial age destruction; do not assume that the cyber era of the 21st century is immune to crack-ups or catastrophes of equal or even greater scale,” Zoellick said.

“You need to decide whether you think the United States can still cooperate with China to mutual benefit while managing differences, and if so, how.”

The Financial Times said that Zoellick’s words “captured the fears—particularly within parts of Washington’s economic and foreign policy establishment—that U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war against Beijing has paved the way for an irreversible ‘decoupling’ of the world’s two largest economies.”

Zoellick was responsible for completing the negotiations that brought China into the World Trade Organization.

Zoellick’s views are echoed by other trade and China specialists.

Harry G. Broadman, an economist who has worked in key U.S. government, international organization, private sector, and academic roles during his 30-plus-year career, wrote in Forbes in September 2019 that decoupling from China potentially presents “worldwide negative spillover impacts.”

Of those consequences, Broadman suggests, “technological bifurcation, which could fundamentally jeopardize harnessing global benefits from advances in science and technology,” is one of the riskiest aspects of taking the United States out of China.

In plain English, Broadman’s argument is that without globalization, which is largely underpinned by the U.S.–China relationship, technologies go their own way, developing standards and specifications for the regions in which they emerge, rather than under a globalized standard common throughout the world.

5G Domination the Danger

“He’s mistaken,” Robert Spalding said, referring to Broadman’s views on technological bifurcation. Spalding is a retired Air Force brigadier general and architect of the U.S. National Security Strategy, which named China as an adversary. He is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, and author of the recent book “Stealth War: How China Took Over While America’s Elite Slept.”

The real danger, Spalding told The Epoch Times in an extensive interview, is in the ongoing struggle for dominance in fifth-generation—5G—mobile technology and standards that are already beginning to change how data is collected and used around the world.

“The U.S. was the first to develop the smartphone in 4G,” Spalding said. As a result, “we dominate the information market.”

But as the world moves into 5G, the risks are greater if the “concept of open data” and “open data markets” of those 4G networks are maintained. In Europe, the open data concept has already “created concern for privacy protection.”

In China, however, open data markets create a global opportunity.

“In the hands of China,” Spalding said, open data “lets the state take hold of power that Google and Amazon have.”

The “state” in China is led and run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

“The ability of these companies to pinpoint your location and the things you’re doing and buying is incredibly powerful and counter to privacy concerns and counter to the principles of our liberal democracies,” Spalding said.

Spalding pointed out that “as Android and Apple become less of dominant players in 5G, now Tencent and Alibaba and DJI and Hikvision can begin to dominate that data space. So we move from a world centered on the U.S. to one centralized on Baidu and Tencent.”

All five companies are Chinese technology companies with ties to the CCP. Alibaba and Tencent generally rank in the top 10 internet companies in the world by market capitalization.

“That’s why he’s mistaken [about the problem of technological bifurcation]. It’s positive if we move to a data system that is focused on privacy and security and sovereignty and deploying secure 5G,” Spalding said.

Referring to Broadman, Spalding said that “what he’s advocating is that China dominate the technological space.”

China Sets Standards

Already, Spalding said, 3GPP, the umbrella body under which the key telecommunications standards organizations in the world operate and coordinate, is heavily dominated by China.

Since American network equipment manufacturers “are not expected to survive,” that leaves only four companies in the world that will make the networking equipment for the 5G future.

Those companies are Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, and China’s Huawei—all subject to the standards that are being so heavily influenced by Chinese technical specifications.

Functionally, therefore, Spalding points out that even though Ericsson and Nokia are Swedish and Finnish respectively, and Samsung is South Korean, they end up building the same system as Huawei.

“Essentially,” Spalding said, “everybody is building a Chinese network based on open data, not on a secure network. That’s why he’s incorrect. His theory promotes China,” Spalding said.

This means, Spalding said, that China’s “acquisition of intelligence” and “ability to influence societies” is greatly enhanced both in China and abroad, including in the United States.

Statistics from the Institute of Electronics and Electronic Engineers support Spalding’s claim.

In a March 17 post titled “Strategy Analytics: Huawei 1st among top 5 contributors to 3GPP 5G specs,” Alan Weissberger reports that “even though there are more than 600 member companies participating in 3GPP, their 5G specification process is actually led by only a few leading telecom companies. … New research from Strategy Analytics … finds that 13 companies contributed more than 78% 5G related papers and led 77% of the 5G related Work Items and Study Items.”

Of those 13, the top five are, in order, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, Qualcomm, and China Mobile.

Free Versus Centrally Resourced Trade

“By allowing China to be in the global trading system, you’re actually undermining the foundational premises” of that system, Spalding said. That global trading system has “a market-based approach to both capital allocation and trade.”

“China is not a market-based economy,” Spalding said. China, Spalding has said earlier, is not “a centrally planned economy, but it is centrally resourced.”

“When the state is providing resources and capital to a company, that’s not a market-based solution,” he said.

“Prices are set by China, not by the market.

“If you really want to have a free trading system … then China can’t be a part of it because they don’t believe in it.”

Source: The Epoch Times

World Health Organization Blocked Medical Experts From Recommending Travel Bans | Trending Politics & Breitbart News

5e973108d8504large_NXEpnLnVyqgX2eQXfHKXy-3HbJWztb7TzgnTC7e0bwsBy Collin Rugg

According to a bombshell new report, the World Health Organization (WHO) blocked medical experts from recommending travel bans to help stop the spread of the Coronavirus during the early days of the pandemic.

“A report by Australia’s Sky News revealed that on January 30, WHO bureaucrats met with a group of doctors and medical experts to discuss a response to the coronavirus, which at the time was spreading from Wuhan, China, to nations like the United States, Italy, Iran, and South Korea,” Breitbart reports. “The report is based on the meeting’s official records.”Medical experts were intent on implementing travel bans however they were talked out of it by WHO bureaucrats during a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The bans would have most likely saved thousands of lives.

Check out what Sky News digital editor Jack Houghton had to say:

[WHO] actually decided not to go ahead with [travel ban recommendations] and not declare a global health emergency but there were a few dissenting voices. So the official meeting records say there was a divergence of views but they won’t actually go into detail about who was trying to block it. But there were doctors there who wanted to issue travel bans and the World Health Organization blocked it.

Breitbart continues:

In early and late February, while thousands of coronavirus cases were confirmed across the world, WHO bureaucrats continuously urged nations not to impose travel bans.

“WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks,” an official WHO statement from February 29 reads.

Despite WHO bureaucrats stopping the experts from recommending travel bans to nations looking to keep the coronavirus from spreading, President Trump moved forward with travel bans on China and Iran within weeks of the first confirmed case in the U.S.

About a month later, Trump issued a travel ban on Europe after the nation’s leading medical experts said the coronavirus was primarily being spread due to European travel. Specifically, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci said the travel bans were critical to fighting the coronavirus.

“I believe we would be in a worse position,” Fauci told congressional lawmakers on March 11 when asked what position the U.S. would have been in if not for Trump’s travel bans.

A study by experts at Mount Sinai states that New York City’s record-high coronavirus cases and deaths are “predominately” due to travel from Europe.

As Breitbart News reported, Australia implemented similar life-saving immigration restrictions despite the opposition of WHO bureaucrats. Australia moved relatively quickly to ban travel from China regardless of WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu claiming such bans would “unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade.”

Source: Trending Politics & Breitbart News

Plans to Re-Open – U.S. Surgeon General Dumps Gates ‘Predictive Contagion” Model | Fort Russ News

President Trump And First Lady Melania Host Nat'l African American History Month Reception At The White HouseBy Andrew Joseph

In a stunning turn of events, Surgeon General Jerome Adams explained in an interview on live XM radio, that the Coronavirus Task Force has, effectively, dumped the Bill Gates/CDC/WHO predictive contagion model, and is now working with the real data.

He explained on the Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Daily host Alex Marlow, that given the new data, businesses will begin to re-open as early as May, others in June.

This runs contrary to the out-and-out fear-mongering of Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates who have made a media tour, threatening the public that businesses may not re-open for six months to a year, or until and unless governments purchase their conveniently patented, big-pharma vaccination.

According to Dr. Adams:

“What the American people need to know now is we actually have data, and so we’re tracking that data,”

Before this about-face, which appears to have come as an order from the Trump administration in  consultation with the findings of Dr. Adams, the task force was working with’predictive models’, which had been created by the Bill Gates dominated WHO and CDC. Dr. Fausti’s control over the CDC has been criticized in the past for its for-profit motive in handling a range of illnesses from HIV to H1NI.

In those inflated, ‘fear-based’ models, the deaths of millions worldwide, and hundreds of thousands in America, were touted. These were used as the basis for what many experts have termed a ‘grossly disproportionate response‘.

Previously, the task force was working with predictive models, frequently criticized because of their tendency to exaggerate the possible effect of the virus on the United States. Models predicting the deaths of millions and hundreds of thousands in America appear to be overblown, as the real-time data is showing the death count much lower.

Adams said that the models usually took data from different cultures and places around the globe, but they were able to track more accurately what could happen in the United States based on real data gathered in places such as California and New York.

“We’re following this data every single day, and we’re giving that data to communities so that they can make informed and intelligent decisions about when and where to reopen,” he said.

A significant indicator for communities being allowed to reopen, Adams said, was actual testing data, not a predictive model.

“I feel confident that some places will start to reopen in May and June. Other places won’t; it will be piece by piece, bit by bit, but will be data-driven,” he said.

Adams praised South Korea and Singapore, which closed their borders early, just like the United States did with travelers from China. But he said there are lessons learned across the board.

Source: Fort Russ News

Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination | Children’s Health Defense

04-09-20_Gates-and-Fauci_Featured_ImageBy Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

Vaccines, for Bill Gates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vaccination ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control of global health policy.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems to be fueled by a conviction to save the world with technology.

Promising his share of $450 million of $1.2 billion to eradicate Polio, Gates took control of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) which mandated up to 50 doses (Table 1) of polio vaccines through overlapping immunization programs to children before the age of five. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and asked Gates and his vaccine policies to leave India. NPAFP rates dropped precipitously\

The most frightening [polio] epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines.

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) reluctantly admitted that the global explosion in polio is predominantly vaccine strain. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, Afghanistan, and the Philippines, are all linked to vaccines. In fact, by 2018, 70% of global polio cases were vaccine strain.

In 2014, the Gates Foundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates-funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

South African newspapers complained, ‘We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.’

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

During Gates’ 2002 MenAfriVac campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates’ operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Approximately 50 of the 500 children vaccinated developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for the drug makers.” Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philanthropic practices as “ruthless and immoral.”

In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” A month later, Gates said in a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a  “tetanus” vaccine campaign. Independent labs found a sterility formula in every vaccine tested. After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.  Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgenson et. al. 2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP vaccine is killing more African children than the diseases it prevents. DTP-vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of children who had not yet received the vaccine. WHO has refused to recall the lethal vaccine which it forces upon tens of millions of African children annually.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of steering WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases: clean water, hygiene, nutrition, and economic development. The Gates Foundation only spends about $650 million of its $5 billion dollar budget on these areas.  They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal philosophy that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children.

Source: Children’s Health Defense

United Nations Wants 10 Percent of World’s Income to Fight COVID-19| New American

ab563e769655099b8192dbba50c1de59_M

By James Murphy

Avowed socialist and United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has announced the creation of a global fund meant to address the coronavirus pandemic. He is asking for all nations to contribute the equivalent of 10 percent of all global GDP to fund a gigantic “human-centered, innovative and coordinated stimulus package,” which would be administered by a global authority, presumably the UN itself.

“A large-scale, coordinated and comprehensive multilateral response amounting to at least 10 per cent of global GDP is needed now more than ever. This crisis is truly global. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that developing countries have the best chance of managing this crisis, or COVID-19 will risk becoming a long-lasting brake on economic recovery,” the UN report states.

“The new coronavirus disease is attacking societies at their core, claiming lives and people’s livelihoods,” Guterres said.

The plan — entitled Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 — would entrust the UN (or another globalist entity yet to be named) with approximately $8.7 trillion, which it would supposedly use to fight and eradicate the coronavirus and address other problems that have resulted from the virus.

The UN’s current budget is approximately $3 billion. The $8.7 trillion would be 2,900 times greater than its current budget.

The plan calls for a massive global stimulus in order to “restore confidence in the future.”

“The global nature of the economic shock we are facing, with simultaneous collapses in both supply and demand, calls for the first truly global fiscal stimulus in history,” the plan states.

Needless to say, it also calls for a massive redistribution of the planet’s wealth.

“To be effective, the stimulus package will need to focus on direct and targeted transfer of resources to the most vulnerable households and scaling up health emergency preparedness, social protection, tax abatement, low interest rates, access to credit, insurance and wage support schemes. Support must be provided to countries that lack capacity to implement these measures.”

Among the measures in the plan is to give approximately $100 billion to the World Health Organization, whose director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was complicit in the spread of the virus by continually repeating Communist Chinese talking points, including the farcical claim in January that COVID-19 was not transmissible to humans.

Money from the fund will also be used to pay specific “attention to continued delivery of sexual reproductive health services, such as access to contraceptives without prescription during the crisis.” As “reproductive health services” is a globalist euphemism for abortion, the folks at Planned Parenthood should be happy.

To Guterres, the Chinese virus represents a turning point in human history and a chance to truly implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda and also put some teeth in the Paris Climate Accord of 2015.

“And when we get past this crisis, we will face a choice — go back to the world we knew before or deal decisively with those issues that make us all unnecessarily vulnerable to this and future crises. Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal and inclusive societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change, and the many other challenges we face,” the plan states.

“We already know what we need to do. It is laid out in the global road map for the future — the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

The UN is not the only entity to take an interest in a globalist response to the coronavirus. The World Economic Forum has presented a strategic intelligence overview of the COVID-19 that is so layered, so intricate, and so complex that it is hard to believe it could have been created in the scant weeks since the pandemic was declared.

An interactive graph details COVID-19’s impact on financial markets, travel, trade, global workforces, and the various healthcare issues such as vaccinations and halting the spread of the disease.

It’s almost as if these plans preexisted the Chinese virus — as if the plans were waiting for the just the right crisis in order to be unveiled.

Guterres and the UN are asking for the entire solar system, perhaps in hopes of being granted the moon. We have to be vigilant and make certain that they are not granted that moon or even a small asteroid to rule over.

The best way to remove the criminal influence of the UN is to remove the United States from its membership roll.

Source: New American

Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests | No More Fake News

HarmonicConvergence2020Johnny Liberty, Editor’s Note:  As we’ve begun to suspect that COVID-19’s testing protocols are seriously flawed, here’s some evidence of the vagueness of their testing techniques and why this pandemic may be as fraudulent as the testing. 

By Jon Rappoport

Nailed them, with their own words.

In this article, I’ll present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus. I’m talking about fatal flaws in the test.

Because case numbers are based on those tests (or no tests at all), the whole “pandemic effect” has been created out of fake science.

In a moment of truth, a propaganda pro might murmur to a colleague, “You know, we’ve got a great diagnostic test for the virus. The test turns out all sorts of results that say this person is diseased and that person is diseased. Millions of diseased people. But the test doesn’t really measure that. The test is ridiculous, but ridiculous in our favor. It builds the picture of a global pandemic. An excuse to lock down the planet and wreck economies and lives…”

The widespread test for the COVID-19 virus is called the PCR. I have written much about it in past articles.

Now let’s go to published official literature, and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

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

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“Non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another, lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proven decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

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

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The test is an unproven fraud.

And, therefore, the COVID pandemic, which is supposed to be based on that test, is also a fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

Sources:
[1]: (link)
[2]: (link)
[3]: (link)
[4]: (link)


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Source: No More Fake News

What good are constitutional rights if they are violated when Americans get sick? | The Washington Times

B4-NAPO-Judge-Rule-_c0-127-686-526_s561x327By Andrew P. Napolitano

One of my Fox colleagues recently sent me an email attachment of a painting of the framers signing the Constitution of the United States. Except in this version, George Washington — who presided at the Constitutional Convention — looks at James Madison — who was the scrivener at the Convention — and says, “None of this counts if people get sick, right?”

In these days of state governors issuing daily decrees purporting to criminalize the exercise of our personal freedoms, the words put into Washington’s mouth are only mildly amusing. Had Washington actually asked such a question, Madison, of all people, would likely have responded: “No. This document protects our natural rights at all times and under all circumstances.”

It is easy, 233 years later, to offer that hypothetical response, particularly since the Supreme Court has done so already when, as readers of this column will recall, Abraham Lincoln suspended the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus — the right to be brought before a judge upon arrest — only to be rebuked by the Supreme Court.

The famous line above by Benjamin Franklin, though uttered in a 1755 dispute between the Pennsylvania legislature and the state’s governor over taxes, nevertheless provokes a truism.

Namely, that since our rights come from our humanity, not from the government, foolish people can only sacrifice their own freedoms, not the freedoms of others.

Thus, freedom can only be taken away when the government proves fault at a jury trial. This protection is called procedural due process, and it, too, is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Of what value is a constitutional guarantee if it can be violated when people get sick? If it can, it is not a guarantee; it is a fraud. Stated differently, a constitutional guarantee is only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping.

Because the folks in government, with very few exceptions, suffer from what St. Augustine called libido dominandi — the lust to dominate — when they are confronted with the age-old clash of personal liberty versus government force, they will nearly always come down on the side of force.

How do they get away with this? By scaring the daylights out of us. I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime, though our ancestors saw this in every generation. In America today, we have a government of fear. Machiavelli offered that men obey better when they fear you than when they love you. Sadly, he was right, and the government in America knows this.

But Madison knew this as well when he wrote the Constitution. And he knew it four years later when he wrote the Bill of Rights. He intentionally employed language to warn those who lust to dominate that, however they employ governmental powers, the Constitution is “the Supreme Law of the Land” and all government behavior in America is subject to it.

Even if the legislature of the State of New York ordered, as my friend Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who as the governor, cannot write laws that incur criminal punishment — has ordered, it would be invalid as prohibited by the Constitution.

This is not a novel or an arcane argument. This is fundamental American law. Yet, it is being violated right before our eyes by the very human beings we have elected to uphold it. And each of them — every governor interfering with the freedom to make one’s own choices — has taken an express oath to comply with the Constitution.

You want to bring the family to visit grandma? You want to engage in a mutually beneficial, totally voluntary commercial transaction? You want to go to work? You want to celebrate Mass? These are all now prohibited in one-third of the United States.

I tried and failed to find Mass last Sunday. When did the Catholic Church become an agent of the state? How about an outdoor Mass?

What is the nature of freedom? It is an unassailable natural claim against all others, including the government. Stated differently, it is your unconditional right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate with whomever wishes to be with you no matter their number, to worship or not, to defend yourself, to own and use property as you see fit, to travel where you wish, to purchase from a willing seller, to be left alone. And to do all this without a government permission slip.

What is the nature of government? It is the negation of freedom. It is a monopoly of force in a designated geographic area. When elected officials fear that their base is slipping, they will feel the need to do something — anything — that will let them claim to be enhancing safety. Trampling liberty works for that odious purpose. Hence a decree commanding obedience, promising safety and threatening punishment.

These decrees — issued by those who have no legal authority to issue them, enforced by cops who hate what they are being made to do, destructive of the freedoms that our forbearers shed oceans of blood to preserve and crushing economic prosperity by violating the laws of supply and demand — should all be rejected by an outraged populace, and challenged in court.

These challenges are best filed in federal courts, where those who have trampled our liberties will get no special quarter. I can tell you from my prior life as a judge that most state governors fear nothing more than an intellectually honest, personally courageous, constitutionally faithful federal judge.

Fight fear with fear.

• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a regular contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Source: Washington Times